I fought the law, and I won

[cyrano]

Can somebody with more experience in Constitutional Law explain to me why Executive Privelege or Separation of Powers is being invoked to escape being called upon to testify (under oath, God forbid) before a congressional inquiry?
I mean, if Clinton had refused to meet with Ken Starr during HummerGate, or refused to allow cabinet members to do so, claiming that it would be inappropriate, certain political parties would have crucified him.

Seriously. How is G-Bu playing this avoidance of having testimonies, obviously important and relevant testimonies, being given or being given in private and not under oath?
Does he have a rational platform to stand on here, or is he just being the Chimpanzee in Chief again?

Comments

[miss-friday.livejournal.com]

I concur, the National Security Escape Clause(tm), was initially invoked.

But I thought I heard yesterday that he had agreed to testify, albeit in a joint session with V.P. Cheney. (Insert your own joke here.) Is this perhaps in a closed session? Did he change his mind again?

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Don't be silly. John Kerry is the one who flip flops. G-Bu would just pretend that it was his idea all along. He's now saying that C. Rice's testimony is 'neccessary' as if there had never been any intention of keeping her out. And he and Cheney were both going to testify to the committee all along. But it will be a closed session, as he's always said it would be.