Why won't C. Rice testify under oath at the 9/11 Investigation?

[John_Mace]

@rjung

Followed by: White House accusations that she’s turning partisan, mud-slinging attacks from the usual rabble of right-wing apologists, thinly-veiled accusations of perjury from Bill Frist, etc. etc. etc.

IIRC, she’s pro-choice, so maybe they could throw that in, too.

[flickster]

I didn’t read all 141 posts in this string, so I’ll apologize in advance if I’m adding something that has already been discussed.

1999: CLARKE DID NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH; CITING PRIVILEGE

How similar was that scenario?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@flickster

I didn’t read all 141 posts in this string, so I’ll apologize in advance if I’m adding something that has already been discussed.

1999: CLARKE DID NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH; CITING PRIVILEGE

How similar was that scenario?

I’ll forgive you for not reading all 141 posts, but did you even read the whole Drudge press release? I mean, far be it from me to suggest that Drudge lies like a dog, but frankly, dogs oughtta be mad at me for the insinuation.

From early in the story:

The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice’s testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel!

From four paragraphs later:

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.

Now, I’m not sure I understand–was Clarke not confirmed at this point?–but the situation is totally different. It sounds as if Clarke wasn’t fully a member of the WH staff at that point, so the WH didn’t want him to be representing them in front of Congress, even in a very informal session.

Note that this wasn’t on a controversial matter; this was on Y2K, something that only geeks argued about. (Other folks talkd a lot about it, but mostly blew smoke out their asses). The WH wasn’t claiming privilege; they were claiming that he hadn’t been confirmed.

The two situations are nothing like one another.

Daniel

[plnnr]

According to NPR and the Associated Press, the White House has decided to let Rice testify in public, under oath. I suspect the incredibly bad PR this was causing was just too much for to withstand.

[rsa]

Also, Bush and Cheney have agreed to testity in private in front of the full commision instead of just the two co-chairs.

[flickster]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Now, I’m not sure I understand–was Clarke not confirmed at this point?–but the situation is totally different. It sounds as if Clarke wasn’t fully a member of the WH staff at that point, so the WH didn’t want him to be representing them in front of Congress, even in a very informal session.

Note that this wasn’t on a controversial matter; this was on Y2K, something that only geeks argued about. (Other folks talkd a lot about it, but mostly blew smoke out their asses). The WH wasn’t claiming privilege; they were claiming that he hadn’t been confirmed.

The two situations are nothing like one another.

Daniel

I was confused over the confirmed part as well. That’s why I asked if it was a similar situation. My feelings were that the only reason Drudge pulled it out was due to Clarke’s involvement.

Either way with Rice taking the stand, it’s now a moot point.