Nancy Pelosi is still trying to explain exactly what she did — or didn’t — know about enhanced interrogation techniques in 2002.

Talking to CNN’s Candy Crowley last night, Pelosi got a bit a testy when asked why she didn’t raise objections following her CIA briefings. Pelosi responded by saying that, without a Democrat as president, her objections would not have been heeded. She said:

They didn’t say they were doing it. But you know what? I’m not getting into that. The fact is, is that I know what they told us and I know that they did not share our values. So any briefing that you would get from the Bush administration on the subject is one that is probably something you’re not going to agree with, and two, maybe not the whole truth anyway. So what you have to do is say, ‘How can I change this?’ if that’s your point. ‘How can I change this?’ I can change this by changing the people who are making these decisions. If I can’t change the election, which we didn’t do in the next election, but we did now, we can change who can share this information. And at long last we have a Democratic majority in the House, Democratic president of the United States, who do not want to have politics involved in intelligence gathering.

Pelosi also said she and former CIA chief Porter Goss — who claims Pelosi knew full well that waterboarding was being used — live in alternate universes. She maintains the CIA briefers said they weren’t going to use waterboarding, but when they did, they would inform Congress. And they never did, Pelosi claims. She also blasted Republicans for talking about what were supposed to be ultra-secret meetings, and seems to be backing down from the idea of a "truth commission."

Meanwhile, Jay S. Bybee, the man who wrote the now-infamous "Bybee memo" outlining what interrogation techniques — including sleep deprivation and waterboarding — were legal to use, is trying to defend himself. He told The New York Times that he and other legal experts still think the memos did their job — to interpret the law and define the fine line between harsh treatment and torture. "I believed at the time, and continue to believe today, that the conclusions were legally correct."