Condoleezza Rice and Executive Privilege
bobsheridan at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 30 08:13:44 PST 2004
According to the Gonzales letter
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...
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
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
the right to lie; it is hard to imagine any other function.
The local radio here reports that Matt Drudge reported today
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.
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
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
More information about the Conlawprof