If they've got nothing to hide, then why not testify?

Question

Kathy.....didn't they already set that pecedent with Clinton?

Answer 1

EXACTLY!!! you know good and well that anybody who was innocent of any wrong doing with be more than willing to go before public record and defend their innocence. instead, they just cover it up with more secrecy and "plead the fifth" crap. if you were on trial for murder, would you refuse to testify if you were innocent! i dont think so. they need to testify, no question about it.

Answer 2

The only way to escape the truth unscathed is not to take the oath. Just like the aide, Monica Goodling, that is already taking the fifth per her lawyer's instruction. Now if she doesn't have knowledge of unethical activities what is her risk? None. They aren't after the little fish, so people can't claim she's afraid of trumped up charges. So why take the fifth? She refuses to incriminate herself. Incriminate: "To charge with or prove involvement in a crime or fault." That's it, that's the definition, so what's the problem?

There's a lot of very angry Americans out there who have stuck up for this Administration for a long time only to have to now face the fact that their heroes refuse to tell the truth under oath. It's only going to get worse between now and Nov '08. If someone doesn't stop the bleeding in the Republican Party the Democrats could run Mickey Mouse and win in '08. No objections from me, I'm planning on voting Democratic, whether it's Hillary, Obama or Edwards.

Answer 3

Because it would be setting a horrible precedent...destroying the concept of "executive privilege." Presidents have always been able to give their advisers the right to express their opinion in private. If they now have to start being afraid to express their honest opinion because it may land them in court, the President loses that valuable asset.

Plus the White House knows that the Democratic party will try to do the same thing to his advisers this time, that they did to "Scooter" Libby...In other words, if you can't find a crime, then try to get them for a "process crime," like perjury, obstruction, whatever they can come up with. That is really what this is all about...not the lawful firing of the US Attorneys.

Edit: Someone else emailed me with a similar question, and while the situation isn't exactly the same, there is some truth in that. However Clinton was not an executive privilege situation, and there is no doubt he purposefully lied under oath. Whether Libby lied (versus a faulty memory) was never proven. Whatever the case, they were both "process crimes." So if a Lib whines, "Well you (the GOP) did it," I would have to say to you, if it was wrong then, it's still wrong now.

Answer 4

This is always a weak argument and it applies across the board. The intrusion is the issue, not the testimony or evidence that will be elicited.

I think the firing of the AGs was politically motivated and therefore improper, but your question is very dangerous in light of the protection of people's privacy concerns. If you've got nothing to hide, who cares if your forced to get a blood test? If you've got nothing to hide, who cares if the government listens to your phone calls? If you've got nothing to hide, why not let the officer who pulled you over for no reason search your vehicle.

The proper question is whether or not it is legal to fire AGs for failing to operate in line with the administration's policies. There is a marked difference between firing the past adminstration's people and putting in your people across the board and selecting a few during the same administration and firing them because they won't toe the party line. If it is indeed illegal, then the appropriate people should be investigated. The other issue deals with the executive privilege. Very interesting and difficult to resolve. I say the executive privilege is more important. We can't forget that the Republicans aren't always going to be in office and we want a president we support to have faith in the confidentiality in his/her discussions with advisors.

Answer 5

you have more conficence in the integrity of law enforcement than I do. Police and prosecutors lie just like most folks (I know this because I've been on a federal grand jury and heard it myself) . Would you trust your freedom to a complete stranger whose financial, professional and perhaps political future is linked to putting someone, any one in jail?

Answer 6

They don't want to get the Scooter Libby treatment, meaning being convicted of obstruction of justice where there is no crime to investigate.

Answer 7

"They" always have something to hide!

Answer 8

maybe they have something to hide?

Answer 9

It's their right.