Wexler to McClellan: Come on down

May 30, 2008

Given that the Bush White House prefers to pretend that the co-equal branch at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue doesn’t really exist (or, at a minimum, its oversight authorities don’t really exist), members of Congress are rarely aware of what folks in the West Wing are up to. It’s why there’s near constant talk of subpoenas — administration officials don’t want to share information or stop by the Hill to answer questions, they love the notion of executive privilege, and the legislative branch, at least since January 2007, takes oversight seriously.

It’s no wonder, then, that Scott McClellan is suddenly viewed by lawmakers as a wealth of information.

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.

“The administration has always called for different kinds of privileges to avoid their officials testifying, but because Mr. McClellan has put all this information in a book, these privileges, I do not believe, would be available to the administration, so we would have a free flow of information,” Wexler said. […]

Wexler said he did not know whether McClellan would fight a subpoena to testify before the committee, but suggested that any White House claims that McClellan should be barred from testifying due to executive privilege would be invalid because McClellan had put much of the information in the public domain with book and multiple television appearances.

McClellan has not yet indicated whether he’s willing to testify, though I have a hunch he’d be delighted — the publicity for his book would be awesome.

What’s more, this isn’t just a passing fancy. Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.), another House Judiciary Committee member, has endorsed Wexler’s idea, and Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) indicated today that his staff was poised to begin discussions with McClellan about possible testimony, specifically (but not limited to) on his understanding of events surrounding the Plame leak scandal.

And what about the White House?

In today’s press briefing, Dana Perino suggested the White House could put a stop to this.

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.

Not surprisingly, this isn’t about classified information, but rather, executive privilege — which might apply, even if McClellan were willing to appear voluntarily.

I’ll keep you posted.

So why is wexler asking little scotty for a blow job? Has he gotten off his knees in front of dur chimpfurher?

I will believe this is more than puffery when I see meaningful action.

  • My God, what great political theatre that would be. McClellan, willing and able to testify, the administration denying him that right… and then what? Should McClellan possess the grit to buck a Bush edict, would he be subject to arrest? And by whom, and where? On the steps of Capital Hill? Within the Capital itself? And should the issue be fast tracked to the Supremes, and they in turn support the administration, then what? Our Republic would be rendered unrecognizable. The pressure to impeach those on the Court who overturned it would be tremendous, perhaps overwhelming.

    To quote Stonewall Jackson during the battle of Chancellorville: “Delicious excitement”.

  • Just curious about law and process….

    What if McClellan is subpoened and agrees to testify. The president says “not!” because of executive privilege. McClellan vows to testify anyway.Congress is legally compelling him to testify and the President is compelling not to. Does McClellan determine the “winner” by his actions?

    Speaking of which… I assume a future Congress (i.e. next Congress) could compel other folks like Rove, Miers, et. al. to testify. Would executive privilege still hold? And assuming there is a different A.G., what would Justice do?

  • Bush will clearly play the “national security” card—if for no other reason that this demented, delusional excuse for a president believes himself to be the Nation itself, and Scotty’s testimony is a clear and present danger to that president, being a danger of impeachment; a dander of criminal prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment; a danger of no presidential legacy, no presidential pension, no presidential library, and probably not even a position with his favorite network, given that FauxNews will never be given permission to build a broadcast studio in either a Federal prison or the Hague.

    If I was McClellan, I’d cut a quiet deal with Congress and testify during off-hours—in, as Mr. Cheney would say, an “undisclosed location.” I understand that Canada isn’t too far away. How expensive would it be to move the Committee, McClellan, and a small media contingent to Montreal or Toronto? Videotape the hearing up there, and then broadcast them into the public domain here.

    What’s Bush going to do—issue an executive order to back up time itself? Once it’s all hanging out in the open for everyone to see, it’ll be pretty obvious that “the Chimperor has no clothes….”

  • McClellan was asked today whether he would be willing to testify before Congress (I think it was Wolf Blitzer), and his answer was less than enthusiastic. My recollection is that he said that all his opinions are already in the book.

    but suggested that any White House claims that McClellan should be barred from testifying due to executive privilege would be invalid because McClellan had put much of the information in the public domain with book and multiple television appearances

    And how would this be different from all the time Karl Rove has been speaking on various subjects including the runup to the war?

  • Hrmmmm….just how can the WH prevent Scotty M from testifying on “executive privilege” grounds when He has said (courtesy of EmptyWheel) in a post chat:

    Manchester, Conn.: Scoot, earlier you mentioned White House review of “privilege” issues. Were any subjects omitted because of those concerns? If so, what were those subjects?

    Scott McClellan: No. They can only prevent me from printing classified national security information. I listened to what they had to say about issues of executive privilege and made the decision to keep things the way I had written them.

    Apparently they had no qualms about his book, but testifying for Congress would be a no no? Of course the congressional testimony may try to go beyond the bounds of the book.

    Also…so far the WH has brought up executive privilege when reluctant witnesses were subpoenaed to testify, but do they have any legal power to prevent a person willing to testify? Like the WH has ignored congresses’ subpoenas, could Scottie just ignore any claims the WH has over EP?

  • Just happy this takes the Bush administration down another peg. Not many more left. I just hope we have some people keeping a close eye on the Iran business so Bush can’t wag the dog to cover his butt.

  • And what about the White House?

    Maybe they will insist on the same “system” they are planning for the Guantanamo show trials. McClellan can testify as long as he’s in a sound proof booth with an audio feed that can be interrupted at the will of the “censor”. In case he blurt out some secret that is “vital to national security”, like saying “I was tortured in Korea!”

    Because we can’t have the testimony vary from the script, now can we? So imagine when this gets underway, how is the censor going to know when KSM or McClellan might blurt out the “dangerous evidence?” I can imagine some paranoid agent hitting the button every few seconds. Sounds so like an old Three Stooges routine…

  • Slightly OT: McClellan is being attacked as being out of the loop, that he didn’t have the access necessary to draw the conclusions he has drawn.

    Assuming this is true, wouldn’t that apply to all other press secretaries? They are just mouthpieces which don’t have sufficient information to even know if what they are saying is true.

    Wouldn’t this be worse? Dana?

  • as mentioned in 10…. If he was ‘out of the loop’ , then, what is the problem with him testifying?

  • Yeah, and check your car before turning the key…

    Any chance you can tell us who Gannon spent the night with at the White House?

    C’mon… tell us…. you know you want to.

    • Comments are closed.