The White House “offer” to the Senate Judiciary Committee was fairly straightforward: if members wanted to talk to WH staffers about the prosecutor purge, the discussions had to be a) private; b) not under oath; and c) without transcripts. It’s that last one that never made any sense.
Indeed, the Bush gang never even tried to rationalize it. That is, until today.
The White House organized a conference call this morning with an official who certainly appeared to be Counsel Fred Fielding, who finally shed some light on why the president would make staffers available for private interviews, but only if there was no transcript of their remarks.
“Obviously, there has been a lot of discussion back and forth in that regard. The position that the president took and conveyed to the committees and the offer of compromise did not include transcripts. The accommodation was designed to provide information, not to appear to be having testimony without having testimony. One of the concomitants of testimony, of course, is transcripts.
“As far as the debate goes, often cited is that a transcript is not wanted because otherwise there would be a perjury trap. And, candidly, as everyone has discussed, misleading Congress is misleading Congress, whether it’s under oath or not. And so a transcript may be convenient, but there’s no intention to try to avoid telling the truth.” (emphasis added)
Got that? As Fielding sees it, if there’s a written record of what Bush’s aides say, senators might have proof if they lie. It’s preferable, then, to have no record and simply assume that White House staffers are being honest. And if you disagree with any of this, you prefer “confrontation” to cooperation.
He did not appear to be kidding.
On a related note, there’s also news on the executive-privilege front. Now, just to be clear, executive privilege, when used under the appropriate circumstances, can be a perfectly legitimate claim. A reasonable case can be made that private policy discussions between the president and his or her top White House aides should probably, in most instances, be shielded.
But when it comes to the purge of nine U.S. Attorneys, the White House claims to have been detached from the process. As Faiz noted, the White House had “said that Mr. Bush’s aides approved the list of prosecutors only after it was compiled.” Bush himself said that “the Justice Department made recommendations, which the White House accepted” regarding the purge.
Why, then, claim executive privilege? What private deliberations occurred between the president and his West Wing aides?
Solicitor General Paul Clement, who reviewed the Senate Judiciary Committee’s request for documents, examined the subpoenaed materials and found they couldn’t possibly be turned over to Congress: “Among other things, these communications discuss the wisdom of such a proposal, specific U.S. Attorneys who could be removed, potential replacement candidates, and possible responses to congressional and media inquiries about the dismissals.”
Is that so. A White House that was barely connected to the prosecutor firings certainly sounds like it was involved quite a bit. Hmm.