http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors
Meh, seems kind of like alarmist journalism at first glance. The way it worded that the republicans only agreed to speak while “not under oath.” It probably just wasn’t specified that they would be under oath and yahoo found a way to spin it.
EDIT: NM, reading comprehension owns me.
[quote=“BikerFry,post:2,topic:26197"”]
Meh, seems kind of like alarmist journalism at first glance. The way it worded that the republicans only agreed to speak while “not under oath.” It probably just wasn’t specified that they would be under oath and yahoo found a way to spin it.
[/quote]
Time will tell on this one. I am interested to see how this plays out. It’s the first sign of balls on the Dems in a while…
The plot thickens!
Bush said he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.
Isn’t this more along the lines of checks & balances than separation of powers? To that end, shouldn’t powers be separated so as to avoid a dictatorship? Maybe I just don’t understand the situation.
I really hope there was no shady business involved in this. I don’t want to lose what little trust I still have for the Bush administration.