Why Don't Lib Dims Make An Issue Of Clinton Not Wanting His Aides To Testify Under Oath?

Question

"Clinton cannot use the power of his office to block prosecutors from questioning his senior aides"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr050698.htm

"President Is Denied Executive Privilege
By Peter Baker and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 6, 1998; Page A01

A federal judge has ruled that President Clinton cannot use the power of his office to block prosecutors from questioning his senior aides, rejecting Clinton's assertion of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, lawyers familiar with the decision said yesterday.

"

Answer 1

They are BOTH rat finks, and NEITHER should be able to claim Executive Priviledge.

What we need is a STRONG 3 Party System!

Answer 2

I sincerely hope soon people will realize this is a far bigger issue than Bush vs Clinton or Dem vs Rep.
It's the elite Imperialists vs the United States constitution and the average American citizens.

The people who keep getting in the White House since LBJ have been on a course of globalization.
The differences between Rep reps and Dem reps are more slight than many people realize.
What they say and what they actually do are two very different issues.
None of the people who have acquired office in the last 40 years actually genuinely care about the individual American at all. Merely a means to an end. If I tell you what you want to hear will you vote for me! That's it! And That's all!!

Then when in office they do what they have to do to appease their financial backers and former business connections.
Also they further the Imperialist agenda to being at the forefront of the globalization issue!
That's what invading the ME is all about!
Conquering the resources and economies of the ME!

To the victors go the spoils!
Whether they be Dem or Rep!

Answer 3

We really need to be looking at the Constitutional basis of executive privilege which is " ."

It is only since WW II that presidents have come up with the concept, or needed to in order to shade illegal executive office activities.

Anything that truly could impact national security just does not make it to the media. Just the scraps off the fringe activities do, primarily to keep the public's attention away from the core issues.

Answer 4

Nixon & Reagan used Executive Privilege also. They all lost their cases, which is as it should be. If Bush does not back down, then it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide, which is as it should be.

Now I have a question. Why do so many Republicans want Bush to be exempt from the same rules? And if Clinton was so wrong to try to use it, why isn't Bush wrong? All of them had the legal right to try. Gotcha!

Answer 5

i think of that as quickly as you're in fee and are available the Revolution, justice would be meeted out against all the enemies of the human beings! Thank reason we've no longer extremely gotten there yet. On a extra physically powerful rational element, Article II, § 4 of the type says that the President can in person-friendly words be bumped off for "treason, bribery, or distinctive severe crimes and misdemeanors." Bush, lots as you could dislike him, has performed none of those subject concerns. Do a touch purpose and self sufficient learn (lots as which could prefer to be a distant places places thought to you) and you will see that your comments, impassioned as they are, fall far in prefer of the side mandatory for impeachment. i'll grant that there could, could, be something with the NSA wiretapping. yet to call it "unlawful" is a criminal end that would't be secure into your fact without learn. the burden to coach any illegality, good sir, is on you. Hit us on the comparable time with your optimal appropriate shot. (in spite of the reality that I doubt you're arranged to springing up any actuality-based statements on the topics obtainable).

Answer 6

He was told he couldn't and accepted it. Ya have to give him credit for trying. The problem with Bush is he isn't listening or accepting the order as Clinton did. Clinton knew he was not above the law where Bush thinks the supreme law of the land is just a GD piece of paper.

Answer 7

Did Clinton do a lot of things wrong during his administration? Yes.

However, Clinton did not run in 2000 with this "holier than thou" mentality. The Republican Party, if YOU remember, in 1999 talked about how it's time for a change from the corruption that took place during the Clinton years.

Your party is just as corrupt, and when they are uncovered, you want to go back to, "...well, what about Clinton?"

Deal with it...

Answer 8

That stuff is over. The issues at hand is whether Bush's aides can refuse to testify under oath.
Since Clinton's couldn't
and Nixon's couldn't
you would think the current administration would know better.

Answer 9

Clinton was a far better president then Bush will ever be! Who cares if he had his ding a ling sucked off by some tramp. That isn't our business and it had nothing to do with how he ran the country!

Answer 10

Over 30 of President Clinton's cabinet and aides testified in front of congress under oath, some about sensitive issues.

Bush on the other hand is just trying to hide his corrupt and criminal activity.

Answer 11

The only trouble with this is...

If Rove or Bush has to put their hand on a Bible and swear to tell the truth, the Bible will instantly burst into flames, which won't be too good for the poll numbers!