Re: Logic?
pistoff wrote:Zbignew Brezinsky (Carter) and Sandy Berger (Clinton) as NSAs that testified in public session under oath to Congress.
I believe that she has no legal claim not to testify in public under oath. The White House Criminals don't want her to do so for fear of the actual truth to emerge. She wouldn't be able to tell lies and half truths and spin the crap as she is doing on TV because then she could be criminal charged as well as going down in history as a freakin' traitor.
I don't think the examples you give of members of a standing administration who testified were legally coerced. I think they testified voluntarily. My understanding is that they could have invoked executive priviledge, but chose not to.
Of course many of us think that Condy *should* testify under oath, but I don't think that legally she must.
My understanding is based on explanations I heard on NPR. I don't have references and I could be mistaken. But, this is how I understood it.