<$BlogRSDURL$>

Tidbits for Political Junkies with Short Attention Spans & Hearty Appetites

|

Friday, March 26, 2004

 
More Condi

Josh Marshall Nails it:

...it is very hard for me to grasp the constitutional issue implicated in Rice's taking an oath to tell the truth when she speaks to the Commission.

A constitutional issue involved in a presidential aide speaking to a fact-finding commission? Not a determinative one, I think. But yes, an issue.

Whether the testimony is public? Maybe.

But whether or not the testimony is sworn? I don't get that. This seems especially the case when she wants to appear specifically to rebut other sworn testimony. How can you claim the need to preserve the confidentiality of the president's communications with his top aides, then break that confidence to refute someone's criticism, and then say you won't make the charges under oath?

....

Obviously, not having the testimony sworn gives her ... well, more leeway.


Voiceover (as Montgomery Burns): "Mmmmmm....yes...leeway...excellent...."

|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?