2007-03-23 03:13:43 · 9 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ice Saber: Congress has the right to investigate anything it wants. The President has even admitted that Congress has the right to question his aides about this. He doesn't object to that. He objects to sworn testimony.
2007-03-23 03:24:22 · update #1
Tom: The Democrats haven't "admitted" that nothing wrong was done; that is what they are trying to find out by asking these questions.
2007-03-23 03:25:01 · update #2
Truly! You'd think that the truth shouldn't provide someone in the public eye that much of an issue. You would think that they know they'll be under scrutiny simply because of the high profile of their position and would conduct themselves accordingly.
2007-03-23 03:18:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I love to see the cons responses.
By the way congressmen don't have staff that work in the judiciary and are supposed to be impartial to the law. So no, it's not important who Congressmen fire from their personal staffs.
If attorneys are investigating the "right" people and they get fired then Bush should at least be called out on that.
2007-03-23 10:21:17 · answer #2 · answered by Rick 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
First off, its Federal Prosecutors, not US attorneys. Next off, they can be dismissed for any reason, prior presidents dismissed many more than these eight before this manufactured scandal. This partisan power hungry group needs to be stood up to, and that is why the refusal for testifying under oath. Actually by law (remember that?) the White House does not need to answer this at all.
Perhaps some in-depth thinking will prevent questions like this in the future.
2007-03-23 10:22:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
who cares if they were fired "legally"? the whole thing is shady to me largely b/c of the fact that the recent revision and passing of the patriot act included language that allowed the appointment of new attorneys without the approval of congress. i think it's significant that the language was snuck in there without anyone being told. they planned this, i think...typcial, also, most of his policies are inherently corrupt
2007-03-23 10:22:27 · answer #4 · answered by izaboe 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why weren't Bush and Cheney under oath when they were "interviewed" by the 9-11 Commission?
Same simple answer: If you are under oath and you lie, you can be charged with perjury. If you are not under oath and you lie, you can not.
2007-03-23 10:22:13 · answer #5 · answered by Wayne Z 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why investigate if there was nothing illegal done (which the Democrats are admitting). Don't they have something better to do.
The Democrats are trying to create a crime, not investigate anything.
Talk about being political.
2007-03-23 10:18:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Because technically, the Congress has no right to investigate this.
The President of the US has the right to fire people that work for him whenever he feels like it.
2007-03-23 10:17:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
If the U.S. Attorneys were fired for property reasons, why have Congressional hearings?
Please, Liberals fresh off the kill of Scooter Libby's conviction now see a new avenue for getting rid of those they don't like. Don't forget, Scooter did not break the law on the original issue, he was nailed on a technicality. But alas, I guess it all comes down to what your definition of is is.
2007-03-23 10:18:48 · answer #8 · answered by Gus K 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
If only that were the case; clearly because they refuse to do that, it is not.
2007-03-23 10:17:59 · answer #9 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋