McClellan: "I Have Accepted"
Christine Delargy is a CBS News researcher based in Washington, D.C.
CBS News confirmed today that President Bush’s former spokesman Scott McClellan will accept an invitation to testify on Capitol Hill next week about the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity.
McClellan tells CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante, “I have accepted. I am happy to share what I know.”
House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich, asked McClellan to testify after he claimed in his new book: “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” that he was mislead about Scooter Libby’s role in the leak by Vice President Dick Cheney and others in the Bush Administration.
McClellan’s book has caused quite the stir inside the Beltway and in the media. McClellan spoke with Katie at the beginning of his book release frenzy about his time in the White House Press office - and what he knew during "Plame-gate." You can watch their interview by clicking here.
Conyers asked McClellan to testify next Friday, June 20.
Of course, a few more questions remain. Will President Bush – if he is able to – exert executive privilege to stop his former spokesman’s testimony? Will McClellan say anything he hasn’t already gone over in his book? We'll be on top of the story – so check back to stay up on the latest.
(AP)
McClellan tells CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante, “I have accepted. I am happy to share what I know.”
House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich, asked McClellan to testify after he claimed in his new book: “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” that he was mislead about Scooter Libby’s role in the leak by Vice President Dick Cheney and others in the Bush Administration.
McClellan’s book has caused quite the stir inside the Beltway and in the media. McClellan spoke with Katie at the beginning of his book release frenzy about his time in the White House Press office - and what he knew during "Plame-gate." You can watch their interview by clicking here.
Conyers asked McClellan to testify next Friday, June 20.
Of course, a few more questions remain. Will President Bush – if he is able to – exert executive privilege to stop his former spokesman’s testimony? Will McClellan say anything he hasn’t already gone over in his book? We'll be on top of the story – so check back to stay up on the latest.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 65 CommentsPosted by OneWorldUSA at 08:46 PM : Jun 09, 2008
Yes, we should destroy our nation''s credibility, reputation, armed forces and economy to save Israel. Makes sense to me! (rolls eyes.)
"God Speed Scotty".
Posted by bushliedalot at 09:06 PM : Jun 09, 2008
As I understand it, Rep. Kucinich is introducing articles of impeachment against Bush as I write this.
Posted by roger_inkart at 09:26 PM : Jun 09, 2008
little d!ck needs to go FIRST!!
Posted by actornaught at 09:33 PM : Jun 09, 2008
So do them both. Hey I''m even in favor of doing it the old fashioned way, with torches, pitchforks and a rope.
Posted by SgtRDS-E4 at 09:31 PM : Jun 09, 2008
Is there a lock on nobody getting pardoned if we wait ''til after he''s out of office? I forget the sequence of events on the Iran-Contra related pardons...
"Jenna Bush came to this poor, landlocked South American country to take part in a UNICEF program for young professionals who volunteer in its activities here, the U.N. organization announced Monday. UNICEF released few details about the program involving the 24-year-old daughter of U.S. President George W. Bush, citing security concerns".
These reports suggest the these actions being taken by the Bush Family are in response to the expected War Crime Charges being filed by the International Committee for the Red Cross, and which we had reported on in our October 15, 2005 report titled "War Crimes" Portfolio against United States President, Vice President and Defense Secretary Opened By International Committee of the Red Cross Charging "Crimes Against Humanity".
Shrub''s Back-Up Plan......LMMFAO
Posted by actornaught at 09:37 PM : Jun 09, 2008
The only person who could pardon Bush would be whoever the next president is.
Posted by SgtRDS-E4 at 09:31 PM : Jun 09, 2008
Is there a lock on nobody getting pardoned if we wait ''til after he''s out of office? I forget the sequence of events on the Iran-Contra related pardons...
I was also thinking of w pardoning underlings. Does there have to be charges or some other status before a pardon can be handed out?
Posted by actornaught at 09:42 PM : Jun 09, 2008
Not really. Bush could conceivably issue a blanket pardon for anything a particular person may or may not have done.
Look for that to happen, then, and with unprecedented vagueness. I was hoping the "off the table" strategy would translate into post-term indictments and trials.
"believe"? Where did i say that?
The word was "hoping", as in, "hoping" that the USA will regain some of the respect squandered by w and little d!ck''s boys.
Just like Axelrod is paid to lie for Richard Daly and Barak Obama...ho hum...
It''s what these guys do...ho hum!
Bob Fertik, President of Democrats.com, said: "We''ve waited seven years to find one Member of Congress brave enough to stand up for our Constitution, for which generations of Americans have fought and died. We are thrilled and honored that Dennis Kucinich has chosen to be that one genuine patriot. We congratulate him on his historic leadership, and pledge to do everything in our power to persuade Congress to adopt all 35 Articles and put George W. Bush on trial before the Senate of the United States, exactly as the Founding Fathers wanted".
And Nancy, sit down and ****!!!
To vnveteran72 -
First, a member of the administration (I cant'' remember the name at the moment) has admitted that he inadvertantly disclosed Valerie Plame''s identity. There was no conspiracy involved. Of course, this does no meet the needs of the Democrats, so it is ignored.
Second, do you have any idea of what constitutes "treason"? Apparently not. Even if we were to accept that Valerie Plame''s identity was intentionally disclosed, unless it can be shown that (1) it was directly disclosed to an agent of a foreign power with the express intent of damaging the United States, and that (2) the disclosure was witnessed by two (2) independent witnesses, then a charge of treason can not be brought. Since none of these requirements can be met, further discussion is nothing more than an exercise in futility.
Posted by jbaker314 at 10:23 PM : Jun 09, 2008
Luckily, we have courts to make these decisions, and don''t leave it up to w''s memory impaired fan base.
To actornaught -
Richard Armitage was the name I could not immediately recall. He has admitted that he disclosed Valerie Plame''s name to both Robert Novak and to Bob Woodward about three (3) weeks before Novak''s column appeared. Fitzgerald conducted an extensive investigation and concluded that Armitage was unaware of Plame''s covert status. Accordingly, Armitage was not charged with a crime.
And President Bush has no fan base here.
So, would anyone care to try to layout a legally consistent argument for impeachment based upon the Valerie Plame case?
Can you?
Probably not...
Posted by jbaker314 at 10:23 PM : 6/09/08
-------------------
My response:
1.Circumstantial evidence alone indicates that there were more people than Scooter Libby involved in this act of treason! THAT, by definition, indicates it WAS a conspiracy!
2. THIS, unfortunately is not convenient for the GOP, Bush or Cheney, or YOU---as you''re trying to defend their actions!
3. Your LEGAL definition of treason may or may not be correct, I doubt it! If it is, it''s to protect scum like Libby,Bush, and Cheney---and needs to be changed!
4. But, there''s also a moral, ethical component of treason, and any human being with an ounce of morality/ethics in his/her soul, KNOWS that the outing of Valerie Pflame WAS an act of treason!
5. That Republicans don''t understand it---because they''re the offenders---surprises NO one!
1. it will be interesting to see how much "truth" McClellan is willing to state. And---
2. I hope this and a whole series of these testimonies occur up to and beyond election day to remind the public that they have experienced the most corrupt political party---GOP---in American history the past 14 years!
I am simply stating what the constitution and the law provide.
If you disagree with the provisions, they you should seek to get an amendment offered to the States.
To stn_sage -
The defnition of treason can be found in Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
You should try reading it sometime.
Reading, as opposed to pontificating, can be very educational.
Posted by jbaker314 at 11:19 PM : 6/09/08
-------------
My response:
Unlike some here, I an neither defending nor attacking anyone.
(yr comment)
C''mon jbaker, have the courage of your convictions! OBCOURSE, you''re defending them, nearly all that read this ''board'' knows that!
I have read the Constitution and contents therein, and I shall reread, but it won''t change my challenge to it!
You are aware that the Bill of Rights and supplemental Federal law over the last approx 221 years have altered & refined the Constitution, aren''t you?!
Finally, your last two statements,
that I should try reading it, and that can be educational as opposed to pontificating on it, contradicts your claim that YOU are not attacking anyone!
You, sir, are a crass, hypocritical coward! But, I hope some of my ''lecture'' seeped into your hard head! Regards!
Now if we can just get Nancy to ****!!!.....
Can you?
Probably not...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by jbaker314
Fortunately, you are neither defense attorney nor judge. I''ll wait for the charges to be brought up and watch it played out by pros who know what they''re talking about.
In Ex Part Bollman (1807), the Court ruled that there must be an actual assembling of men to constitute "levying war" against the United States.
In Cramer vs. United States (1945), the Court overturned the conviction of Anthony Cramer, a German-born naturalized citizen. In this case, the Court found that the prosecution had proven that an association existed between Cramer and a saboteur, but not that Cramer had provided "aid and comfort" as required by the Constitution for conviction for treason.
In the entire history of the United States, five (5) people have been convicted of treason at the federal level, and two (2) at the state level.
You call on me to have the courage of my convictions. I operate on evidence, the constitution, and the law. I do not subscribe to condemnations based on opinion and inuendo.
If admissible evidence is brought forward against any person, I will not hesitate to give full weight to that evidence.
You may feel that my comment about pontificating was an attack. It was not intended that way, but merely to express my recommendation that a little more thought about the issue is in order.
Nothing in the Valerie Plame case can come close to meeting even the most rudimentary requirements of a charge of treason.
There are many thing not to like about the current administration.
There were many things not to like about each of the preceding eight (8) administrations, all the way back to Kennedy.
I will not address the excesses of administrations before my time.
As for your trailing commentary, I have stood up for my convictions in the public square, and in the service of my country.
Coward? I think not.
Posted by jbaker314 at 12:32 AM : 6/10/08
------------
1. I suspect you subscribe to whatever is convenient for you to do so at the time---to support or discredit a case!
2. I do not believe for a munute that you would make an unbiased decision, but a partisan political one!
3. Your comment about pontificating WAS an attack against me, and you know it!
4. We''ll see WHAT charges come from the Pflame case in the future---I suspect it will be buried!
5. The posters on this board, specifically ME, are addressing the ''excesses'' of Bush, NOT 8 administrations in the past! Your vain attempt to take the limelight off Bush by focusing on others is cowardly.
6. I hope your public service was meritorious and didn''t further the criminal behavior of anyone!
But, finally I say again, you are a coward. You have a political point of view, you insinuate it, but won''t openly defend the actions of Bush, because YOU KNOW there is NO defence for what he has DONE! Hence, no courage for your convictions.
Will we know who votes FOR and
AGAINST?
And wouldn''t all site boards
have a ball with the list of
those voting no?
This could drop a lot of drawers
revealing other than boxer shorts.
GO DENNIS !!!
Afterall, THEY are the ones constantly talking about how govt needs to be more ''transparent''!
Although, they apply that to the Bush admin, and not so much toward themselves!
By having the vote, it would make it even easier to know who to vote out of office in November!
And it isn''t just Reps that need to go, either! Congress would be better off if
Nancy Pelosi went back to California!
posted by stn_sage
It will never happen. Republicans won''t vote against their guy (or want to go on record as voting "for" him and thus, condoning Bush''s offenses). Democrats don''t want to vote against Bush as they are afraid it will look like revenge for Bill Clinton.
Essentially, the (bogus) impeachment of Clinton has forever ruined impeachment as a tool to oust a bad president. They can now literally get away with murder.
Posted by Rafterman1 at 06:04 AM :
6/10/08
------------
My response:
1. I agree, I doubt any such vote will take place.
2. I agree that the Dems are worried about ''how it might look''!
They need to sprout a backbone and go after Bush because it''s the moral/ethical correct thing to do. To bring this criminal to justice!
3. We better hope that impeachment as a tool is NOT lost for all time!
If it is, we might NOT ever have a relatively honest president ever again.
In the same year a "Black" man becomes the first "Black" candidate to contest the general elections?
Life just cannot get that good, can it? Can one have a fatal attack of "feel good by non chemical events?"
"Blazng Saddles", and "Star Wars, a New Hope" at the same time, we dare not hope for so much.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 65 Comments