IF Bush is subpoened...

[Machiavelli05]

It would be excellent. That means that voter fraud will not HAVE to be proven (which seems like it may be hard) but if Bush is put under oath, everything he says must be true or else he's purjured himself. If he's under oath he's very vulnerable.

Revenge for Clinton?

Those are just my thoughts, anyone else?

[shraby]

1. He'll probably claim "Executive Privilege" and

ignore any subpoenas. He used the excuse to avoid testifying under oath to the 9/11 commission and got away with it.

edited for tpyo

[Machiavelli05]

2. If he dodges a subpoena he'll look like he's hiding something...

Before it was a case that he didnt want to look responsible by testifying...

Now he must testify so that he doesnt look responsible... hiding behind executive priv. would make it look like he IS responsible.

Clinton couldnt hide because of this same reason.... and all he was doing was being accused of a bit of sexual harassment.

[zann725]

7. That's right. "What is he hiding?"

n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

5. Subpoena power?

Did the 9/11 commission have subpoena power?

[Niche]

3. He didn't testify under oath at 911 hearings...

nor did he testify alone...what makes you think he'll do it this time?

[Brundle_Fly]

12. he also didn't

testify in public, let it be recorded, or let any details of the meeting be publicized...

[Firespirit]

4. Not a "national security" issue either

... at least I don't think it'll be considered that way. (Although I don't see why the integrity of federal elections isn't.)

But that's a good point, if he testifies and lies under oath, does get sworn in on 1/20, and it comes out later in the year that there was fraud and he (or even his people) lied about what they knew...

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

Hehe, now there's still something to hope for if my best-case scenario falls through.

[latteromden]

6. Bush lies. It's a fact of life. If you put him under oath, he will still

lie. Regardless of what his advisors tell him to do, he'll LIE like always. And that would certainly be sweet, sweet revenge.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. Are you kidding? Do you remember what it took to get him to show up

to the 9-11 Commission's hearings? And when he did, he didn't come alone, and he wasn't under oath so that if he lied, he wouldn't be subject to penalty (guess he learned a lesson from Bill Clinton).

It would be an exercise in futility.

Now, on the other hand, Rummy has been charged with war crimes in Germany. I'd like to see that played out.

[roenyc]

9. didnt they go to him?

[corbett]

10. Love To See It, Doubt It Will Happen

What we have going for us in this regard is that, unlike testimony before the Kean Commission (which was more like a chat), his knowledge of problems with the election probably regard Bush the civilian, which is QUITE different from Bush the POTUS.

Kick for Kerry!

[Orsino]

11. Why in the world...

...would * ever be subpoenaed? There's nothing tying him to any election fraud, is there? Surely he will maintain plausible deniability, and pretend to be shocked when the story breaks.

If he is forced to answer questions all by his ownsome, the lies won't be the scandal. Jaws will drop instead at the startling lack of knowledge he will display on *any* subject--which is why he'll never have to face such questioning.

[Machiavelli05]

26. Im going on the ABC news article that said something about subpoening

Rove, Sec of State for Ohio, and Bush

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. Bush + testimony under oath = miracle

I believe in miracles, but I believe them when I see them. ;)

[lonestarnot]

16. Belllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiver

[hoosierblue]

14. * is seeming more and more like Nixon.

But he's an even bigger crook. Remember Watergate? The break-in at the Democratic HQ to get voting lists of Democrats?

Republicans can always be counted on to screw things up.

[molly]

21. Nixon had a brain - *'s is in Rove's body and he

is not always right there. When it starts to go down, it will be at lightening speed.

[lonestarnot]

15. He'll claim FTA (Failure to Appear) for hunt'n WMD; FTA: Hunt'n WMD

[electropop]

17. Please say "election fraud" not the Rove term "voter fraud" n/t

[molly]

18. Hmmm - Condi lied and everyone knows it

seems not to matter much these days.

[KaliTracy]

19. if he wouldn't speak under oath for 9-11

what makes you think he will for this?

[Chimpanzee]

20. The difference is in the 9/11 commision he was 'requested'

to give testimony under oath - he refused. In the Ohio case, he would be subjected by a court ORDER to appear under oath.

[TexasChick]

23. Chimpanzee, I hope this isn't a dumb question. But, what if they give him

a court order to testify and he refuses then? Could they throw that POS POTUS in jail?

[Chimpanzee]

27. We need a lawyer for that question

I'm under the belief that he could invoke executive privelege, but you usually need a good national security reason for that. He cuopld plead the 5th, but I'm really not sure of all the legal ramifications.

[lonestarnot]

24. well because they are going to subpoena karlrover and bushilter will wanna

go..."Can I go with you please...can I can I??? pant pant pant drool

[bush_is_wacko]

22. Yeah, I thought about that too

* isn't very good at telling the truth. I think they are trying to orchestrate a Clinton "I didn't have sex with that woman" moment. I just hope it has more teeth than that moment did for me. I STILL can't believe that statement started the avalanche it did!

[henslee]

25. Bush on the stand?! (laughing hard, choc. milk coming up through nose) nt