be happy that Clinton was questioned under oath about his sex life? If Clinton had to respond to subpoenas about his affair with Lewinsky, why don't Bush's aides have to respond to the subpoenas about the attorney firings?
I'm not being flip; I'm curious why, in one case, it matters why the subpoenas were issued and in another, it doesn't. Could one of you rational Republicans explain this to me, please?
2007-07-25 14:03:01 · 7 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
SuperShiraz: Please provide me with the date and jurisdiction in which Clinton was convicted of rape. If you cannot, then your entire statement is proven emotional and illogical.
2007-07-25 14:17:36 · update #1
Michael: Wrong. Just last week, one of Bush's aides failed to even APPEAR before Congress in response to her subpoena. In order to plead the Fifth, you have to show up. Nice try.
2007-07-25 14:18:31 · update #2
vtjames: Clinton never appeared in front of a "federal judge." Ken Starr was a lawyer, not a judge.
2007-07-25 14:19:37 · update #3
Eukodol: Ah, so what you're saying is that no one has to appear in response to a subpoena unless they think there's a good reason for the issuance of the subpoena? Yeah, right. Nice try.
2007-07-25 14:20:47 · update #4
You rightly point out the incredible hypocrisy of the Republicans' position. Clinton did not break laws regarding wiretapping, he did not ignore the constitution and he did not suspend habeus corpus. There is absolutely nothing that Clinton did that was as damaging to American citizens at home or American prestige abroad as what the Bushies have done.
2007-07-25 14:08:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
No President should ever comply with Congressional subpoenas. The branches are equal so the subpoenas are meaningless except as a political ploy.
I just applied the rule of thumb to "Sky".
2007-07-25 21:53:56 · answer #2 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The whole Clinton thing wasnt about sex and you guys know it so stop repeating the lie- not that I would have gone after him. More important to this question is that he was not called before Congress but was in front of a federal judge- big difference. They have no similarities- but you know that.
2007-07-25 21:08:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
It is not a matter of Bush's aides not complying with the subpeona. It is a matter of the aides dexercising their fifth amendment right to keep their trap shut. They just refused to answer any questions.
that is the difference.
You too can refuse to anwer any questions asked by the authorities.
2007-07-25 21:08:23 · answer #4 · answered by MICHAEL 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Because Bush and the GOP believe they are above the law and don't have to answer to ANYONE.
But Democrats?
Sure! Let's apply the rule of the thumb to them!
2007-07-25 21:11:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Clinton was called to testify in regards to a crime he was accused of. Harriet Meiers and Josh Bolten were subpeonaed for something that wasn't a crime, but amounts to nothing more than another Democrat fishing expedition.
2007-07-25 21:10:38 · answer #6 · answered by Eukodol 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
rule one of deception ,never give anyone time to think,,,,,,,
2007-07-25 21:14:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋