McClellan to Testify in Valerie Plame Leaks Probe

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:16:51 PM EST
Tags: Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Scott McClellan (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on June 20th about the leak of Valerie Plame's identity.

He will be asked about Dick Cheney's role.

President Bush's former spokesman, Scott McClellan, will testify before a House committee next week about whether Vice President Dick Cheney ordered him to make misleading public statements about the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

In his new book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," McClellan said he was misled by others, possibly including Cheney, about the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the leak. McClellan has said publicly that Bush and Cheney "directed me to go out there and exonerate Scooter Libby."

McClellan is represented by Michael Tigar and his wife, Jane Tigar. Doesn't get much better than that. (Update: Jason Leopold has more on McClellan at the Public Record.)

< The Price of Police Misconduct | Va. Gov. Halts Execution, Commutes Death Sentence >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McClellan to Testify in Valerie Plame Leaks Probe | 67 comments (67 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Wow...Scottie... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:17:49 PM EST

This is big.

I hope so! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:18:29 PM EST

What can the committee do to Cheney without a paper trail though?


: true... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:24:47 PM EST

he is allergic to memos, isn't he?

: A sternly written letter, maybe? n/t (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:36:51 PM EST

Not So Fast (5.00 / 4) (#52)
by talex on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:12:09 PM EST

We all know what is coming!

'Scottie is a pedophile, a crack head, a disgruntled employee, and has an unmentionable fascination with animals and don't forget he has a book to sell. Besides that we know he lies because he lied for us every day. Uh, attorneys said to scratch that last sentence' -

Yours truly,

GW Bush & Dick Cheney


Jeralyn, your Photoshop skills (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:24:20 PM EST

have reached new heights with that Humpty Dumpty Scotty graphic. It's good that you copyrighted it (as a lawyer would know to do:-).

agreed, extremely classy (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:29:52 PM EST

I believe "CL" does the actual artwork.. (none / 0) (#8)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:34:08 PM EST

: Ah, I was recalling Jeralyn's comments (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:13:27 PM EST

on her helpful state maps for which she did the work in the primaries.
But to whomever did the work, thanks for the laugh.:-)

Love the egg (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:24:21 PM EST

So he is going to fall off the wall. Cool. Let's hope he does not change his tune by the time he gets there.

Hope To See Some Fireworks (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:24:23 PM EST

Although, I am not holding my breath.

yup. No sense getting all red-in-the-face (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by scribe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:00:44 PM EST

over Scotty-Dumpty and hoping he comes clean. He won't - Emptywheel's doing her usual bang-up job (four posts today already!) pointing out how he's still covering for Bushie.

It's kinda sad to see Gonzo-Dumpty go but, if reports are to be believed, he got himself a job more in line with his skills, if not experience - as what looks to be a glorified law clerk to a retired judge who's the special master in a patent law case.

That's not to say it won't be demanding, as patent cases are notoriously document intensive. But, it's not nearly what the former Attorney General of The United States usually gets. It's still spelled "s-i-n-e-c-u-r-e" to me.


: That Emptywheel.. (none / 0) (#27)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:21:36 PM EST

It is clear that McClellan wrote the book for $$$$ only and is still not to be trusted. And who would buy the book it if the title was something like:
Totally Ridiculous, The WH Leak? Never.

Great way to sell books. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by wurman on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:37:24 PM EST

Only if everything he says is (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:05:53 PM EST

exactly the same as he wrote in the book.


: Perhaps he can have a 10-page (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by wurman on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:12:07 PM EST

prepared statement, with crib notes on the flip side--just in case???

Um, Scotty, Be careful. You're going up against (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Angel on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:37:33 PM EST

the big boys, the schoolyard bullies.

What are the practical implications? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by indy in sc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:39:03 PM EST

This definitely sounds big, but I wonder how big it will turn out to be (particularly within the confines of the current administration). I'm interested to know what folks around here think will actually happen. In other words, say McClellan's testimony is that Cheney lied and ordered McClellan to lie. It doesn't seem that he is going to have much by way of proof--failing corroboration. I realize that the committee could launch a full scale investigation or recommend that it be turned over to an independent special prosecutor. How likely do we think that is to happen? What other fall out might there be?

: Nada (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:42:01 PM EST

But one can only hope....

Whoooeeee...now you are talking!! (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:41:55 PM EST

Hoping there will be some serious skewering going on...

There is no proof (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:52:20 PM EST

Only hearsay. Sure it will make for great political drama but it won't go anywhere.

I wish they could prosecute Cheney (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:00:18 PM EST

for treason, and then make him walk the plank after he's convicted.

He's the most disgusting member of this entire administration.

Now, just where did Pelosi put impeachment when (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:11:47 PM EST

she took it off the table?

i am biting my tongue (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:13:10 PM EST

: You didn't go there. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by wurman on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:16:52 PM EST

And it didn't go there either.

Indubitably good for book sales too. (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:14:35 PM EST

Hope He Contributes (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:23:43 PM EST

To Waxman or Conyers election fund, or whatever. Because he is cashing in and this is going to give him a boost.


OH, but Rush says he will soon be a pariah, (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:51:28 PM EST

so I suppose he'll need the money himself.


Really? (none / 0) (#42)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:56:24 PM EST

Well then Rush should get a tip as well, for shilling for pooooooor Scotty the pariah . My guess is that the book was published with a nod and a wink from Bush himself.

Sheer arrogance.


You might consider changing your (none / 0) (#44)
by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:59:30 PM EST

screen name to "saccastic unnamed one II"!

Don't tell me you sceptical of WH claim BUsh hasn't the time or inclinaton to read the book.


: Why? (none / 0) (#65)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:50:39 PM EST

I am not being sarcastic in the least. I just do not trust McClellan and believe that he is doing no damage to BushCo. According to emptywheel, who has read the book, he is still lying/protecting Bush, claiming that he did not know stuff that obviously he did, and also getting some cash.

I love the image of (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by pie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:23:59 PM EST

Humpty McClellan.

I'm less than impressed with anything that slams the Bush administration at this point. Been there. Done that.

I don't think people understand or care that this should have been an issue in 2004. Unfortunately, Kerry has turned out to be a putz.

I get more disillusioned every day.

: hey (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:15:19 PM EST

we ARE sympatico!
Yeah, Bush bashing really doesn't do it for me. It's kind of like beating a dead horse.
If Kerry had won I think he might have done something since he had a background as a prosecutor. A part time lecturer in constitutional law probably won't look into this kind of stuff imo.

sorry....2009 (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by gnipgnop on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:30:47 PM EST

oops

and how many other skeletons in the WH closet?

A historic event... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by Addison on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:40:22 PM EST

Wait, does this mean there will be a Congressional hearing where someone actually can recall something? Historic.

: I don't recall that ever happening. (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by Y Knot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:42:52 PM EST

:)

On A Related Note (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:52:53 PM EST

And a testament to Scotty's continued dishonesty:

"McClellan wrote that WHIG was not used to 'deliberately mislead the public' but that the 'more fundamental problem was the way [Bush's] advisers decided to pursue a political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people.'"

Walter Pincus then proceeds to take us down memory lane:

Two days later, WHIG's product placement was on display. It began with a front-page story in the Times describing Iraq's clandestine purchase of aluminum tubes that, the story said, could be used to produce weapons-grade uranium. The story said that information came from "senior administration officials."......

more via Laura Rozen

Not looking so good Scotty...

The only thing anyone has to do (none / 0) (#41)
by pie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:54:53 PM EST

is prove wrongdoing.

Easy!


Even Before That (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:00:46 PM EST

They have to investigate. The part I left out of the Pincus article was that Rocky and his Intelligence committee still has not even looked into WHIG's activities, to this day.

There is an important line in last week's Senate intelligence committee report on the Bush administration's prewar exaggerations of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. It says that the panel did not review "less formal communications between intelligence agencies and other parts of the Executive Branch."
More important, there was no effort to obtain White House records or interview President Bush, Vice President Cheney or other administration officials whose speeches were analyzed because, the report says, such steps were considered beyond the scope of the report.

WaPo


: Wait a minute: (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by pie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:06:07 PM EST

More important, there was no effort to obtain White House records or interview President Bush, Vice President Cheney or other administration officials
Huh? No efforts to obtain records?
Surely, you jest.

: You'e dreaming. (none / 0) (#47)
by pie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:03:48 PM EST

Nothing's going to happen.

As much as I would like there to finally (5.00 / 5) (#58)
by Anne on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:17:57 PM EST

be some accountability, I have to say that after watching/listening to a number of hearings that I thought might expose the wrongdoing that had occurred or was occurring on a number of levels, and might actually lead somewhere, I am feeling pretty indifferent to the news that McClellan is going to appear befire the House Judiciary Committee.

The only thing that might be interesting is seeing whether the Republicans on the committee will go after him for his extreme disloyalty, or do what they usually do - just not show up.

McClellan isn't going before them to reveal anything earth-shattering - in fact, I am waiting for the WH to inform the committee that while McClellan can appear, executive privilege will be invoked and prevent McClellan from testifying about any of his conversations or communications with Bush or Cheney. This WH has abused the privilege time and again, but that won't stop them and niether Conyers in the House or Leahy in the Senate will be able to do anything more stern than write a letter. Oh, the fear...

If I thought the first 6 years of the Bush administration had made me cynical and jaded, the last two have taken it to a new level.

Sorry I cannot (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by txpolitico67 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:21:54 PM EST

get all excited about this. The Plame case is what got me involved in the blogosphere and got me to blogging. I was posting up to 5 times a day during this fiasco hoping for the "frog marching of Rove" and the impeachment hearings of Bush/Cheney.

But since Spicoli, er, Pelosi took impeachment off the table, nuthinz gonna happen here.

Executive Privilege? (none / 0) (#15)
by santarita on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:52:47 PM EST

Will WH allow him to testify on anything of interest?

Does he know anything of interest?

Did Fitz depose him? I cant' imagine Fitz not following any and every scrap of evidence.

Karl Rove responded to the book (none / 0) (#18)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:01:52 PM EST

for a couple of days on the release of Scott's book making sure he reminded the country that "we now know that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak".

No matter what is found on Cheney, even if it can be proven, that man does not believe anything he does is wrong.

Gosh (none / 0) (#20)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:07:25 PM EST

I wish this stuff had come out when it could have made a difference. At this point and time I just can't get too excited about this.

Anyway, this is OT but it seems Hillarycrats have some compatriots over in the GOP. I was reading one conservative blog and their base is getting the same treatment Hillary supporters are---you must, must vote for McCain!!! Judges!!!Quit the hysteria(even those the people declining to vote are completely rational etc.)!!!!Obama is a danger!!! These voters are getting the "you must submit" sledgehammer of unity too.

: I souldhave read your comment (none / 0) (#30)
by pie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:26:02 PM EST

first.
We're sympatico.

come Jan 2008... (none / 0) (#31)
by gnipgnop on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:27:16 PM EST

if he is President, McCain will sweep this all away for his luv buddy GW

Sweep what away? (none / 0) (#33)
by pie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:35:04 PM EST

Anything and everything (none / 0) (#36)
by Y Knot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:42:05 PM EST

War crimes, spying on U.S. citizens, torture, corruption charges, the exposing a covert CIA operative, firing U.S. Attorneys for political purposes, falsifying evidence... all the things we think he's done for the past eight years, but we can't get him on currently because the White House is stone-walling, and Congress seems powerless to force a confrontation.

That was off the top of my head. I'm sure I forgot a few.


Oh yeah (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:58:51 PM EST

And Pelosi etal have done exactly what about this stuff? Nothing right? What is Obama going to do about this stuff? Probably nothing either because apparently the Dems don't really see this stuff as important.


I said nothing (none / 0) (#48)
by Y Knot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:05:00 PM EST

about who would do what. Honestly, I don't know. Pie asked a question, and I replied.

One would hope that with a Democratic White House and a strongly Democratic Congress, we'd finally get some answers, but to my knowledge, no one is talking about that.

I'm not exactly a big fan of Pelosi. Nor Harry Reid. Henry Waxman's the bomb, though. Go Henry.


: Okay (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:11:21 PM EST

I got what you were saying wrong. I apologize. I thought you were implying that all of a sudden all these things would be examined. Honestly, I get the impression that Obama really doesn't want to go there. He's all talk about things but when the rubber hits the road he disappears.

: I'll be gobsmacked (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by pie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:18:37 PM EST

if we ever get any answers or anyone in the Bush administration pays for wrongdoing that someone wants to prove in a court of law.
The only issues important in American politics are affairs and gay relationships.

Obama (none / 0) (#61)
by mmc9431 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:54:04 PM EST

Obama has stated that he will ask his AG to look into the various allegations and if the AG finds criminal intent, he will act on it. I don't see how you would be able to prove criminal intent on this stuff. Plus in his effort to show his unity platform off, I just don't see Obama wanting to pursue any of this.


No kidding. (none / 0) (#62)
by pie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:01:31 PM EST

I just don't see Obama wanting to pursue any of this.

Of course, he won't.
(Hillary would'nt have either, btw.)

You certainly could prove criminal intent if records could be released. But his AG wouldn't go there anyway if Obama actually wins in November. Bush will be gone.


Isn't incumbent (none / 0) (#67)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:02:54 AM EST

upon congress to do something now, before the election? These investigations take years, Obama is responsible as a senator to work with the rest of the body to investigate, but he ain't the prez and it is silly to expect him to attack on this. He needs to spend all of his efforts on defeating McCain and convincing Hillary's supporters that he has answers on the economy, war, climate etc. Thus far there is about 20-30% of her supporters that are waiting to hear from him on these very topics. Bush is gone and it is a waste of political energy for O to take this on, but Jay Rockefeller might twist a few arms and make some things happen...


: Yes Might (none / 0) (#68)
by squeaky on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:32:19 AM EST

If he were not such jello.

but Jay Rockefeller might twist a few arms and make some things happen...
Not that I want to give him any credit, but given the fact that no republicans will cooperate, and when it comes down to it we do not have the numbers to break the lockstep collusion, there is little he can do.

You funny. (none / 0) (#40)
by pie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:53:18 PM EST

: Yes, actually, I am. (none / 0) (#50)
by Y Knot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:06:41 PM EST

Very kind of you to notice.

Neither will do anything (none / 0) (#60)
by mmc9431 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:33:36 PM EST

I don't believe anything will come of any of the WH scadals, CIA outing, torture, politicizing DOJ and all other dept,illegal wire tapping, lying for war, d#mn the list could go on for pages! (Makes Monica sound like chump change)

Obama has said he will have AG look into it for criminal intent. With his unity pitch, I just don't see him willing to go along with any investigations. He will be like Ford and want to heal the nation. Actually I don't think McCain would shed a tear to see all of them on the dock!


: Obama says a lot of things (none / 0) (#66)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:35:49 PM EST

that have nothing but hot air propelling them out of his mouth.

This is big... (none / 0) (#46)
by rdandrea on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:01:24 PM EST

...if it's not a perjury trap. I'd be most interested in Jeralyn's analysis of what is the possible downside to McClellan. I'm not talking about the committee here, I'm talking about what the Justice Department can do on its own about a potential whisleblower.

Is there a subpoena? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by wurman on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:15:06 PM EST

Will Mr. McClellan be under oath?

Can he submit a written statement in advance & then NOT be questioned on the material covered by the submission?

There have been several such tricks used in years past when real Dems were after real bad guys.

This is probably just political theater, though, because nothing will happen before Jan 2009.


: Report says "under oath." (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by wurman on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:16:56 PM EST

: And the odds (none / 0) (#56)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:16:36 PM EST

of something even happening after Jan 2009 are pretty slim.

So what? (none / 0) (#64)
by diogenes on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:26:58 PM EST

Cheney tells a press secretary to lie or to protect Libby? Lots of politicians do that. Isn't that what a press secretary is for? Clinton's press secretaries didn't exactly go out there and tell the truth about Monica Lewinsky, after all.
And why exactly wasn't Armitage indicted if this is really Plamegate?
Having seen Bill Clinton's presidency ruined by a perjury trap, why should anyone want to legitimize using them with Obama coming to power?