Following up on the news that the White House is once again thumbing its nose at Congress, it’s also worth taking a moment to note some of the details of Fred Fielding’s letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees this morning. Specifically, I’m fascinated by Fielding’s concerns about etiquette.
Let me begin by conveying a note of concern over your letter’s tone and apparent direction in dealing with a situation of this gravity. We are troubled to read the letter’s charge that the President’s “assertion of Executive Privilege belies any good faith attempt to determine where privilege truly does and does not apply.”
Although we each speak on behalf of different branches of government, and perhaps for that reason cannot help having different perspectives on the matter, it is hoped you will agree, upon further reflection, that it is incorrect to say that the President’s assertion of Executive Privilege was performed without “good faith.”
Yes, the president is refusing to cooperate, he’s taking an expansive view of executive privilege, he’s blocking willing witnesses from honoring a subpoena, he’s withholding relevant materials, and he’s impinging on an ongoing congressional investigation, but there’s no reason for Leahy and Conyers to take an unpleasant “tone” with the White House. (The Vice President was the one who told Leahy, “Go f*** yourself,” right? Just checking.)
Fielding’s letter implicitly suggests Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt. Leahy and Conyers are assuming that the president is claiming executive privilege without “good faith.” Fielding wants them to assume otherwise. The White House could resolve the issue by explaining how and why Bush is claiming privilege, but so far, they’re refusing.
But Dems should just assume that they’re dealing with honorable men anyway. After all, the Bush gang has a track record for decency and veracity, right?
Fielding added:
One final observation underscores the preordained futility of any White House compliance with this demand. When your letter states that your Committees ”will take the necessary steps to rule on [Bush’s] privilege claims and appropriately enforce our subpoenas” and that the Committees will enforce their subpoenas “[wjhether or not [they] have the benefit of the information” [emphasis added], only one conclusion is evident: the Committees have already prejudged the question, regardless of the production of any privilege log. In such circumstances, we will not be undertaking such a project, even as a further accommodation.
It’s quite an odd argument. As Conyers responded:
We are extremely disappointed with the White House letter. While we remain willing to negotiate with the White House, they adhere to their unacceptable all-or-nothing position, and now will not even seek to properly justify their privilege claims. Contrary to what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the Courts that will decide whether an invocation of Executive Privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally.
Leahy added, “I have to wonder if the White House’s refusal to provide a detailed basis for this executive privilege claim has more to do with its inability to craft an effective one.”
Now, now, senator — you don’t want another lecture on tone, now do you?