When asked possibly in the near future under subpeona to have members of the DOJ tesitfy to questions about the firing of Federal Prosecutors Mr. Bush replied "Not under oath"
WHY?
How much more evidence do citizens need to realize this administration feels they are above the laws of the land that they are supposed to uphold!?!?!?!?!
Only a person afraid of perjury would refuse to answer questions under oath!
Is this the kind of people the United States of America needs or wants running our government?
2007-03-21 16:54:40 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You make a great point! If we have elected upright truthful people to hold office and they surround them selves with honest, truthful advisers then there should not be a need to fight a subpoena.
The problem here is somehow we have slime balls in office that have surrounded them selves with people that are slime balls.
The lies that have come out of this administration are so numerous a lot of us have stopped counting. The lies have had a great cost to are young men and women in the military, fighting a war that was started on false pretenses. Cheney and his Cronies are all bad news and in the end we will find out that they have crippled are nation fanatically by emptying our treasury to pay for this unjust war. The real sad part is I believe that was their plan all along. To make a transfer of wealth from our treasury to the large corporations that are supplying and supporting the armed forces. If they were really going after terrorist they would have gone into Afghanistan with Shock and Awe and finished the job that they had at hand rather than abandoning that justified fight go after Iraq's Oil, On made up “intelligence”. I for one would love to get Cheney and Rove together under the control of a truth serum and find out the truth. Bush is in my opinion their puppet and not smart enough to even speak in public with out their permission and still he messes it up when he tries.
2007-03-22 02:38:20 · answer #1 · answered by controlac 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is it about these Republican Presidents? Every time one of them gets his hand caught in the cookie jar he tries the old "executive privilege" routine.
It didn't work for Harding. It didn't work for Nixon. It won't work for Bush, either. The Constitution has been interpreted on this point, and the Executive branch did not prevail.
The fact is that someone in the White House has been up to the black operations again, and like every criminal they eventually got caught. Historically, once the guilty are identified it is only a matter of time until someone makes a deal.
In the Teapot Dome Scandal Harding died suddenly, probably a suicide to avoid indictment. Secretary of the Interior Harry Daugherty went to prison for accepting a bribe that Rockefeller was acquitted of paying. Who made the deal there?
Watergate saw corruption of a political nature rather than mere venality. The entire black ops gang went to jail, and Nixon had to resign over obstruction of justice charges.
In both those precedents the Executive argued that all conversations and actions were privileged, and they lost. Once they lost the truth started to appear. That is why the Bush League is so against testimony.
They fear indictments. They fear that one little fish may lead the net their way. If Bush attempts to use his powers to pardon the guilty he will unleash a new and more dangerous round of Supreme Court rulings, and will lose.
No Supreme Court will allow the President to subvert the system that they are sworn to uphold. They know that the faith of the public in the law would be fatally compromised, and their power lost. Their legacy would be infamous.
So the Bush League must testify. They will do so under oath. Who will be the first to find Jesus, and renounce sin?
My money is on Karl Rove.
2007-03-22 00:30:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, Bush is only drawing the line with Meirs & Rove, both of whom work (ed) in the White House.He is not openly opposing the DoJ aides from testifying.
I agree that something smells like long dead fish to refuse having those 2 from testifying under oath. They do have the right to refuse to answer questions & have attorneys present. That would make them look bad, but innocent people have used the 5th Amendment in the past.
2007-03-22 00:05:26 · answer #3 · answered by bob h 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just in case you're looking for an answer and not grinding an agenda.
The reason is the balance of power between congress and the presidency. What ever your views maybe neither branch wants to give it's authority up to the other. There is a document which describes what each is entitled to do. The third branch uses it to resolve disputes. The constitution.
Just in case.
2007-03-22 00:07:09 · answer #4 · answered by Wonka 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Which government are you referring to Kelly? The incorporated municipal one otherwise known as a supposed democracy, or the "Constitutional Representative Republic one"? Of course this one is truly represented by our Constitution. George however thinks it is just a "goddamned piece of paper", remember him saying that? He had best fear the people as should this so called congress.
2007-03-22 00:14:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush & Company wants to be very secretive about everything because Congress and the rest of this country will find out Bush was behind the whole thing.
2007-03-22 00:02:10 · answer #6 · answered by linus_van_pelt_4968 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Good Question! What gives? Obviously Bush is trying to hide something.
My question is when are the American people going to stand up to this man and hold him responsible for the crimes he has committed?
2007-03-22 00:14:47 · answer #7 · answered by Surfer Dude 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Scooter Libby thought like that and he now faces four felonies convictions for process. Just because he forgot who he spoke with and when.
Would you want to take a chance of rolling the dice with Senator Schumer? Who just wants to grand stand the hearings.
2007-03-22 00:03:46 · answer #8 · answered by Sgt 524 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I was hoping to see some well-thought-out Republican answers to this question, yet all that's come up is ad hominem attacks from mental defectives..
When will you partisan sh!theads see that ignoring the issue and attacking the messenger does not make you right?
2007-03-22 00:02:06 · answer #9 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I dont think I understand what youre looking for. Either you want me to give some clear answer defending all the reasons why he wouldnt want that or you want me to call them all criminals. So I guess whichever one would please you the most.
2007-03-22 00:03:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋