McClellan to testify UNDER OATH

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=11632
WASHINGTON - 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.

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."

The statements prompted House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., to invite McClellan to the hearing "concerning reported attempts to cover up the involvement of White House officials in the leak of" Plame's identity.

Man, Scotty is completely severing all ties from the GWB outlaw club.

Anyone in the club that testifies under oath about anything is instantly ejected, according the the BFEE by laws!

-90% jimmy

Sometimes people think things through, sometimes they don't... It'd be kinda hard to contradict your own book though.

Couldn't you just submit your book as sworn testimony. Maybe sign a document stating that you stand behind the facts in your book? :shrug: Just curious here.

He knew.

He knew this book was the only way to save his ass. I'm just glad the truth is coming out.

I like that he will go and answer questions under oath though no matter what.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Because if he can, and congress fails to immunize him, we'll be left holding a book that has absolutely no credibility.

I've been wary of this guy from the beginning. What if it's all misdirection? If he fails to back up a single word with concrete evidence such as sworn testimony, then they'll get away with it all.

And he has no claim to "executive priviledge" as he's already discussed most of this stuff in his book (as far as I know).

So... it's not like we haven't seen these slimy bastards wriggle out of this stuff before, but you never know.

He could be just setting us up.

ANd if he is not setting us up, he could suddenly become a "suicide."