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?

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?

Murders Bush/Cheney are above the law. Next?

I can't believe you even had to ask, personally.

An orgasm in the Oval Office (crosses myself while even typing this)...my God.

:rofl:

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

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.

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!

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.

That just can't be true! :sarcasm:

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.

whether or no Bush/Cheney vows to tell the truth with their hand on the Bible before answering questions to investigating bodies. :shrug:

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.

Right? ;)

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.

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?

I don't see how one could get out of being under Oath when speaking to a grand jury.

and Bushcheny is, well, it's good to be the King.

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!!!

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.

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:

Lying a blowjob is so more important for our national security than outing a CIA agent. :eyes: