Condoleezza Rice and Executive Privilege

[Robert Sheridan]

According to the Gonzales letter 

(http://www.nationalreview.com/document/gonzales20040330.pdf)

on behalf of the White House, Rice will testify under oath.  

There are other conditions such as this is a one-shot deal, plus an
agreement of the president and vp to jointly appear before the
commission and its note-taker; don't recall about whether they'll take
the oath to testify truthfully.  I'm guessing they will...



-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:25 AM
To: Marty Lederman; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Condoleezza Rice and Executive Privilege

         I can understand in principle arguments why she should not
testify 
in public, although those arguments are hard to maintain when she is all

over the press.  I cannot understand at all why if she testifies in 
private, she cannot be under oath.  That seems to be explicitly
reserving 
the right to lie; it is hard to imagine any other function.

         The local radio here reports that Matt Drudge reported today
that 
the Clinton Administration refused to let Richard Clarke testify to a 
Congressional committee on Y2K in 1999, when he was National Security 
Advisor, invoking executive privilege.  I have no idea what the 
circumstances were, what the arguments were, or whether Drudge has the 
facts right.  I think Clarke was on the National Security staff; I don't

think he was ever National Security Advisor.  That was Sandy Berger.




Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
         512-232-1341 (voice)
         512-471-6988 (fax)
         dlaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof