Jim Wilkinson, just 3 minutes ago, speaking on behalf of the White House on CNN, said that the Constitution prohibits Condi Rice from testifying before the 9/11 Commission.

OK, Botnst, you got your work cut out on this one. How in the heck is that not a lie? Mike, you got anything on this one?

I can't for the life of me figure out where in the consitution individual behavior is proscribed--after all, the reason for the constitution was to protect individuals ffrom the excesses of gov, not the reverse (which I think is a problem for people like me who oppose gay marriage--that oughtta get the mail flowing).

Is it a lie? I don't know. It depends on if he knowingly gave a false statement. If he didn't do it knowingly then he was telling something incorrect, not factual, or some such. I think intentionality is a component of lying.

Now as I understand issue, its not that she's prohibited from testifying by writ of constitution. Instead, she is some sort of personal advisor to the president--not an appointee. If she were an appointee she would be under advice and consent of the Senate. She has no de jure authority so there is no legal strings on her. She has no budget and thus does not come under the House, from which spending is authorized. This arrangement was done intentionally so as to give the president discreet advice protected by the principle of executive priveledge from Congressional scrutiny.

The consitutional interest is this. If she were to give public testimony it would directly undermine the assumption of executive immunity. She could then be compelled under subpoena to give testimony.

No advisor to a president has ever been compelled to testifly before Congress or any legislated entity. All presidents jealously guard that principle.

Having said that, recall that the testimony which she declines is just a show. All witnesses have already submitted full and complete testimony in private to the committee. What purpose would be serve by compelling testimony from a witness that would necessarily be less complete than the classified testimony she's already provided?

Its just for show. Don't let it get you wound too tight.

B

It's either a lie or incompetence. The Bush administration has been known for both.

Lighten up--slanderous claptrap can be fun!

Your answer is way too long. If the Constitution bears on this situation at all, it would be in connection with a separation of powers or executive privilege argument. There are matters on which the Commission cannot compel her to testify. If she volunteers to testify, the chances are high that she will have to invoke executive privilege from the witness stand, which would be awkward. So, it is probably inappropriate for her to testify. But prohited from testifying? That's another lie.

Sorry about the length. I guess I went into more detail than you thought necessary.

If it wasn't intentional or said knowing it was wrong, it wasn't a lie by the person who said. It If somebody else gave him that to say, then that somebody else may be the liar, but only if she knew it was a lie. And so forth up the food chain.

See where I'm going?

If every false or inaccurate statement is defined as a lie, then the sciences are jam-packed with incorrigible liars; I probably lie 30% of the time my mouth opens; all children are liars. Where does it end?

What do you propose we do with these ne'er do wells?

B

mmm...how do we tell a liar from a dupe?

To establish 'intention' do you need to look into their souls?

__________________
'79 280SE
'87 560SEL
'83 280CE
'01 Nissan Micra
'98 VW Passat
'83 911 turbo

Did you know that 75% of all statistics are made up right on the spot?

__________________
72 W114/M130

RedMeat cartoon

Good point. Excellent point.

I think you have to prove that a person knows the truth but uttered an untruth with the intention to mislead or deceive.

I'll bet some smarty-pants lawyer out there can give us a legal definition, but until then, I like mine.

If I tell you an untruth with the intention of making you laugh, knowing that I'm telling an untruth, is that lying? I don't think so.

If jjl told me that Tony Blair said he's gonna nuke Paris and I told MedMech that tidbit, thinking it true, would I be a liar? I don't think so.

If jjl told me his Porsche had 16K miles on it and I believed him, then used that figure to sell the Porsche to MedMech, pocketing for myself a percentage, would I be lying? I don't think so.

Etc.

B

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Isn't the only remotely relevant constitutional protection here the protection against self-incrimination? By invoking her fifth amendment right, isn't she tacitly admitting she has something incriminating to say/hide?

Maybe it's time that the rightful owners of our democracy revoke the oft-abused executive privileges afforded our wayward servants.

I'd be looking for something that references "matters of National security".

__________________
Mike Tangas
'73 280SEL 4.5 (9/72)- RIP
Only 8,173 units built from 5/71 thru 11/72

'02 CLK320 Cabriolet - wifey's mid-life crisis

2012 VW Jetta Sportwagon TDI...at least its a diesel

Non illegitemae carborundum.

Well, sh'es not being charged in a crime, which in the first sentence sets the parameters for the remainder of the amendment.

It makes sense that the Senate can't touch her but I'm actually wondering why she can't be compelled to testify in the House. They put up the money for everybody in gove's salaries. If they wantto know how tax dollars are being spent, she is one item on the list.

I guess this is where the separation comes into play. Following my logic, the President could be compelled to testify in Congress but I can't recall a president doing that who wasn't impeached--and that action takes one befor the Senate. (first Dubyah often testified in Congress, though I doubt anybody compelled him to do it).

It would make for interesting argument before the Supremes.

B

I was just jerking your chain on the length of your response.

I think what Wilkinson meant was that it is Constitutionally inappropriate for the National Security Advisor to be compelled to discuss national security matters, under oath, with TV cameras rolling. I don't know enough about the legal issues to know what Rice's position should be, and neither does most of the CNN audience that Wilkinson was addressing. Her position is probably defensible, but not for the reason Wilkinson said. He needed a sound bite, so he said she was prohibited. I think MikeMover would say, big whoop, a politician got sloppy with the truth, so what else is new? I suppose it is a fact of political life. I just wish the media would call them on it so they wouldn't be so confident that their fibs will go unchallenged. Of course, if the media did that, they would lose access, which means they lose $$$.

As you mentioned in response to Z, there is no Fifth Amendment issue, it's more of a separation of powers issue.

With this, you and I are in perfect agreement. I expect politicians to spin. I expect the media to call them on it. If the emdia lighten up, politicians only get more bold. Its become a shameful symbiosis. That and the hunt for the right phrase to encapsulate an issue.

Ick.

B