forcing bush to testify

[historian]

If Clinton was forced to testify openly re his blowjob why on earth cant bush rummy et al be forced to testify under oath regarding 9/11?

[Catfight]

1. YES..why?

why the Double Standard White House?

[handywork]

3. Wait a min

Rummy is not under oath right now?!?!?

:wtf:

[Vickers]

2. Rummy is under oath right now, but I agree...

...if Dickie and Georgie are allowed to make comments to a partial panel while not under oath, this is pointless.

[handywork]

5. ah OK thanks

I got a little confused there for a min

[ProdigalJunkMail]

4. well, I think

the difference is that Clinton was called to testify in a civil matter and this is an instance of Congress calling the witnesses (as it were). With the separation of powers, congress cannot force a president to testify...i think...

theProdigal

[Rufus T. Firefly]

11. But isn't this an independent commission?

I thought that would be a little different under the separation of powers. And if the executive branch secretaries have to testify, why not Rice, who is "just" an adviser?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

12. i was only answering for bush

and i don't know about the cabinet level posts...but, independent commission still cannot call a sitting president...at least it would take a ruling of the supreme court to get him in front of the commission...i think...

theProdigal <---authority bit is OFF

[NC_Nurse]

6. Excellent point!

That should definitely be happening....why don't the repubs ever get their feet held to the fire?

[ThomWV]

7. I Could Be Dead Wrong On This

If my memory serves me well Clinton was before a Grand Jury on a civil matter. This is neither a Grand Jury or a civil matter.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. i'm with you on that

I think this would fall under the separation of powers...who knows for sure though? not i...

theProdigal

[greenbriar]

8. exactly

but you know he will cover it up and get out of it

[Cleita]

10. Or, Condi Rice?

They sure forced Monica to testify and she wasn't even an employee but an intern. Since a precedent was set with Monica, I think they should force Rice to testify too, even though she's not an official member of the administration but only any advisor, which is their excuse. I think they don't want her to testify because she may fold and actually tell the truth under pressure.

[Karenina]

13. Look y'all

THIS is beyond ridiculous. You got this *dimwit "installed" in office who has done NOTHING but make a HUGE mess WORLDWIDE, destroying your environment, finances, support systems and getting your kids killed, embarassing y'all in front of anyone who's looking (and there be LOTS of folks fitting that description) who thinks he doesn't have to answer to you lot. He's YOUR EMPLOYEE and somehow you haven't been able to get him in front of an open mike, NO SCRIPT, to ask him a few questions. I CANNOT FUCKING BELIEVE IT.

[SnowGoose]

14. Even if he doesn't testify, Shrub loses in PR battle.

I'd like to see him on the stand as much as anyone (can you imagine what he'd accidentally reveal?). But with all the coverage of the hearings, his refusal to testify will taint him in the eyes of all but the most partisan wingers.

Those in the mushy middle will (very reasonable) ask themselves "Why won't he testify? What is he trying to hide."

At least that's my take on it.

[bobbieinok]

15. Supreme Court ruled that Clinton could be made to testify

normally president and congress people are exempt from court cases while in offic

SCOTUS said having a sitting president testify would not prevent him from doing his job. HAH

precedent has been set, it would seem

unless, like bush vs gore, the ruling applied 'only in this one case and could not be cited as a precedent' - and what is one of the major functions of a SCOTUS ruling: it SETS A PRECEDENT

another proof of the bogus 'legality' of the bush vs gore ruling