Can bush be Compelled to Answer Questions before a Committee?

[mopaul]

regarding the lies about the war and many other things?

any government legal eagles out there?

[GetTheRightVote]

1. This is a question for a lawyer

:kick:

[charlyvi]

2. I'm no legal eagle, but it seems like

Clinton wasn't forced to do so. You know, when that AMERICA THREATENING impeachment was going on. But my memory may be faulty--they could have interviewed him privately. I know Hillary was made to testify before a committee with Whitewater.

[dobegrrrl]

3. Yes - but he will argue executive priviledge first -

like Nixon -- so it could end up in front of his buddies that put him in office to begin with.

[mopaul]

5. and i'm sure he'll want dick by his side to wipe his nose & hold his hand

and answer all the questions, but, leave president cheney out of the room, and no earpieces or teleprompters.

[dobegrrrl]

10. They let him get by with his radio on his back ---

I'm sure that we would be the only ones that noticed that the king wears no clothes.

[H2O Man]

On executive privilege ....

the president (and indeed his administration) can use this as a defense against providing any materials, including testimony, in all but one type of investigation. The exception is a House committee that is entering an impeachment hearing. Nixon, as us old and moldy DUers will recall with glee, attempted to bluff and then bully. It didn't work. However, the House impeachment process is the only time a president must turn over all requested materials.

[Cleita]

4. He should be, if I'm reading the Constitution right.

It would have to be by Congress and that leads us back to the Judiciary Committee and we all know who the Republican chairman is, Sensenbrenner. Do you think they would allow any Democrats into the hearing? I doubt it.

[NYC Liberal]

6. LOL, Bush FORCED to do something? Methinks not.

Remember when Ashcroft was testifying at a Senate committee meeting, and he was being questioned by Biden & Kennedy?

They told him to turn over documents, unless he had a good reason. Ashcroft stated flatly, that he would not hand them over. Why? Kennedy asked; you can refuse, you just need a reason.

So Ashcroft ACTUALLY told him, "I told you I am not giving you those documents, and I do not need to give you a reason. They are 'secret'."

We will not see Bush in front of any committe.

[charlyvi]

7. Didn't he and Dick testify before the 9-11 commission?

You know, after first refusing then saying he needed Dicky boy with him. I don't know if he was obligated to do it though. I think it was just PR.

Edit: They did so in a private meeting. National Security, you know.

:sarcasm:

[catzies]

15. Not "testify," he wasn't under oath. That was a pre-condition.

To hear him tell it, it was a "conversation."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/

Oh, and as he said to Tim Russert, "I don't testify."

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=28200

[Montauk6]

8. Not if "Uncle" James Baker can help it

[mopaul]

9. yeah but if we demand he answer questions & he refuses to...

he'll look like a shit heel coward---oh, i forgot, he already is.

[Montauk6]

11. You just answered your own point, LOL

[AgadorSparticus]

13. he is. but making him LOOK like one would be priceless and very

effective in keeping the Empire in check--atleast for awhile.

I'd sacrifice eating chocolate for 3 years for this to happen. I really would. and I'd have a "BUSH FORCED TO GET OFF THE TIT AND ANSWER QUESTIONS" PARTy. I'd have a block party and serve pretzels. Wouldn't that be fun? :evilgrin:

[ellenfl]

12. no point. he'll just lie. eom

[mopaul]

14. yes, the perjury trap, like they pulled on Bill

catch him in a lie, before a committee, UNDER OATH.