Denying subpoenas is tantamount to admitting guilt in this case. If he and his aides did nothing wrong, then he has NO reason to refuse to let them testify. But he is refusing, so he ADMITS guilt in the case. If he has nothing to hide, (the same arguement Bushco uses to justify domestic spying and the PAT ACT), then he should let them talk.
2007-08-01 07:34:49 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, he does not admit guilt by ignoring the overreaching of the Congress. He is rightly asserting the power of the Executive branch in acting as a check to an intrusive Congress.
There is no precedence where Congress, without any evidence of any wrongdoing after going through thousands of documents and hundreds of hours of testimony, has decided that it should have unlimited access to the notes of the White House counsel or the President's political director.
And, please note, that Bush does NOT use the "nothing to hide" argument to support the necessary wiretaps of our enemies, so your claim is doubly false.
Your "facts" and "logic" leave much to be desired.
2007-08-01 07:41:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Your question is full of logical fallacies. You'd make a good activist because you can distort the truth quiet a bit and it's not that apparent.
1. It's not illegal to fire US attorneys (Bill Clinton did it) unless they are about to investigate the president and that is their way of preventing it. The US attorneys were never about o investigate President Bush for anything (although in the Clinton days he was on the 'To Do' list)
2. This is all a ploy by the Dems in power to collect information about Republican strategy. They don't care about the firings, they just want to read as much RNC email as they can get their hands on - you really need to read between the lines there.
3. No answering is not admitting guilt in this country, it's called the fifth amendment. If you don't like it, move to another country.
4. The president doesn't need to (and shouldn't) bend to a bunch of ridiculous demands. It's like a witch hunt. You can admit your a witch, which is a lie. You can deny being a witch even though you'll never convince your accusers, or you can deny the validity of the accusation - which is what the president is doing.
2007-08-01 07:42:01 · answer #2 · answered by DrDebate 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The sad thing about this is that it has absolutely no bearing on the People of the nation. This is merely the dems getting back at the repubs over the Clinton/Lewinski BS. If anything comes from these ridiculous hearings it won't happen 'til Bush is gone anyway. And the outcome will be completely irrelevent to the status of the nation.
The dems are wasting time and $$$ by this foolish posturing. Oh yeah, just like the repubs did vs. clinton.
Watch and learn, America, as your gov't continues to do nothing for you----when will we wake up an oust all of them?????
2007-08-01 07:42:02 · answer #3 · answered by thinking-guru 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Denying subpoenas is NOT tantamount to admitting guilt -- it's the legal equivalent of invoking the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. That's not an admission.
However, there is a HUGE legal difference between aides showing up in response to the subpoena and refusing to answer specific questions on the grounds of privilege, and their refusal to show up at all.
Refusal to show up at all is Contempt of Congress (see 2 USC 192, 18 USC 1001). Refusing to answer specific questions after showing up is arguably legal.
2007-08-01 07:37:49 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely.
The problem is that Bush doesn't believe he is answerable to the American people. The way our system of government is set up, the people are represented in our government by Congress. The President is ABSOLUTELY answerable to Congress - it's part of our system of checks and balances. He doesn't have carte blanche, no matter how much he wants it. Declaring everything "executive privilege" is what a dictator would do.
To coragryph: I usually really respect your responses because you stay reasonable, but you're wrong. Pleading the Fifth is not the same thing as refusing to even show up. Private citizens have to show up in response to a subpoena if they wish to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege. It is no different for government officials. All they are doing is failing to comply with a subpoena, and that is NOT protected by the Constitution.
2007-08-01 07:38:43 · answer #5 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Why didn't anyone say a word when Clinton fired 92 US attorneys? The president has this right.
2007-08-01 07:45:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hmmm, I don't see the link showing that he said that. The president can fire any of the attorneys that he wanted.
Being president is great. The firings really have no impact on us as a nation anyway.
Funny how libs defend lawyers when a Republican fires them but loathe the lawers when they defend a Republican isn't it?
2007-08-01 07:42:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
He want let them talk because he fired them because they wouldn't lie and start a trial on Democrats stealing elections when he knows that he's is lying, he is the one that steals elections, 2 I know of in 2000 and 2004 probably stole the Governor in Texas election .
2007-08-01 07:39:41 · answer #8 · answered by Nicki 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Shhh! The White House is still trying to sell us on the argument that "of COURSE they can testify--just off record, and not under oath, and with only a few people there."
Yes, contempt of Congress makes him look pretty bad.
2007-08-01 07:37:42 · answer #9 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
He doesn't want to get impeached before he can start WW 3. hehe. His administration is seriously the worst one ever... He just using his executive power...but I agree basically admitting wrong doing.
2007-08-01 07:38:00 · answer #10 · answered by MY truth will set you free... 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋