Knuckleheads@Condi.Rice.Org

Recaping Rice's comment regarding Waxman's subpoena:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she’s not obligated under the principle of executive privilege to comply with a subpoena issued by the House, but would be happy to respond to questions by writing a letter.
Rice noted that she had been serving as President George W. Bush’s national security adviser during the period covered by the panel’s questions, and stressed the administration’s position that presidential aides not confirmed by the Senate cannot be forced to testify before Congress under the doctrine of executive privilege.
“This all took place in my role as national security adviser,” she said. “There is a constitutional principle. There is a separation of powers and advisers to the president under that constitutional principle are not generally required to go and testify in Congress.

In the U.S. vs. Nixon case in 1974, Nixon refused to hand over tapes because he claimed Executive Privilege. The Supreme Court rejected Nixon. The Supreme Court stated that the Constitution provides for laws enforceable on a president; and that executive privilege does not apply to "demonstrably relevant" evidence in criminal cases.
Executive privilege does not exist against criminal investigation. It didn’t apply to Nixon, it doesn’t apply to you, Condi. Condi, you are going have to testify to the Oversight Committee:
UNDER OATH or UNDER ARREST.