Congress Was Denied Public Testimony by Richard Clarke in 1999!

Congressional Record

[rightcoast]

With the latest "uproar" over National Security Advisor Condolleezza Rice's lack of public testimony to the 9/11 commission, I thought everyone might find the following interesting.

On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee due to a directive by the National Security Council. Since Clarke was not a confirmed member of the White House staff, the directive was made that Clarke was not allowed to testify before Congress.

Read the relevant quote, which is the introduction of the hearing by Senator Bennett:

"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..."

---

Moderator note:

Drudge picked this up. Here's his link.

1999: CLARKE REFUSED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH; CITING PRIVILEGE

[mewzilla]

Wow! What a find! Well done :) Hoist by their own petard! Bwah hah hah hah hah!!!!

[Dog]

Game ....Set..... Match!

[gov_bean_ counter]

Citizen reporters strike again.

[Huck]

This is good.

[ConservativeMan55]

John Kerry owes me a new computer.

[mewzilla]

You'd think journos would get a clue....Dodos.

[Dog]

Nice bit of researching..

[tractorman]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

[Puddleglum]

Wahoo! Great find. I tip my hat to you (not that I'm wearing one, but I may buy one for the occasion then use it for regular wear later).

[Peach]

Ping aling.

[ScaniaBoy]

Pure gold! Well done.

Is anybody from WH or GOP lurking so that they can bring this out into the open?

ScaniaBoy

[So Cal Rocket]

Nice find... however, this information will never see the light of day in "mainstream media".

[Dolphy]

Terrific work.

[eyespysomething]

great find!!!

[b4its2late]

Great Find!

[eyespysomething]

bump for good read

[Southack]

Interesting.

[ScaniaBoy]

Don't be so negative. Send letters, phone to the radio talk shows, etc.

In other words: Get it there!

[Endeavor]

this is interesting. However, testifying in 1999 and testifying to a commission about events leading up to 9/11 are two different things, or so the dims will tell us. And I think the WH better get out there and do a better job of making the point why Rice isn't allowed to testify publicly, or let her do it. Altho, at this point, she would be a sacrificial lamb were she to come before the dems on that commission. This has turned into the political fiasco that the Bush admin feared. And they have blindly played right into the dems hands. I have to wonder sometimes where Karen Hughes is. Karen, please, phone home.

[mewzilla]

Who needs the mainstream media? :)

[Baynative]

QUICK,look over there!

Jobs, jobs, ...JOBS. That's what we shuold be talking about today. Let's move on....

[rwfromkansas]

bumpity bump

[Huck]

Do you have a link?

[Eva]

Did you dig this up yourself? It's quite a find.

[Sacajaweau]

Hope it gets to Fox, at least....but I'd send it to all the networks.

[Just mythoughts]

Thank you, this completes the circle, "The Commission" being nothing more than a tool of the lying crooked liberals to affect an election.


This "The Commission" needs to close up shop today, not one more tax dollar should be sent to these welfare recipients.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Did you know 'bout this?

[DumpsterDiver]

If you found this online, would you mind posting the URL?

Thanks.

[Dog]

Why so negative......rightcoast found a goldmine ....and you turn it into attack on the White House communications team. ........why?

Lighten up..

[Petronski]

You do want to see this. I guarantee it.

[Dog]

It is in the Congressional Record..

[RetiredArmy]

Will be, has been, plans to be, for sure, ignored by the socialist press corp.

[gov_bean_ counter]

No wonder he agreed to release private "testimony". There is none.

[ScaniaBoy]

However, testifying in 1999 and testifying to a commission about events leading up to 9/11 are two different things, or so the dims will tell us.

Sure, that is their only defence. But it is hollow, so get them into the postion where they have to defend themselves.

[Petronski]

How can we get this into the proper hands?

[RightWingMama]

This has turned into the political fiasco that the Bush admin feared. And they have blindly played right into the dems hands. I have to wonder sometimes where Karen Hughes is. Karen, please, phone home.

Isn't she coming back to Washington for President Bush's reelection? I thought I read that somewhere.

[mewzilla]

She'll be back in August, after the convention.

[Richard Kimball]

bump for later

[IGOTMINE]

Nicely, and I mean nicely, done!

This would be a juicy one for Brit Hume!

[bolobaby]

I'd just like to say:

...and... ...and...

[Dog]

Freepmail..

[jveritas]

WOW... That is incredible. The Clinton White House did not want Clarke the liar to talk publicly about such trivial thing like Y2K stuff for fear of disclosing some information. Now, the Democrats and their media servants want Condelessa Rice to talk publicly to the world, terrorists listening, what we have done and what we should have done prior to 9/11. Just unbelievable. Anyway, this 9/11 investigations will do very little to harm President Bush. It is simply impossible for the Democrats, the liberals, and John Kerry to convince the majority of the American voters that they are better to fight terrorism than President Bush, simply impossible. The Democrats are fighting the President on his strongest turf, the war on terror, and they are going to lose very badly.

[adam_az]

Great find!!!

Can you post the citation source: year, date, pages, etc.

[Petronski]

Mind if I borrow your screen name? 'Cause I'm Howlin with derisive laughter over this one.

Rightcoast, my brother, do you know what you've found?

That's right, gold!

[Just mythoughts]

Interesting bit of trivia!

[b4its2late]

Hannity just mentioned this and Limbacher is on it thanks to your work!

[Just mythoughts]

Interesting timely find!

[gov_bean_ counter]

Sean has it now.

[Steven W.]

very good dillegence digging up this one. Clarke is such a scumbag.