2007-04-26 07:13:01 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"Rice rebuffs Congress on Iraq War Subpoena"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070426/pl_afp/uspoliticsiraqweapons_070426134503
2007-04-26 07:15:59 · update #1
Bushites don't think the law applies to them. Bush is well known for signing bills into law then writing executive orders saying he won't obey them at all.
2007-04-26 07:17:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Another arrogant Bush politician who thinks she is the "queen of all things". If she receives a subpoena and doesn't appear, she can be arrested. Constitutionally, one MUST appear before Congress when subpoenaed. There is no "opt out" clause.
She must present her face at the time ordered on the legal paper. Of course, she can refuse to say anything - which would get her a royal-a$$ contempt order and then can be impeached by Congress.
She is just talking big....so is Bush. Those people are soooooooooo over!
2007-04-26 14:27:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would think she would be in contempt. The only ones that should be allowed executive privilege is the President and Vice President. But a precident was set there when Clinton testified under oath (so he lied he testified) when he could have envoked executive privilege.
Janet Reno testified before Congress, now even Gonzo under oath before Congress. She should not be special. Didn't Colin Powell testify at one point too?
2007-04-26 14:17:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Executive privilege or not, there is still something called the Rule of Law.
It's time for a little transparency from this administration.
2007-04-26 16:08:09 · answer #4 · answered by bluestareyed 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but she isn't worried because Bush owns Gonzo who would have to pursue Rice, which he wont do because Bush will tell him to dismiss it and like a good loyal scum that Gonzo is, he will do as he is told.
Rice knows this.
Neddie...Congress gave her immunity so she will HAVE to testify UNDER LAW...she is now not able to plead the fifth because she is not being charged for anything! LOL Bush got scr*wed yesterday! Ha ha!
2007-04-26 14:18:00 · answer #5 · answered by hera 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Tough titties. I'm not INCLINED to pay a traffic fine, or to go to jail if I break the law, but I would do it anyways because I'm NOT ABOVE THE LAW - and neither is SHE.
Edit: Balrog - more like contempt for the law - nothing new here.
2007-04-26 14:16:30 · answer #6 · answered by CelticPixie 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I would have to believe she is required to appear under the law. I do not know of any clause, tradition, or precedent which allows her to choose not to appear.
2007-04-26 14:17:59 · answer #7 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Another case of politicians and law makers making laws they dont have to follow. To me they are proving their guilt by thier actions.
2007-04-26 14:19:15 · answer #8 · answered by Bud W 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Contempt for this congress?
2007-04-26 14:18:43 · answer #9 · answered by A Balrog of Morgoth 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Monica Goodling took the fifth, why wouldn't Condi
2007-04-26 14:16:02 · answer #10 · answered by neddie 2 · 1⤊ 5⤋