Perino Says White House Can Block McClellan From Testifying To Congress, But Won’t Say Whether It Will
Perino Says White House Can Block McClellan From Testifying To Congress, But Won’t Say Whether It Will
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.
Watch it:
It’s not clear on what grounds the White House would be able to block McClellan. He has already blanketed the media talking about his time in the administration. Additionally, in a Washington Post chat today, McClellan confirmed that White House officials reviewed his “final manuscript for classification and privilege issues,” and they found “no issues relating to classified information.” They did, however, “bring up some issues” relating to executive privilege.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
118 Responses to “Perino Says White House Can Block McClellan From Testifying To Congress, But Won’t Say Whether It Will”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Have you ever seen an administration who thinks it can do whatever it pleases more than this one?!
Aaaargh!
May 30th, 2008 at 3:26 pmWho gives a FU(K what that skank says? Subpoena that boy and let's get it on!
May 30th, 2008 at 3:29 pmHey Dana, how does it feel looking into this particular crystal ball?
Still clueless?
May 30th, 2008 at 3:30 pmInteresting.....why exactly would they want to block the truth?
May 30th, 2008 at 3:30 pmIs Dana Bimborino the new White House Counsel or what?
Who really cares whether she "thinks" (and I use that term advisedly) that the White House can bar McClellan from testifying before Congress?
May 30th, 2008 at 3:30 pm"It’s not clear on what grounds the White House would be able to block McClellan."
Really? Ask JFK, RFK, ML....oh wait.
Never mind.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:31 pmNow, to see if Scott's assertion that the truth must be told is really that important to him, he'll testify, willingly, disregarding any "block" the WH puts on him.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pmmary, you nailed it. I was juts going to paraphrase Dana:
"We can do whatever we want to, and you can't do a thing about it. Nyah nyah."
May 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm.
She's a Barbie girl in the Bushie world...
Charge on plastic, debts fantastic.
You can question me, I'll just drink my tea,
Imagination, LIES are my creation...
Q U E S T I O N:
How can you tell the catapult is being armed to launch the propaganda...?
The press room is full and Dana is at the ready.
She's speaking about... HYPOTHETICALS!
Hypothetically Dana, what would the president do if there were aliens? This could get fun... ponder hypotheticals!
What if the president told the truth? It's a hypothetical!
.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm.
If the Administration has nothing to hide, they sure do a good job at hide and seek... NO?
.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:36 pmand it starts...
May 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pmThe White House read the manuscript, and didn't stop McClellan from publishing but they would stop him from testifying ? In a prior post, bush said, "Scotty is not the same person from earlier days." Maybe Scotty did find a conscience after all. Some people really get sick of corruption, not bush or his supporters but some people.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pm"It’s not clear on what grounds the White House would be able to block McClellan."
____________________________________________
Um...I believe this falls into the category of "we can do whatever the f**k we want" grounds. That's essentially the methodology used for everything they have done for the past 7+ years, and the lapdog Congress has allowed them to get away with it.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:40 pmIt sure sounds like that's what the White House plans to do: STOP Scott McClellan from testifying under oath!
May 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pmJust like in the Pat Tillman case:
If the administration has done nothing wrong, why are they hiding behind executive priviledge? Why do they need immunity for the Telecoms?
Keep spinning, Dana. Scottie has admitted what your job REALLY entails.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pmRiddle me this:
If Scott testifies to Congress even if the White House claims "executive privilege" then what happens?
Has anyone ever been successully sued, arrested or executed for violating the (unwritten) principle of "executive privilege?"
Like the Presidential Records Act (you know, the one that's supposed to prevent "missing" e-mail) there is no articulated sanction for "violating" the privilege. In fact, "executive privilege" isn't even articulated in law, it's only a collection of thoughts.
I wonder if Scott has it in him?
May 30th, 2008 at 3:44 pmWell Dana's probably correct on this one. They can probably block him from testifying the same way they blocked the DC Madame from testifying, at the end of a rope.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:46 pmmary Says:
Have you ever seen an administration who thinks it can do whatever it pleases more than this one?!
Yes
Link
May 30th, 2008 at 3:47 pmOne thing I can tell you about Dana and Tony Snow, they will NEVER suffer a crisis of conscience the way it appears Scott has. Neither one of them appears to have anything even resembling a soul.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:48 pmPERINO: 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.
And your assessment is based upon what , you empty-headed bim ?
Your years as a constitutional scholar/lawyer ?
Guess that's why you didn't know the difference between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs ; you were too busy reading and re-reading the Constitution ..........
May 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pmKYJurisDoctor Says:
It sure sounds like that’s what the White House plans to do: STOP Scott McClellan from testifying under oath!
Does Cheney still have his man-sized safe?
May 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pmHas Tony Snowjob weighed in on this? I may have missed it. He may want to clear his conscience soon, before it's too late.
I doubt it will happen though.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:53 pmgee, impeachment isn't an option yet, huh? Can you believe these people allowing the looting of our country to continue? They must be complicit to allow the murder to continue. It is disgusting that they will not act to eliminate the EXU before it can do more damage. It is time for Pelosi to step in and end this nightmare.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:53 pm"atleast if he had any honour and still supported them."
Huh?
May 30th, 2008 at 3:53 pmEggZecketive Privyledge doesn't cut it here. The lying sacks of crap that are currently occupying the highest offices in the land ought not to be allowed a smoke screen to prevent testimony by an oversight body of Congress.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:54 pmShayne Says:
One thing I can tell you about Dana and Tony Snow, they will NEVER suffer a crisis of conscience the way it appears Scott has. Neither one of them appears to have anything even resembling a soul.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
You're right, Shayne. My bad.
She's not looking into a crystal ball, she's looking into a bowling ball.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:54 pmrogers Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scott is nothing but a scumbad, simply stabbing in the back the thieves he worked with and supported, now that he no longer needs them and it works in his favour…and he knows its not like he can fix anything now.
and that book deal, and all those interviews must be pretty sweet.
atleast if he had any honour and still supported them.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Can you explain where there is any "honor" in supporting proven liars and criminals ?
May 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pmTranslation:
If a legal precedent doesn't exist it will magically appear, scribbled in the margins of some formerly obscure document. Bushco does what it wants and makes stuff up on the fly.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pmrogers Says:
atleast if he had any honour and still supported them.
That's the point. There can be no honor in supporting dishonorable people.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pmAnd those mafia guys who finally decide that cutting throats for drugs isn't really the right thing to do? Roger here thinks they are scum and should have honored the Godfather.
Interesting set of morals, these Repugnicunts:
Party over country, loyalty over truth.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:56 pmGee, why would they want to block the truth from being known??? (Laughing) And I thought she said she wasn't a lawyer. How's does she know . I guess she just assumes the White can block anything with their magical powers.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:57 pmWow, more honesty and forthrightness from the Bush administration.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:57 pmnanlichi Says:
Interesting set of morals, these Repugnicunts:
Party over country, loyalty over truth.
Bush over all.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:57 pmWhite House that is.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:57 pmQUESTION: Could the White House block him from testifying, if he wanted to testify? Or how does that work?
This administration simply asks John Yoo for his interpretation of the Constitution and the extent of power the president has...........
May 30th, 2008 at 3:59 pmDear Dana,
Hypothetically speaking, WTF are you talking about?
Sincerely,
America
May 30th, 2008 at 3:59 pm#34, it didn't take you sleazebags long to attack McClellan's mother, did it?
May 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pmThe same publisher has always published the following books:
BOY GENIUS
Karl Rove, the Architect of George W. Bush’s Remarkable Political Triumphs
BY HIS OWN RULES
The Story of Donald Rumsfeld
CHURCHILL BY HIMSELF
The Definitive Collection of Quotations
FOR GOD AND COUNTRY
Faith and Patriotism Under Fire
GOVERNOR REAGAN
His Rise To Power
I IS FOR INFIDEL
From Holy War to Holy Terror: Eighteen Years Inside Afghanistan
RICHARD M. NIXON
A Life in Full
RONALD REAGAN
The Presidential Portfolio
RONALD REAGAN
(THE BOXED SET)
A Life in Politics
~~~~~~~~~
Oops!!!!! Facts and reality debunks the reich-wing....once again.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pmnanlichi says: Has Tony Snowjob weighed in on this?
Snowjob's been as scarce as Bush's ethics of late. I heard he wasn't doing too good, but have not substantiated that. I do know he hasn't been on CNN lately...
May 30th, 2008 at 4:01 pmYou forgot "Mien Kompf"
May 30th, 2008 at 4:02 pmGeorge W. Bush
bandwagon Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soros connected to McClellan book
The company that published Scott McClellan’s new Bush-bashing book is PublicAffairs Books, and their Editor at Large is a guy named Peter Osnos: About The Century Foundation.
Texans say McClellan’s turn started at home with mom
impartial observers point in particular to Mr. McClellan’s mother, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, as having set a precedent for turning on former allies, while others say that his family tree had strong liberal leanings.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Ah , nothing says "unimpeachable sources" and "paragons of truth and virtue" more than posting links to Little Green Footballs and the Washington Times..........Why didn't you just C&P the addy of the National Enquirer on-line or Star magazine , dipshit ?
May 30th, 2008 at 4:02 pmThe right siders here (I am looking at you rogers) cannot seem to imagine that some Americans, even after doing what they thought were their jobs, came to the realization that they cannot tolerate any more lies and half-truths. So McClellan wrote a book, so what? What, he didn't write fast enough for you? Slow enough for you? What is your problem with the truth? Are you going to side with the ones attempting to hide the truth or speak the truth? Which one is it? Your little world is indeed crashing in around your head. I would feel sorry for you, but it is your own fault for wanting a king instead of an elected President.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:02 pmbandwagon Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Don't post links to that shit, dumbass.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:02 pmOops, "The same publisher has *also* published the following books:"
Carry on....
May 30th, 2008 at 4:02 pmI don't know about the rest of you but I am always swayed by links to that weirdo oddly colored athletic implement site. Classy with the Mom and all.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:03 pmMaybe they'll render Scotty off to Egypt for a little ...rehabilitation... in the middle of the night.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:03 pmScotty's book is number 1 on Amazon. America wants the truth. It's all over for the reich-wing.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:03 pmHeh. I'd trust the National Enquirer and/or the Star before I'd trust anything from LGF or the WashTimes...
May 30th, 2008 at 4:05 pmleftzone Says:
You forgot “Mien Kompf”
George W. Bush
Hmm I thought it was "Mien Dumkopf"...
May 30th, 2008 at 4:05 pmtardwagon is frantically searching newsmax and redstate for follow-up links.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:05 pmCan anyone explain to me what bandwagon's point was?
George Soros?
Scotty's mom?
Are either of these poorly-sourced revelations supposed to somehow impeach the veracity of Scotty's newfound clarity?
I know the wingnuts salivate at the words "George Soros money" but what exactly is it supposed to mean to those of us who are capable of, y'know... thinking?
May 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pmPoor Mr Rogers, the neighborhood's suddenly turned on him, and his magic neocon sweater offers no protection against shit like facts and stuff.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pmSure Dodger, all those witness who testify against those who do bad things are "scumbad". Whatever that means.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:09 pmI'm, almost, surprised the trolls will even try on this one. Heck! Even the chimp's pet gang of thieves aren't saying Scotty lied. Expect to see a lot more of that deer in the headlight look while they coordinate their lame excuses.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:10 pmOr else she should STEP DOWN and let somebody more capable do the job.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pmLOL, Like its going to do any good. Cover up is the White Houses best game, its what they do. You can sure tell its election time thats for sure.
JJ
May 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pmOnline Privacy Resources
pete, are you saying you think the trolls might be capable of discernment, or even some sense of shame that might keep them from making fools of themselves on an obvious loser argument?
You could be right, but I haven't seen any evidence of it.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:13 pmbandwagon Says:
"George Soros is the NEW Bill Clinton"
May 30th, 2008 at 4:13 pmRUCerious Says:
Hmm I thought it was “Mien Dumkopf”…
Just freakin hilarious :)~
May 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pmThanks Zimzone. Scotty's book may be an epiphany for some of these people who are tired of carrying water for Bush. The truth may not cure his cancer but it would sure ease his mind and soul.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pmDana Purina gives dumb blondes a bad name.
I guess this must have been a 'hypothetical' presser, eh?
May 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pmAnd David Addington makes it sound all "official like".
May 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pmRUCerious Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor Mr Rogers, the neighborhood’s suddenly turned on him, and his magic neocon sweater offers no protection against shit like facts and stuff.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
He should have had a bit more clearer look into the future and asked Mitt Romney for his magic underpants ; or are they already loaned out to McShitsHisPants for good reason ?
May 30th, 2008 at 4:16 pmpete Says:
Expect to see a lot more of that deer in the headlight look while they coordinate their lame excuses.
At least they have a whole weekend to come up with something better than "I'M PUZZLED".
May 30th, 2008 at 4:16 pmI guess it's just my cheerful disposition ralph. I can't help hoping that such obvious loser arguments might cause the few remaining brain cells to bang into each other and trigger a defensive response. Sigh. Optimism hurts.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:17 pm"Perino Says White House Can Block McClellan From Testifying To Congress"
Why? Because, maybe, at last Congress will have to do something about this War Criminal who stole the Presidency or maybe those little light bulbs will shine over their heads and they will have to face the reality that this Fascist Pig Dictator has been making them look like fools?
Congress has not been doing it's job or this Sociopathic Fcuk would have been out of office and in prison years ago.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pmExit Stage Left Says: At least they have a whole weekend to come up with something better than “I’M PUZZLED”.
I predict a shitstorm of 'I have no recollection of that' and 'I didn't do it' (HT to Bart Simpson)...
May 30th, 2008 at 4:20 pmThe reich-wingers are pushing the envelope for number of talking-points. They are going to need a cheat sheet pretty soon to remember all of them.
1. He did it for the money
May 30th, 2008 at 4:20 pm2. He's disgruntled
3. This is puzzling
4. This doesn't sound like Scotty
5. What didn't he quit if he objected to herr dubyah (even though he did quit)
6. He's taking advantage of the librul anti-dubyah media
7. Clinton got a BJ!!!!!!!
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.
1st off , the law DOES NOT allow for that , Ms Cuban Missle Bay of Pigs.
Furthermore , you mention nothing about not wanting McLellan to testify , based upon his book and/or statements being untrue or outright dishonest ; why is that ???????????
May 30th, 2008 at 4:20 pmUnderstood, pete. It's why I engage trolls as often as I do. I keep hoping that if I slice the truth and logic into small enough pieces, they'll be able to digest it. Unfortunately, it keeps coming back up as hairballs. But I keep trying anyway.
I think they might be allergic.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:22 pmNotice, the administration is still not saying Scotty lied about anything. They just complain that he's disloyal.
Interesting....
May 30th, 2008 at 4:23 pm#8 The editor changed it.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:23 pm#9 The publisher's a liberal.
Hey RUC. I think we stipulated that Bushco can't use the Bart Simpson defense. Sometimes, when Bart says he didn't do it he, in fact, did not do it, whereas Bushco most definitely did it.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:24 pmFlash! John Yoo says McClellan can be knee-capped if he tries to testify in the House!
May 30th, 2008 at 4:24 pmOh, never mind, that was just John Yoo practicing mental telepathy. My receiver is tuned to max sensitivity...
Pete, then they certainly have a problem, as they scurry around looking for some buttle to re.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:25 pmNot necessarily, if it was there JOB to do something, like send relief to hurricane victims, they probably didn't do it.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:25 pmWow! You're more optimistic than I am. I just hope I can shame them into shutting the Hell up.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pmImagine the American people surrounding the White House and Congress... thousands of people demanding accountability! Thousands of people screaming: "We had enough!". "Criminals get out!" "You are not my Government anymore!". Than, in front of the eyes of the World, Bush, Chenney and that bunch of WAR CRIMINALS lined up and handcuffed, taken to a police wagon.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pmYou have a point, Shayne.
Although, one needs to define "it". Because even in the Katrina case, where there is much that wasn't done, there were countless other things done to cover up the things which were undone.
The net effect of which was such that everyone may have been better off if the Feds had done nothing and left "it" to professionals.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pmCrapwagon and Rogered (up the arse) sure are lame trolls, they got nothing and they know it, so they are flinging their poop like drunken monkeys...oh forgot, they are drunken, poop flinging monkeys.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:33 pmSomebody should throw an egg at Perino...
May 30th, 2008 at 4:33 pmWhat a short memory the Bush Administration has!
May 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pmClinton tried to assert "Executive Privilege" in the Lewinsky hearings and ended up agreeing to testify before Starr, after negotiating how he would appear.
Bush Trolls,Sycophantic Water-Carriers and Arse-Lickers pay close and special attention to what Independent Counsel Kenneth(I love the smell of soiled panties in the morning ) Starr had this to say:
Declaring that "absolutely no one is above the law," and such a privilege "must give way' and "evidence" must be turned over" to prosecutors if it is relevant to the investigation.
As found in Wikipedia
Got something to HIDE, SpokesBimbo Perino?
So, Bush won't let McClellan testify to the United States Congress concerning Bush's TREASON in "wartime"?
But, but, he's keeping us SAFE, and we haven't had another attack since 9/11 (except for the ANTHRAX, but hey, right?)..
70 YEARS of Bush TREASON against the USA...
May 30th, 2008 at 4:36 pmDana,
May 30th, 2008 at 4:39 pmYou too, someday will be writing a confession - oops I mean book.
rogers Says
May 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
scott is nothing but a scumbad, simply stabbing in the back the thieves he worked with and supported, now that he no longer needs them and it works in his favour…and he knows its not like he can fix anything now.
and that book deal, and all those interviews must be pretty sweet.
atleast if he had any honour and still supported them.
____________________________________________________
OK, Rogers -- let me ask you this:
Assuming that everything you say is true -- that McClellan is a scumbag, a backstabber, and an opportunist greedhead (yes, I'm paraphrasing your post) -- what do you have to say about the allegations themselves?
1. Do you claim that McClellan is lying? If that's the case, why not just say so?
2. Do you claim that McClellan is telling the truth, but there was nothing wrong with how Bushco sold the war to the American public? If that's the case, why wasn't the truth told at the beginning?
3. Do you claim that McClellan is telling the truth, and that the actions of Bushco were wrong and criminal, but you support those acts anyway? If that's the case, how do you live with yourself?
I have heard a great deal from the righties about how horrible McClellan is, and you're no exception. What I would like to hear from the right (and this includes you) is some focus on the truth (or lack thereof) of what he actually said. AND if McClellan's allegations are true, how do you defend the actions of this administration? People who defend criminal activity scare me more than a book-writing backstabber.
Inquiring minds want to know. Give us your thoughts.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:39 pmMs Cuban Missle Bay of Pigs
MCMetal, that's a little unwieldy. Let's shorten it a bit:
Ms Pig.
There. Much more 'wieldy.' ;o)
May 30th, 2008 at 4:42 pmIt would make a great movie sacopenapa, but, in real life that's the kind of thinking that gets good people killed.
An optimist, like myself, has to believe that we can still use the strengths of our society to cure it's ills. We The People have to reassert control over our Representatives. We must hold all of them accountable for our votes, support and CONTRIBUTIONS.
Protests and gatherings are part of the process but anything resembling a mob attacking Washington must be avoided and should prove unnecessary. The last thing this country, and the world, needs is more chaos.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:44 pmAww, now, MissMolly, that there is FA-A-A-A-A-R too many syllables for our incoherent pal rogers...
I'm a fervent admirer or your well-turned phrases, though. ;o)
~A
May 30th, 2008 at 4:45 pmmisshusseinmolly, I think the trolls have pulled back for now. Seems the Wash. Times smear against McClellan's mother was their parting shot. Even the monkeys eventually run out of poop to fling.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:46 pmGet off the Bandwagon, rogers, & answer missmolly's question...
May 30th, 2008 at 4:46 pmRead your constitution, folks. There is no such thing as "Executive Privilege" in there. And the case in which the Supreme Court lost their marbles and said there was, it turns out the government was lying, so that decision should have been moot.
The president is a public official, answerable to the Constitution and to the people. Every single thing said to him is very much our business. He works for us, not the corporations and not his rich friends. The decisions he makes and the actions he takes should be in the public interest.
Anyone who gives advice to the president that they don't want revealed is not giving advice that is in the public interest. We have every right in the world to know what that advice is.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:47 pmGot stuff to do y'all. Blog you later.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:48 pmOh now you've done it, missmolly. Scared away the troll just when he was about to answer all our questions.
/snark off
May 30th, 2008 at 4:48 pmHere's to all of you great posters having a great weekend! {^_^}
May 30th, 2008 at 4:49 pmYep. Back to Troll Central for more roughage, no doubt.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:49 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Well said, missmolly. One key thing that is not being discussed enough is the truth of what McClellan is saying.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:50 pmThere is little in the way of "Executive privilege" because the executive branch part of our government -- meant to be open and transparent. Where our representatives don't provide the option for the president to classify information, the option does not exist to hide information from the public.
To this end, that means Scott McClellan was a hired public servant -- his salary paid by the taxpayer -- and the White House lacks the authority to impede checks and balances by preventing him to testify.
We should keep a close lookout for potential witness tampering and obstruction from the taxpayer-funded mafia.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:55 pmpardon me but why all this fuss about front men, and ladies, who are just actors, pretty faces, soothing words, PR people for the mob -
if dear pressy can't be bothered to front up before the cameras to explain himself to his subjects, occasionally, then why vote for a fake twice - oh, you didn't? - it was all just pretend -
hmmm, quick hire the best Hollywood writers to conjure up a happy ending - oh, there is no happy ending . . .
May 30th, 2008 at 4:59 pmThis 'hypothetical' scenerio illustrates the fine line (growing ever finer) between Executive Privilage and Obstruction of Justice. After all the 'no-go-ciations' for testifying in the investigations (pick one), once Exec.Priv. was (sort-of) gotten beyond, the result was a guilty charge of Lying and OofJ. Of course these lying SofS will fight revelation of the truth the whole way. Anyone think they'll stop now after nearly eight years?
May 30th, 2008 at 4:59 pmCan someone make a Citizen's Arrest?
It’s not clear on what grounds the White House would be able to block McClellan. He has already blanketed the media talking about his time in the administration. Additionally, in a Washington Post chat today, McClellan confirmed that White House officials reviewed his “final manuscript for classification and privilege issues,” and they found “no issues relating to classified information.” They did, however, “bring up some issues” relating to executive privilege.
Grounds? King George doesn't need any grounds, he does whatever he wants whenever he wants.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
May 30th, 2008 at 5:09 pmCan testifying be blocked?
Is there a classified signing statement appended to the farm bill ?
As McClellan is helping the terrorists, could he be declared a terrorist and whisked away on extraordinary rendition ?
Could he be "temporarily detained" for a couple of days ?
May 30th, 2008 at 5:10 pmNo, they can't stop McClellan from testifying. He's a private citizen. He can do whatever he wants to do. On the other hand, if I were McClellan, I would be hiring a body guard about now.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:11 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Are either of these poorly-sourced revelations supposed to somehow impeach the veracity of Scotty’s newfound clarity?
Perhaps someone should point out to this idiot troll that no one in the Bush Administration is accusing Scott of lying. All they are accusing him of is being disloyal.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:19 pmYawn. Why would congress grow balls now?
May 30th, 2008 at 5:23 pmCongress doesn't need to "grow balls" to cause serious repercussions for the Reichwingers. They have to deal with the reality of one of their own breaking ranks and telling the truth.
Even if no one else comes forward the administration will be hampered by the fears that some one else will "rat them out". The fear and distrust Scotty has sown in the Bush administration will seriously disrupt their performance since everyone will be afraid to talk to anybody or piss them off.
Even though one would think that the laws of mathematics would suggest that there would be a few Bushites with a bit of integrity, I never would have picked Scotty as one of them. Which makes for really interesting speculation about who would have to "turn" to bring the big fish down. And that's a question which should haunt the dreams of the guilty for the foreseeable future.
May 30th, 2008 at 6:27 pmMcClellan would be "happy" to testify because he's one of the few people who will not need a pardon at the end of this thing.
May 30th, 2008 at 6:38 pm#88 misshusseinmolly
You are 'spot on'!!!!!!! Great argument!
May 30th, 2008 at 7:13 pmPeroxidino is probably jealous and thinking to herself "oh shit, I have less than 8 months in this acting, I mean lying, I mean "press whatever" job and I still can't figure what angle I am going to take when I write MY own book".
These LIARS and high schoolish press types sure know the end and possibly their criminal indictment is coming.
Living it and loving it!
May 31st, 2008 at 1:19 amum....what law would allow that? I was unaware that the President had the legal authority to do whatever necessary to cover its crimes. Too bad Nixon didn't know that was the law.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:31 amI wonder why Marcy Wheeler keeps referring to Perino as "pig missile"?
:-)
May 31st, 2008 at 7:15 amit's OK, I found the original story where she confessed to mixing up the cuban missile crisis and the bay of pigs.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:12 amWhat would happen if Mr. McLellan defied WH claims of Executive Privilege, and went to testify anyway?
Really - what could the WH do? Arrest him? Sue him? Have him "commit suicide" in a fit of pique? (or Boca Raton, at least)
May 31st, 2008 at 1:51 pmNo.
No, it can't.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:11 pmPerino says, regarding blocking McClellan from testifying to Congress, "The law would allow for that."
What? The 'Jose Padillo' solution?
Remember -- Padillo was transfered and charged in Federal Court just so's that bit of "Law", Presidential desaparecidos, would not be clarified by the courts. So, presumably, as Perino says, the White House still believes the law will allow for that.
Scottie should keep his toothbrush on his person, m'thinks.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:06 pmThe lying sack of cute is surely overextending herself. The White House is going to classify their fantasies about WMDs and that is supposed to prevent Congress from exercising its review of the White House for their high crimes?
May 31st, 2008 at 8:42 pmThis has nothing to do with this blog, but I thought I'd mention it;
I was speaking with my 69 YEAR OLD uncle the other day, who was in the Navy and worked for the U.S. government for many years and considers himself a patriot, and he said with what the bush administration has done to the USA, done to Iraq, done to the WORLD, he was, "ashamed to be an American."
Say what you will, bush, rove, cheney etal, that pretty much says it all about how many Americans feel, and nothing the bush criminals do or say will change that.
That pretty much says it all, if you ask me.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:20 amExcuse me Dana, Over here. I had my hand up for 7 years.
If Bush is thinking of blocking Scotty from testifying to Congress. What will be the reason.
Bush didn't block Scotty's book from being published. Congress has the right to speak to him of his printed words in his book.
Dana, are you lying right now or spinning?
We all see through you like freshly windex cleaned glass.
Pretty much like Scotty when he did that job your doing.
And like Tony Snow. Funny, I haven't heard any Snow lies or spin ( I mean comments).
June 1st, 2008 at 2:54 amPut Bush/Cheney on impeachment trial and then they can not stop anyone from testifying either for or against. If they aren't being impeached it is questionable.
It's not too late to correct the wrongs that have been done by this administration that may be repeated by Hillary or Obama.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:26 pm