Condoleezza Rice Says She's Constitutionally Barred From Testifying

[hang a left]

Condoleezza Rice Says She's Constitutionally Barred From Testifying Publicly Before 9/11 Panel

Former White House counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke talks with reporters during an interview on "Meet the Press" Sunday, March 28, 2004 at the NBC studios in Washington. (AP Photo/Meet The Press, Alex Wong)
03-28-2004 07:33 PM
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas -- White House allies and Republicans investigating the Sept. 11 attacks pressed Sunday to hear open testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, with one commissioner calling her refusal a "political blunder of the first order."

Rice said in a TV interview that she wants to meet with the families of the Sept. 11 victims because she knows they are disappointed she cannot testify publicly. "Nothing would be better ... than to be able to testify," Rice told CBS's "60 Minutes."

President Bush, spending a long weekend on his Texas ranch, gave no ground, and several aides said he will not change his mind on letting Rice testify. But Bush sent her and other top administration officials out for television interviews to rebut fresh attacks on the way his administration has handled the threat of terrorism.

Sharpening his criticism, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke said President Clinton was more aggressive than Bush in trying to confront al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's organization.

http://sandiego.cox.net/cci/portal/_pagr/127/_pa.127/669?view=article&id=D81JMTTO0

[0rion]

1. Such a Liar.

They're all hiding SOMETHING. She should be FIRED, ostricized and never allowed to serve in public office ever again.!

[Catfight]

7. I find this "deeply troubling" we need a constitutional amendment then!

Hey, if an amendment saves America from the war on gay marriage, why not change it so Condi can testify? After all, it's just a piece of parchment paper, right?

In Bu$h's own words, "this deeply troubles me," when arbitrary Presidents make arbitrary law. OH...the sweetness of karma. Bush=bad juju.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kera]

42. my dear you are loosing it , you are shooting the massenger

no matter how much she is involved in all those lies, she remained the tiny fish

[Barkley]

73. That's Right!

These so-called public servants need to fired from office when they don't perform.

That's what happens to the rest of us when we screw-up on the job big time -- "out the door".

The bar need not be lowered for the elite; in fact we should expect more!

If they get away with this one; they'll try it again or even grander lies.

[IndianaGreen]

81. Such bullshit!

The 9/11 panel is not Congress. It is tasked with finding out the causes for 9/11 and making recommendations to prevent future 9/11s. Executive privilege, which is not in the Constitution, does not apply here.

Can you imagine one of President Roosevelt's advisors refusing to testify about Pearl Harbor?

Time to impeach Bush and Cheney. Why wait for the election?

[Dudley_DUright]

2. Atrios has a good point about this BS claim

What a load of crap. Nobody, not even Ted "Marat" Olson, has ever seriously argued that Condi Rice would be "constitutionally barred" from testifying to the 9/11 commission. At most they would argue that separation of powers means that she couldn't be compelled to testify.


http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_03_28_atrios_archive.html#108051629430781124

[Catherine Vincent]

3. If a President can testify under oath, why can't she?

[Lindacooks]

87. Not to mention his Secret Service agents

Remember the flap around 'Monica' when the Repukes wanted President Clinton's Secret Service agents to testify? The agents said, quite rightly, that testifying would damage their relationship with the President and compromise their ability to keep him safe. Repukes, in their typical fashion, pooh-poohed that and forced them to testify.

Hypocrisy? Of course. Typical Repuke behavior? Also of course.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

4. That concern never seems to come up when it is time to twist

the constitution out of shape for their own means, does it?

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. They're just making it up as they go along. (eom)

*

[opihimoimoi]

11. She was the wrong person for the Crucial Job of protecting the US with

Good Advice to the Prez. That she had no prior experience in National Security Matters did not matter to the Bush Selection Team
intent on "colorizing the Administration. Turns out she is a disaster to both the Pubs and America.

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. Then why didn't the media question it when Bush

deferred national security to Cheney & not Condi? This happened in the first few months of the presidency. Why didn't they question that move from the beginning? If Condi was the wrong person for the job, why wasn't the media more skeptical about that decision?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

44. You're kidding, right? You're talking about OUR national media?...

...They weren't questioning anything unless it had to do with attacking the outgoing Clinton staffers about the missing "W"s from the keyboards.

[The Backlash Cometh]

59. Yes, they did, didn't they?

Did you hear that lurkers from the media? We do remember what you were reporting when you should have been asking the hard questions.

[AJ BENDER]

69. She was perfect for Her Role

I believe that C.Rice & C.Powell's roles amounted to glorified window dressing for this administration. True they are bona-fide conservatives with experience who could be counted on to support Bush & the PNACer's on most issues. But in terms of policy making there has never been any doubt that the Neo-Con's : Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, & Armitage were in the driver's seat. Hell, she probably agrees with all the shit that's gone down over this last year or she would had resigned like any decent person would have. She has always been nothing more than a mouthpiece for Bush , more likely a source of review of facts & policy proposals for the Chimp. Pure advisory, no real power involved here. Oh well, let her rot.


Her Lies and Lame Excuses are truly pitiful

Lay with dogs & you catch fleas !

[dkf]

24. I disagree with your colorization point.

She is the only one who can make things simple enough for Bush to understand, that is why she has her position. The fact that she is a minority female was a side benefit.

I do agree that her prior experience left her very ill-equipped to deal with today's problems. But more than that, she does not seem to be able to assert her will over the people she is supposed to be leading and that resulted in chaos.

I put much of the blame for 9/11 at her feet.

Of course, if it was LIHOP, then she is playing the "incompetence" card perfectly.

[bluestateguy]

6. I thought it was only the Left that over-intellectualized

Such lawyerly gobbledygook!

[Nlighten1]

8. How so Condi?

If Colin can testify why can't Condi?

[Sulldogg]

15. Colin powell is a senate confirmed cabinet member

Dr. Rice is an executive advisor, a position outside the constutional scope of oversight... thta is the difference.

[Nlighten1]

20. outside the constutional scope of oversight?

So how exactly is it then that she can claim she is barred by the Constitution?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

43. Nope. Sorry. Rice is a member of the Executive Branch which clearly...

...falls under the broad umbrella of Constitutional law.

I would like to remind you that during the Clinton hearings/witch-hunt every single instance of Executive Privelege was stripped away from the Executive Branch to include private conversations with unappointed, unconfirmed advisors.

The NeoCon Junta doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Mithras61]

74. Actually, it's worse than that...

This is the BUSH Commission on 9/11, not the Congressional Commission on 9/11, so it's the Executive Branch investigating, not Congress. That means there IS NO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AT ALL that needs to be addressed. She can testify, but that would make it obvious that she's lying now and has been lying since before she took office (claiming that she's qualified to be a national security advisor because of her "expertise" on matters Russian).

[Barkley]

75. Oh, but the Lewinsky scandal was so much more serious than 9-11 ...

His sex scandal has accelerated the moral decay of the nation.
Just look as the Super-Bowl nudity, gay marriage and you'll see what I mean.

Seriously, I can't wait to vote Bush out office.

[tabasco]

9. The Founding Fathers obviously intended a clear distinction ...

between consensual sex and national security. Now I understand. The sex is obviously more important in the grand scheme of things.

[BiggJawn]

46. NOW you get it!

You can cause the deaths of thousands, rape the public cookie jar for yours and your friends' benefit, but as long as you keep your pants UP, hey, no problemo!

[Union Thug]

10. Bush will not LET Rice testify?

Geez, isn't that telling enough? FU Georgie boy and double that for you Condi you cowardly little pissant!

[Snellius]

12. But she's ALREADY TESTIFIED before the committee.

It's amazing how the Bushbots can so easily dismiss what's so blatantly obvious to everyone else. Like they still think they "won" the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. Even the press perpetuates this illusion. We LOST the war in Afghanistan. They didn't catch anyone. Their encirclement maneuver got caught in their own trap. The enemy got away.

Same with this committee nonsense. Condoleezza Rice has already given up any "executive privilege" by testifying in private. The only difference is not whether or not she should testify but whether she should testify under circumstances that, if she is not telling the truth, she goes to jail. It's not a matter of balance of powers but of accountability and credibility.

[BR_Parkway]

58. I don't think she has testified under oath, and that is the big deal

but then, would this fall under the same rules that they convicted Martha Stewart on? It's a Federal investigation too.

I never realized that the National Security Advisor wasn't approved by Congress before this. Seems like a hell of a position to leave up to chance when all these other cabinet level people have to be confirmed.

[havocmom]

13. where, oh where in that nobel instrument does it mention the NSA?

did they recently just slip an ammendment by when we weren't looking?

[cloudSeven]

14. Who in her position has ever testified on demand under oath?

Would this be the first time for her position to testify?

[hang a left]

16. It has already been debunked, cloudSeven

Berger and Brzezinski. Take that.

[cloudSeven]

22. Thanks. What was the pretense at the time?

I'm too young to remember. Thanks again...

[dai]

27. Too young?

It's not exactly ancient history.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/1997/fax[phone].asp

[GregW]

23. Incoming ...

[onehandle]

17. Fine. Then resign. nt

[Deb]

21. Ms Rice has the contact information

for the families if she really wants to meet. Of course, political expediency demands that she mentions them publicly on 60 Minutes.

It's sickening.

[tinrobot]

25. I honestly don't get it...

Rumsfeld and Powell have testified, right?

What makes Condi so special?

[Ediacara]

26. aparently Republicans ave a different constitution than the rest of us...

No explanation as to why in the article of course....

[belle]

28. Apparently so. I hear a little ex-lax will clear that right up, though.

[dai]

31. lol

Good one!

[Enraged_Ape]

64. Ba-doom boom

Tishhhh!

[Oreegone]

29. They are like an old large capacity washer

Wash, spin, rinse, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin.....I'm waiting to smell the burning of rubber as the machine begins to come apart...sniff sniff.....ah yes the sweet sweet smell of self destruction...

"and the train it just keeps going, no it won't slow down." Jethro Tull

[mzmolly]

30. Bullshit!

Sorry but the public won't buy this shit Count-de-lies-a!

[hang a left]

33. another keeper

"Count-de-lies-a!"

[mzmolly]

37. Heh, I must credit my husband with that one.

}(

He also coined "Condescenda Rice" He he ... he writes some mean political poetry I'll hafta post sometime. :hi:

Here is an old silly poem of his... but it seems relevant again so here goes...

Oh Condescenda, When will it end-a?

Oh Condescenda
When will it end-a?
Please let us in
on your hidden agenda
A person who came
from noble roots
shouldn’t associate
with snakes in suits

Oh Condescenda
I can’t pretend-a
I don’t understand
So tell me again-da
Was it for“ liberation”
or “WMD’s”
this administration
can do as they please?

Dr. Condescenda
When will it end-a?
You hold an opinion
you can’t defend-a
Why don’t you use your
talent for good?
Persuading these tyrants
to do as they should?

Oh Condescenda
They’re not your friend-a
If you allow them
they’ll use you again-da
Putting a face
of diversity
on to a “good ol’ boy society”

Oh Condeleeza
When will there be peace-a?
Like the smile on the face
of the Mona Lisa
From this road that you travel
you can’t turn back
For it is mankind
that you now attack

mrmolly :P

[hang a left]

45. Well I must say

He is quite talented.

[mzmolly]

52. He he... Thanks!

:hi:

[JusticeForAll]

83. That is the best thing I have read in awhile

Very very nice. This should be dropped in a humor section of the website if we have one.

[calimary]

91. Contradicta Rice.

All these are good. And they get laughs. And they're memorable. So they imbed in the mind and fester...

[Mom_and_Dad]

32. Is anyone actually barred by the constitution

from testifying?

Ignorant Brit that I am obviously know as much about the constitution as * & Co.

[Ediacara]

35. no

Her position is not even outlined IN the Constitution (nor are any cabinet positions).

[genius]

34. I guess Watergate and Iran-Contra hearings never happened.

Her nose is getting longer.

[BattyDem]

36. Tell me something ...

Exactly what country's Constitution bars her from testifying?

[dai]

38. The United States of...

...Keep-My-Ass-Outta-Jail.

[Barkley]

76. Good reply!

[dolstein]

39. How do you spell liar? C-O-N-D-I

Oh, come on! Constitutionally barred from testifying under oath? Sorry, but there isn't a damn thing in the Constitution that prevents Condit from VOLUNTARILY testifying under oath. There may be a case to be made about whether a Congressionally authorized committee can COMPEL testimony from White House aids. And hey, if she doesn't want to testify under oath, she should just come out and say so and not hid behind constitutional straw men.

[hyphenate]

40. Nothing but

bull-shit coming out of her mouth. What the hell is she so afraid of? You wonder if they're going to put the whole blame on her, now. Sucking bastards.

[kodi]

41. the buck stops with george bush. don't forget it.

he is the person who is being protected by rice's lies.

i want bush asked:

"what did you know and when did you know it."

a paper trial exists that reveals what bush knew and when. this information needs to be set besides that current white house story to determine bush's truthfulness.

i want bush to be forced to say in front of a camera:

"i am not a liar."

the day he does is the day he lost the 2004 election.

if we have to go through rice and her lying lies to get bush to claim his honesty, i don't care. she has done more than merely dissembling the truth and spinning. she has been caught in so many contradictions even a one eyed columbo would begin to question her veracity.

[jobycom]

47. Barred? Does she mean protected, as in the Fifth?

If she is making up such nonsense, then what she is hiding is truly staggering. This administration routinely admits the most outlandish crimes and has no fear of anyone caring. They lie, then smear the witnesses against them, and let it ride. If she won't testify under oath, even though she'll blab continuously to the press, it means that there is concrete evidence that she is lying or would have to lie, and she knows someone has it.

Unless it's just a plain old stalling tactic. While we are looking at her, someone else somewhere is whitewashing a mess. If she suddenly caves and testifies, you can be sure that the diversion is no longer needed.

It's a shell game, and the chances of anyone catching the right shell at the right time are so slim we might as well play the lottery instead. Kerry will have to win the old fashioned way. We can hope for a miracle-- Condi may even be it-- but we'd be fools to count on one.

[Whoa_Nelly]

48. Was just reading through the US Constitution

and it appears she is using the Fifth to not have to testify. Also heard in a report the other day that she stated she doesn't have to answer to anyone except Bush because he's her boss and she only works for him. That got me wondering that if she works for the pResident, then doesn't that also make her responsible to the US at large? Doesn't that make her a public servant as well??

[mobuto]

50. No she isn't

She's claiming some nebulous force related to the Separation of Powers PROHIBITS her from testifying even if she wanted to. Its "executive privilege" squared. And it isn't in the Constitution, regardless of what Condi Rice says.

[Whoa_Nelly]

53. Thanks, Mobuto

Have been offline and on the road for several days.

Now, in looking up Separation of Powers and the US Constitution, I find that the President can have the last word in issuing what it sounds like Sleeza is hiding behind. The link is:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/separationofpowers.htm

What I was reading is in the right frame on that page. Would post what is found at that link, but am not on my computer, and going between sites and copying is difficult.

Let me know if you think this is what she's using to drape herself in Separation of Powers regarding constitutionality.
Thanks

[mobuto]

49. The perfect response: I have a copy of the Constitution in my hand here

here Ms. Rice.

You say the Constitution prohibits you from testifying publicly before the Commission.

Where?

Lets start at the preamble.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Does this prohibit you from testifying publicly before the commission? No?

How about Article I, Section I?

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. "

Does this prohibit you from testifying publicly before the commission? No?

How about Article I, Section II?

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

Does this prohibit you from testifying publicly before the commission? No?

How about Article I, Section III?

And so on...

That's exactly what Wilbur Mills did to the Nixon Administration when it claimed the same crap.

[opihimoimoi]

54. Wait a min, isn't the Wills guy connected to Annie Fox in the

Capitals Fountain at 3 AM so many years ago?

[dbt]

57. Yes, opi that was him

(and BTW, it was Fannie Fox, the Argentine Firecracker.) Demon Rum got the best of Congressman Mills late in life, but he was, for many years, reckoned to be the most powerful individual in Congress.

Cheers,
:evilgrin:
dbt

[no_arbusto]

51. My first use of a rightwing catch phrase:

"If you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about!"

[w4rma]

55. Total blatantly farking desperate bullcrap from Rice. (nt)

[nodehopper]

56. Yeah, except there is PRECEDENT to the contrary

Whoever it was that testified about Haiti during the Clinton administration, if memory serves.

[The Spirit of JFK]

63. And don't forget..

In 1974, Kissenger appeared before House Committe on intelligence while he as
serving as both Seretary of State AND National Security Advisor.

In 1980, White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler (and National Security Adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski, who was already mentioned) appeared at hearings to investigate the role of Billy Carter, the President’s brother, with regard to Libya.

The idea of absolute separation of powers is complete nonsense as most constitutional scholars will tell you.

And the idea of executive privilege is pretty much based on the idea of separation powers. And even then, it's still not even clear that it even should apply to anybody but the President, as the Constitution vests the Executive Power in the President.

This whole administration is hiding behind this fake cloak of protection. Cheney with Enron and the Plame scandals...and now Condi with this. The Medicare scandal can't be far behind.

They CANNOT be allowed to get away with this.

[Sparky McGruff]

60. I think she may be constitutionally forbidden from testifying..

After all, lying under oath is not permitted.

[Qutzupalotl]

90. Good one!

:thumbsup:

[DoYouEverWonder]

61. She is free to take the 5th

as many times as she needs to.

Heck they even forced the Secret Service to testify during the Monica Lewinsky trial. Why should a key person in the worst terrorist attack in history not be required to testify publicly?

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

62. U.S. Constitution

A shiny new dime to anybody who can follow the link and find a constitutional argument that says the National Security Advisor is immume from a Congressional subpoena.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

[Dead_Parrot]

67. What worries me...

...is that, having clicked Ritc's link, I seem to be more aware of the Constitution of the US that Condi. At least I've read it, and understand it.

Which would be fine, except I'm a Brit who sells computers, and she's the US National Security Advisor.

What's wrong with this picture?

[mobuto]

79. Cough

Its the same section of the Constitution which grants the President "Executive Privilege," which is right next to the section that authorizes the Patriot Act.

[htuttle]

80. Those must all be in the 'secret appendix' to the Constitution...

...that's never been published, right?

Must be. I don't see a damn thing in there about any of those things. It doesn't even mention the NSC anywhere.

[lanlady]

84. it's all in the Apocryphal version--

--you know, the US Constitution that was hidden in the Charter Oak tree in Hartford, Conn. THAT version. I've seen it, and it backs up what Condi's saying, really it does.

[mobuto]

88. How about Article VIII, AKA the Article of Revelations?

The Constitution as revealed to John Ashcroft.

[lephty]

65. Committee vs. Independent commission

I haven't read or heard anyone specifiy what differences there are between a congressional committee and an indepenent commission. I always thought an independent commission was exactly that - independent - not part of the legislative, excutive, or judicial branch - and not the same as non-partisan. If that is the case, then separation of powers doesn't apply. Anyone know the answer ?

[BR_Parkway]

71. This is the whole point - this ISN'T a Congressional Commission

"Lehman countered that Rice would not be sacrificing that principle, known as executive privilege, because the panel, which was appointed by the president, is "not an arm of the Congress."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4623066

This is not the same as being called to testify in front of Congress - they are saying Seperation of Powers and the media is picking up the talking point, but the EXECUTIVE branch put together this panel - BushCo won't let her testify and they are trying to spin it.

Everyone needs to keep repeating this, so the focus doesn't get shifted.

It's BUSH's hearing, not Congress!

[Rebel_with_a_cause]

66. Whatever. Nice photo on Time Magazine, Condi.

[Snellius]

82. Aaron McGruder said she looked like Darth Vader

when he met her. Even since hearing it, it's impossible to get the image out of one's head.

[samsingh]

68. sounds like a lie

[dryan]

70. Rice is not fit for this position but Bush will never fire her

Condoleeza Rice held a position in the first Bush administration. I'm not sure what but I think it was as an advisor in the NSC. She is from academia. Her background is the Soviet Union which ***newsflash here*** doesn't exist anymore!!!! Mr. "I'm a uniter and not a divider", chose her because of her connections to his father and not whether she was qualified for the job or not. Bush will never remove her though especially when the election is just months away and he is trying to show African-Americans that they need to vote for him.

[rocktivity]

72. What'chu talkin' 'bout, Condi?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1306467

:headbang:
rocknation

[tom_paine]

77. Sleezy Lies.

She's just not as good at it as the other Bushevik Stooges.

[sam sarrha]

78. she just said on CNN that the panel is only asking questions about policy

and a security secretary has never testified about policy .. there is no president for her to testify.. is there a "wobble" in that spin ???

[Liberal_Atheist]

85. Its about principle...

bla bla bla...seperation of powers, what about the principle of seperation of church and state??? I really hate to hate, but these slimy, bottom-feeding, bacteria really make me hate the government.

BTW, I love you guys.

[Qutzupalotl]

89. Hey...welcome to DU!

:hi:

[calimary]

93. Well love to you, directly back! And Welcome to DU!

Welcome to the REAL Good Guys Club.

And note my sig-line... FREE way to the Hill...

[Zhade]

94. I agree. Fuck Chevronleeza and the traitors she's protecting!

And welcome to DU!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

86. On 60 Minutes, Didn't Rice Admit That Bush Lied?

When Clarke appeared on 60 Minutes, he mentioned a meeting with the President right after 9/11, at which time Bush asked him to dig up information to establish an Iraq connection. The Bush administration claimed there was no evidence that any such meeting ever took place (their way of implying Clarke was lying). But last night on 60 Minutes Rice finally admitted the meeting occurred. Here's how she explained it: "This was a country with which we'd been to war a couple of times, it was firing at our airplanes in the no-fly zone. It made perfectly good sense to ask about Iraq".

[dryan]

92. Bud McFarlane appeared before Iran-Contra Committee

Rice is wrong about other NSC Advisors appearing before Congress or Commissions. I clearly remember Bud McFarland appearing extensively before the Iran-Contra Commission. This was one of the first shows that CNN covered in its entirity.

[truth2power]

95. Hey Condi....

TESTIFY. UNDER OATH. IN PUBLIC.

If you're not willing to do that then shut the fuck up!!!

I'm getting tired of looking at your ugly piehole.