"If you don't have anything to hide, why would you object to us searching your house without a warrant?"

This old argument is considered laughable when civil libertarians, usually liberals, run across it while trying to defend people from unreasonable encroachment by authorities on the rights of individuals.

This is such a blatant political ploy that I'm not sure it will survive even a cursory examination. There is no one on Capitol Hill whose functionality could survive such an exposure, and there is no reason the Executive Branch should be a special case while Congressmen, who serve on committees every day which decide life and death for businesses, should be exempt. Who could accomplish anything if they knew that everything anyone said to them was "on the record," without the standard due process?

The Democrats knew when their puppet Waxman made this request that it would be refused, and knew they could gloss over the facts and generate the impression of guilt on the part of the Bush Administration. I'm a little disappointed that otherwise bright people are buying this.

There is only one way that the records could be legitimately demanded, and that is as part of due process in the prosecution of a crime. This is called a subpoena, otherwise known as "The Pieces Of Paper The Clintons Wiped Their Butts With."

The Democrats are trying to cover up the blatant fact that no crime has been committed, or even suspected in this case.

Leftists thrive on vagueness, impressions, fog, and generalities. Facts, specifics, clarity and reality are their enemies. They are relying on people basing their opinions on the vague "cloud" of guilt that the Democratic actions and Republican responses seem to create in their minds.

If a policeman came to your house at random, no warrant, nothing, and demanded to search it, would you be right to refuse? If you did, does that mean you must have something to hide?