can she do that?

Condi Rice, current Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor, says she is not inclined to respond to a House subpoena to appear and answer some more questions about the chicanery that led to the Republican invasion of Iraq. "Been there, done that" Condi says, talking about her confirmation hearings before taking over at State. "And anyway, I don't hafta answer," she added.

Why? Because "This all took place in my role as national security adviser" and under separation of powers, "advisers to the president under that constitutional principle are not generally required to go and testify in Congress."

Now, Condi was kind enough to offer to write a letter to Congress. And while you'd think it would be nice to see a member of the de facto Administration wanting to uphold the Constitution, in fact she's just parroting more of the radical monarchical theory of the unitary executive. You know, she works for the President and therefore it's like she's part of the President's brain, and nobody can tell the President what to do with his agents.

Not even Congress? Can she really just refuse to respond to the subpoena? Would that have worked for Clinton's advisers?