If Clinton HAD to ... then so does EVERYONE ELSE.
2007-04-04 04:51:30 · 11 answers · asked by omnimog 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A common response from the republican side when you challenge the constitutionally of the patriot act is "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear". Albeit, I disagree with that stance, but since it's there's let them live by it and have these guys testify under oath.
2007-04-04 05:00:36 · answer #1 · answered by Alan S 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Clinton was being investigated for an actual crime. There is no crime involved that Mr Rove is being asked to testify for. The purpose of testifying under oath in this case is to create a perjury case, pure and simple. It's called perjury bating or entrapment.
2007-04-04 05:15:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
So you want a Presidential adviser to testify on his actions while advising the President on how to proceed, in his opinion, on an action the President is legally allowed to do?
Do you liberals ever stop? BTW - Clinton CHOOSE too, and in his case, there were criminal accusations. Rove and Bush have not broken any laws in the replacement of the attorneys.
2007-04-04 05:12:31 · answer #3 · answered by Gus K 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
1st of all, congress is not a criminal proceeding. It is an encroachment of the legislature to the operations of the executive. Gotta love all that seperation of powers stuff.
Clinton testified in a criminal proceeding (which I would have supported his immunity to). Clinton was not compelled to testify, he chose to. Had Clinton pressed the issue, he probably would have been excused while he was president because the crime occured before he was president. After he left office, then the trial would have gone on. Clinton's arrogance had him testify and trap himself in a lie.
2007-04-04 04:57:09 · answer #4 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am about as Republican as it gets. And even I say they need to testify under oath.
2007-04-04 05:08:11 · answer #5 · answered by Captain Moe 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There have to be criminal charges first. You cannot call any presidents closes advisors to answer under oath for a fishing expedition.
2007-04-04 04:55:56 · answer #6 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Clinton was FACING CHARGES.
What charge are you making against Rove?
Or anybody else, for that matter?
2007-04-04 04:59:35 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Oh your boyfriend Clinton didn't have the brains of Rove so now you're crying over it?
2007-04-04 04:56:03 · answer #8 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-ut executive privelege...b-b-b-b-b-ut...why does he have to be under oath?
If he testifies under oath the Democrats will find something to charge him and the whole lot of them with so fast their heads will spin.
2007-04-04 04:54:37 · answer #9 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It isn't that you "can't." It's that Bush is protecting Rove.
I'd like to know what he needs protection from, and why Bush is so adamant about giving it to him.
2007-04-04 05:00:00 · answer #10 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋