Bush is allowing them to be questioned regardless. He objects to making them swear to tell the truth.
Why is that?
2007-03-22
02:54:41
·
18 answers
·
asked by
Bush Invented the Google
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
snowball: making them take an oath doesn't make it any more public than questioning them without the oath will, and he's allowing questioning, as long as they don't have to swear to tell the truth.
2007-03-22
02:59:39 ·
update #1
Philip M: He hasn't addressed the issue of cameras, only the issue of taking an oath to tell the truth. He is allowing any questioning the Dems want, he just doesn't want Rove and Miers legally compelled to tell the truth.
2007-03-22
03:00:27 ·
update #2
Tommy: If you say under oath that you don't remember, then you can't be prosecuted. If you tell the truth, you cannot be prosecuted for it. Period.
2007-03-22
03:05:01 ·
update #3
Garrett: Subpoenas are not only valid when we KNOW a crime has been committed. Subpoenas are a tool to get people to testify under oath. That is all. There are no charges being pressed, and no direct allegations made. The Democrats have made no decisions except that they want to hear more on this subject. The word "subpoena" has people all up in arms, when most of you don't even know what the heck a subpoena is. You don't have to have committed a crime to be served a subpoena. Heck, I'VE been subpoenaed to testify as a witness in an attempted murder trial. No one is accusing me of committing any crime. They just want me to testify. And you don't see me screeching about it.
2007-03-22
03:07:06 ·
update #4
Since when is telling the truth under oath considered a witch hunt? What are they afraid of? Nobody's going to start questioning them about their sex lives. That's reserved for Presidents in civil trials.
2007-03-22 03:02:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
that's the comparable previous difficulty Bush passionately use to guard FEMA's grimy Michael D. Brown and that stink, Donald Rumsfeld. Bush is transforming into further and further boastful in protecting the worst types. undergo in recommendations how they permit Cheney testify on the 9/11 value without being under oath? If he hadbeen puzzled under oath, there could be warning indications then that even the conflict in Iraq is packed with suspicious reason.... like working example how the conflict in Iraq become linked under conspiracy strikes to deceive he american Public. Who is conscious??? For a White abode hat has the biggest checklist of telling lies, that is disgraceful that Rove and Miers are actually not compelled to flow under oath. in spite of each little thing, Rove is packed with dirt and hogwash and has been dragging this u . s . with the aid of hell. And via majority of human beings' opinion, he's the dirt that cannot be believed - even under Oath! This controversy is a fascinating learn. Why? that's the time for us to sniff out which Senator relatively need to bathe the White Hiouse and the Congress from sinking into extra corruption, grimy manipulation and shop real Justice and Integrity interior our government.
2016-10-19 08:16:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you want an objective answer, I think its the same legal advice given to anyone. The less you say, the better, and the less of a degree to which you testify, the better as well.
Even if you are innocent, most lawyers would probably advise you to say as little as possible for fear of implicating yourself. You could possibly say things that would come back to haunt you, possibly even wrongly convicted.
That being said, it does make the White House look bad. Sometimes the appearance of impropriety is even worse than the impropriety itself. Assuming nothing wrong has been done, or even if something minor had been done, just let them testify. It's probably better than this smokescreen
2007-03-22 03:06:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Pythagoras 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
As an independant, I have zero tolerance for corruption in government.
Having said that, at the point that the Dems are conceding that there is NO crime involved here, these subpeonas can only be seen for what they are...a canard designed to embarrass this president and play to their base.
The tactic is try to get Meiers or Rove to misspeak on the record so that they may then scream 'perjury' in the case of an inaccurate recollection.
They are emboldened by the success they had in getting a conviction against Scooter Libby for his 'non crime'.
As I said, I have no dog in this fight, but this is truly a political witch hunt which is far more grevious than the politicly motivated misdeeds they are supposedly 'investigating'!
How about we stop all this foolishness and get on with winning the Iraq war so our kids can come home?
2007-03-22 03:03:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Garrett S 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Presidential Privilege has only been tried twice in US history.
The first time was by President Nixon to cover up Watergate. And what happened there was an illegal act.
The second was by President Clinton with the whole Monkia thing. And that was to cover up something improper and his lie.
SO----WHY would Bush try to use the SAME excuses that Nixon AND Clinton used? (Buy the way Nixon LOST his argument, and Clinton DROPPED his.) It is fairly safe to think that Bush KNOWS that something illegal or improper happened and he doesn't want the TRUTH to come out.
2007-03-22 05:00:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by mdbshop 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Bush Administration will not testify under oath because they are at wrong and will have to lie as to not incriminate themselves!
This is why they DO NOT want to take the stand they will be forced to tell the truth and that will destroy the ADMINISTRATION!
2007-03-22 03:18:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by LIAR-KILLER 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because they could be asked other questions that do not pertain to this non issue...why not make Al Gore testify under oath on how much he and his friends and family will profit financially off of the Global Warming scare...oh but he is your hero now isn't he? Tell Me Another One Mr. I Got My Fax From Howard Dean on the DNC Talking Points Today...
2007-03-22 03:15:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
If Rove and Miers were put under oath a game of gotcha would begin. It works like this. Senator A who has a transcript of conversations which occurred during a meeting asks Rove,"Carl. when your were speaking to Gonzales the topic of lunch came up" do you recall what you decided to have on your pizza?" Ah senator I believe that would be onions and sausage replies Rove. At this point senator A exclaims gotcha Carl it was peppers and sausage, and now we can have a show trial for perjury. This tactic was used to perfection against Libby, and the criminalization of politics continues. Kind of like the show trials of the old USSR under Stalin
2007-03-22 03:02:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
He objects to the circus the Democrats want to put on for America since they have nothing better to offer us.
Democrats want a hearing on camera. How much would you bet the questions do not remain based on attorneys fired but cover everything they could think of asking?
Let's get Hillery or Schumer under oath on the stand in front of cameras and pepper them with fishing questions.
Additional: Then I suppose it would be alright for them to talk under oath behind closed doors? I doubt it. The Dems want a show, and that means cameras and questions worded as accusations. It is all a show. Period. "We haven't got anything. Heck, we admit there has been no crime. But let's get these people here under the camera lights. Maybe they'll trip up and we can catch them in some inconsistencies we can hype up. Can't lose."
2007-03-22 02:59:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by Philip McCrevice 7
·
3⤊
5⤋
If Rove is forced to tell the truth, his massive head might explode. But nobody knows for sure since they can't recall him ever telling the truth before.
2007-03-22 03:12:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋