If the Bush administration has nothing to hide?

Question

then why won't GW allow his people to testify under oath. If they've done nothing wrong, then what is the problem? Bush says that he will allow them to testify, but not under oath and as long as there is no transcipt of the testimony. Doesn't it seem like he is trying to set it up so that his people can lie about what happened? Why not put them under oath?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors

If I am accused of a crime, even if I did nothing wrong, do I have the option of telling the prosecutor that I will be willing to talk to them, but only if it is not under oath and as long as there is no record of anything that I said? I seriuosly doubt it. Why is GW, Carl Rove and the gang held to different standards?

Answer 1

I understand the executive privilege argument, I just don't understand its application here, and I don't understand the compromise offer. If the president believes the information privileged how can he allow his staff to talk about it all? It leaves the impression that he will allow them to talk about it, but that they don't have to be truthful. For folks who tell the truth, giving testimony under oath is no big deal.

Of course we're dealing with Carl Rove, and he's never been on familiar terms with the truth. Just yesterday he slammed the ex prosecutor Lam for her failure to prosecute illegal immigrants. Of course the facts show that over one half her attorneys were working on such prosecutions and that the percentage was growing, and that her work had been praised in this regard three months ago. The real problem was her prosecution of Duke Cunningham, a republican representative, on corruption charges, his resignation and guilty plea.

Now the President has sought to cast this as a democratic confrontation. The truth is all these prosecutors were republicans. All republicans take note, they'll throw you under the bus when it's convenient or it suits their purposes, or if you do your job too well and uncover some wrong doing on their pals.

I think it understandable why Rove won't testify under oath. The truth would reveal how little regard they have for fellow republicans who did their job well, but who didn't ignore their oath's requirement that they not be influenced by political partisanship.

Answer 2

Do you know what happened to Scooter Libby?

He testified under oath to the best of his recollection. Someone contradicted his memory, and now he's facing jail time - not for what the investigation was about, but for remembering something differently than someone else.

You never want to testify under oath unless it's absolutely necessary. If you say you were in place A on a certain date, and someone else can prove that you were at place B, you have purgered yourself. Even if it was perfectly legal for you to be at either place A or B.

Scooter Libby thought that person A told him something, but it was really person B. Who told him was irrelevant to the investigation. He was not trying to hide anything.

Would you want your political enemies with that kind of power over you? Do you realize how easy it is to make a simple mistake like that?

.

Answer 3

Let's get right down to the point here. This is a witch hunt by the democrats to embarass Bush. He cannot do anything right and regardless what he says or does, it is always wrong.

I didn't particularily care about Clinton, but I thought he did some things right in his administration. But you and your fellow democrats will not give the man credit for anything. All you want is to see Dubya out of office at any cost, regardless if it hurts the United States, our military, and government structure.

Bush and Gonzalas did nothing wrong regarding this issue. Clinton fired all 93 attorney's and it was his decision and everyone went with it with out complaint. Bush has decided to not renew their appointments because they were not focusing on what he felt needed to be focusing on. They are political appointments and Bush can get rid of them because they report directly to him. So what is the huge issue here?

You and your fellow democrats are playing games here and it is pretty sad if you ask me. I guess it is revenge for Gore losing the election, Clinton getting impeached for lying under oath, and Kerry losing the election.

Answer 4

He knows that the truth is damning, so he wants his people to be able to lie without facing perjury charges. The GOP did this exact same thing when they REFUSED to place oil executives under oath when they testified before Congress. Each oil exec insisted they had nothing to do with Cheney's Energy Commission. Less than a week later, of course, proof comes out they were all balls deep in the thing.

Bush is obviously up to his same old tricks. I suppose some in the GOP may rally to his cause, but it looks pretty pathetic to most of America....

Oh, and FozzieBear is totally lying. He must be a Republican. If you TRUTHFULLY testify that you believe you were in place A, when in fact you were in place B, you don't face perjury charges. It's only if you KNOWINGLY lie, which Scooter clearly did. Scooter had plenty of time to review his notes, and get his timeline straight before he testified. Having done this, Scooter then lied. Now he's going to jail. Pretty simple, huh?

Answer 5

I think that the Gonzales situation will be most interesting...and very telling about what is going on. He must go on the record and under oath and testify before Congress...GW can do nothing about that. But the hiding and refusal of himself and his 'people' is shameful...and very telling to me.

My concern, however, is that the Democrats will get too involved in this particular 'scandal', and all other activities will get moved to the side. They have much to do, and shouldn't get mired down in this one particular situation....

Answer 6

The whole time bush has been in office, he has attempted to create an executive branch unaccountable to the American people and exempt from checks and balances.
I think this Constitutional showdown is inevitable. I don't think he under sands the climates are changing and he as well as his administration might be held accountable.
He also has lots to hide. We may see these last two years
as an end to the Cheney Imperial Presidency.
Wonder what they were thinking.

Answer 7

a million. possibly Congress is calling only for archives to undermine the presidents authority. 2. we are at conflict, bear in options? i'm satisfied archives touching on to the protection of our united states are being shielded from the left-wing media and, as a by ability of-product, kept out of the palms of our enemies. 3. See # 2 4. so a procedures, no longer easily one of my acquaintances, aquaintances, co-workers, relatives, or acquaintances has had their telephone tapped, their mail study, their information superhighway surfing monitored, their voices suppressed or their rights to due procedure compromised. i'd guess you would possibly want to no longer locate a unmarried individual to journey any of that. until eventually, for sure, you look to the enemy on the gates attempting to attack us right here in our own outdoor. Do as I say, no longer as I do? HA! bear in options Sandy Berger? stuck pink-surpassed stealing tender archives from the nationwide Archive and all he were given replaced right into a slap on the wrist. the position replaced into the outrage there?

Answer 8

advisers to the president have NEVER, EVER been required to testify under oath about ANYTHING they discuss with the president because that undermines the relationship. if everything you talk about can be 'subpeoned' and requires testimony, then what is the point of advising...

Answer 9

I thought the left was all about fixing the war? so far we have had nothing but political theater, even CNN said last night it is a more akin to politics.

Now we have a"pork laden" Supplemental Defense Bill to buy votes from Democratic vice getting the money to the troops....

Answer 10

Do you honestly believe thst testifying "Under oath"would stop a liar from lying???