He's rejected the subpoenas, so does this prove that he's hiding something?
2007-06-28 04:39:52 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If the federal attorneys were fired for the purpose of influencing elections then actual criminal charges will follow...and the involvement of Carl Rove makes that a plausible outcome.
...either that or there are a lot of questionable actions documented that they don't want made public.
Hope the courts hold up the subpoena...
2007-06-28 04:46:35 · answer #1 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
a genuine non-biased checklist given on the main trustworthy cable information community MSNBC. (i'm choking on the sarcasm) observe that the two interviewees are ardent anti-Bush and the interviewer won't be able to even pronounce Emeritus. Does alot for his credibility. what share circumstances are we going to bypass interior the path of the U.S. criminal expert firings? The serve on the excitement of the President. Bush fired 8 of them in 6 years. Clinton fired all of them on the 1st day. the place grow to be the examine of that? There wasn't one simply by fact the republicans all understand that U.S. attorneys serve on the excitement of the President.
2016-12-08 20:17:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it speaks for itself, why is Cheney hiding who visits the vice presidential home? Why do they continually hide documents and avoid answering questions. They would probably be sitting in Guantanamo cell if they were forced to disclose everything.
2007-06-28 04:44:22 · answer #3 · answered by World Peace Now 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am sorry, I can't answer this question - it is a matter of national security...
But I must say that in my country club they never disclose any internal records, unless of course IRS is storming the front entrance....
2007-06-28 04:42:36 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Beef Stroganoff 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He could care less about those documents .
Its the precedent that it sets if he does turn over anything .
2007-06-28 04:44:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes he is hiding something. He knows if those documents come to light he WILL go to jail.
2007-06-28 04:43:19 · answer #6 · answered by courage 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Tat - It proves nothing about hiding. Maybe. Maybe not. If he has a privlege that he can invoke he is obligated to do it or else it is waived.
2007-06-28 04:43:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
what that he fired 8 people for poor work there is nothing wrong with that.
2007-06-28 04:58:29 · answer #8 · answered by Jeremy P 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Executive privelege. Obviously, he respects the Constitution.
Leahy should be impeached.
2007-06-28 04:46:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
e-mail me and tell me what executive privilege is. And tell me why it's important. If you can i'll give you a cookie.
2007-06-28 04:43:55 · answer #10 · answered by John Galt 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋