McClellan Hearings May Be Required, Say Congressmen

***UPDATE***

Think Progress reported this afternoon that White House spokesperson Dana Perino told reporters Friday during a press conference that the White House could possibly stop McClellan from testifying before Congress:

QUESTION: Could the White House block him from testifying, if he wanted to testify? Or how does that work?

PERINO: Conceivably?

QUESTION: Yes.

PERINO: Hypothetically, which I'm not supposed to answer a hypothetical, yes, I think so. The law would allow for that. But by saying that, I'm not suggesting that that's what would happen or not happen.

McClellan himself told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Friday that he'd be "glad" to testify about the Bush White House. That and he doesn't see himself apologizing to George Bush any time soon:

"I don't need to ask for any forgiveness from him because my comments are sincere and honest ... it was tough getting to the conclusions I drew, but they were absolutely the truth from my perspective."

The Politico says House Judiciary Chair John Conyers is considering a hearing on the McClellan book to determine the real facts surrounding the Valerie Plame scandal.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) said today that he plans to begin discussions with former White House press secretary Scott McClellan regarding his participation in a congressional hearing.

"I find Mr. McClellan's revelations about attempts to cover-up the Valerie Plame leak extremely troubling. Particularly disturbing is McClellan's assertion that he was specifically directed by Andy Card to 'vouch' for Scooter Libby after the investigation had begun, which, if true, could amount to obstruction of justice beyond that for which Mr. Libby has already been convicted," said Conyers.

---
Florida Congressman Robert Wexler wants Scott McClellan to testify before Congress on the events in his book.

Former Bush spokesman Scott McClellan should testify under oath on Capitol Hill about his explosive new book in which he sharply criticizes his old boss, a Democratic congressman said Friday.

Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Florida, said McClellan, who served as the president's press secretary before leaving the White House in 2006, would be able to provide valuable insight into a number of issues that the House Judiciary Committee is investigating.

Comments

[Donnat]

Watch McClellan go to jail for 'withholding information' regarding the Plame leak while Karl runs free.

[WABJR]

May require a hearing? Duh... you think? If Roger Clemens deserves a hearing maybe good ole Doug should sit down with more than Keith Olberman and the rest of MSM.

THE DIGITAL POLITIC

http://www.electedtoserve.com

[South19]

Marc Garlasco (chief of high-value targeting for the Pentagon)gave a non-partisan interview on NPR radio April 8, 2008 which supports McClellan's claim that the WH cherry-picked intelligence in its report to the Congress. Don't Believe go to NPR.org and check it out (21min into the interview).
"Assessing the Human Cost of Air Strikes in Iraq"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=894608 67

[DonDavis]

McClellan Book Confirms Bushies Both ‘Worse Than,’ and ‘Not As Good As,’ Watergate
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=1848

[Raymondf]

That's what we need some hearings. So everyone can see what a fool Scotty is. Bush will have people coming out of the woodwork, to shoot down everything he says.

[bikerdude]

It should be mandatory that Scott McClellan testify under oath, before congress. This failed administration must be held accountable for their action. Just a few of the assertions so far have indicated criminal activity as well as lying to congress and the American citizens. The fact that they have not been prosecuted for outing a covert CIA agent and her cover during the time of war is unconsciousable.

[goldenshaman]

Altogether, the Repukes have committed enough crimes to tie the court system up for decades.

[HillbillyBob]

Too bad that bushites occupy most of the court positions most from lieberty and regent university, both of which were set up to shred the constitution and install their wicked brand of 'theocracy'.

[jellinda]

Good to see cracks in Bushocracy become fissures. Impeach them all! Let's go, Conyers. Let's roll.

[Vinca]

To jellinda:Where are YOU< JOHN CONYERS< ARE YOU ASLEEP? GET BUSY,IT CAN'T BE ANY CLEARER, GW BUSH AUTHORIZED THE OUTING PLAME< AND THAT ALONE IS AN IMPEACHABLE CRIME

[IgnatzH]

Typical weak stuff from the Dems, instead of going after Bush, they go after weak prey like McClellan to show that they represent some form of "opposition", which of course they don't. Pathetic.

[The Impartial]

Stupid reasoning! To catch a fish you need a worm!

[bikerdude]

I can catch a fish with a swipe of my powerful paw...

[bikerdude]

I read everything I could about what Scott had to say and I don't see any democrats going after him....Lot­sa republicans are though. It would honorable and ethical if the republicans would start the impeachment proceedings so that we could establish accountablility in this failed administra­tion...I'm not holding my breath for this one though.

[returnofthejedi]

Like bikerdude says I only see republicans trying to tear down Scott McClellan. I would say your assertion is a little backwards. Mr. Ignant even though your logic is backwards, all the evidence shows that America is ready to move forward. Congress should follow suit and have competent, meaningful hearings to see why these crooks are stonewalling. I think we as Americans are smart enough to know why, but we want to see it documented and dealt with. That would serve as a warning to any future president that this is AMERICA and not Nazi Germany.

[badinko]

although the majority of democrats are indeed pathetic wusses....­at least they aren't inherently evil people like the neocons and their idea of "coerced democracy"

[cruisepuppy7452a]

By law, bUsh can't block such hearings, as it would be grounds for impeachment. After the Nixon era of watergate, laws were changed to prevent presidential abuse of power, and this falls into such a catagory. Bush will have to allow the hearings to go forth, and be called as a hostile witness. He cannot re write the rules of law, that isn't within his powers as president under the constitution. Pelosi has the power at this point to demand his impeachment should he refuse to allow the hearings to go forth. If she refuses, she can be removed from office for violation of conspiring with a president. Bush will have to allow for these hearings, no questions. This is all but a done deal.

[orianna]

Write your congressma­n.... demand the hearings..­. demand justice...­. demand they go behind bars during the indictments without bail... there are now 2.5 million of us strong... we can get them who are the murderers of innocent people to the justice they deserve...­. we must....fo­r the sake of our great country.

[bikerdude]

I write my congressman every week at least. I am extremely lucky to have Bob Wexler as my congressman. He is not only solidly behind all our progressive issues, he responds to his constituents and is a clear voice against this failed administration.

[rjean]

oh shut up you cant do anything..­.you blowhards have been impeaching bush for years..

you gasbags cant even keep your heads above water..
congress at 18%.......­..........­that's YOU DEMS......­........

obama is a disaster in the making....

[Satch]

Hmmmmm... Why does the White House not want anyone from testifying before Congress.. I guess this means they have a lot to hide.. and none of it about U.S. security as they will try to claim...

[starboymikey]

Hmmmmm... Why does the White House not want anyone from testifying before Congress.. I guess this means they have a lot to hide.. and none of it about U.S. security as they will try to claim...
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__

Easy one. Anything that makes the Bush Administration look bad violates national security.

[rjean]

guess all you want satch.....­..........­...that is all you stupid libs do anything..

the blind leading the blind

[lovemydog]

how could the white house prevent a private citizen from testifying
before congress?there is no LEGAL precedent

[Vinca]

To, Lovemydog:I certainly believe you are RIGHT,MCcCLELLAN IN NO LONGER A PART OF THE BUSH ADMIN, SOHE CAN TESTIFY

[badinko]

to answer your question ( from previous post on same issue)
there is no answer to your question or legal basis for them stopping him from testifying except for their extraordinary interpretation of executive privelige. They will state that his participation in the administration (even as press secretary), and in matters of national security policy, are classified and not subject to review because we are in a "war on terror".

It is up to congress to stand up to them up to them. If they invited him, the white house would need an injunction, based on their interpretations of executive privelige, to stop him. ultimately, it will probably be decided by a court, subject to appeal.

although I still have faith in the overall court system, it takes time and even with the matter being expedited, it would take at least months if the white house did try to get the injunction. But first Congress must be brave enough to hold substantive hearings.

[badinko]

In response to "what are the grounds for an injunction"

that is a good question. however, the book is written and one can examine it fully....y­ou just don't know where congressional questions could take McClellan's testimony and thus the administration could conceivable make the argument that the testimony will go into areas that are still "classified" and thus the entire testimony should be prevented.

This is a weak argument and does not make sense because by using, no legitimate investigation of security policy can occur. A decent judge should see right through it if it gets to a decent judge, otherwise you just have to wait for the appeal process.

[BeSpoke]

WHY BLOCK THE HEARINGS IS TANTAMOUNT TO WHY PREVENT SCIENTISTS FROM RELEASING SCIENTIFIC DATA IN A SCIENTIFIC STUDY WITHOUT THE WHITE HOUSE VETTING IT FIRST?

[Indoboy7]

LAy off "poor"scot­ty...he was just a little bit late in finding his moral compass.Al­l it took was for him to put distance between himself and that putrid-smelling White House Gang....No­one inside the WH even knows what a moral compass is, or that most every american has one....If they had one, they would most likely take it out and play with it....As for Scotty?...­...Leave him alone to....CHA-­CHING.....­count his money.....­Jackpot, BABY.....Y­eah,... CHA-CHA-CH­ING......B­IG TIME.....

[neogejo]

One quetion.
Why block the hearings if there was nothing criminal committed?

We don't need to impeach "W", we just wait.
When he is out of office we should bring them all up on war crimes and crimes against our nation.

[mari2JJ]

golly, you are sooooo reaonable. but alas. this Administration has no capability to reason in any rational way. If they object this late in the game when the info is already abundantly available to all who read and listen to news, we will know it is their malfeasance they are afraid of being revealed, not anything ot do with governmental secrets. Do not get me wrong, Bush and his minions will try and try to convince the citizens of our great counrey he is clean as can be. How sad that Republicans made such a to-do about a simple affair are will ing to vcover up actual malfeasance regarding this hapless war that has made such a disgusting toll on our country's well-being. I say if Bush refuses to let Scott testify, it will be an absolute admission of his guilt

[Subway]

My sense of all this is that BushCo knows that their war crimes are prosecutable.

So why would they leave the White House knowing this?

It would take a huge catastrophy to allow these bastards to declare martial law, but they've already proven themselves to be indifferent to losing a major American city. Remember Katrina?

To quote the Jedi, "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

Obama/Dean 08
"Paradigm Change!"

[The Impartial]

Not crimes against our nation BUT crimes against humanity. How many people have they killed in the Middle East?

[hyderoplane]

They're not going to block Scotty.

He's going to look like a dorky little doofus when he has to back up his opinions with suppositions.

[RaraAvis17]

What's it like to be in such D E N I A L?

[mari2JJ]

Yes, how true. But now, it will not be only the citizens of our country who make the malfeasance claims, but someone well informed. If push comes to shove, I dare say Scottie has a more detailed scenario that can be thoroughly corroborated and he will be only far

[cruisepuppy7452a]

Scott has data to support his findings. he has witnesses which will be called, and they will corrorrborate his findings. The fact that others have been coming out wanting to do a tell all, but were afraid of retribution by the white house is also very telling. Those witnesses will also be called. Bush is in over his neck, will have to either leave in disgrace, or be impeached, tried for war crimes, theft, perjury, conspiracy to commit and act to tamper with witnesses, outting a CIA op, treason. He admitted this and Scott taped him doing it, so, its on record. Scott is a brave guy to do this.

[kidshare]

Yeah, he'll sit on the stand and tell whatever committee that he was told to lie his ass off. Uh-huh. There is a credibility issue here.