Shouldn't Bush or his lawyer Fielding at least describe some of their reasoning?
2007-07-09 09:35:33 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070709/ap_on_go_pr_wh/congress_bush
2007-07-09 09:35:53 · update #1
Legally, when any privilege is invoked, there must be sufficient information given to justify the use of the privilege.
If the privilege is revoked to refuse to answer questions before an authority -- court or congress -- that authority is legally entitled to a closed hearing to determine the validity of the privilege.
Yes, refusing to obey a congressional subpoena is contempt of congress, which is a felony.
2007-07-09 09:39:25 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Uhhh... Has it not occurred to you and the rest of the right wing noise machine that Holder and the White House have already submitted over 7,000 pages of documentation AS REQUESTED? Or that Holder has already testified? Of that the Tea Bagger nutcases in the House are trying to make this look like some whack-job conspiracy theory to strike the Second Amendment from the Constitution?
2016-05-21 21:59:59 · answer #2 · answered by bianca 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It may be disrespect. Or it may be disrespect on the Congress' part for asking.
I don't know the exact contours of the doctrine of executive privilege, nor do I know all the facts of this case. So I don't know who is right.
I assume we'll find out, in time. Let the process work. It might even go to the courts for resolution.
2007-07-09 09:43:14 · answer #3 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The decider has decided it IS executive privilege, end of subject. Our President may not know what he is doing but some of his advisors do. This won't make it through the courts before it's time for him to leave office. It's really a moot point and they know that fact.
2007-07-09 09:44:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Legally they don't have to . . . It's up to Legislative and Judicial branches to define the parameters of executive privilege. It's a bit like the police come to your house to arrest you - you claim you are innocent - now that state has to prove you guilty. Not a fan of Bush - just the law.
2007-07-09 09:40:01 · answer #5 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Why don't congress come out with the truth about what they are after? We all know this is nothing but a witch hunt from a do nothing congress. I hope he locks the freaking doors. I am so sick of this congress and their BS I wish I could figure out a way to fire all of their asses back to chit holes they came from.
2007-07-09 09:43:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
George Bush took one of Roger Ramjet's proton energy pilsl and the Congress crooks got beat up!
2007-07-09 09:41:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
the Supreme Court ruled on the subject about two decades ago. Further, since nearly every member of Congress is a lawyer, it is silly to remind them of what they already know (unless they've been lying to us voters again).
no
2007-07-09 09:43:54 · answer #8 · answered by Spock (rhp) 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Contempt of Congress!
2007-07-09 09:38:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's very disrespectful to Congress, a CONSTITUTIONAL co-equal to the Presidency. Bush, if you haven't already noticed, has no regard for the Constitution.
2007-07-09 12:42:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋