English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

well, all the phones of the Bush administration... they wouldn't even need to testify under oath if we could do that...

I mean... they "don't have anything to hide"... right?

2007-03-22 18:53:48 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

the Constitution on Bush's side... it almost sounds funny when you think about it... but go figure...

2007-03-22 19:03:31 · update #1

ok... Clinton never was my "God" (as Republicans seem to think he is)... Congress can tap his phone too for all I care... it would probably be entertaining at least...

a comprimise... we tap both of their phones?

2007-03-22 19:29:42 · update #2

6 answers

of course! they should break his door down and catch him doing his drugs too! http://botanical.com/botanical/audio/cheech-chong-the_bust.mp3

2007-03-22 18:56:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I love that argument! All those people we have out there defending our freedoms should just come home, and I pity the ones who gave up their lives for people who will not only throw their rights away, they want to throw mine away as well!

Now this takes the cake, they don't feel Karl Rove and the rest of Bush's henchmen should take the oath and testify in public!

If they haven't done anything wrong, what have they to be afraid of?

Maybe some Republican can explain their little double standard!

Excuse me? The attorney general is not a court of law, and it is they who are suppose to give the authority!

And the Congress has the right to subpoena and require them to testify under oath! Nixon already used Bush's lame argument! It didn't work then and it won't work now!

2007-03-23 02:14:15 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 2 0

I would love to hear the chimp when he talks on the phone. I wonder if he sounds like an idiot then too?

While we are at it, lets tap Condi's phone and hear the REAL reason gas has jumped from $1.47 a gallon (Clinton) to $3.00 under a Texas oil man whose company couldn't find oil in Texas!

2007-03-23 02:54:15 · answer #3 · answered by sniffels323 5 · 2 0

CLINTON ORDERED NO WARRANT SEARCHES
Clinton Executive Order in 1995:
"the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayEO.cfm?id=EO_12949_

CLINTON WANTED A PATRIOT ACT
Clinton wanted tougher spying laws than Bush. Republicans in congress even voted against what Clinton wanted.
I agree with most of this stuff. America is at war with terrorists and they don't wear uniforms.
http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/19950426cnss-analysis.html
"On February 10, 1995, a counterterrorism bill drafted by the Clinton Administration was introduced in the Senate as S. 390 and in the House of Representatives as H.R. 896 ...
The legislation would:
1)authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations;
2)repeal the ancient provision barring the U.S. military from civilian law enforcement;
3)expand a pre-trial detention scheme that puts the burden of proof on the accused;
4)loosen the carefully-crafted rules governing federal wiretaps, in violation of the Fourth Amendment;
5) establish special courts that would use secret evidence to order the deportation of persons convicted of no crimes, in violation of basic principles of due process;
6) permit permanent detention by the Attorney General of aliens convicted of no crimes, with no judicial review;
7) give the President unreviewable power to criminalize fund-raising for lawful activities associated with unpopular causes;
8) renege on the Administration's approval in the last Congress of a provision to insure that the FBI would not investigate based on First Amendment activities; and
9) resurrect the discredited ideological visa denial provisions of the McCarran Walter Act to bar foreign speakers. "

2007-03-23 02:22:58 · answer #4 · answered by a bush family member 7 · 0 3

No for two reasons.

First, only the Executive branch can wiretap, as part of their law enforcement powers. So, Congress would actually be exceeding their constitutional authority if thy did so.

Second, Bush recognizes the validity of Executive Priviliege. It's just most other laws that he chooses to ignore.

2007-03-23 01:58:02 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4 1

It would make sense to listen in on what the world's biggest terrorist has to say these days.....though I suspect much of it will be repeat calls to the Dollar Store, asking for price checks.

2007-03-23 01:57:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers