If, as Bush asserts, the Executive Branch was never involved in the attorney firings in the first place, why does Bush feel the need to order Harriet Miers to not testify about it? Why does Bush have to order Harriet Miers to not testify about something that allegedly never happened?
I don't care if attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President - that is not what my question is about.
All I'm asking is, if Bush/Cheney/Rove, et. al., were not involved in the firing of the eight attorneys, then why would Bush need to order Harriet Miers to not testify about something that Bush says never happened in the first place?
2007-07-12 04:55:54 · 12 answers · asked by ? 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
This administration is a joke. They're more than happy to discuss it behind closed doors.. as long as nothing leaves the room.. but they have nothing to hide.
2007-07-12 05:00:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
considering that this is about the firing of the 8 attorneys (and NOT about national security), there is no reason on god's green earth that bush would have any "executive privilige" concerning not having his personnel testify.
with the pardon given to libby, and now this debacle, it is obvious that bush is going for broke. He, perhaps correctly, assumes that he can do almost anything he pleases to an extent becuase many people, both on the right and left, feel that an impeachment would be too much turmoil for a nation at war.
2007-07-12 16:22:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The battle is really about the split power between the congressional and executive branch. I guess it will go to the supreme court while the representatives play politics with it.
Nothing but a side show. But after how Libby was railroaded, I wouldn't testify either.
2007-07-12 12:01:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
We know that the firing of the 8 attorneys did occur. Miers, as White House counsel likely knows something about it. What she knows is privleged. It is that simple.
2007-07-12 12:01:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it's hilarious that conservatives always slam Clinton for being so scandalous, yet he allowed his staff to testify at the White water hearings.
2007-07-12 11:59:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question. The Bushies are pretty much secrecy and control freaks, even about things that don't need to be kept secret. Smells pretty bad this time though.
2007-07-12 11:57:40 · answer #6 · answered by Catspaw 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because Congress doesn't have the right to ask the question. No other reason.
It would be like the White House demanding every Senator send a copy of all emails and official letters to them. Why not? They have nothing to hide, do they? They are political people and their papers should be open to all of us, right?
White House: "I don't think these Senators voted on the funding bill in a non-partisan manner. I think they were influenced by moveon.org. I demand they turn over all papers and emails dealing with their decision on how to vote for the funding bill."
2007-07-12 12:00:51 · answer #7 · answered by Philip McCrevice 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
He doesn't want the dems making something out of nothing. The AG has the power to fire every US attorney for any reason. Nothing illegal happened.
2007-07-12 12:15:26 · answer #8 · answered by jason b 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He is just flexing his muscles. Plus, he has an overinflated sense of the executive branch and its authority
2007-07-12 11:58:42 · answer #9 · answered by BigD 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because she may testify that although it never happened, here is how they would have done it...
Much like OJ Simpsons book.
2007-07-12 12:08:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋