bush offers to have his top aides testify about the recent firings of federal prosecutors but will only do so if it's private and not "under oath", why? if he has nothing to hide why not have they publicly testify under oath?
2007-03-20 13:46:55 · 9 answers · asked by Nick F 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"executive privledge" is a non-answer, why claim this if you have nothing to hide
2007-03-20 13:53:10 · update #1
executive privledge is a bit like the nixon admin claiming the 5th amendment, why use it if you have nothing to hide, the bush admin claims "executive privledge" because they don't want to incriminate themselves
2007-03-20 13:55:55 · update #2
sorry, but compaing an incoming president replacing the people with ones of his choosing to firing 8 investigators for bogus reasons 6 years after you have been elected is a ridiculous comparison, I think you've been listening to a little too much am radio
2007-03-20 14:06:04 · update #3
Gonzalez should just resign and save everyone the trouble anyway. He is no longer credible in his position and his loyalties side with the president instead of the responsibilities of his position.
2007-03-20 14:10:22 · answer #1 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
previously answered very clearly:
"Mr. Rove is an adviser to the President of the United States. (Executive Branch). The Congress (Legislative Branch) cannot compel him to testify about the inner workings of the Executive Branch or the advice he gave to the president.
If you believe Congress can compel testimony, then you must believe the Congress could subpoena members of the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) and question them as to how court decisions are reached.
Executive Privilege --- is the power held by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch that allows them to resist certain search warrants and other encroachments. As presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued, the separation of powers embodied in the United States Constitution implies that each branch will be permitted to operate within limits free to some degree from the control or supervision of the other. The Supreme Court re-affirmed this in the case United States v. Nixon."
2007-03-20 20:51:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Bush is only proving to the world how illegal and immoral of a President he really is. But then again, only about 30% of Americans still think otherwise.
2007-03-20 20:54:12 · answer #3 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Then using your logic...allow ALL phones to be tapped.."if you have nothing to hide"
There are matters that Congress will ask about National security...they do not want to have to NOT answer as Congress will make Political scapegoats on answers that they cannot give..if in private they can not do that...
Where were your OUTCRIES for investigations when Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys?
Oh that was OK as they were GOP...
So 93 is OK
8 Calls for an investigation.....
That's LIBERAL FAIRNESS FOR YOU.......NONEXISTENT
Just like the crimes that the Democraps are looking for
2007-03-20 20:59:55 · answer #4 · answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
So that there is no chance of his aides being indicted for perjury. And so that he can attempt to control the types of questions that are asked. Bush doesn't play well with others and doesn't like to share his power.
2007-03-20 20:49:41 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Yeh, and that will go over like a lead balloon!
2007-03-20 20:51:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Why would he give them up under oath? Scooter LIbby was completely screwed over for a non-crime because he was under oath.
2007-03-20 20:49:34 · answer #7 · answered by archangel72901 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Executive privileges,,
2007-03-20 20:49:12 · answer #8 · answered by csn0331 3 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Is hurricanes made by GOD or man?
2007-03-20 20:48:51 · answer #9 · answered by Kevinrodney D 1 · 1⤊ 4⤋