Earlier this year, House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) invited Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to stop by the committee to discuss the Plame leak scandal and answer lawmakers’ questions. Fitzgerald declined, but offered a consolation prize: some of the documents assembled over the course of the investigation.
Wouldn’t you know it, the White House that always has something to hide doesn’t want lawmakers to know what went on over the course of the investigation that led to the first criminal indictment against a top West Wing official in 130 years.
In a letter to [Attorney General Michael Mukasey] today, House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) said that the White House has prevented former Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald from turning over records of his interviews during the Valeria Plame leak investigation of White House officials, including the President.
In July, Waxman said, Fitzgerald agreed to turn over the documents to Waxman’s House oversight committee, along with documents from his interviews with State Department and CIA officials. But though he’s turned those other documents over to the committee, the White House has prevented the release of his records of the White House interviews.
In the letter, Waxman urges Mukasey to ignore the White House’s position, saying that “the role of the Attorney General is to administer the laws with impartiality.” During the Clinton Administration, he writes, Janet Reno “made an independent judgment and provided numerous FBI interview reports to the Committee, including reports of interviews with President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and three White House Chiefs of Staff.” Apparently the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales had agreed to the White House’s request to keep the documents from Congress. Waxman wants to know if things will change now that there’s a new boss.
I’m hard pressed to understand the White House’s position here. In fact, I’m curious what Mukasey is going to say, not because I think he may be even-handed, but because I can’t think of a way to rationalize the need for a cover-up.
There’s no need to rehash the entire investigation again right now, but let’s not forget that the Bush White House was under a criminal investigation. At least one senior White House aide was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury, in the hopes of covering up the White House’s role in leaking the name of an undercover CIA official during a war.
The Special Prosecutor’s office has documents pertaining to his investigation, and he’s willing to share some of these materials with lawmakers in both parties. Why should the White House be able to block disclosure? If it’s a matter of national security intelligence-gathering, redacted materials are certainly an option.
It’s not as if Bush and his lawyers can claim executive privilege here. The president wasn’t getting advice — he and his staff were speaking with a law-enforcement official in the context of a criminal probe. (Waxman had requested transcripts relating to Fitzgerald’s interviews of Bush, Cheney, Andrew Card, Stephen Hadley, Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, and Scott McClellan.)
It sets up a test for Mukasey: help the White House cover its tracks (i.e., follow in Alberto Gonzales’ footsteps), or allow the Justice Department to cooperate with reasonable congressional oversight, as was the case with previous presidents.
Waxman concluded, “I recognize that President Bush and his counsel may not want this information provided to Congress. But the role of the attorney general is to administer the laws with impartiality.”
Stay tuned.