Fox News Hannity and Colmes-Transcript

Fox News March 30, 2004

Content and Programming Copyright 2004 Fox News Network, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

SHOW: FOX HANNITY & COLMES (21:20)

March 30, 2004 Tuesday

HEADLINE: Did White House Make the Right Decision in Having Rice Testify?

GUESTS: Adam Schiff

BYLINE: Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes

BODY:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

HANNITY: As we continue on HANNITY & COLMES, I'm Sean Hannity. Also coming up tonight we'll talk to a radio D.J. fired for saying that she has a problem with white people and that black men should only date Black women. Is that a racist comment? Should she have been fired?

First the administration changed their mind on Condoleezza Rice. So did they do the right thing?

Joining us now is California Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff is with us. Adam, welcome back to the program. Thanks for being with us.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you.

HANNITY: Does the issue of separation of powers concern you, inasmuch as shouldn't the president be allowed to get advice from his closest advisers without the threat that one day they're going to have to disclose that to Congress or a committee or a commission set up by Congress?

Does that concern you at all, that constitutional issue?

SCHIFF: It does. And I think there's a very legitimate public policy issue in exposing members of the president's staff, his closest advisers to congressional scrutiny under oath in open session. So it's a legitimate issue.

But I think that that claim of executive privilege really had to give way under the extraordinary circumstances of 9/11, given that the witness that we were most interested in occupied that central position of bringing into focus all of the different intelligence in anticipation of that.

HANNITY: But once you do that-if we negotiate that language, once you have done that, you've opened up the door. The precedent has been set. Now, they say it has a suspicious-I don't care what the legal wording or parsing is. I think we set a very dangerous precedent. And I think it ought to concern everybody.

SCHIFF: You know, there's no question that a precedent is being set, and notwithstanding the legal disclaimer, we have a precedent. And God forbid there were another tragedy of this magnitude, this experience would be brought out...

HANNITY: Yes.

SCHIFF: ... and it would be pointed out that in the wake of September 11, yes, the national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, testified.

HANNITY: Let me ask you this question.

SCHIFF: One other thing. I think where the administration really misstepped was you can't claim executive privilege. You can't claim that we need to keep these conversations private because of this interest in confidentiality and a free interchange of ideas and at the same time designate that same person to go on "60 Minutes" and do frequent media interviews.

HANNITY: That went on, but wait a minute...

SCHIFF: ... and giving up the same confidences that it's claiming to protect.

HANNITY: Because you can control and you're not under oath and you can say I can't answer that, whereas under these circumstances it would be very different.

I want to ask you this question, though, because we have now heard a media hysteria in the case of the support of Mr. Clarke and his testimony.

And I am concerned about a guy that now says this administration did virtually nothing to prevent 9/11, when just two years ago, he was out there praising the administration for increasing CIA resources for covert action fivefold to go after al Qaeda, rolled back the Clinton strategy of one of containment to a new strategy for rapid elimination.

Why haven't any liberals looked at these obviously inconsistent statements and why haven't they said this man has no credibility? Because it's so transparent what he is doing here.

Where is the credibility on the left? And why are they just exploiting this man and his inconsistencies for political gain?

SCHIFF: You know, I think people across the political spectrum really want to hear what Mr. Clarke has to say. They want to look at the prime...

HANNITY: He is not believable. He's inconsistent. He's not honest.

SCHIFF: Well, if that's the case, I'm confident the 9/11 commission will get to the bottom of it.

HANNITY: You think he's honest?

COLMES: He's the one, Congressman, who-he's the one who called for the opening of the e-mails. They selectively want to declassify certain information to damage Clarke. They've been after the guy personally without denying the charges he's made. They want to declassify things he said.

But as he said, this guy Sunday, why not declassify all the communications between him and Condoleezza Rice and the full gamut of things and give the full context of what Clarke said? The White House only wants to selectively declassify.

SCHIFF: And I think that's an important point. That here talking about another precedent that is being set, we have the precedent of many of the Republican leaders in Congress, perhaps the administration, as well, seeking to declassify prior testimony of Mr. Clarke, at the same time seeking to withhold testimony of Condoleezza Rice. It just doesn't seem right.

And I think the commission has done a very good job in keeping this bipartisan, keeping it nonpartisan...

COLMES: Right.

SCHIFF: ... being aggressive. They're doing what we should expect him to do.

COLMES: Congressman, the president himself said, "I was not on point in fighting terrorism before September 11." He said, "I didn't feel a sense of urgency."

That comports with exactly what Clarke has been saying.

HANNITY: We only have 10 seconds.

COLMES: The truth does need to come out.

SCHIFF: Well, it does. And I hate to see the efforts to really tear apart Mr. Clarke. There will be time for the 9/11 commission to issue its report and get to the bottom of credibility. I think we should give them a chance to do their job.

HANNITY: He's had his chance. He's inconsistent. He's saying one thing then and one thing now. And that's why he has no credibility. But thank you for being with us.

Coming up next, William F. Buckley Jr. examines the decades old battle to beat back communism.

And then the political blame game over gas prices. The Bush campaign's new ad-we'll play it for you-says John Kerry would make the pain at the pumps much worse. Did he really vote to raise taxes on gasoline 11 times? We'll debate it.

BREAK IN TRNASCRIPT