Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

John Dean: The Importance of Scott McClellan's Testimony Before the House Judiciary Committee

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:56 AM
Original message
John Dean: The Importance of Scott McClellan's Testimony Before the House Judiciary Committee
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15385

The Importance of Scott McClellan's Testimony Before the House Judiciary Committee
by John W. Dean | June 20, 2008


-- Including Possible New Obstruction of Justice Charges for Scooter Libby and Karl Rove

— from FindLaw

Former Bush White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has agreed to testify before the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on June 20. He was invited, of course, because of his revelatory new book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception.

Florida congressman Robert Wexler, a member of the committee, has succinctly explained why he and many others expect McClellan’s appearance to be potentially highly significant: “The allegations made by McClellan that Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and possibly even Vice President Dick Cheney, together conspired to obstruct justice by lying about their role in the Plame case relates directly to the core of US executive power and the Constitution. If true, the allegations made by McClellan could amount to an obstruction of justice charge for Scooter Libby and Karl Rove.”

snip//

Candidate Obama’s Exceptional Position on the Crimes of His Predecessor

Barack Obama would truly be a president of change if he held a predecessor administration criminally liable for its misconduct. It has long been something of an unofficial standard of comity between out-going and in-coming presidents to overlook the misconduct of the previous administration. But no president is compelled to do so.

During the primaries, Obama was asked this question. His response was so striking, I have quoted it in full: “What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.”

He continued, “So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody is above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.”

Obama’s unusual and laudable perspective is why McClellan’s appearance, and the diligence of the House Judiciary Committee, are the reason that this may not be merely a matter of passing interest. If a congressional committee, like the House Judiciary Committee, develops a prima facie case that would make it appropriate for President Obama’s attorney general to fully investigate the matter. Needless to say, if we have a President McCain, the Congress happens to uncover even far more heinous crimes than obstructing justice, you can be certain that nothing would happen -- other than the Bush and Cheney team leaving government without a scratch.
_______
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AddisonMiles Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good live-blog at Firedoglake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. I think Obama's view is absolutely correct. Including his rather pragmatic view of impeachment.
Better to go after the bastards in criminal court than in a political proceeding which is what impeachment is.

Setting up a unit in the Justice Department to go after indictments (including a bunch of Pat Fitzgerald types) need not be "consuming" for either an Obama administration or the country.

Obama's choice of an AG is crucial. I'm not sure John Edwards is the best person, but he certainly could be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I'd Prefer Both, Frankly
It's like Rasputin--kill them dead five different ways, then scatter the ashes over 5 contitnents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Congress is in session for only 6 more weeks before the election, I believe.
I don't see what can be accomplished re. impeachment in that time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
3. direct link to article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. Is It Time for Karl to Do the Frog March Yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC