Scottie to Conyers: It’s a Date!!
According to Roll Call, Conyers has cordially invited Scottie McC for an HJC chat on June 20 (h/t egregious).
"I have extended an invitation to Mr. McClellan to testify before the Judiciary Committee after discussions between Committee staff and his attorneys," Conyers said. "In his book, Mr. McClellan suggests that senior White House officials may have obstructed justice and engaged in a cover-up regarding the Valerie Plame leak. This alleged activity could well extend beyond the scope of the offenses for which Scooter Libby has been convicted and deserves further attention."
I’d better get working on my Scottie McC series, huh?
Update: Scottie says, "it’s a date!"
McClellan will testify publicly and under oath before the House Judiciary Committee on June 20 about the White House’s role in the leak and its response, his attorneys, Michael and Jane Tigar, said on Monday.
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."
Fred Fucking Fielding is at the word processor right now, as we speak, cranking out the assertion of executive privilege letter.
What would happen if Scottie tells Freddy to stuff it?
The privilege belongs to the White House, not McClellan; so if it is even close to being applicable, I would expect the Congress to honor it’s assertion or, alternatively, to agree to litigate the issue befor requiring an answer from McClellan. I don’t really know if Fielding will do that, sure wouldn’t surprise me though. Would be an interesting position since they let McClellan publish his book which could be argued as a waiver, at least as to anything specifically in the book.
Yeah, I don’t buy that they’ll invoke EP–or at least get away with it.
They TRIED TO invoke EP with Scottie before he published. He considered their arguments and published it anyway.
I rather suspect he’ll do what Comey did (also on an invitation, not a subpoena), and go testify.
Well, I was kind of joking with the initial comment. But it was my understanding that although they had a couple of displeasures, there were no EP problems that the WH had with what was published. He can go even if ordered not to; however, if there was a formal EP invocation made by the WH, I don’t think the Congress would take the testimony until the dispute was resolved by either court or negotiated agreement. To the best of my understanding, that is how things work there, but i could be wrong.
As WO reports, Scottie has said yes. So away we go.
And the WH would look pretty silly doing any blanket EP claim after permitting the book to roll out. More likely that, if they do anything at all (which as you point out, they may well not), that Fielding or his top assistant sits in on the hearing and makes verbal motions when and where he feels he must. I fully admit I am no expert on any of this though, so take it all with a grain of salt.
Remember Monica Goodling, sitting there at the witness table with her Minder sitting close by? Didn’t keep her from admitting a few things that her Minder would have counseled her if he had known what was about to come out of her mouth.
Bob in HI
Go McClellan, make believers out of some us. Give us hope that there was someone within the Bush administration whose integrity and belief in the law rises above this hypocritical and dangerous loyalty that some feel towards these criminals
Thanks. It’s 95 degrees and I’m having a nice cold Corona loving
every minute of this thread.
Reyonold had two doubles and I dinger for 8 total bases, although
the D’backs lost…
You bet, though it’d be interesting for the Committee to parse McC’s words, using Marcy’s blog as a template, and force Freddy to object to each and every question.
Oh, goodie. Can we get Conyers to fold this into an impeachment hearing? With it’s greater powers of subpoena that can’t be slapped aside so easily.
Bob in HI
Scottie says yes.
has congressman conyers consulted with any experts we might be familiar with ???
if not, why not
EW only talks to them on airplanes….
anybody got an airplane we could borrow ???
Bravo — but more importantly, Brava! to EW.
bmaz @ 8:
But how would that situation differ from, eg, Sara Taylor’s? Granted, that was an exceptionally painful performance (”I have a letter …”), but she did turn up, and McClellan would presumably be much more useful than she was.
Assuming I have this right (and I really am not sure i do) the WH counsel would simply be present at the hearing and formally invoke EP on any subject that he felt specifically necessary. There is no validity that I have been able to discern in ordering subjects not to appear; however once the subject is there, the privilege should belong to the WH, not the witness. So, if they properly and legally assert it, the Congress will give it deference until such time as resolved by a court or negotiated agreement with the WH,
and the President can decline to exert the privilege on january 20th, 2009, right ???
there’s the flaw in this “executive privilege” stuff
RICO has a 10 year status of limitation
You know, it just occured to me that I don’t understand where or how Fielding will fit in once Bush is out of office. Fielding is WH counsel, not Bush’s private counsel.
If there is a new President, to what extent can that President direct revelations by Fielding vis a vis actions taken by Fielding as WH Counsel? And to what extent would Fielding be barred or have conflicts in representing Bush individually once he is ex-President.
I have no clue, just struck me off the cuff.
Good for McClellan to say he’ll show up. Now we can see what happens when and if the WH tries to intervene and if so, if McClellan makes them do it the right way – unlike everyone else like Miers who have acted as if THEY can assert privilege for the WH instead of making the WH actually show up at the hearings via counsel and assert on a question per question basis, like the 5th.
My personal hope is that Conyers does two things re: Fitzgerald before that goes by the bye. First, that he requests from Fitzgerald a copy of the letter to Rove that Luskin has been so reluctant to release. How can a letter between Fitzgerald and Luskin be privileged or classified in any way? Second, that he clear the decks by following up on Fitzgerald’s many references to the fact that his mandate could have been modified at will with questions on whether or not it was ever so modified, whether or not there would have been any requirment to disclose such a modification to Congress if one were made, and if there was no requirement to disclose modifications beyond the public appointment, how Congress could be satisfied in future cases (including the pending case) that there would not be secret modifications.
I think those matters need to be laid to rest and that for future matters Congress needs to realize the shortcomings of the in-house system if it is going to have to make decisions on deferring its own investigations pending the investigations of a special in-house DOJ prosecutor who may be having their mandate changed at will and behind the scenes. Whether it did or didn’t happen – I think Fitzgerald’s letter makes it clear it could happen and no one at the Congressional level seems much concerned with how to try to fix/address problems with the process vs trying for a gotcha moment here and there.
Thanks, Mary, for your insightful suggestions.
“My personal hope is that Conyers does two things re: Fitzgerald before that goes by the bye. First, that he requests from Fitzgerald a copy of the letter to Rove that Luskin has been so reluctant to release. How can a letter between Fitzgerald and Luskin be privileged or classified in any way?”
That would be a good get!
“Second, that he clear the decks by following up on Fitzgerald’s many references to the fact that his mandate could have been modified at will with questions on whether or not it was ever so modified, whether or not there would have been any requirment to disclose such a modification to Congress if one were made, and if there was no requirement to disclose modifications beyond the public appointment, how Congress could be satisfied in future cases (including the pending case) that there would not be secret modifications.”
This is something Congress MUST revisit, probably in the next Congress. Although if the Republicans have any brains, they’d do it NOW while Democratic control of Congress is still nominal.
The power of impeachment is a sacred part of the balance of powers, IMHO, and short of impeachment, there has to be a good Special Counsel law. The politicization of the DOJ, and the spinelessness of Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership makes it clear that an independent prosecutor is not just a redundant curlicue, but an essential matter.
Bob in HI
10- I think what you are describing is pretty much how it should always go and it’s been frustrating to see so many like Rove and Miers get by with not even showing up and not hearing the questions out – how can the WH claim EP without having a question in front of it? Oh – never mind – I forgot that they own the prosecution.
Wow. wow. keep it coming!! Thank you, thank you to e.w, bmaz, all of you regulars with the knowledge and skill to help us make sense of this. This is getting really good. (or bad-depending on how you look at it).
Hey Marcy you didn’t give Wexler credit for being the sole reason McClellan is appearing before the committee. He has sent out an email saying he was the one who did it:
Wexler and Waxman
Wexler and Waxman and Whitehouse
Wexler and Waxman and Whitehouse
restoring honor to a debased initial.
what punaise said
I don’t understand your adding the WAX MAN & the Good Whitehouse to the list. Wexler is a member of Conyer’s HJC, as well as more of a proponent of impeachment then even Kucinich, and a stolid unsubtle tho effective examiner. Nadler is also on the HJC & controls witnesses better & is more subtle. Davis has shown some real skills & subtlety. But Conveys is no WAX MAN willing to take the heat for shouting down obstruction & with great guile & art in assembling hearings, & no one on the HJC has anything like the crab-like philosophic patience & forebearance of Senator Whitehouse.
But unless we get into joint committee hearings or joint house sittings, which are logistical nightmares & just as importantly NOT PRUDENT given the different roles of the House & the Senate in the process for removing a POTUS, then I’d suggest we think along more creative lines:
IMO, & I expect I’m far from alone in this, there is only one team I know of which would be able to put their heads together over Spot’s book & FBI interviews & make enought out of this hearing that would fit into Wexler’s ambitions: the leader of this blog as forensic archeologist & expert interpretative aide & that government lawyer in Chicago who admits he “owes” Congress the truth.
Short of that, given the press of time, the Beast is going to get away.
High crimes and alliteration?
Well, he doesn’t have to be the one impeached
There’s a whole list of people who seem to come back from the dead in every Republican Admin. and wind up completely screwing up the world
Look at this list from Iran Contra
I didn’t see that as so much a “list” as a line up.
So from what you can see in Sacramento, John: Who would YOU impeach?
I’ll throw out one of the two persons who figure in every Republican election or administration since Nixon took was able to take advantage of turmoil in the Democratic party from the assassinations of MLK & RFK & the Chicago riots & the then-ongoing version of the never-ending War: Rove, who has disqualified himself, & … Dick.
I like that choice.
During one of John Deans visits to FDL I asked him who would be first on his impeachment list. He answered “David Addington”
this article by John Dean on the impeachment of lower level officials who have committed crimes during the last seven years. Deans assertion seems to be impeach these lower level officials so that they are unable to roll back into future administrations as they have for the last 2o or so years.
Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President:
Why Not Have A Realistic Debate, with Charges that Could Actually Result in Convictions?
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, Dec. 15, 2006
the link is not working. At John Dean Findlaw
Just for clarity, conjoining the committees led by Conyers & the WAX MAN is actually relatively easy –
though it’s worthwhile keeping in mind that combining the few bright bulbs on at those two sources also substantially enhances the forces of darkness in the numbers of available wire cutting agents, the consequences of which were evident during that bizarre performance Roger Clemens commanded of Congress.
Inviting Spot to a staff deposition turns down the noise & reduces electoral distractions, but at the expense of the kinds of Handelian fireworks needed to get a clear shot at the Beast before it escapes.
Without a live show I don’t see the Democratic leaders of the House picking up the call to duty:
Some like Hoyer are actively involved in extracting their price for enabling retroactive immunity & such-
Others like Emmanual are laying out breadcrumbs with present & future members in a climb up to the peak-
& the rest like Pelosi have to take so much time to work through all their conflicts of oaths & commitments & campaign funds & other interests & then the implications to party & person – the moment passes & the opportunity is lost.
WAX MAN has done a marvelous job of carving out his claim to the fruits of the efforts of the HJC staff, & that’s good: He moves without fear. Plus it heartens me he & Conyers seem to have worked out a few courtesies to avoid stepping on each others toes.
But the fact remains these outbursts always seem to start with the WAX MAN’s appreciating the significance of some occurrence at the speed of intellect of an emptywheel, throwing out a challenge in the form of a letter or an invitation to a hearing or a subpoena with all the fearless relentlessness characteristic of the pack of hounds at TPM with the smell of blood up their snoots –
just so that Conyers can set the staff gnomes on working towards some ornate gazebo for the Fall Cotillion of quarter-pace waltzes after months later.
There is LOTS TO WORK WITH HERE to nail Karl Rove & get on to the big Game without bothering to wait out the calendar for that least reliable witness ever, Karl Rove.
Conyers drives his committee like someone steering the family bus on a Sunday outing drafting behind every single car in a stock race: not just at less than the speed of law, which could be admirable, but at less than the speed of collegiality, which this is long past.
IMO its absolutely unforegiveable that in such a crisis when perfectly legal & ethical & effective alternatives are available they are not used.
Sen Whitehouse & Congressman Waxman have shown great creativity in getting light shone on this outrage.
But now we need Conyers to step up & do something meaningful here. Otherwise the 110th Congress won’t just go down as an ineffective failure it’ll go down as COMPLICIT.
In the parlance of the world of law, the need to capture the Beast before it escapes demands requires a motion of summary disposition.
Only five minutes for each Congressperson??? Come on! I hope they allow multiple rounds. Five minutes apiece ain’t anywhere near long enough.
What would Sam Ervin have said to such a limitation?
Bob in HI
You know, my happiness that Scottie McC will testified is tempered mightily by the belief that HJC will fuck it up.
And, of course, there is that. Excellent point.
Few better places than right here to open a thread and compile suggested questions for HJC’s consideration. *g*
As valletta said in #38, it all comes down to asking the right questions.
Yes, and as egregious says in #40, let’s put our heads and words together and come up with a list of those questions, which we can email to the committee membership, every one of them.
I was sorely disappointed at the last hearing and it was obvious that “emptywheelers” and firepups were waaay ahead of the questioners.
I’m going to grab my copy of Marcy’s book for a quick refresher, it’s been so long…
Point taken – but no better place to start the journey from.
So sad but so very true.
At the least maybe we’ll be able to watch Waxman take a swing at Issa or one of the other minority member in attendance. You know they’ll be there to screw up as many things as possible.
CNN says Scottie says YES
we got a date
“Scotty McC, come on down!“
McTellin’ on you, Bushie!!
Question for those wiser than I: What can BushCo do to stop this, given that Scottie wants to talk?
I’m thinking they’ve got to stop him somehow, he may not know where all the bodies are buried but he can sure point out the chief undertaker!
Boxturtle (That job in Israel looking, ah, SAFER, Karl?)
Scottie got a date through eHarmony! I can’t wait for the details.
Thanks ew.
digg
I, myself, am hoping for a Butterfield moment.
from wikipedia:
… John Dean had previously mentioned that he suspected White House conversations were taped, and the committee was therefore routinely asking witnesses about it. Butterfield did not want voluntarily to tell the committee of the system but had decided before the hearing that he would have to if asked a direct question.
As it happened, Butterfield was asked the direct question by the minority (Republican) counsel, Donald Sanders. He told the staff members that “everything was taped … as long as the President was in attendance. There was not so much as a hint that something should not be taped.” [1] All present recognized the significance of this disclosure and Butterfield was hastily put before the full Committee on July 16 to put the taping system on the record. Chief Minority Counsel, Fred Thompson, catapulted himself into history by asking “Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?”
And the rest is history….
New emptywheel series — hooray!
David is upstairs.
The way things appear to be going we could get a female president after all… albeit for only a couple of months. President Pelosi. Now wouldn’t that be a totally appropriate finish to the most corrupt/incompetent/plain evil administration to ever come down the pike.
Well, glad Scott McClellan has a date, but what continues to intrigue is this: when did Scott grow additional facial muscles?
If you laid down a photo of his rigid, defensive commentary from the WH podium in his final months, and then take a photo of him talking to KO tonight, you almost think you’re looking at a distant cousin.
He moves more freely, his face is vastly more expressive… intriguing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21…..4#25068864
Takes a lot of face muscles to hold back the lies and deceipt that he seems to have been required to repeat.
I disagree.
I suspect that he was so bad at his old job because he developed such serious doubts about what he was doing. Dan Bartlett and the rest of them have upper lips so tight that you could bounce spitballs off them.
As the tension has gone out of McClellan, look at how animated he’s becoming. He’s getting his own muscles back again, like a numb limb coming back to life.
Intriguing.