Why does Bush have such a problem with his people testifying under oath?

Question

Doesn't that make you the least bit suspicious? It raises all sorts of flags for me. How can it not bother you, he wants them to talk, in private, without the "aid" of a an oath to keep them honest...and no transcript, so we will never know what went down. A man with nothing to hide shouldn't be so worried about these things. And, don't tell me that he is taking a stand agains congressional "witch-hunting", b/c I didn't hear a fuss from Repubs. when Clinton was "hunted" for a scenario with far less national implications. So does this make you trust Bush less, more or the same?

Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies — but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/fired_prosecutors

Answer 1

Bush's argument is that allowing executive officials to testify before Congress weakens the executive branch, by eliminating its independence. What Bush doesn't seem to realize is that no branch in independent of the others, and all are subject to checks and balances and oversight by the others.

The real reason is that it subjects his aides to penalties if they lie, and its getting harder and harder for him to cover up the lies.

Answer 2

This problem is not just with Bush it has been with all the Presidents I remember in the last 50 years. The difference is Bush has little tact or skill in handling people.

However the problem is real. The President and his staff are holders of information that is not avaible to the public for good reason. Some because the all the facts are not in yet, some for security reasons. Look what happen to the CIA agent when the leak occured. Odds are she gets whacked within a year or two. The issue with Oath is that if the wrong questions are asked the person has to either answer or plead NAtional Security, and that leads to a whole new problem. What is and is not covered by National Security?

Most Presidents in the past simply knew how to work with Congress and the Elders there that control the Security policies in the first place. Backroom stuff, that took care of these issues. Because Bush has treaded on soil (legal area) that he may not have the right to, people want answers, and they deserve many answers. But only to the exact questions and not of the track in other fields.

Answer 3

Senator Schumer: "We Do Have information" Gonzales Lied below Oath Crooks and Liars Sunday 18 March 2007 in the course of his January 18, 2006 testimony earlier the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto Gonzales suggested this: Alberto Gonzales: i'd not in any respect, ever make a replace in a united states lawyer position for political motives or if it may, in besides, jeopardize an ongoing severe study. I basically would not do it. at the same time as requested on Meet the click this morning if he "had any information that a U.S. lawyer replaced into bumped off and that elimination jeopardized an ongoing study," Senator Schumer suggested he does and that the information is "starting to be further and extra overwhelming." that's the reason the prosecutor purge is a actual scandal. no longer in undemanding words is there clean information that the firings were mind-blowing and easily politically-inspired, yet Alberto Gonzales lied about it below oath and the White homestead keeps replacing that's tale. What end do we draw from those lies and revisionisms except they have some thing to hide? specifically, that those 8 prosecutors were selectively fired because they did not sufficiently politicize their places of artwork and succumb to emphasize to finish that, in undemanding words later to be fired for "performance-appropriate" motives inspite of receiving exemplary reviews.

Answer 4

Presidential Privilege has only been tried twice in US history.

First by Nixon in Watergate. Which was to cover up the illegal acts. And he LOST his case for Presidential Privilege.

Second by Clinton. Which was to cover up his improper acts with Monika and lying about it. And he DROPPED his attempt to use Presidential Privilege.

So wake up and realize that the ONLY reason Bush is using the SAME EXCUSES as Nixon and Clinton is to cover up something. If nothing wrong has happened there is no reason to cry "Presidential Privilege". NO President has ever used it for any reason other than to cover up something.

Answer 5

The Democratic Machine is very powerful. It includes the mainstream media, many scrupulous-less congress people, and many, many others. Testifying on record and under oath has recently been a problem for Republicans. Just ask Scooter Libby who committed no crime and was convicted of lying under oath (simply not remembering in what order he had meaningless conversations. Oh, and Hillary Clinton used the same defense 250 times in the early 90's, remember?). Also, going on record simply leaves Rove, Myers, Bush, Gonzo, among others wide open for misrepresented quotes, spin, and quotes taken way out of context, a practice used daily by liberal media outlets. I trust Bush no more or no less than ANY other politician, after all, he is a politician.

Answer 6

He's always been more of a dictator than a president. According to him, he can do no wrong and anyone who questions him is an ignoramus. The irony is that he's the ignoramus.

Answer 7

Well, that should tell you that he doesn't feel the need to answer to the people. Of course i ahve total lack of confidence in the majority of our House and senate both. We need to clean house in 08. Completely.

Answer 8

You seem to ignore the fact that it's perfectly within bush's right to fire any executive official he wants to for whatever reason he wants, or for no reason at all. All of the executive power is bestowed on the president under the constitution. The whole "controversy" is ridiculous.

Answer 9

They might have to tell the truth, and there is, I bet, a little thing called Obstruction of Justice!! That is real impeachment material!

Answer 10

There are certain privileges that the executive branch does have. All presidents, even your precious Clinton, have carefully guarded these privileges because they serve to maintain the checks and balances between the branches of government.