NYT: Dems say RC was not under oath during 2002 Interview

[swag]

From what I've read about Clarke, I doubt he would lie under oath. Nevertheless, Frist and co. may have raised a red herring (no surprises here) with regard to Clarke's 2002 "interview/testimony" before a joint Congressional committee.

From this morning's NYT -

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/27/politics/27PANE.html

Though Democrats said that Mr. Clarke had not been under oath in the 2002 interview with the joint Congressional committee, Dr. Frist said he had been and stopped just short of accusing him of perjury. "It is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media," Dr. Frist said. "But if he lied under oath to the United States Congress it is far more serious matter."



It will be interesting to see what the incontinent declassifiers in the Admin and on the R sides of the aisles will manage to inflict upon themselves next.

[Beetwasher]

1. Yeah, They're Pretty Fucked, All They've Got is Muddying the Waters

which is what this Perjury nonsense is about. Justy muddy and confuse everything. Too bad for them, Clarke's got Star quality and is just too damn believable in addition to all the other whistleblowers...It's cumulative...

[BOSSHOG]

2. Please frist, charge him with perjury

Let the trial run through the summer. Let the defense call witnesses. In other words, do our work for us.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Interesting

that the article says that Frist said he hadn't coordinated his attack with the White House. I think that's probably the reason he's backed down is because Rove or someone told him that he'd stirred up a hornet's nest.

Anyone calling their Congresspeople and demanding that Rice AND Bush testify under oath?

[emulatorloo]

5. White House can't possible like this - they KNOW he isn't lying n/t

[larco]

4. Frist also said,

"I personally find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, of trading on insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing on the tragedy that befell this nation on September 11th, 2001.." (From CNN.com)

Capitalizing on the tragedy?!?!?! You mean like the commander-in-thief? I sure hope that Frist and all of the other repugs reflect on that statement and apply it to THEIR president's actions.

(On edit: gave source for quote)

[newyawker99]

7. Hi larco!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Trajan]

6. From TPM ....

Talking Points Memo - Joshua Micah Marshall

Talking Points Memo: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

-snip-

Though I didn't see it, I read it. And it's a truly egregious text. To have read it on the Senate floor is the sort of act that will, I think, permanently change how I see him. In any case, see the post below for more details and we'll be discussing it more later. But look at this short passage in a story tonight on MSNBC ...

{Italics is from MSNBC : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195 / }

“Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,” Frist said in a speech from the Senate floor, alleging that Clarke said in 2002 that the Bush administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al-Qaida before the attacks.

Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances. But he said, “Until you have him under oath both times, you don’t know.”

That's astonishing.

I never cease to be amazed at these guys' ability to outpace my ability to impute bad faith to them.

A few hours after accusing Clarke of perjury, he admits that he has no idea -- not just no idea whether he perjured himself, which is a fairly technical question, but no idea whether there were any inconsistencies at all.

He was just running it up the flag pole. Maybe, maybe, maybe ...

-snip-

These people are shameless ...

[alcuno]

8. I thought that people who worked for the president weren't supposed

to be testifying before Congress while under oath. Isn't that their argument about Rice?