McClellan to Testify Before Judiciary Committee

[Guest American Woman]

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...

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. ...as such, the testimony could be extremely revealing. link

Should be interesting. He will be under oath and not making a dime off of it, so the critics may have trouble coming up with reasons to discredit him.

Edited June 10, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

This story is so old that even Plame doesn't look good any more.

Edited June 10, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

It's so 'cute' the way you can justify/dismiss anything that doesn't fit in with your view of the world. Stupid, but 'cute.' Predictable as hell, but 'cute.'

[bush_cheney2004]

It's so 'cute' the way you can justify/dismiss anything that doesn't fit in with your view of the world. Stupid, but 'cute.' Predictable as hell, but 'cute.'

OK, we'll play it your way (definitely not cute), but certainly stupid.

Boys and girls, please write an essay contrasting and comparing the reasons why born-again Scott McClellan didn't testify the first time. Was he:

A) too busy negotiating a book deal

B.) duct taped by VP Cheney

C) claiming Excecutive privilege

D) none of the above

Edited June 10, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

I don't want to hurt your feelings, B_C04-- but I definitely don't want to "play" with you. You see, I'm spoiled. I have intelligent, interesting people in my 'real' life, so I have no need to waste my time online with people who don't measure up. If you ever want to engage in an interesting, intelligent, adult conversation, let me know and I'll give it a whirl. In the meantime, not interested.

[Shady]

He absolutely should be forced to testify before Congress and defend the claims he made in his book. However, he needs to be warned about one thing before his appearance. Perjury Scott, perjury.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't want to hurt your feelings, B_C04-- but I definitely don't want to "play" with you. You see, I'm spoiled. I have intelligent, interesting people in my 'real' life, so I have no need to waste my time online with people who don't measure up. If you ever want to engage in an interesting, intelligent, adult conversation, let me know and I'll give it a whirl. In the meantime, not interested.

Right....THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP POSTING RESPONSES? Is your ignore feature broken?

PS - I don't have any feelings...remember.

[Guest American Woman]

He absolutely should be forced to testify before Congress and defend the claims he made in his book. However, he needs to be warned about one thing before his appearance. Perjury Scott, perjury.

Since Rove can't be forced, McClellan could hardly be forced-- but he doesn't need to be forced. He's willing. Doesn't that make you wonder why Rove is refusing?

[Shady]

Since Rove can't be forced, McClellan could hardly be forced-- but he doesn't need to be forced. He's willing. Doesn't that make you wonder why Rove is refusing?

Not really. Perjury would be the most likely reason.

[Guest American Woman]

Not really. Perjury would be the most likely reason.

If he told the truth, perjury wouldn't be an issue.

[Shady]

If he told the truth, perjury wouldn't be an issue.

If only that were true.

[Guest American Woman]

If only that were true.

Of course it's true, so if he's worried about it, it's because he doesn't want to tell the truth. Anyone with nothing to fear/hide would be willing to testify.

[Kingmaker]

Good old Republican smear tactics. McClellan was considered competent and intelligent enough to be employed by this administration, but after he leaves and blows the whistle, suddenly we shouldn't take anything he says seriously.

I mean good god, he has a book, I mean it's not like the Bush administration couldn't possibly have their OWN ulterior motive for lying. Why, they're all a bunch of sweet angels who don't understand why that big mean McClellan would suddenly turn on them in such a horrible manner.

[GostHacked]

If only that were true.

McClennan was asked, and he will now testify. Rove refused. Bush even said straight up 'I don't testify, but I am willing to meat with them'. Bush even told Miers not to testify. If they don't testify, they cannot back up anything they said. They don't want everyone to know that they broke the oath of office by testifying.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b28200.html

This little nugget is regarding a commision Bush himself had set up to look into the failed intelligence concerning Iraq.

Russert: Will you testify before the commission?

President Bush: This commission? You know, I don't testify? I will be glad to visit with them. I will be glad to share with them knowledge. I will be glad to make recommendations, if they ask for some.

I don't testify? Is he asking a question like 'should I testify?' If he needs to ask that question, then he should not have been president.

[bush_cheney2004]

..I don't testify? Is he asking a question like 'should I testify?' If he needs to ask that question, then he should not have been president.

President's don't testify, unless they want to lie about the meaning of "sex".

Executive branch can always tell Congress to take a hike...in theory.

[Guest American Woman]

Executive branch can always tell Congress to take a hike...in theory.

Sure they can. But there'd be no reason to unless they had something to hide, and that's the issue here; not whether or not they have to testify. The refusal to testify says it all.

This hits the nail on the head:

quote Kingmaker: Good old Republican smear tactics. McClellan was considered competent and intelligent enough to be employed by this administration, but after he leaves and blows the whistle, suddenly we shouldn't take anything he says seriously.

I mean good god, he has a book, I mean it's not like the Bush administration couldn't possibly have their OWN ulterior motive for lying. Why, they're all a bunch of sweet angels who don't understand why that big mean McClellan would suddenly turn on them in such a horrible manner.

[GostHacked]

President's don't testify, unless they want to lie about the meaning of "sex".

Executive branch can always tell Congress to take a hike...in theory.

So if you are President you are above the law? Is that what you are getting at here?

[bush_cheney2004]

So if you are President you are above the law? Is that what you are getting at here?

No...it's a constitutional Separation of Powers thing. The Executive Branch will not cooperate in this way so as to set a precedent that would undermine the current or future administrations. I seem to recall that Canada's PMO does the same thing wrt Parliament.

There are technical ways around this, but US history is rife with examples where the President does not testify. Yea, it looks bad, but the long term ramiifications are more important than trying to nail George Bush for the Plame Affair.

Edited June 11, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[g_bambino]

I seem to recall that Canada's PMO does the same thing wrt Parliament.

I'm not sure where you'd get such a notion. The whole concept of responsible government revolves around the members of the Cabinet being accountable to the elected House of Commons; so, they have to "testify," in a sense, every question period. It's only the monarch and, I suppose, the Governor General (while in office) who won't testify in any court or before any parliamentary committee, as these things convene at the command of, and work by the rules set down by, the Crown; in essence, the Queen can't put herself on trial. Of course, the constitution binds the Crown to follow the advice of the accountable ministers, so there should never be a reason for either the holder or her representative to testify before anyone. But, in the US system, the President takes an active part in policy making, yet can invoke the same executive privelege as a monarch can. The only thing I know of that can be held over a president's head is impeachment, which has never been carried through successfully in the United States.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure where you'd get such a notion. The whole concept of responsible government revolves around the members of the Cabinet being accountable to the elected House of Commons; so, they have to "testify," in a sense, every question period.

When was the last time that a Canadian PM testified under oath at a Parliament committee for potential illegal activity by the PMO? Did the PM testify for AdScam?

The only thing I know of that can be held over a president's head is impeachment, which has never been carried through successfully in the United States.

I guess you mean specifically for testifying before a committee? Two US presidents have been impeached (A. Johnson & W. Clinton)

[g_bambino]

When was the last time that a Canadian PM testified under oath at a Parliament committee for potential illegal activity by the PMO? Did the PM testify for AdScam?

Yes, he did indeed. CTV News

I guess you mean specifically for testifying before a committee? Two US presidents have been impeached (A. Johnson & W. Clinton)

The process was started, but they were both acquitted. Hence, no successful impeachment in US history.

Edited June 11, 2008 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

The process was started, but they were both aquitted. Hence, no successful impeachment in US history.

Impeachment isn't removal from power, it's the process of trying a president (with removal from power being a possible outcome) just like a trial is the process of trying someone who was arrested and accused of a crime. In both instances one can be found guilty or not guilty (ie: aquitted). But if one is arrested and brought to trial and found not guilty, that doesn't mean there wasn't a successful arrest and it's the same with impeachment. Just because both presidents were aquitted doesn't mean there weren't any successful impeachments. Johnson and Clinton were both (successfully) impeached.

[g_bambino]

Impeachment isn't removal from power, it's the process of trying a president (with removal from power being a possible outcome) just like a trial is the process of trying someone who was arrested and accused of a crime. In both instances one can be found guilty or not guilty (ie: aquitted). But if one is arrested and brought to trial and found not guilty, that doesn't mean there wasn't a successful arrest and it's the same with impeachment. Just because both presidents were aquitted doesn't mean there weren't any successful impeachments. Johnson and Clinton were both (successfully) impeached.

Oh, I see; thank you for explaining that. In that case, what I meant was: an impeachment has never carried through to a president's dismissal, whereas many Canadian PMs have lost the right to govern because they lost the confidence of the House of Commons.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, I see; thank you for explaining that. In that case, what I meant was: an impeachment has never carried through to a president's dismissal, whereas many Canadian PMs have lost the right to govern because they lost the confidence of the House of Commons.

True, but the threat of impeachment forced President Nixon to resign (Watergate). Hence the anti-Clinton slogan...

....."At Least Nixon Resigned"

[Guest American Woman]

Oh, I see; thank you for explaining that. In that case, what I meant was: an impeachment has never carried through to a president's dismissal, whereas many Canadian PMs have lost the right to govern because they lost the confidence of the House of Commons.

You're welcome-- and I thought that was what you meant. It can be a bit confusing-- a lot of people think impeachment means removal from office.