2007-03-21 02:50:51 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sure. If you refuse to testify under oath, you can never perjure yourself. It's a great plan. Clinton should have adopted the same one, except if he had tried to, Republicans would (rightly) never have allowed it to happen.
2007-03-21 02:57:20 · answer #1 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why would Bush be bothered with lying under oath, remember he took an oath of office that he hasn't lived up to. The reason that Bush hasn't lied under oath is he has never had to testify under oath. Given the chance he would lie under oath.
2007-03-21 10:01:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You're confused. It was Clinton who tried to invoke executive privilege (unjustifiably). And Clinton DID lie under oath. But THAT is okay cuz he's a lib.
2007-03-21 10:20:29 · answer #3 · answered by Cherie 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because he's never been under oath while President
2007-03-21 09:57:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I love how the Democrats are foaming at the mouth here, yet they get so angry when the President uses his Constitutional authority
i.e. Executive privilege
2007-03-21 09:54:25 · answer #5 · answered by John 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No. It's because he's always high. So he can't be held liable for what he says.
2007-03-21 09:57:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Boy, you guys are reaching for anything aren't you??
2007-03-21 09:59:42 · answer #7 · answered by panthrchic 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋