What if Condi Rice, when she testifies, makes statements in flat contradiction of earlier statements by Richard Clarke? Nothing, it would seem, since the Commission appears to have agreed not to "request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice." That would seem to rule out testimony (at least public
testimony) from various aides who might be in a position to say which of the two is being truthful, should such a contradiction arise.
And then there's this, also from Al Gonzales' letter
to the Commission ...
I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accommodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement - commission access to the president and vice president. I am authorized to advise you that the president and vice president have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 commissioners, with one commission staff member present to take notes of the session.
Is that an 'accommodation'?
Why is this is <$Ad$>a joint
session? Why can't the president and the vice-president meet with the Commission members separately? Is there some, as yet unexplored, constitutional issue of the president and vice-president needing to appear jointly?
I hesitate to assay some jesting constitutional theory (the two jointly elected constitutional office-holders must appear jointly because they were elected jointly?) for fear that it might end up in Gonzales' next letter.
One can speculate about several reasons -- one in particular -- for making this stipulation. And, in addition to having no conceivable constitutional basis, none of them are flattering.