From a reader:
Jonah,
I agree it would be nice for the media to explain the privilege – but don’t you think there’s some memory of Clinton’s bogus privilege claim and that has poisoned the waters somewhat? I think Rich would agree that Clinton set the presidency back a whole lot in terms of respect for the office.
While I’d love to hear Condi myself, Katy Couric (I think) was just interviewing the head of the 9/11 commission who was stating HE’d like Condi to testify in public. He stated her closed-door testimony cleared many things up and that there are no smoking guns, but he’d like the public to hear her testimony, too. Although this is noble, to want the teaming masses to hear Condi directly, why is her availablity in public, in spite of her availability to the investigators, so important? The head of the commission further quoted someone who said something like, “some things are more important than standing on principle”.
SO.. Condi has “nothing to hide” and her testimony “cleared many things up”. CNN made it sound like her testimony wasn’t under oath and the commissioner stated he’d like her “sworn public testimony” so the people could hear her.
…implying if her testimony were sworn and she was in public… what? It wasn’t truthful before?
Bias?
Best,
Dave