2007-08-02 09:06:49 · 14 answers · asked by Page 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because he knows to many dirty secrets involving GW Bush and Dick Cheney.
2007-08-02 09:37:41 · answer #1 · answered by satar032 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
He shouldn't be. Congress is trying to determine if they were lied to by the Executive Branch. It's not uncommon and many, many times in our history has it been used.
Just because he's a confidential advisor doesn't mean a damn thing. He's just a private citizen since he holds no Cabinet post that is ratified by Congress. That means that he doesn't have any kind of shield. Just because the idiot child in the Oval Office tells him not to doesn't make it legal.
He's in contempt if he doesn't show up, or if someone that holds power of attorney for him doesn't. I think his deputy showed up in his place...deputy what? He's just an advisor. You have deputy advisors? How far down can this go? Anytime Bush doesn't want anyone to answer questions, he just claims the person is an "advisor" and then they don't have to answer?
Cheney is a whole other story. The Congress should hold them all in contempt until they start following the law. End of story.
2007-08-02 09:21:26 · answer #2 · answered by joshcrime 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
For a minute there I thought you meant a fifth of say jack daniels, but as you know between talking to ghosts, imaginary snipers, falling and the such she can pretty much get any doctor to say she cannot testify. I mean sorry.
2016-04-01 12:29:21 · answer #3 · answered by Sylvia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Presidency requires a certain level of immunity and secrecy. They need this secrecy becauas the executive branch of government is in charge of things that Congress doesn't always want to know about cuz it would upset the American people to know that their way of life comes at the expense of bombing other countries and stealing their resources.
2007-08-02 09:11:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
He is a confidant of the President. We have a separation of powers section as outlined in the US Constitution. Congress is overstepping its bounds by trying to interfere in the operation of the Executive branch. The Democrats already know the president had the right to fire US attorneys and did not need a reason.
2007-08-02 09:11:06 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
He is an advisor not an appointee, his job has no congressional oversight attached to it.
2007-08-02 09:35:06 · answer #6 · answered by Greg 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He's not. In this particular instance, he is following a presidential order. It is important for the Executive Branch to assert it's authority against a Congress who is overstepping their boundaries. The President can fire anyone within his Branch.
2007-08-02 09:13:21 · answer #7 · answered by Matt 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Because he'd just plead the 5th repeatedly.
2007-08-02 09:10:01 · answer #8 · answered by Dull Jon 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because if he puts his hand on a bible, it would burst into flames, thus creating a hazard for all in attendance.
2007-08-02 09:11:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
He shouldn't.
2007-08-02 09:27:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋