Bush asserts executive privilege; refuses to supply subpoenaed documents

June 28, 2007

Well, this hardly comes as a surprise.

President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers’ demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Bush’s attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.

“With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation,” White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. “We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion.”

Yeah, I’m sure the White House is all broken up about it. They’d hoped to avoid “confrontation,” but those pesky Dems kept insisting they had some kind of oversight responsibilities or something.

The White House counsel’s office also said Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as required by subpoena.

Last week, The Hill reported, “House Judiciary Committee Democrats warned yesterday they would pursue a contempt of Congress motion if the White House fails to respond to subpoenas for testimony and documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys last year.”

Also keep in mind, the White House’s position on this, even before today, has been consistently ridiculous.

In his letter, Fielding said Bush had “attempted to chart a course of cooperation” by releasing more than 8,500 pages of documents and sending Gonzales and other senior officials to testify before Congress. The White House also had offered a compromise in which Miers, Taylor, White House political strategist Karl Rove and their deputies would be interviewed by Judiciary Committee aides in closed-door sessions, without transcripts.

This was the White House’s idea of “cooperation.” To reject such generosity was to embrace confrontation. Please.

Legally, we’re in for a fierce fight in the courts. Politically, the White House is now left looking as if it has something to hide, in large part because it almost certainly has something to hide.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy responded:

“This is a further shift by the Bush Administration into Nixonian stonewalling and more evidence of their disdain for our system of checks and balances,” he said in a statement released to RAW STORY. “This White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred…. Increasingly, the President and Vice President feel they are above the law – in America no one is above law.”

Stay tuned.

Bush is in a fairly strong position because it is getting near the end of his term and he can run out the clock.

How long do you think it will take before the Supreme Court rules?

I would not be surprised if Bush has 4 votes on his side for any conflict with Congress. I guess it will all depend on Justice Kennedy.

  • Contempt of Congress has a nice ring to it. I’ll be pissed if they back down an inch.

  • neil wilson: I guess it will all depend on Justice Kennedy.

    Yeah. He’ll come through for us!

    Seriously though, I believe the only hope for our democracy is to treat these people as the criminals they are. If attempting to destroy the United States of America from the inside isn’t worthy of a long healthy stint in prison, what the hell is?

  • senator leahy’s remarks are very appropriate here. these investigations won’t stop here, just like they didn’t stop during watergate. i don’t imagine the result will be the same, tho, but we must do this to try to get our country back.

  • simple Democratic comment: I guess they’re not really the law and order party when they’re the ones who have to follow the law.

  • We knew this was coming, and so, I’m sure, did Leahy. He’s building a record, one that will clearly indicate obstruction and perjury. He’s had as many people before the committee as he can, and the ones who know the answers all have memory problems. The less those people remember, the more they indirectly point to the WH, and the clearer it is that that is where the answers are.

    The use of non-WH- domain e-mails is going to present a problem for the WH in claiming executive privilege. The involvement of purely political operations and operatives in the business of the executive branch is not, I don’t think, going to allow them to extend the blanket of EP that far.

    It’s my hope that Leahy will stand firm and not decide to cave in and accept some meaningless, off-the-record, unsworn and transcript-less “conversation” with Miers and Rove, etc. So far, it looks like Leahy is prepared to hang tough. And it looks like we will just have to summon up some patience from somewhere.

  • Looks like it might be time for another mass-terror frame-up and stepped-up psychological attacks upon the American public by the NeoCon 9/11 Hit Squad to get the American public and the United States Congress back on a short leash.

    It is clear that King George is not going to give up the keys to the kingdom peaceably. Impeachment is now the only alternative to open American Tyranny. If an organized, concerted and legitimate effort by the Congress to uncover the truth about the abuse of power, lawlessness, and capital crimes committed by the traitors occupying the Executive Branch does not bear the light of day now, do we really believe that it will happen somewhere over the rainbow?

    I want freedom! That’s what I want and that’s what you should want!

  • While many can argue how important this issue is to the Nation, the general public and voters next year may not. The idea of a political congress getting nothing done but bickering with the other party becomes the Mantra and the Dem’s lose in that argument.

  • I have to agree with Neil at #1.

    Bush has a lackey in the Attorney General’s position. Rather than defend the constitution of the US, he will defend W and his cabal.

    Bush has stacked the SCOTUS with idealogues who will no doubt side with this admin.

    Congress has shown time and time again that it is toothless and is reluctant to get near an edge, let alone push anyone over it.

    And the 4th Estate, the Press, won’t investigate or report unless Paris Hilton is somehow involved in one of these scandals, which I doubt, given the fact that she actually served jail time.

    On a side note, Lil Bush on Comedy Central is an instant comedy classic and should be viewed by everyone in America.

  • “The idea of a political congress getting nothing done but bickering with the other party becomes the Mantra and the Dem’s lose in that argument.”

    Can you back up the claim that the Dems lose that argument, in light of every poll on the question shows that a large majority of the public, including a very large chunk of Republicans, support the Dem Congress pushing oversight on the WH on these issues, as well as a majority that say the Dems have not stepped in strongly enough?

  • re ron @ 9: “The idea of a political congress getting nothing done but bickering with the other party becomes the Mantra and the Dem’s lose in that argument.”

    So long as Ds allow Rs and the MSM to frame nearly all political discourse, many voters will reach that conclusion. The solution, obvious to all but elected and hopeful Ds, is to stop letting Rs and the MSM frame political discourse.

    Not complicated.

  • The Dems better go after the WH, they need to show they have more than a pair of BB’s hangin there…

  • Legally, we’re in for a fierce fight in the courts.

    And watching the decisions handed down this session, from the court appointed by a man “no different from a Democrat” according to Saint Ralph Nader, I think this White House can enter the contest with a solid belief that they’ll be backstopped by Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia, and Kennedy, just the way the Supreme Court installed this coup d’etat masquerading as a political administration back in 2000.

    I wish to hell I was wrong here, and I’d be overjoyed to be proven wrong, but I’m not going to be surprised when it happens.

  • Olbermann then turned to law professor Joanathan Turley, who agreed tentatively that the administration might move slowly enough to “run out the clock” on its time in office. “But there is one thing that might concern them about the court,” Turley said, “and that is, you know, for many years, since we first found out about this program [warrantless wiretap], some of us have said that this was a clearly criminal act that the president called for. … If we’re right, not only did he order that crime, but it would be, in fact, an impeachable offense.”

    “Both sides, both Democrats and Republicans, have avoided this sort of pig in the parlor,” Turley continued. “They don’t want to recognize that this president may have ordered criminal offenses. But they may now be on the road to do that, because the way Congress can get around the executive privilege in court is to say, we’re investigating a potential crime.“

    — Worth a look.

  • “Increasingly, the President and Vice President feel they are above the law – in America no one is above law.”

    Good. Now can we PLEASE get to the impeachment proceedings?

  • the nice thing is, even though the clock may run out on their terms in office before anything can be done, the statute of limitations on the crimes they committed will last for years longer.

  • “I think this White House can enter the contest with a solid belief that they’ll be backstopped by Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia, and Kennedy, just the way the Supreme Court installed this coup d’etat masquerading as a political administration back in 2000.”

    Tom, maybe, but I do not know if that is the case or a foregone conclusion. You have to factor in Bush consistently and well below 30%, the fact that whatever the SCOTUS decides will apply equally to Dem administrations, and the stong possibility of a Dem administration starting January 2009. Alito and Scalia may be beyond reason, but Roberts and Kennedy do not seem to have all the same tendencies of those two. Anyting can happen, and these guys will definitely give a thorough think through all the issues (unlike with the cases decided so far) because whatever they decide to do will benefit/limit Dem administrations as well as the GOP administrations. Think they want to establish a precedent that would allow a President Clinton in particular to be able to avoid subpoenas?

  • …stong possibility of a Dem administration starting January 2009. -bubba

    That’s why the SCOTUS signs all their decisions now with “IOKIYAR.” They actually dot the ‘i’s with hearts.

  • Great article on Congressional Subpoenas and particularly contempt of Congress. http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31836.pdf

    When the executive branch refuses to release information or allow officials to testify, Congress may decide to invoke its contempt power. Although the legislative power of contempt is not expressly provided for in the Constitution and exists as an implied power, as early as 1821 the Supreme Court recognized that without this power the legislative branch would be “exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.”116 If either House votes for a contempt citation, the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House shall certify the facts to the appropriate U.S. Attorney, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”117 Individuals who refuse to testify or produce papers are subject to criminal contempt, leading to fines and imprisonment.118 Witnesses may invoke their Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination.

  • I was wondering – Meirs and Taylor no longer work for the government. Can they be subpoenaed on their own as they are now private citizens? What are the rules on this? Is it because when the activity occurred they were part of the gov’t?

    But this doesn’t relate to the others who testified on the Justice Dept scandal – are also no longer employed by the gov’t (Goodling, Conyers, Iglesies, etc.).

    So then the executive privilege doesn’t compute.

  • I say appoint Bill Clinton as the special prosecutor… man that would be some serious poetic justice!

  • There is no legitimate reason for refusing to turn over this information or for refusing to cooperate and allow staff to testify besides that it would incriminate them. It clearly demonstrates that they have something to hide. If this were a business the FBI would have already seized documents. Here we have a WH busy deleting all incriminating information and gagging or threatening witnesses and participants and being covered and backed up by a corrupt Attorney General.
    They truly are the WH crime family. Just like Bush sr. told his dad, “Don’t worry pop, in 20-30 yrs the Bush family will be totally legit..”

    It’s way past time for Impeachment.

  • I agree that it’s way past time for impeachment. There isn’t enough time now. But Bush et al need to be pulled down about a thousand pegs to where they belong.

    Perhaps it’s time to deny any more funding for Iraq and bring the troops home immediately and deny all other legislative proposals sent forward by the White House, just on principle. A new president/Congress will have to clean up the mess.

    • Comments are closed.