Why can't Condi testify publicly?

  1. I just don't understand why she can talk about it in the press but not in front of the comission? If she really wants to refute Clarke's allegations, why can't she do it under oath and not just in a press conference? I just don't buy the notion that it's because of the principle of executive privelege.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ony/index.html
    •  
  2. 48 Comments

  3. by   movealong
    She won't testify under oath, IMHO, because at ay later date, should she give any false testimony, she's be open to lawsuits.
  4. by   molecule
    Condi Rice and the Nixon tapes
    Condi Rice and the Nixon tapes
    Condi Rice and the Nixon tapes
    Condi Rice and the Nixon tapes
    Condi Rice and the Nixon tapes
  5. by   fab4fan
    molecule: That was pretty good!
  6. by   VivaLasViejas
    IMHO, a better question would be: "Why WON'T Condi testify before the commission?"

    It's a story as old as politics: an administration gets caught with its pants down, and the underlings get hammered by the press while being gagged by the guy in charge. I don't think Ms. Rice could testify under oath even if she wanted to........not with Bush and Cheney riding herd on her and their other minions. Sorry if that sounds cynical, but after all the crap I've seen this administration get away with in full view of the public, I can only imagine what goes on when the cameras are turned off and no one's paying attention. :stone
  7. by   Mkue
    I think there is more to how someone testifys, I believe she has the right to testify publicly or testify privately under oath, also I believe that she can't answer questions regarding certain material that could jeopardize our security at this time.

    She is being called back b/c of some of Mr. Clarke's testimony to clear up some of the things that he has said. So it's really an opportunity for her to be heard and to clarify.

    Also I've heard and seen an interview where some families of 9/11 victims think that Mr. Clarke's motives are to profit on his new book. That story seems to be getting little if any coverage in the media.
  8. by   Mkue
    This just in... The White House is allowing her to testify under oath in public
  9. by   Elenaster
    Quote from fergus51
    I just don't understand why she can talk about it in the press but not in front of the comission? If she really wants to refute Clarke's allegations, why can't she do it under oath and not just in a press conference? I just don't buy the notion that it's because of the principle of executive privelege.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ony/index.html
    If I'm not mistaken, I think it's more of a personal liability issue. If she testifies under oath, I believe she could potentially open herself up to lawsuits, etc., as well as run the risk of committing perjury, whereas she can lie to the press all she wants and it's more of a "your word against mine" scenario.
  10. by   fergus51
    Glad to see the white house admin finally got its head out of its &^*. They actually realized they couldn't keep feeding us bull about the issue of testifying.
  11. by   pickledpepperRN
    She is very bright. I hope her excellent memory doesn't fail her when under oath.
    From yesterday:

    http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl.../03/30/1522238
    Rice Still Refuses To Testify Publicly Before 9/11 Panel

    Discussions between the White House and 9/11 Commission are continuing over a compromise that would allow National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testify in public. According to the Los Angeles Times, White House officials said Rice was willing to talk again to the commission privately but she would not testify under oath.

    But the chair of the commission Republican Thomas Kean said "I would like to have her testimony under the penalty of perjury."

    It has also been proposed that the commission be allowed to release their notes of Rice's first interview with the panel. There are no recordings of the questioning, because the White House had barred the session from being taped. On Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Charles Schumer of New York plan to introduce a formal resolution today calling on Rice to testify under oath.

    The New York Times points out today that it is not unprecedented for a national security advisor to testify before Congress in open session. Jimmy Carter's Zbiginiew Brzezinski did so in 1980 and Sandy Berger did so twice during his term as President Clinton's advisor.
  12. by   pickledpepperRN
    I can't help wondering ,
    If I plan on being honest why not put my hand on the Bible an promise to tell the truth?

    http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl.../03/31/1616216

    Rice To Testify; Bush Limits More White House Testimony

    After weeks of stonewalling, the White House has agreed to allow National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify in public under oath before the 9/11 commission. In addition President Bush announced that he and Vice President Cheney would meet together with the 10 commissioners and testify in secret not under oath.

    While the move was widely described as the White House backing down, it was made on a series of conditions which may limit the extent the 9/11 commission can investigate what led to the Sept. 11 attacks.

    As part of the deal, the 9/11 Commission agreed not to seek public testimony from any more White House officials.

    The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission criticized the commission for agreeing to this measure. In a letter they wrote "[This] is of particular concern because decisions made by those officials on the day of 9/11 are critically important to provide a full accounting to the American public."

    But regardless of what Rice says under oath, no more White House officials can be sought to testify.

    The New Republic described the deal like this: "The White House is, in effect, trading a Rice appearance for a guarantee that the administration's two leading men won't be dragged down with her."

    In addition the New Republic also notes this means Bush will never meet with any of the commissioners without Cheney by his side. Originally Bush was scheduled to meet alone with the commissioner's two chairmen.

    On his website TalkingPointsMemo.com, journalist Josh Marshall writes "The White House does not trust the president to be alone with the Commission members for any great length of time without getting himself into trouble, either by contradicting what his staff says, or getting some key point wrong, or letting some key fact slip. And Cheney's there to make sure nothing goes wrong."
  13. by   MellowOne
    Quote from spacenurse
    On his website TalkingPointsMemo.com, journalist Josh Marshall writes "The White House does not trust the president to be alone with the Commission members for any great length of time without getting himself into trouble, either by contradicting what his staff says, or getting some key point wrong, or letting some key fact slip. And Cheney's there to make sure nothing goes wrong."
    An editorial from a left-wing editorialist treated as news. Hmmmmmm...

    The executive office does not HAVE to testify to anything. The President and his staff understand that the 9/11 commission is being turned into a partisan hatchet job by the Democrats. They're not as interested in getting to the truth as they are in trying to gotcha the Bush Administration.

    9/11 was years in the making, with most of those years occuring on Clinton's watch. I don't see anyone on the left demanding that Clinton, Gore, and Berger testify. But then, when you can't even define "is" during a testimony, there wouldn't be much hope for truth there, eh?

    Be well...

    The Mellow One
  14. by   fergus51
    No, Bush doesn't HAVE to testify. But why wouldn't he want to? If he was so great and on the job, why wouldn't he want to highlight that?

    You do realize that the questionning is being done by Republicans too right? It isn't some left wing dominated commitee (witness the treatment of Richard Clarke).

    And Berger did testify by the way.

Must Read Topics


close