story link in clear anticpation of liberal whine.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070629/ap_on_go_co/congress_subpoenas
quote:
"For the president to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisers and between those advisers and others within and outside the Executive Branch."
quote 2
Those facts might have come out had the chairmen accepted Fielding's original offer to allow administration officials to testify in private, without a transcript, the president's lawyer pointed out Thursday. Lawmakers rejected that offer, however, demanding that a record be made of the interviews.
quote 3
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., urged a pragmatic response to Fielding's claim of privilege, saying that if the committee accepted the private-interview offer it could always issue subpoenas later.
Since subpoenas can be issued at any time, whats the big deal to discuss it
2007-06-29 12:42:09 · 10 answers · asked by koalatcomics 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's just another fishing expedition, like the Libby case, where no crime was committed. They are just trying to "catch" someone in a miss statement. The firing of the 8 U.S. attorneys is a non-issue. They serve at the pleasure of the president. They can be fired at any time for any reason. For Sen Feinstein to be raising the issue is the height of democrat hypocrosy. (She wrote several letters complaining about one of the attorneys not prosocuting immigration cases).
Presidents have fired U.S. attorneys before, and I think the Bush administration has had more holdovers from previous administrations than any other president. Noone raised cain when Pres. Clinton fired 90plus U.S. attorneys. Some of those were investigating Whitewater and their cattle market adventure.
2007-06-29 15:09:00 · answer #1 · answered by madd texan 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Definition Grandstanding
2016-12-08 16:23:41 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democrats are trying to muscle in on the President's Constitutional powers.
Why am I not surprised. They've never cared about the Constitution anyway.
2007-06-29 13:02:10 · answer #3 · answered by SallyJM 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Knowing that they will resist subpoenaes that would be necessary after the intentionally uninforming interviews, this move simply skips useless steps 3-5 and moves directly toward an expeditious conclusion.
2007-06-29 12:52:15 · answer #4 · answered by Robert B 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
What part of "coverup" do you not understand?
This pathetic excuse for an administration is even more secretive, paranoid and lawless than the Nixon regime.
Anybody who fights that hard to keep the public's business secret obviously has much to hide.
Stop watching Fox "News" and get a dose of reality.
2007-06-29 13:06:05 · answer #5 · answered by marianddoc 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
We're still waiting for Cheney to tell us what went on in his secret meetings with the Oil Mafia godfathers just before he ordered that quacking duck George Bush to commit mass murder in Iraq. Not a 'war for oil'? Perish forbid!
2007-06-29 12:53:56 · answer #6 · answered by Noah H 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Yes it is. Guess they have forgotten how many times Janet Reno defended Clinton.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20610FE3E5B0C7B8EDDAF0894D0494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fR%2fReno%2c%20Janet
2007-06-29 13:12:45 · answer #7 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
they truly do not understand the brilliance of their stupidity!
2007-06-29 12:46:12 · answer #8 · answered by avenger 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Lol! Nope. Getting worried huh? You should be.
2007-06-29 12:50:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
extremist grandstanding? no... it's an example of oversight ; checks and balances
2007-06-29 12:46:49 · answer #10 · answered by Gemini 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋