Good way to Freak out a Freeper about Condi issue..

[YEM]

the Freepers keep mentioning "executive privledge" when testifying under oath. Well then, ask them why they wanted Clinton to Testify under oath in public regarding a blow job. They have no answer. Try it. It's fun!

[Bluzmann57]

1. I've actually wondered about that

fair is fair. But it was fair to hound Clinton for eight years, and it isn't fair to expect Rice to(gasp!) tell the truth in front of a commission.

[derby378]

2. Didn't Sandy Berger testify during the Clinton years?

If so, doesn't that decimate Rice's arguments about "executive privilege" anyway?

[Richardo]

3. He and Carter's NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski both testified under oath...

Funny, I haven't heard Sean or Rush mention that...

[underpants]

4. Hell PRESIDENT Ford testified about pardoning Nixon

to Congress.

[bbernardini]

6. Milk and Cheese! Milk and Cheese!

I almost peed my pants the first time I ever read the "Merv Griffin" strip. Absolute genius.

[zbdent]

9. Check out what I found using google

Link to earlier DU post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1311950&mesg_id=1311950

[Neecy]

5. or mention

That the Secret Service agents in Clinton's detail were forced to testify regarding the aforementioned Clinton penis.

"Executive Priviledge" seems to be a one-way river to these nitwits.

[RobertSeattle]

7. It's alse the "unprecidented" crap

The WH and the RW has used "911" as an excuse for any number of things (tax cuts, corp bailouts, PATRIOT act, Iraq War)

But when it comes to hearings on the "unprecedented" 9/11 they fall back on a executive privilege canard.

[dansolo]

8. Minor correction

They wanted Clinton to testify under oath about alleged sexual harrassment vis-a-vis Paula Jones. The blowjob was just the perjury trap set by Ken Starr.

[Wapsie B]

10. They all

should be under oath before the committee. No one should be able to have a private closed-door interview, especially not chimpy or dickie. I say let's get condi first, then go after powell, then rummy. Work our way right down the food chain.

[Papa]

11. I THOUGHT EVERYTHING CHANGED AFTER 911

We should throw that at them. Old rules don't apply anymore, that was pre-911 . Times have changed, and we need to have her testify under oath. Things aren't like they used to be.

[slystone]

12. Bad example

The Clinton fiasco utilized the now defunct special prosecutor as an extension of the Judicial branch. The Executive/Legislative privilege is what they are attempting to invoke...

Constitutionally, they would probably win in court but lose dramatically in the court of public opinion....

[Papa]

13. I beg to differ. It's a good example, and it's the type of logic repukes

use and understand themselves.

[slystone]

14. Why drop to their level?

At least keep the logic straight. Besides, using Clinton's blow job as a rational for anything is a waste of time. Next you'll hear from them that Clinton was so busy fighting terrorism that he had time to f*ck around in the Oval Office. Not really the strongest argument you can make IMHO...

[Papa]

15. I agree that it's not the strongest argument you can make

But for a freeper, they can understand it. If you make your argument too logical it goes over their heads. and besides, the title of this thread is to freak out a freeper. I think my argument would serve that purpose.

Welcome to DU by the way!

[newyawker99]

19. Hi slystone!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[peacetalksforall]

16. Their all about arrogance. I want to think that they never

expected to be questioned. They, of the party who questioned everything mundane about Clinton to a point that caused our nation to be laughed at.

The Bush handlers must be crazy to think that they wouldn't be questioned about the destruction they have caused.

[prodigal_green]

17. Executive priviledge doesn't apply here anyway

It is not a congressional committee. None of the people on that committe are active representatives. And the Executive branch selected the members.

Sheesh, why doesn't anybody point that out on the news?

[slystone]

18. Executive appointments does not matter...

The committee has its authority from the congress, whether the members are active or not. That they were appointed by the Executive branch makes no legal difference. It is entirely based on where the commission gets it's authority...which is the legislative branch.