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

[Trinidad707]

If Bush was telling the truth, why would he block hearings..­..???

[MarkInIrvine]

If Bush et al were telling the truth, they'd have NO REASON to block hearings. Understood?

[markm8128]

Has Bush ever told the truth? This is one aministration that never says anything that isn't a lie! You can see why his face is so contorted with dementia..­.because he has to work full time coming up with the next lie....

[Vinca]

To Trinidad707: Of course the Bush Bunch are LYING,It will be easier to get them out on the OUTING OF PLAME, yhan on lying to go to war in IRAQ, one crime is enough, gw bush and cheney must resign otherwise we are not a nation of laws

[leftLibertarian]

Arrest the criminals Bush and Cheney!

[americanalien]

I with you on that, away with them!

[darker]

I agree, jail Bush-Cheney, the two-headed MONSTER that gave USA and Iraq death, destruction, economic rape, and whose "mission accomplished" is to enrich their NANNY STATE FOR THE RICH and corporate welfare queens retiring on hardworking Americans' tax money!!

[The Impartial]

Don't forget Rice. Rummy and Wolfowitz!!!

[Vinca]

tO LEFTlibertian: Since impeachment takes so long,seems GW BUSH AND CHENY COULD BE FORCED TO RESIGN< IT's A MATTER OF PRINCIPAL,WE MAKE AVERAGE GO TO JAIL< WHEN THEY COMMIT CRIMES

[phasechange]

How can anyone take Perino seriously on a legal issue, let alone an historical or policy issue? Can't a reporter ask what the legal basis would be for blocking his testimony - not that anyone should give any credence to any legal opinions coming out of this administration? Reporters should laugh in her face. Congress has more than adequate authority to compel such testimony.

On another legal issue, let's have a few scholars question the "unlimited pardon power" of the President. There is no constitutional provision that is not subject to limitation, especially where it conflicts with other provisions. For example, a President cannot pardon his own criminal acts, nor should he be able to pardon criminal acts in which he has been a participant or co-conspirator. Moreover, a President should not be able to issue a general pardon for unspecified acts; a pardon should be permissable only for specifically identified acts subject to a specific criminal provision.

[rpahk]

Wouldn't the Ford pardon of Nixon fall into this category?:

"Moreover, a President should not be able to issue a general pardon for unspecified acts; a pardon should be permissable only for specifically identified acts subject to a specific criminal provision.­"

[phasechange]

You are correct, but that does not mean the pardon was legally correct, merely that no one questioned the President's "plenary" authority and the scope of the pardon. Everyone was eager to move on, satisfied that Nixon had been disgraced and forced to resign; the nation wasn't used to the ruthlessness of the later Newt Gingrich era. Moreover, Ford was not part of the administration and had no role in the crimes that were alleged. Of course, my assertions have never been tested before the Supreme Court so they're merely one man's opinion. although I'd like to assure you they are more informed than the opinions of Dana Perino.

[orianna]

Ageed... but at least this administration has shown every loophole in our democracy that needs to be fixed before another abuser of our government comes along... this only happened because GOP took office with 'values-driven' leadership­... the dems got lazy and they lost power, to a bunch of false leaders... now they'll be on top of their game, with folks like Obama and Pelosi at the helm.... the Clintons had to go.. their own blurring of the rules and regulations had something to do with what the crooks figured they could get away with. Let's get back to our heavy taxes at least going to Americans in need! And, no more killing machines with the American flag on it!!!

[combatveteran]

Have not read any of the comments, but isn't it remarkable that all the press and pundents can say is why did he wait to come out now. Jesus, he was in deep, very deep. I ask how many others in his administation have spoken out? He says the press was too easy. They critisize that. Why didn't he just come out then. jesus why did the press give him such softballs? His job was to field those balls, nothing more. Why didn't the press ask follow up questions? Why didn't they challenge him.
The news has made me sick!

[ScroogeandMarleyLLC]

I think McClelland needs to get in the witness protection program NOW.

[TuppenceWorth]

Stuff I don't get:

1. McClellan, now a private citizen, has publicly expressed his willingness to voluntarily testify before Congress. So what would be the legal basis for the White House to invoke 'executive privilege' in order to prevent him from doing it? If Bush orders him not to testify (as he did last year with Harriet Miers) and McClellan refuses to obey, what's Bush going to do, fire him?

2. What if McClellan changed his mind about testifying voluntarily and Congress then served him with a subpoena. If it came down to 'executive privilege' vs. 'contempt of congress,' which is the likeliest to prevail?

[lisakaz2]

I don't get it either and was hoping someone would have an answer on the logic of how they prevent McClellan from speaking. Since they couldn't stop his book, how can they stop his testimony?

[swift goat pet for truth]

"Since they couldn't stop his book, how can they stop his testimony?"

Dead men tell no tales.

[badinko]

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.

[TuppenceWorth]

Thanks for this explanation, badinko! It raises another question in my non-lawyer mind that you might have an answer to:

McClellan has already stated (MSNBC Countdown interview) that he could add little or nothing in his testimony to Congress that he had not written in his book. So since the White House reviewed the manuscript at least a month prior to publication and found no problems with it in relation to national security and/or classified information, and since McClellan was, according to Rove, "out of the loop," I wonder what would be Bush's argument for an injunction.

[orianna]

Pelosi will stand up to them... you can bet your booty on it... and so will Obama... we've some courage in office now... just think: women and black men... only the best can survive in politics just now... and we've got both... not to mention some great DNC leaders at their backs.... this is the worst abuse the American government has ever been exposed to ... it will be the first time we admit that true criminals and murderers are in leadership roles... we will exonerate ourselves with the world once they are all exposed and tried and behind bars.... how incredibly awful... and as Americans, we've never experienced such atrocities in the hands of Americans.­... first we cannot deny it and then our true leaders must act upon it... as I said we now have the impetus and leadership to handle it... just be sure you back them!!!

[CaptainHowdy]

I doubt that anything will come of this. Especially with do-nothing loser Conyers at the helm.

But I say... BRING IT ON!

[returnofthejedi]

The True Americans are bringing it on........­..........­....... and on and on. Pretty soon all the trolls will
be gone......­..........­.....jedi

[orianna]

Now we will see what a true American is made of... no more false 'values-driven', white man rules bipartisan­ships... America firemen showed bravery during the twin towers bombing... and the world saw what we are made of... now we will have the courage to face that our leaders are murderers and that the middle east is not to blame for the war but our own... they will be routed out of office... you'll see them running for cover now... watch who squeals the loudest!!!

[ProfessorDuh]

Stop the congressional hearings? I'd certainly like to see them try. We'll be that much closer to the double impeachment we need in this country.

[burnt]

"McClellan Hearings May Be Required, Say Congressmen"

We need to press all our Congressional leaders to jump on this immediately. Bring on the war crimes trials.

[socialdemocracy1968]

Man, I'd love to see Bush and Co. in The Hague for a war crimes trial. But this hearing might be the final nail in the coffin for the Bushocracy.

[ScroogeandMarleyLLC]

It'll never happen bub. There will be a full blown bloody civil war here before that could come to pass.

[Boboday555]

If every Loyal BUSHY in America enlisted to fight for the AWOL President's oil War in Iraq he might have the legacy he desires!
But that's a very big "IF!"

George Bush: .AWOL to avoid supporting the troops in Vietnam!
President Cheney: FIVE WAR DEFERMETNS to avoid supporting the troops in Vietnam!
KKKarl Rove: never served!
But they sure talk like men don't they?

[ThermoChemist]

There are more complete lists here:
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

Complete list - members of the 106th Congress with Military Service. Why is the Republican leadership so top-heavy with Chickenhawks??
http://www.fra.org/leg-center-2/106th-congress/106-cong-mil-lst.html

THE CHICKENHAWKS "Conservatives make great fun of President Clinton for questioning the Vietnam War, standing up to his beliefs and questioning his own participation in that war as well, i.e., being honest and walking the walk of his own belief system [and then giving up his student deferment to subject himself to the draft!]. On the other hand there were literally millions of dishonest hypocritical, cowardly right-wing loonies who supported the war while refusing to personally participat­e."

[lisakaz2]

Exactly. Part of their patrician prerogative. They expect the little ppl to not be uppity and serve their goals. But they won't serve themselves because it's beneath them.

[RJII]

It's long over due time to clean house, the White House.
Bush, Rove,Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. all have a pee-pee, but they are NOT men. They are the prime example of cowards and criminals.

I hope they go to trial just like Saddam for war crimes. It time for real change.

[ramal]

Hearings would be about five years and a lifetime (for many) too late.

[kae]

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

-Thomas Paine, American Revolution

[lthuedk 1]

McClellan's pre-release descriptions of his book should have signaled Justice.

Surely, he had some form of protection and monitoring before releasing a book confirming what all informed Americans knew.

No, not by Mukasey's order but by Congress and Justice, the Real.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/americas_shame.html

[Boboday555]

15 of the 19 9/11 hijakcers were Saudi Nationals!
Where was AWOL Bush last week?
On his knees begging for more oil from the same Saudi Royals who financed 9/11?
Saudi Arabia is really running this country.
The AWOL cocaine addict from Crawford is just their hapless Biotch!

[noamjunior]

ta sober and reasoned response to the objective facts of the Bush presidency

[Boboday555]

A hearing before Congress?
Are we still pretending that AWOL Bush, his boss Dick 'WAR DEFERMENTS' Cheney and KKKarl Rove live by the same set of laws Americans do?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha...good one!

[gopgoingdown]

The big one is yet to come out!
Bush, and his regime, yes men (women) DID 9/11!!
Look for it, coming to a media report soon!!

[wesinohio]

I believe that they might very well have permitted it to happen, and if that was the case, that they expected it to be an event they could use to contribute to justification for asserting greater presidential power, but they were thrilled when it gave them a rationale for unending war. However, I don't think they had envisioned initially the shocking nature and magnitude of what actually happened as a result of their plan to let the terrorist act occur. I think they thought it would be a relatively minor terror attack or something more akin to hijacking a passenger jet and taking hostages, which we've seen so many times before. Yes that scenario is very credible to me and if true, that and subsequent Bush/Cheney posturing and other events indicate profound treachery at the highest levels of our government.

[orianna]

Look at the films of Bush's face when he was reading to the little kids in FL during the time the news of the attacks came... he was not surprised.­.. the face read guilty and sick to his stomach and if you read some of the many stories out there about how the buildings were set to fall straight down.... I just hope there's another author out there ready to come clean!!! If not, we can always torture the buggards in Guantanamo with the other 9/11 terrorists!!!