I fought the law, and I won
Mar. 31st, 2004 06:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cyranoCan 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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-01 04:33 pm (UTC)Are we saying it's okay if he lies to the investigative body? That seems odd. I don't have a real problem with the testifying in private, though I'd rather have it public. But why can't it be under oath?