Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
How so? It's not like the government didn't deliberately mislead parliamentarians, didn't fail to produce documents upon parliamentary order, didn't order witnesses called upon by committee to not to appear before committee... AFAIK all of those are valid reasons for a citation of contempt. Legally speaking I mean, maybe it doesn't fit your definition of contempt (although really it should, the implication being otherwise that you believe that the executive should not bound by the orders, laws, and directives of the people as represented by the Legislature) but it fits the legal definition of contempt.
|
I'm more about the historical definition of contempt than the legal definition.
Do you really think this is the most contemptible thing that a government has ever done?