Other members of Bush's cabinet have testified to Congress under oath - Rice about 9/11 for instance...Why should Rove and Miers get a pass?
2007-03-20 17:27:13 · 14 answers · asked by oohhbother 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree...the president wants there to be no oath or recording of testimony...why? Because there is something to hide, that's why...Gonzales is a great one for not wanting to be under oath. What are the people in the US to think of the head of law enforcement refusing to be under oath about a possible wrong doing or misuse of his office.
2007-03-20 17:31:36 · answer #1 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It's not testimony unless you are under oath, so my answer is that it's worth nothing. What I would like to know is how come nobody was so bent out of shape when President Clinton was being raked over the coals?
2007-03-20 18:11:12 · answer #2 · answered by Paul W 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not a whole h*ll of a lot!
And YES, what Bush did was wrong and playing politics with the courts. You are correct, Clinton AND Bush changed all 93 attorneys when they came into office at the beginning of their term. BUT what Bush did was in midterm and his OWN appointees...the only reason why they lost their jobs was the fact that they weren't doing what Bush wanted them to do...BIG difference!
2007-03-20 17:56:55 · answer #3 · answered by hera 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They should testify under oath. Most of the time people will not when they feel they have something to hide.
2007-03-20 17:57:55 · answer #4 · answered by j 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ooooo - "the homestead Democrat Committee".... Oooooo. isn't Li'l Fascist rhetoric exciting? elements a chance as an instance how nicely you may lick the Billionaire boots are squeaky clean.
2016-12-02 08:15:47 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How much is testimony worth from a person who will take an oath if that person is a liar?
2007-03-20 17:42:25 · answer #6 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you wont take an oath, you are saying straight to our face that you are lying, and should be put in gitmo as a terrorist, because thats what you are.
Ok, no seriously, I believe them about as much as I believe in flying pink elephants in church.
2007-03-20 17:41:50 · answer #7 · answered by liebedich85 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Enough testimony to make a jury be "beyond reasonable doubt" of the accused to be guilty. Amemdment #5 protects the right against self incrimination.
2007-03-20 17:36:57 · answer #8 · answered by chris 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
As a general rule, I would say consider the source.
Bill Clinton lied up a real storm, what happened to him?
Nothing, except that he set a new standard for our school children in the definition of Oral Sex.
That is one legacy the Bushes will not leave.
2007-03-20 17:34:11 · answer #9 · answered by The Parthian 3 · 1⤊ 5⤋
What are you talking about? The Valerie Plame thing? There wasn't even a crime committed except Scooter Libby "obstructed justice" for a crime no one was indicted for.
2007-03-20 18:39:33 · answer #10 · answered by DeborahDel 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋