Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (557748)	3/30/2004 5:19:27 AM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Clarke allowed to avoid testimony in 1999 Used same separation-of-powers claim as Condoleezza Rice Posted: March 30, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern worldnetdaily.com In 1999, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke used the same claim National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is now using now to avoid testifying before a federal panel. Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare on July 29, 1999, but the Clinton White House would not allow it, citing a breach of separation between congress and the executive. Committee Chairman Robert Bennett, R-Utah, said in a transcript posted by FreeRepublic.com that Clarke canceled the appearance because National Security Council members, who are not confirmed by Congress, cannot testify before Congress. Rice is under increasing pressure to appear before the 9-11 commission under oath after Clarke told the panel the Bush White House was distracted from preventing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because it focused on a possible Iraqi role. But Rice, who already has appeared before the panel behind closed doors for four hours, says testifying under oath would breach the separation of powers. According to the congressional record, Bennett said in 1999: Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment. We were scheduled – at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here. Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council. Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming. He apologized to me for their failure to tell us that in a way that would have prevented our putting out the press notice in advance. I do not, in any sense, attribute any improper motives to Mr. Clarke. We had understood that the briefing could be held as long as there was no record made of it so that it would not be part of the formal hearing. And we were prepared to receive his briefing with the court recorder being instructed not to make any record of it and that that would comply with the rule. As I say, last evening I received a call at home after the Senate had adjourned telling me that that arrangement would not be acceptable to the legal staff at the National Security Council and that Mr. Clarke, therefore, would not be here. He said in our phone conversation just a minute or two ago that he would be happy to come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing. I suppose we could have cleared the room here this morning and allowed him to give that briefing to the committee, but I felt given the fact that so many people had gathered it would be an inconvenience for them if we were to do that. So we will schedule a briefing with Mr. Clarke at some future time. And the members of the committee will disclose that which we feel is appropriate to disclose based on his briefing. We are disappointed. His conversation with me minutes ago make it clear that he is disappointed. I know he wanted to be here, but that is what has taken place in the last 10 to 12 hours. So with that word of explanation and, as I say, disappointment to many of you, I will now officially call the committee to order. The committee will come to order. The New York Times and Washington Post reported today White House officials have worked out a compromise that would allow public release of the private testimony Rice gave to the commission in February. There was no recording of the session, but nearly verbatim notes were taken by staff members. The commission would like Rice to testify again privately, under penalty of perjury, and release a transcript. Democratic Sens. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Charles Schumer of New York plan to introduce a formal resolution calling on Rice to testify under oath, according to the Los Angeles Times. * * *