FACT CHECK: There Is No Precedent Barring White House Aides From Testifying To Congress

[radfringe]

FACT CHECK: There Is No Precedent Barring White House Aides From Testifying To Congress
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/20/white-house-testify/
THINK PROGRESS 3/20/07

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) has called on Karl Rove and other top White House aides to testify under oath in front of Congress concerning their role in the U.S. attorney purge. A response from White House Counsel Fred Fielding is expected today, but in the meantime, the White House and its allies have put up a fight, arguing that presidential advisers have historically not testified in front of Congress

--snip--


But in reality, there is no such precedent. According to the Congressional Research Service, under President Clinton, 31 of his top aides testified on 47 different occasions. The aides who testified included some of Clinton’s closest advisors:

Harold Ickes, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff - 7/28/94

George Stephanopoulos, Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy - 8/4/94

John Podesta, Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary - 8/5/94

Bruce R. Lindsey, Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President - 1/16/96

Samuel Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs - 9/11/97

Beth Nolan, Counsel to the President - 5/4/00

In contrast, between 2000 and 2004, Bush allowed only one of his closest advisers, then-Assistant to the President for Homeland Security Tom Ridge, to appear in front of Congress. He has also refused three invitations from Congress for his aides to testify, a first since President Richard Nixon in 1972. Clinton did not refuse any.

[sam sarrha]

1. none of that ever happened in Bu$hWorld... formerly known as Planet Reagan

[radfringe]

2. kick

[bdamomma]

3. kick

[Raven]

4. Can Miers claim lawyer-client privilege?

If she was counsel to the President? Different from Executive Privilege.

[radfringe]

6. good question

I think there may be a loophole in this - because if Miers could be covered by Lawyer-Client privilege the bushies would have invoked it already in her case...

it may be splitting hairs - but

perhaps she can't be asked about any communications/meetings with bush
however she can be asked about meetings/communications with other people?

[NightWatcher]

5. Regarding Executive Privledge

Bush keeps saying that he doesnt want his peeps to talk because that would limit his advice in the future, but in the same breath he says that they CAN meet with the congress just no be put under oath. If he truly worries about "executive privledge" and wants to make sure that he can get good advice from them without them fearing having to talk in the future, he should be against them talking to congress AT ALL. The bend in this one is the difference between oath and no oath and record and without transcript. He has no problem with them talking, but he has a problem with them telling the truth and going on record.