By James Vicini
1 hour, 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Richard Nixon invoked it during Watergate, President Bill Clinton briefly asserted it during the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, and President George W. Bush might next claim executive privilege in his battle with Congress.
A possible confrontation moved a step closer on Wednesday when a Democratic-led congressional subcommittee approved subpoenas to be used if White House aides refuse to testify under oath about the firing of eight U.S. prosecutors.
The action came the day after a defiant Bush vowed to oppose in court, if necessary, any subpoenas for his close political aide Karl Rove or other White House advisors.
The White House has offered to allow the aides to answer questions, but only behind closed doors, not under oath and with no transcript taken of their exchanges.
Any court battle probably would turn on executive privilege, a legal doctrine invoked occasionally throughout U.S. history to shield presidents and their aides from having to answer questions or turn over information to Congress or grand juries.
"That's the big question -- is Bush willing to go all the way on this?" one administration official asked. "Chances are he may feel this is worth it."
more...What's at stake?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The White House Offer on the U.S. Attorney Imbroglio[/h3>Marty Lederman
Thanks to Talking Points Memo, here's the letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding, offering to allow Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, William Kelley and one other White House official to be interviewed by members of Congress. Most folks are focusing on the fact that the testimony would be unsworn, untranscribed, and "private." Of those, I think "untranscribed" (and thus not available to the public) is the most important.
But much more important than that is that the White House would limit the scope of the testimony, and of any documents provided, so that they would not cover communications made within the White House -- i.e., among the presidential advisors who (presumably) most directly counseled the President to remove the U.S. Attorneys. And it's presumably in those communications that any evidence of the actual reasons for the removals would be contained.
Can't say that I'm surprised -- this is a common bargaining position for the President (to resist providing information the closer it gets within the Executive Office to the President himself). But it's not at all uncommon for such close aides to testify about such matters -- happened all the time in the Clinton Administration, if this CRS Report is any indication. (And Byron York to similar effect.)
It'll be interesting to see how Congress responds.
(Notice, by the way, the conspicuous absence of any mention of executive privilege. They must have concluded that asserting or even mentioning it will be a political kiss of death -- thus they'll reserve it as a tactic of last resort. But it does suggest that Congress has a good deal of bargaining room here before this ever gets to an impasse.)
link
What
executive privilege?
By Paul Kiel - March 21, 2007, 12:00 PM
As former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins has
written, "Once the public detects partisanship in one important decision, they will follow the natural inclination to question every decision made, whether there is a connection or not."
Today, the nonpartisan congressional watchdog Democracy 21 sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty asking whether there had been political interference in the investigation and prosecution of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
"Based on issues that have been raised in the firing of the eight U.S Attorneys , we're all in a position to want some assurance that there hasn't been political interference in the case," Fred Wertheimer, Democracy 21's president, told me. "This still remains the worse congressional corruption scandal in 30 years. There are lesser players who have been convicted. But there are still big players here, including sitting and former members of Congress whose cases apparently have not yet been resolved. "
Citing concerns about the slow pace of the investigation and high turnover of prosecutors and supervisors working on the case, Wertheimer also asks Gonzales what resources the Justice Department has committed to the investigation.
You can
read the letter here.
linkHere are the connections:
– Washington D.C. defense contractor Mitchell Wade
pled guilty last February to paying then-California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes.
– Wade’s company MZM Inc. received its first federal contract from the White House. The contract, which ran from July 15 to August 15, 2002, stipulated that Wade
be paid $140,000 to “provide office furniture and computers for Vice President Dick Cheney.”
– Two weeks later, on August 30, 2002, Wade
purchased a yacht for $140,000 for Duke Cunningham. The boat’s name was later changed to the “Duke-Stir.” Said one party to the sale: “I knew then that
for that…Duke looked at the boat, and Wade bought it — all in one day. Then they got on the boat and floated away.”
– According to Cunningham’s sentencing memorandum, the purchase price of the boat had been negotiated through a third-party earlier that summer, around the same time the White House contract was signed.
link:
McClatchy
reports tonight:
Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.
Subpoenas approved!Attorney firings appear to be linked to every illegal act/attempted cover-up by the Bush admin.
What's at stake? Maybe everything!
Edited to add this from
Think Progress:
‘An intriguing question.’Tony Snow explained that the standoff between the Executive Branch and Congress revolves around Bush’s right to “privileged communications with close staff members.” But he also stated that “
the president has no recollection” of conversations about the attorney firings being raised with him. That means, as
CNN’s Ed Henry noted, that the White House is now claiming executive privilege over conversations that never existed. Snow’s response to this dilemma? “That falls into the intriguing question category,” he said.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
