Did Richard Clarke refuse to testify under oath?

[furt]

On the radio this AM, I heard it claimed that in 1999, congress asked Richard Clarke to testify under oath about the Y2K bug (he was supposedly Clinton’s top advisor on this), and that he refused, with the reason given that presidential advisors should never testify under oath. Can anyone confirm or refute this factual claim?

[pilot141]

From this website which is about Y2K and doesn’t seem to have any particular axe to grind, I found this:

Cyberwarfare
Conspicuously absent from the hearing was Richard Clarke,
national coordinator for infrastructure protection and
counter-terrorism for the White House National Security Council
(NSC). He had long been expected; but late the night before,
White House lawyers acting on behalf of the NSC found a pretext
to prevent him testifying. The obvious goal here was to prevent
him being grilled on NSC’s draft document regarding the Federal
Intrusion Detection Network (FIDNet), leaked a day earlier. He
had not been “confirmed” by the Senate, the Clinton legal team
discovered at the eleventh hour, and no doubt with much relief
and delight.

Is that what you heard about on the radio? I seem to recall the argument being that presidential advisors, since they are appointed by the President and not confirmed by the Senate are not required to testify under oath before a Congressional committee.

[35340]

slim, but so far:

http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link9908/0045.html

Cyberwarfare
Conspicuously absent from the hearing was Richard Clarke,
national coordinator for infrastructure protection and
counter-terrorism for the White House National Security Council
(NSC). He had long been expected; but late the night before,
White House lawyers acting on behalf of the NSC found a pretext
to prevent him testifying. The obvious goal here was to prevent
him being grilled on NSC’s draft document regarding the Federal
Intrusion Detection Network (FIDNet), leaked a day earlier. He
had not been “confirmed” by the Senate, the Clinton legal team
discovered at the eleventh hour, and no doubt with much relief
and delight.

[pilot141]

Oh! Does that mean I win the Google search contest for this thread?

[35340]

d’oh! I need smoething newer than google.

I’m seeing it on Drudge (yeah, how reliable he is) but nothing other than what we linked above so far.

[flickster]

Well with today’s news that Rice has been cleared by the Bush administration to take the stand, I’m glad Bush has decided not to follow yet another Clinton administration path.

[IzzyR]

Here’s Drudge

The congressional record; Senator Bennett:

Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I’m sure will cause some consternation and disappointment.

We were scheduled – at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here. Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.

Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.

[35340]

can’t read, Guido will break my fingers, but here is the summary:

http://www.parallaxresearch.com/dataclips/pub/infosec/cryptology/crypt_newsletter/1999/harbor.txt

… under cover of Y2K problems; computer viruses timed … triggered blackouts . . ." From Richard Clarke, National Security Council … of 1998 to testify before Congress, Ellie Padgett …

Let’s see, Clarke did testify at a pentagon hearing on terrorism:

http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/minutes/minutes.03.29.html

[35340]

ah cool.

Wow, two things Drudge has actually been somewhat right about. I’m shocked.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Mynn

ah cool.

Wow, two things Drudge has actually been somewhat right about. I’m shocked.

I’m shocked too – but only that you consider Drudge right about this. The reasons for Clarke not testifying and Rice not testifying were quite different.

Daniel

[IzzyR]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I’m shocked too – but only that you consider Drudge right about this. The reasons for Clarke not testifying and Rice not testifying were quite different.

Hey, don’t keep us all in suspense. What is the difference?

FWIW, I heard Jonathan Alterman (of Newsweek) interviewed on Imus a week ago (or so) and he said the reason Rice wouldn’t testify was because she was not an official who was confirmed by Congresss, as compared to the Cabinet ministers who were. Which is the same rationale Clarker gave - see above.

[SmackFu]

Has Clarke called for Rice to testify under oath?

[35340]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I’m shocked too – but only that you consider Drudge right about this. The reasons for Clarke not testifying and Rice not testifying were quite different.

Daniel

Right as in has written source or people willing to step up and say something, as opposed the outrageous rumors I’ve seen dredged from his site.

She has previously given evidence to the senators in private while Mr Bush had said he would meet only the chairman and vice chairman of the panel.

White House lawyers had claimed Miss Rice could not testify publicly because of the convention that presidential advisers who have not been confirmed by the US Senate cannot testify.

I don’t understand the difference between public and private inquiry … it’s not like she’s weasling out completely with bullshit restrictions like Cheney and Bush.

[35340]

hit send too fast

News

[Acsenray]

@flickster

Well with today’s news that Rice has been cleared by the Bush administration to take the stand, I’m glad Bush has decided not to follow yet another Clinton administration path.

Unnecessary editorializing (plus dubious logic), with nothing else factual to say? In G.Q.?

[bibliophage]

We’ll keep this thread factual. We don’t need to hear about what’s good or what’s bad, about “bullshit restrictions”, whether Bush compares unfavorably to Clinton or whether Rice compares unfavorably to Clarke. Just the plain unadorned facts, folks.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

[mhendo]

Well, it may be that i lack the requisite skills for searching the Congressional Record online, but i can’t find Drudge’s quoted piece anywhere.

First, i thought i’d try the website of the Committee that Clarke was supposed to speak in front of, the Senate Special Committee on the Year 200 Technology Problem. There was indeed a meeting of that Committee on July 29, 1999, as Drudge suggests in the link prvided by IzzyR. However, i can find no evidence that Richard Clarke was scheduled to address the Committee on that day, and Senator Bennett (who Drudge is apparently quoting) made no mention of Clarke at all in his Opening Statement for that day’s hearing.

Admittedly, this opening statement was probably prepared beforehand and might not have included any mention of last-minute developments such as Clarkes alleged failure to appear. Unfortunately, when i looked at the Government Printing Office’s record of the Committee’s hearings, there seemed to be no record of the proceedings for July 29, 1999 on the relevant page. This is unfortunate, as these GPO records show what was actually said, rather than just providing prepared statements.

Moving on to the Congressional Record, i did multiple searches at both the Library of Congress’s “Thomas” catalog and the Government Printing Office’s Search Page, and could not come up with the passage printed by Drudge. My searches included:

• a search for Robert Bennett (R-UT), who was the head of the Y2K Committee and the source of Drudge’s quote.

• a search for Richard Clarke, the subject of the whole issue

• a search for Bennett and Clarke together

• a search by date

I’m not saying that the quote provided by Drudge doesn’t exist, but i’m damned if i can find it anywhere. Perhaps someone with a more experience at search the Congressional Record online might be able to imrpove upon my results.