Do you think GWB's aides, Rove and Meier should be questioned under oath and in public? Why or why not?

Question

CNN today told of possible subpoenas from the Committee that is conducting the investigation into the firing of the eight attornies at the US Justice Department.

Answer 1

Yes, if they have nothing to hide, then testify.

Answer 2

Given the propensity of people in the Bush Administration to lie it is necessary to subpoena them to ensure they are under oath (although they violate the oath of office all the time anyway) and in front of the public when they testify. If they are not under oath and if done behind closed doors, (as much of the dealings of this Administration and neocons prefer) they will not be forthcoming with the truth and will be much more likely to evade the questioning.

Answer 3

Yes. The American people deserve to have this explanation, in a forum where the people being questioned are legally obligated to tell the truth.

We know we can't trust government officials. History has taught us that. Too many of them have been corrupt over the years. So we need to put them in a place where the penalty for getting caught lying is some hefty prison time. Then we will have a better idea of whether or not they're telling the truth.

Answer 4

YES! If the fired Fed. Prosecutors got fired because of on going investigations of Bush are is cronies there should be an investigation. If they are allowed to do as Bush wants, it will be an informal interview off the records with no record are account off what they say, plus no threat of perjury. George W. has gotten away with way to much chicanery already. Gonzales has no choice. He has to testify because he had to be confirmed by Congress. He is accountable to them. But the rest were appointed by W. So they are unaccountable to anybody except the president.

Answer 5

I think that it's a negotiating ploy. The white house has to know that their insistence that there be no oath, transcript or any public record what so ever is ridiculous. The house committee has to know that the white house will fight a subpoena. I think a compromise will be found where both will testify, on the record, but not under oath.

Answer 6

thanks for the question. It demonstrates completely what's incorrect with united states. a majority of those solutions and not in any respect one, no longer a unmarried one, even eludes to the Constitutional Separation of Powers Doctrine and authorities PRIVILEGE. right here's your answer. you received't like it, yet i do not provide a hoot. Mr. Rove is an adviser to the President of united states. (authorities branch). The Congress (Legislative branch) can't compel him to testify about the inner workings of the authorities branch or the advice he gave to the president. in case you've faith Congress can compel testimony, then you definately must have self assurance the Congress might want to subpoena individuals of the finest courtroom (Judicial branch) and question them as to how courtroom judgements are reached. authorities Privilege --- is the potential held by ability of the President of united states and different individuals of the authorities branch that enables them to face up to particular seek for warrants and different encroachments. As presidents considering that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued, the separation of powers embodied interior united states structure ability that each branch will be authorised to operate interior limits loose to a point from the administration or supervision of the different. The best courtroom re-affirmed this in the case united states v. Nixon. take care of it.

Answer 7

Yes, I think that they should be questioned under oath and in public. After all, the American people deserve to hear the truth, and I can't help but think that they would be more likely to tell the truth if they could possibly be charged with perjury for not doing so. Also, if Bush & Co. don't have anything to hide, then they shouldn't have any problem with Rove and Miers being questioned under oath.

Answer 8

Yes, I believe they should be questioned under oath and in public. We need transparency in our government to help cease the corruption. Keep in mind that the people in question are public servants, and as such, they must be held to the same standards that we would hold regular Americans to. If you want to get the TRUTH, then you need to put them under oath so that their statements can be subject to scrutiny. The people have a right to know what is happening within the government that serves us.

Answer 9

I don't even get why the Democrats think they have the right to questions this decision?? The boss (the Attorney General) has the right to hire and fire without the Congress getting involved. Looks like demonizing to me. And if they question the President they are not going to like it when the same happens to a Democratic President down the road. The Congress really ought to think about the consequeneces of their actions. And no, they ought not be questioned at all.

Answer 10

Yes, this admin's secrecy has caused many problems, and many scandals are unfolding now that we have balance once again, in govt. They should be open and honest with their answers. Afterall, I thought that was what Bush had a problem with..not the 'firings' but the way it was handled with congress. now he wants to do the smae thing, and call it partisanship. Even though 95% of congress voted to roll back that part of that PATRIOT act...it was only in place for a year, and already...abuses. Go figure.

Answer 11

Scooter Libby did nothing wrong. He knew it that's why he tried to answer every question honestly for the democrat grand jury. Look where it got him .Now the Democrats want to keep it going. They only care about tearing down this administration. There is nothing wrong with what was done. I would tell them to shut up about it. Then i would pardon Libby.