McClellan: 'I'd be happy' to testify about Bush White House

[Ichingcarpenter]

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Friday he would be willing to comply with a possible congressional subpoena to discuss the administration’s handling of pre-war intelligence, telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer he’d be “happy to talk if I am asked to testify.”

He also said he did not believe he needed to apologize to President Bush, and did not think the president would be reading his book.1”I don't expect we'll have a conversation (with Bush) any time soon,” he said.

“I don't need to ask forgiveness from him. My comments are sincere and honest and absolutely the truth from my perspective.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/30/mcclellan-id-be-happy-to-testify-about-bush-white-house/

[tekisui]

1. KNR!!!! Let's get this show on the road.

We finally have a bushie willing to squeal under oath!

[niyad]

2. anybody know how much of an advance he got? why couldn't he have spoken out

when it might have done some good?

like colin powell's change of heart, I have no use for this one, either. both of them knew, and both of them kept silent. may they, all the admin, their supporters and enablers, receive everything they deserve.

[madokie]

5. 75,000

[Occulus]

6. I readf it was something like $77,000 or so for the book advance n/t

[high density]

7. Last night on Dan Abram's show

Jon Alter was on saying that this publisher has never given an advance over $100k before. Whether or not they broke this mold for McClellan isn't clear.

[Spike89]

26. Advance doesn't mean that much

I love negotiating with authors who get wrapped up in fighting for advances. I typically get lower royalty percentages in those instances and advances don't really cost us anything (well, other than access to that capital). For those who don't know publishing, and advance is just what it sounds like--royalties in advance of sales. In other words, the publisher offering a $75,000 advance on a contract with 10% royalties is saying we bet the book sells $750,000 worth very quickly and the author will have "paid back" the amount borrowed from their own future earnings.

[cynatnite]

8. He only got 75K...

compared to Rove's three million he was looking for. Ari Fleischer got 500K for his book deal.

Scott did not do this for the money.

[Disturbed]

11. Rumor has it that he got $75K

I don't think he wrote this book for the money.

He is a former "True Believer".

[Fovea]

3. Note to Scotty

In the interest of saving the lives of innocent passengers and crew, not to mention bystanders on the ground, I must insist you use only surface transportation until the impeachment is over.

Thank you,
RealP

[boobooday]

4. Oh Rot Roh

:popcorn:

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. Perino Says White House Can Block McClellan From Testifying To Congress

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) today announced that he and his staff were going to begin discussions with former press secretary Scott McClellan about testifying before Congress regarding revelations in his new memoir. In particular, Conyers pointed to attempts by the White House to cover-up Scooter Libby’s involvement in the Valerie Plame leak:

I believe this issue may require closer examination, so I have instructed my counsels to begin discussions with Mr. McClellan to determine whether a hearing is necessary and to secure his possible cooperation.

In today’s White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that the White House, hypothetically, could stop McClellan from testifying:

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.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/30/mcclellan-testify /

[seemslikeadream]

13. The law would allow for that

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

How are they going to stop him?

[eShirl]

15. how would they stop him from willingly testifying?

has this kind of situation arisen before?

[Mist]

20. I'm thinking it makes a difference that McClellan is willing to testify, I've always

viewed the "executive privilege" thing as something the *unwilling* (Bolton, Meirs) could grab at.

[Ichingcarpenter]

23. Historically I don't think it has but you know the Bushie adminstration

will fight it tooth and nail.

I don't think legally they have a leg to stand on but they never cared
for anything legal anyway.

[seemslikeadream]

10. Maybe he's just not going to let them attack Iran

[99th_Monkey]

12. This is hot!! How is the WH going to try to wiggle out of this one. LOL. I'm lovin' it. ~nt~

[Disturbed]

16. A True Believer becomes irate

when what he/she believes is proven to be false. Scott believed in Busholini. Scott believes that those around the Boss are the ones that perverted the vision of the Boss & led him astray. Scott still "likes & admires" Busholini. The betrayal came from Cheney, Rove & Libby in Scott's view. He was played for a fool by them & he knew it all along but couldn't quit until things became unbearable. That's how I view it, so far.

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. I see an injunction coming once again as with the Bolten and Miers

Nothing gonna stop this until inherent contempt happens.


Twenty former U.S. attorneys challenge White House immunity claim

WASHINGTON — Twenty former U.S. attorneys, both Republicans and Democrats, urged a federal judge Thursday to intervene in a constitutional battle over whether two White House officials should be forced to testify before Congress about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The former top prosecutors, including two who served under President Bush, argue in court papers that the judge should reject the Bush administration's assertion of blanket immunity for presidential chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in the congressional investigation.

Democrats in the House of Representatives say they were forced to sue in March, more than a year after they launched the probe, because the administration has refused to allow Miers and Bolten to provide crucial information about the reasons the prosecutors were fired. The case also could determine how former presidential adviser Karl Rove responds to a subpoena in a related congressional investigation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3364112

[chill_wind]

14. Different tune than yesterday

wherein he said he hadn't even thought about it.

Guess he might be the chosen one to go and shade the truth, as has been his profession, one last time for everybody back at the ranch. Perhaps that will finally pacify everyone's thirst just enough, without getting anything worthwhile done. My President-- my boss, was just a misguided idealist who got bad advice. I was just a big idealist from back in my Texas days, too.

They were all just idealists, you know?

"Limited hang-out"-- John Dean.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

18. Probably not as happy as Condi was to meet KISS in person

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3332056&mesg_id=3332056

But happy is a relative term. I'd be happy to see Bush tried for treason in reward for his personally giving the OK to "out" a CIA agent.

:patriot:

[ProgressiveFool]

19. I got the impression from the Olberman interview yesterday

that he didn't think there was any illegality involved in what the Bushies did, and what he did for them. Rather, it seemed like he thought it was (merely) unethical and unAmerican.

I don't know what to think about Scotty anymore. In the time since this broke, I've been a fan of his, then a harsh critic, then converted back to a fan (his interview with Keith seemed very much sincere and honest). I can't get over the fact that, if he had spoken up sooner, he might have prevented the death and destruction of the Iraq War, but then, perhaps by doing so now, he's preventing the death and destruction of the Iran War.

[Indenturedebtor]

22. He may not know that there's any illegality

He's not a lawyer you know.

I hope this at least prevents the Iran War!

[eleny]

21. "and did not think the president would be reading his book"

It probably doesn't have any pictures.

[LiberatedText]

24. Moonie Spin Watch

From a Washington Times ad hominem attack on McClellan's mom:

"Scott's going to be something of a man without a country if he comes back," said Paul Burka, senior executive editor at Texas Monthly magazine.

"I don't think the Republicans would be much enamored with him," Mr. Burka said. "I just don't see him having much of an immediate future in politics."

Jon Ward, "http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/30/texans-say-mcclellans-turn-started-at-home-with-mo/">Texans say McClellan's turn started at home with mom", Washington Times, May 30, 2008

Neither of these assertions attributed to Burka are stunning, and instead seem self-evident. Still, I believe the Burka quotes were used out of context, but have not located any original attribution. I doubt that Jon Ward got this from a phone conversation with Burka. It seems likely that Burka was discussing the tendency of the Bush administration, as well as modern conservatives in general, to hold grudges and attack unmercifully in disproportionate retaliation (they'll even roll an ambassador's wife). Anyone know where Burka said this?

[Orsino]

25. But how many I-can't-recalls will there be?

Won't he simply have to repeat that he can't comment on an ongoing investigation? :D