Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is the Bush Administration afraid to testify under oath?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 01:21 PM
Original message
Why is the Bush Administration afraid to testify under oath?
Because the Bushies telling the truth would violate the laws of physics, their heads would explode or a time warp will rip open allowing Bill Clinton to go back in time and kill somebody's grandfather in the past, something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
erinmblair Donating Member (96 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Because...
Because karma is attacking them! :D Plus, they have a lot to hide. They're running scared...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Because if they tell the TRUTH, they go to jail.
Easy Peasy.:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wake.up.america Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Rove will have to come up with something fast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caligirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. two big reasons, not to mention emails outside the WH email system re 04 election theft by rove
Scenes From a HijackingToday at the Senate, plus all the Justice Department scandals you aren't hearing about.
By Emily Bazelon
http://www.slate.com/id/2162375/

In August 2005, the Boston Globe reported that after a grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of former super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2002, President Bush "removed the supervising federal prosecutor, and the probe ended soon after." The timing is pretty striking. On Nov. 18, 2002, a grand jury subpoenaed secret and suspect-seeming contractual transactions involving Abramoff. The next day, the White House announced the replacement of Frederick A. Black, the acting U.S. attorney for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands since 1991 and lead prosecutor in the case.
..
In 2005, the Department of Justice was about to wind up its big racketeering case against the tobacco industry, which had begun during the Clinton presidency. The lead attorney on it, Sharon Eubanks, says that when John Ashcroft became attorney general, she laid out the options for him: drop the case, or some of the claims, or continue to pursue it. She was told to go ahead. But on the day of her summation at the trial, deputies for Gonzales, who'd since become attorney general, apparently had second thoughts. Over Eubanks' objection, they forced her to cut the government's claim for damages from $130 billion to $10 billion. She saw that as a big fat gift to the tobacco companies, and she subsequently resigned, after 22 years as a DoJ attorney. "The reason they went ahead with the case was that they did not think I was capable of leading a team of 30 to 35 lawyers to victory over 350 lawyers on the other side," Eubanks said when I reached her this week at home. "I'm a small black woman. I'd go over to the main building and I'd say we had a good day, and the political people didn't pay much attention. The moment the relationship changed was before my closing argument, when I went in and said we'd won the case. It was at that point that they came after us."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. only 2 reasons that make sense are
because they have something to hide, and it's worth betting everything on-
(in which case they should be impeached)

or because they sincerly believe that they are above the LAW- that rules don't apply to them, which is not only incredibly arrogant, it is incompatible with democracy-
(in which case they should be impeached)

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have no fear of answering for your actions and beliefs.

peace,
blu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. Is this a trick question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
8. They're liars.
What more do you need to know?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goat52a Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. Bush always gets away with it...
Ever since the 2000 election, Bush has gotten away with telling the media and us, rumors and half truths about not only his political competitors, but his own policy as well. His key to power is making a lie sound truthful and pounding it in our minds to think he was at least "standing behind his convictions".. Sad to say we let him get away with it for 7 seven years and now with only 21 months left in office, he is fighting to prevent impeachable acts of which he knows he is guilty of, to be discovered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. welcome to DU
:hi:

Yeah, but he's run into a "sticky wicket" this time. His compliant, rubber-stamp repuke congress is gone. This Dem congress appears to have some teeth. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Hi Goat52a!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC