McClellan To Testify Before Judiciary Committee

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, whose scathing memoir about his time in the Bush administration sent waves through Washington D.C., has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, a senior committee official told The Huffington Post.

[Update: Watch McClellan discuss his upcoming testimony on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Video below.]

McClellan's book "What Happened" detailed the "propaganda campaign" that led up to the Iraq war. His hearing is expected to focus heavily on the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, an episode that McClellan has said was driven by political motivations from within the Oval Office. But the committee could press the former press secretary on other matters within its jurisdiction, including the possible authorization of torture by administration officials (though it remains to be seen how much knowledge McClellan has of that topic).

Earlier on Monday, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers sent an letter to McClellan requesting his testimony.

"I have extended an invitation...after discussions between Committee staff and his attorneys," wrote Conyers. "In his book, Mr. McClellan suggests that senior White House officials may have obstructed justice and engaged in a cover-up regarding the Valerie Plame leak. This alleged activity could well extend beyond the scope of the offenses for which Scooter Libby has been convicted and deserves further attention."

The date on the invitation, June 20, was set in advance to accommodate McClellan's schedule, the official said.

McClellan will be the highest-ranking Bush administration official to be pressed by Congress on the Plame affair. Former Bush strategist Karl Rove has refused to testify, citing executive privilege.

And as such, the testimony could be extremely revealing. According to McClellan, the decision to leak Plame's covert identity emanated from the very top of the Bush White House. The move, he wrote, was politically motivated, as officials were peeved at the critical statements about Iraq coming from Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. While McClellan said that the president was ultimately misled by his advisers on the matter, he asserted that the episode itself was a stain on the Oval Office - one that led to his disillusionment.

"It's...clear to me that Scooter Libby was guilty of the perjury and obstruction crimes for which he was convicted," McClellan wrote. "When the president commuted Libby's prison sentence and thereby protected him from serving even one day behind bars, I was disappointed. This kind of special treatment undermines our system of justice."

* * *

Comments

[fedupwiththis]

People, please get serious. This is all a smoke screen. Do you thing Scotty "liar, liar, pants on fire" McClellan suddenly sprouted a conscience? He may get some prearranged small-fry in the ringer but the big guts are safe. If they weren't safe Scotty wouldn't be alive. This is Cheney and Bush we're talking about. They believe what they say is law and everything they do is justified. Why do you think we never heard how many field ops people died because of the Plame affair? It didn't serve their needs, that's why. Welcome to the Gulag.

[Antigone]

Why aren't the articles of impeachment on HP? Can't trust anyone that doesn't report on the happenings in Congress that the media doesn't agree with....even HP.

[felinetta]

Do I smell fear in the Bush administration? Do yourself a favor - get Bugliosi's new book:
THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W BUSH FOR MURDER.

[peacekitten]

(part 4 of 4)

the crown and the newly elected government wanted blair nowhere near anything concerning
iraq. blair is on his own now as a public citizen, and could be charged for war crimes by any icc member nation. once iraq becomes a member of the icc, they can go after him if they choose to, and i suspect he took the job with j.p. morgan chase because he is desperate for some, any kind of protection. the british aren’t so laissez-faire as we are with their lawbreakers.

the question isn’t whether or not the mechanism is in place to try these criminals for what they are. the question is whether or not this country is going to continue its apathy, or have the courage to reclaim our greatest strength in proving that we are in fact a nation of laws, and not of men. if john edwards becomes attorney general, i doubt he will be of a mind to let them off for what they have done unscathed. cheney could still be tried for treason to this country for the violation of our own laws for the time he did business with iraq when it had been declared an enemy state to the united states in the 90s. he knew he was breaking the law, and flaunted it because he thinks he's above the law.

no one, absolutely NO ONE, is above the law in america. at least that's how we are supposed to operate.

[tommytoons]

I noticed that the HP as well as Politico.com as well as the major newpapers in this country did not put DK's articules of Impeachment on as a major headline. Did Bush and company get to them? Come on whats the deal here? Afraid?

[KarlaElisa]

I also am waiting for part 4....and am vaguely reminded of some Tom Clancy novel I read a long time ago. Exciting thinking of those currently in power not being able to leave the Bush ranch in Paraguay
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/457/1/
And I'm also wondering where the big story on the 35 Articles of Impeachment has landed. Lot's going on today and yet I can't seem to locate the main dish in this buffet.
And what's up with posts being scrubbed? I thought that was a Fox News dot com stunt but never imagined it would happen here at HP.

[peacekitten]

i think we wound up with two for one......

[peacekitten]

waiting for part 4, please.....

[peacekitten]

jehovah, jehovah, jehovah..........

[YellowPanties]

He just said "Jehovah!" Stone him! Oh damn, now I've said it too.

[peacekitten]

LOL

[peacekitten]

(part 1 of 4)

for those of you wondering about an ACCURATE account of what the icc can and cannot do with these war criminals, here goes. Apologies in advance for it being so long.

all that matters is that the nation who is the PLAINTIFF becomes a member. once bush is no longer able to strong-arm iraq out of joining, which he did to maliki in 2005, iraq will join and will no doubt recognize the court's jurisdiction back to its inception, which any new member nation has the right to do.

once iraq becomes a member, the icc WILL have jurisdiction over any war crimes or crimes against humanity committed on iraqi soil. it is a different entity from the hague, and was founded specifically to preside over four things, all of which have to do with the most heinous crimes against humanity, such as waging war on a country who did not attack us. nations refer crimes to its prosecutors, who then investigate them. the icc may also step in if it deems a country where a war crimes situation exists, is not doing enough on its own to punish the criminals. as a last resort, the united nations security council can also refer a rogue nation to the court's jurisdiction.

[Krikkit]

The ICC only has jurisdiction over those countries who signed the Treaty that established it. The US is not one of those nations, and therefore cannot be brought before the ICC.

[peacekitten]

incorrect. if you will read the statutes, it is only the aggrieved party that needs to be a member. they can still put their case before the court, even if it involves non-member nations.

[peacekitten]

if that were truly the case, they would only have jurisdiction over a small number of countries, because many have signed on since then. i am sure 0-bama will sign us on as soon as he takes office, and there is no doubt iraq will sign on the minute booosh leaves office.

despite shrub's bluster, we most certainly can be brought before the icc. we are not immune just because the idiot king says so. nor are we immune from prosecution because we have unilaterally broken every international human rights treaty we ever signed. shrub doesn't have the power to rescind the u.s. signature from those documents because they were duly ratified by our congress and thus became our laws too.

our breaking of those treaties alone gives every single country that signed them, which is just about ALL of them, the right to prosecute us in front of the icc as well.

you apparently skipped the part also about the fact that the united nations security council could remand the united states to the court, member or not, if they deem the circumstances egregious enough to warrant it. if these circumstances don't warrant it, i don't know what does.

[peacekitten]

(part 2 of 2)

they may be able to pardon themselves in this country but that will be meaningless once they come before an international body. iraq doesn't even have to be the one to bring the charges. if you will recall, a couple of years ago, charges related to war crimes were drawn up by germany against donald rumsfeld. he suddenly canceled his impending trip there, because once he had set foot on german soil, he was subject to arrest. the police were prepared to greet him at the airport.

while our constitution does not recognize ex post facto prosecutions, a convincing argument could be made that the blanket of depleted uranium, which will continue to kill and maim innocent people for literally billions of years, is an on-going war crime, as the nature of that weapon specifically violates the rules of acceptable weapons of war established by the nuremburg accords. and although our country doesn't have the guts to extradite b&sh to rome, it doesn't mean that the opportunity to try him and his junta in absentia doesn't exist. if they were tried in absentia, any nation who could get their hands on them could then turn them over the icc to serve the sentence they had received.

[peacekitten]

(part 3 of 4)

as far as tony blair goes, extraordinary measures were taken to remove him from any meaningful authority on the very day he stepped down as prime minister. he was given the title by the chancellor of the exchequer of "steward of her majesty's three chiltern hundreds of stoke, desborough, and burnham in the county of buckingham." it's a procedural device employed as a legal tool to have a member of parliament resign, since they cannot relinquish their seats of their own accord. it then disqualifies them from serving as a member of parliament. as long as blair holds that title, he won't be allowed anywhere near the houses of parliament. by contrast, margaret thatcher received an O.B.E. giving to her the title of lady thatcher, and assuring her seat as a back-bencher in the house of lords. lady thatcher continues to be active in british politics.

blair was then appointed as the special envoy to the quartet on the middle east, a small group whose members are the united nations, the united states, russia, and the european union. it's worth noting that russia initially objected to his appointment. the united nations decided that they would be in charge of his finances, and the meetings he attended. the quartet's mission is to try to mediate the israeli-palestinian conflict. he has reportedly accepted a job offer from j.p. morgan chase in the united states, paying him a million dollars a year.

[peacekitten]

(part 4 of 4)

the crown and the newly elected government wanted him nowhere near anything concerning
iraq. blair is on his own now as a public citizen, and could be charged for war crimes by any icc member nation. once iraq becomes a member of the icc, they can go after him if they choose to, and i suspect he took the job with j.p. morgan chase because he is desperate for some, any kind of protection. the british aren’t so laissez-faire as we are with their lawbreakers.

the question isn’t whether or not the mechanism is in place to try these criminals for what they are. the question is whether or not this country is going to continue its apathy, or have the courage to reclaim our greatest strength in proving that we are in fact a nation of laws, and not of men. if john edwards becomes attorney general, i doubt he will be of a mind to let them off for what they have done unscathed. cheney could still be tried for treason to this country for the violation of our own laws for the time he did business with iraq when it had been declared an enemy state to the united states in the 90s. he knew he was breaking the law, and flaunted it because he thinks he is above the law.

no one, absolutely NO ONE, is above the law in america. at least that's how we are supposed to operate.

[GORKINOFF]

I AGREE WITH YOU NOVA 16!!...HOWASTE! (YOU SPEAK THE TRUTH!)

[donkat]

Good for Scott - it couldn't have been easy for him knowing he was giving up basically everything by writing his book. It's easy to say he should have come clean or he should have refused to lie in his job but not so easy to do. Especially in that group.

[larazon]

I dont' get it. Not a peep on DK's 35 Articles of Impeachment, here? Doesn't anyone want to see justice done?

[kart]

it seems like America will let this president Bush walk away from not only Treason in the Valerie Plame affair but also in sending thousands of soldiers to their death for a " LIE " ..... If their is justice to be done we will see, if not it means that the American people lost it and now will have to accept all government manipulation without a peep.....bend over and let them do it !!!!!!
Plus on BBC ( a real news channel ) this morning they are saying how blind the American taxpayers are in relation to 23 billions forked buy the likes of Halliburton and all the other favored companies by Cheney and Bush.... what a shame and what a mess......
All I say is take them to the Hague for their war crimes....

[kart]

TREASON in the white house.......