US President George W Bush has ordered close adviser Karl Rove not to testify before a Senate hearing on the sacking of eight federal prosecutors.
Mr Bush used the executive privilege he has as president to exempt Mr Rove from having to appear.
Could Bush be hiding something?
2007-08-02 04:00:37 · 14 answers · asked by done 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Actually it's 9 federal prosecutors now. (Info provided by BBC news.)
They both have quite a lot they're trying to hide. Why invoke "executive privilege" if you had nothing to hide?
2007-08-02 04:05:40 · answer #1 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
for the reason that it somewhat is concerning the firing of the 8 legal specialists (and not approximately national secure practices), there is not any reason on god's eco-friendly earth that bush could have any "govt privilige" concerning no longer having his workers testify. with the pardon given to libby, and now this debacle, that's obtrusive that bush is going for broke. He, possibly wisely, assumes that he can do virtually something he pleases to an quantity becuase a lot of human beings, the two on the staggering and left, sense that an impeachment could be too lots turmoil for a rustic at conflict.
2016-10-09 01:31:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has nothing to do with the firing of US Attorneys. If it were there would have been total outrage on both side when Clinton fired EVERY US Attorney when he took office. Now THAT was political.
This is a question of separation of powers. Nothing more and nothing less. Congress wants to MAKE the President do something and he DOESN'T want to do it. Democrats are going to make a stink no matter what happens. This is going to go on till the Bush leaves office in some form or another.
There's nothing to hide. Even if ALL eight were fired for political reasons, it's not illegal, immoral, or fattening according to the Constitution and the laws of the Nation. Each and every US Attorney serves at the pleasure of the President. By law he could fire every one tomorrow for no reason at all and there would be nothing wrong with it. OK, it would be wrong --But NOT Illegal.
2007-08-02 04:18:01 · answer #3 · answered by namsaev 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Since it's his fourth claim of Executive privilege in a single month, I suspect it's a sign that his house-of-cards administration is about to fall.
And for those who think the firings could not have been illegal...
the charges relate to the attempted use of threat of firing against the prosecutors to force false investigations of Democrat candidates and halt corruption investigations of Republican candidates - in short - Election tampering.
2007-08-02 04:18:25 · answer #4 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because he's hiding something? Bush honestly seems to think that the American people (through our duly elected representatives) don't have the right to know what he's doing and how he's doing it, even when it ISN'T a matter of national security.
2007-08-02 04:04:58 · answer #5 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
It can't possibly be because Congress trys to find any way to prosecute anyone that testifies.
It's kind of like the bait and violate mentality of the left on here.
2007-08-02 04:12:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Wel DUUUHHH! Of course he's hiding something...the truth!!!
2007-08-02 04:14:52 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Executive priviledge is the President's right------- it's been used by presidents in the past; it'll be used by presidents in the future.
2007-08-02 04:05:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
"That depends on what the definition of IS is." Former President of Truth William Jefferson Clinton.
2007-08-02 04:04:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
Is there any meaningful act at all worth mentioning in his entire presidential career so far?
2007-08-02 04:05:09 · answer #10 · answered by Sami V 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋