Late last week, we learned the White House has come up with a creative approach to the principle of executive privilege: once the president claims it, he has exempted himself from any and all accountability. Under this approach, Bush can define the scope and limits of his own powers. Congress can hold White House officials in contempt, but Bush won’t allow their prosecution.
In other words, the president and his team believe that once the White House claims executive privilege, there is no recourse. The president is accountable to literally no one — not the Congress, whose subpoenas can be ignored, or the federal judiciary, which can’t hear a case that cannot be filed.
This matters, of course, in the context of the U.S. Attorney scandal, because Congress has been seeking information about how the unprecedented, politically-motivated purge of federal prosecutors unfolded. As part of the investigation, Congress has issued subpoenas to former White House officials, who refused to cooperate under the guise of executive privilege.
Today, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) suggested a potential remedy to the problem.
Today, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) noted that under Bush’s broad claim of executive privilege, “the president’s word stands and the constitutional authority and responsibility for congressional oversight is gone.”
He added that one alternative he has been “exploring” is the appointment of a special prosecutor. “The attorney general has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor,” said Specter. “You’re recused, but somebody else could do it. You’re recused because you know all of the principals. You have a conflict of interest. But doesn’t the president have an identical conflict of interest?”
Specter added, “Since we can’t take it to the court, the president’s word stands and the constitutional authority and responsibility for congressional oversight is gone. Now, that is carrying this controversy to really an incredible level. If that is to happen, the president can run the government as he chooses, answer no questions, say it’s executive privilege. You can’t go to court, and the president’s word stands.”
Oh Arlen, you make it sound like that’s a bad thing.
If Specter’s comments suggest there would be bipartisan support for a special prosecutor in the Senate, this would cerainly take the scandal to the next level. The downside is, of course, that the White House would immediately stop offering information, but that’s hardly a change from the status quo. The upside is, we might finally get some answers about the scope of the Bush gang’s legally dubious conduct.
Besides, as Dick Cheney’s office can remind us, the White House wasn’t exactly fortunate with the last special prosecutor. Maybe Fitzgerald would be willing to go another round?
As for Gonzales’ role in the U.S. Attorney scandal, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked the AG this morning how many U.S. Attorneys he’d fired during his tenure. He said he didn’t know.
After acknowledging the nine we know about from the purge, Gonzales added, “I’m not aware, sitting here today, of any other U.S. Attorney who was asked to leave — except there were some instances people were asked to leave, quite frankly, because there was legitimate cause.”
Given that he’d just named nine other U.S. Attorneys who’d been fired, it sounded like he was conceding that they’d been fired for illegitimate causes.