Author Topic: OT: Condy Rice releases Clarke email  (Read 3423 times)

Offline SPURSX3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2839
    • View Profile
    • Email
OT: Condy Rice releases Clarke email
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2004, 05:10:39 PM »
Quote
The only thing Rice hasn't done is meet with the commission in public with the cameras on. She's already had one four-hour meeting with the commission, and is requesting another. As I understand it, she was under oath during her four-hour meeting with the commission. I may be mistaken , but I believe that is what I read.

As far as not appearing in public, it's called executive privelege, part of the statutes created to protect and strengthen the separation of powers. Every president invokes executive privelege, Clinton did it in all of his investigations, Bush is doing it now. It doesn't protect cabinet officials, but since Dr. Rice is a member of the White House staff, she falls under the statute. I didn't have a problem when Clinton's staff didn't testify in public (eventually they had to thanks to the budgetary black hole known as Ken Starr's criminal investigation), and I don't have a problem with Rice not testifying in public. As long as the commission gets what it needs in private, that's fine with me.
i dont think many people believe some sort of executive privelige should exist.  i am sure there is a ton of things we dont hear about, nor would i care to, that is strictly on a need to know basis.  our govt is not on an open door policy, nor do i think it should be.
On the set of Walker Texas Ranger Chuck Norris brought a dying lamb back to life by nuzzling it with his beard. As the onlookers gathered, the lamb sprang to life. Chuck Norris then roundhouse kicked it, killing it instantly. The lesson? The good Chuck giveth, and the good Chuck, he taketh away.

Offline Ted

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Rustedhart
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - ruteha
    • View Profile
    • Email
OT: Condy Rice releases Clarke email
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2004, 05:54:03 PM »
I agree for the most part. Now if the 9-11 Commission decides that a criminal investigation of some sort is necessary, then I would expect them to be able to hear from just about anyone. But this is not a criminal investigation, and I doubt it will be.  
"You take him Perk!" ~Kevin Garnett

"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards in and tighten up a little bit on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." ~Bill Clinton