Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 09:54 AM
Original message |
Would someon please explain why Bill Clinton |
|
had to take an oath before testifying but Bush/Cheney were only required to "have a conversation" before BOTH the 9/11 Commission and the "on-going investigation" into the CIA Leak Case?
|
expatriot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 09:56 AM
Response to Original message |
1. That is what you call a "rhetorical question," isn't it? nt |
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
I understand it's a given with Republican control. And I seem to recall debate over whether Clinton could be compelled to swear an oath to testify, eventually the decision being Yes.
So, wouldn't that have set a precedent if future WH officials make statements before investigative proceedings?
|
endarkenment
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 09:56 AM
Response to Original message |
2. blowjob bill known liar |
|
Murders Bush/Cheney are above the law. Next?
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
10. Par for the course these days. n/t |
JanMichael
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 09:58 AM
Response to Original message |
3. My God...do you not understand the severity of crime of a BJ? |
|
I can't believe you even had to ask, personally.
An orgasm in the Oval Office (crosses myself while even typing this)...my God.
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
Verve
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 09:59 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I think Bush and Cheney were arguing it was redundant. Plus from a political spin standpoint, a "conversation" sounds much more low key than "being under oath." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1860597&mesg_id=1861573
|
Democrat 4 Ever
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
8. Maybe it has something to do with who controls the Congress |
|
and the low expectations they have for Chimpy. No one on the repug side with do anything to threaten their flow of money by holding Chimpy's or Cheney's feet to the fire. They are giving them a free pass on ever being indicted for perjury.
That, plus it is much more serious to get a blow job in the Oval Office than it is to see thousands and thousands of people killed and injured by a faux war, misguide policy and war profits.
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
17. Well, supposedly that's why Clinton got into trouble |
|
It wasn't the act, it was the lying. Of course, the Republicans only make hay about the act the preceded the lie.
I always thought it ridiculous. At worst he committed adultery in the Oval Office. Adultery is not a prosecutable crime as far as I'm aware. But I can't imagine how any partner would react any differently upon being faced with an accusation of marital infidelity. Unless there's undeniable proof at the get-go, of course he/she is going to deny it!
|
lancdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:01 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Patrick Fitzgerald has much more respect for the office |
|
of the presidency than Ken Starr. Remember, however, that even if Bush wasn't under oath when he spoke to Fitz, he could still be in legal jeopardy if he lied.
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
12. Gasp! There's a possibilty Bush lied? |
|
That just can't be true! :sarcasm:
|
BrklynLiberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:01 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Repukelican=Hypocrite; the media is bought and paid for by the |
|
rigth-wing, lying Repukes; and most of the ignorant, lemming-minded sheeple eagerly buy into the bullshit that the lying media feed them. Other than that, I cannot figure it out.
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
13. Ok...but the media doesn't have anything to do with |
|
whether or no Bush/Cheney vows to tell the truth with their hand on the Bible before answering questions to investigating bodies. :shrug:
|
BOSSHOG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:03 AM
Response to Original message |
7. Republicans don't need to be sworn in to testify |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-20-05 10:04 AM by BOSSHOG
Everyone knows that members of the party of integrity and responsibility will automatically tell the truth. Just ask them. Better yet, if you really need verification, just ask a member of their base; they'd be happy to set you straight.
Go over to free republic, they'll tell ya george and dick would never ever lie.
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
14. Uh-huh. They're on the "right" side of everything. |
Fescue4u
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:24 AM
Response to Original message |
15. I think it was a different venue |
|
iirc, Clinton was testifying in Federal court on some bullshit case.
Busheney was in congress before the 9/11 commission.
I guess Busheney had enough influence in Congress to get them to skip the requirement to tell the truth.
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
18. But what about the Grand Jury? |
|
Isn't that a court proceeding and don't all others who testify swear an oath? Also, what about those who came before the 9/11 Commission and had to swear an oath?
|
Fescue4u
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
|
I don't see how one could get out of being under Oath when speaking to a grand jury.
|
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:25 AM
Response to Original message |
16. Because Clinton is just a private citizen |
|
and Bushcheny is, well, it's good to be the King.
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
|
Maybe that's the answer! *light bulb moment* IIRC, there was media debate as to whether Clinton could be put on trial/sued while in office for things he did as an individual.
But actually, if that IS the answer, it seems to me that it would be CRITICAL for Bush/Cheney to swear an oath! :grr: Those issues have to do with this country! The Government is not a private affair!!!
|
bpj1962
(123 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 10:50 AM
Response to Original message |
|
During the Monica Lewinsky probe, Clinton was asked by Ken Starr to testify. As the target of the investigation he was not required to do so and despite his attorney telling him not to he testified and the combination of his testimony to Ken Starr and in the Paula Jones case is what led the republicans to start impeachment proceedings. Clinton was never charged under any state or federal statutes although several repugs wanted it to happen after he was acquitted. Bush and Cheney have not appeared before Fitzgerald they appeared before the 911 commission and they did not testify under oath and no notes were allowed to be kept. If either Fitzgerald or the 911 commission issued supoeanas for either Bush or Chaney I ams sure that either they would get them quashed under national security guidelines or they would simply say the don't remember or worst case plead the 5th.
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
21. You have a much better memory than I do |
|
Thanks! :hi:
I must have dreamed that Bush and Cheney spoke before the Grand Jury, I guess. But I could have sworn I read it...simply because it struck me immediately that when they appeared (together) before the 9/11 Commission they didn't have to swear in there either! :shrug:
|
FreedomAngel82
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 02:55 PM
Response to Original message |
23. Didn't you get the memo? |
|
Lying a blowjob is so more important for our national security than outing a CIA agent. :eyes:
|
stop the bleeding
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-20-05 02:55 PM
Response to Original message |
24. Repukes don't have rules, liberals make and follow the rules. n/t |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 08:26 AM
Response to Original message |