Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan seemed all too pleased to stop by the House this morning to answer questions about the CIA/Plame leak scandal. It’s unlikely McClellan could annoy his ol’ White House buddies anymore than he already has, but he gave it a shot.
A former spokesman for President Bush on Friday said suspicion still surrounds Vice President Dick Cheney’s office because of unanswered questions about the leaking of a CIA operative’s identity.
Scott McClellan also said he could not rule out that Cheney had ordered his former chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, to leak Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity to the press during his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
“I think that Patrick Fitzgerald stated it well when he talked about the cloud that was remaining over the vice president’s office because of Scooter Libby’s actions that led to his conviction on four counts, I guess,” McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee. “But there’s a lot of suspicion there because there are questions that have never been answered, despite the fact that we said at some point we would address these issues…. I do not think the president had any knowledge [of Plame’s identity]. In terms of the vice president, I do not know.”
Moreovoer, McClellan testified that former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card told him that Bush and Cheney wanted McClellan to tell reporters that Libby was not involved in the leak of an undercover CIA agent.
”I was reluctant to do it,” McClellan said. ”I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, ‘Were you involved in this in any way?’ And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not.”
It’s not surprising, then, that McClellan was not supportive of the idea of a Libby pardon. It was surprising, however, to hear McClellan slam Karl Rove.
For those who can’t watch videos online, the clip shows McClellan saying, “Mr. Chairman, I believe that it would signal a special treatment, the same thing that happened with the commutation. And the President has always held a certain standard for a granting pardons, even going back to when he was governor, and I worked for him then. And that is, that the person must first repay his debt to his society, and second, must express remorse for the crimes which he committed. And we have seen neither of that from Scooter Libby at this point.”
Was there much in the way of new information here? Well, not really. But I kind of like to see some of the White House scandals, most notably the Plame leak, made headlines from time to time anyway.
Update: Perhaps I spoke too soon. Roll Call just published an item with some additional insights from the post-lunch portion of the hearing.
Under questioning from Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), former Bush administration spokesman Scott McClellan stated that ex-White House political mastermind Karl Rove would not, in his experience, be a trustworthy witness if he were not placed under oath while talking to lawmakers. […]
Rove has rejected a formal appearance, but has offered to come before lawmakers in private, and without an oath, to tell his side of the story.
At a hearing on Friday into McClellan’s statements in his new book about the Valerie Plame scandal, Rep. Davis asked McClellan, who has known Rove since his days in Texas politics, whether he would trust Rove in the more informal setting. “Based on my own experience, I could not say that I would,” McClellan said.
Davis further queried whether Rove was capable of lying to protect himself from legal jeopardy. The former aide said of the Plame matter: “He certainly lied to me. That’s the only conclusion that I can draw.” As to whether Rove would lie to shield himself from political embarrassment: “I would have to say that he did in my situation, so the answer is yes.” […]
Furthermore, asked by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) which members of the Bush administration should come before Congress to testify on the Plame matter, McClellan pointed to Vice President Cheney and unnamed others below him.
“It would be a benefit if they shared everything they know, and it would be a benefit if they did it under oath,” he stated.