Larry434 wrote:Harper wrote:So now you are saying that she lied to the 911 comission but she wasn't sworn in?
Nope. I am not saying she lied, you are.
And nope. She did not give sworn testimony and thus could not have commtted perjury.
Clinton did and earned himself perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
Sometimes, one is better advised to dodge the question especially when it is a trap. Larry, you are over-matched here.
Rice Testimony Gets it Done for Bush, Commission Expects Unanimous Report
[April 9, 2004 evote.com] It was a stretch to suggest the Bush presidency hung in the balance, though some pundits tried. Therefore, it would also be a stretch to suggest that Condoleezza Rice's testimony to the 9/11 Commission went a long way to reassuring four more years for George W. Bush. But, by most measures, it certainly didn't hurt.
When
she raised her right hand to be sworn in Thursday morning, the collective clicking of camera shutters communed into a sound like a long chain-link fence being rattled. The world was watching, including the broadcast networks that provided live coverage of the three-hour session. Even President Bush, secluded away at his ranch in Texas, tuned in, according to aides. Fourth-ranked among the most admired women in the nation (behind Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey and Laura Bush) Condoleezza Rice was for one morning, the most seen.
There was "no silver bullet," as Rice said, for preventing the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. That was the basic response to testimony two weeks earlier, when former White House terrorism expert Richard Clarke told the panel the then-new Bush administration seemed less interested in fighting al-Qaida than Bill Clinton was. Polls show Mr. Bush's standing on the terrorism issue?-a centerpiece for his reelection?-dropped significantly since Clarke's allegations came to light, thanks to his testimony and relentless appearances to help promote his book.
