Meet the new White House counsel

January 8, 2007

Harriet Miers wasn’t enough of a “street fighter” to keep her job as White House counsel, so who will the Bush gang tap as her replacement? Meet Fred Fielding. (via Paul Kiel)

In a signal that he could be open to working more closely with congressional Democrats rather than stonewalling, President Bush plans to name the widely respected Republican lawyer Fred F. Fielding as White House counsel this week, party sources tell TIME…. An official who has been briefed on the impending announcement, which could come as soon as Tuesday, called Fielding “the ultimate Washington lawyer-insider — he’s the man to see.” […]

Fielding was persuaded to leave his lucrative position as a senior partner in the Washington law firm of Wiley, Rein & Fielding with “an appeal to patriotism” and an assurance that he would not just be the President’s lawyer but would be deeply involved in Congressional strategy and negotiations, the official said. Fielding was Counsel to President Reagan from 1981 to 1986, deputy White House counsel from 1972 to 1974 and associate White House counsel from 1970 to 1972. He was Clearance Counsel for the Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition in 2000 and 2001, and has degrees from Gettysburg College and University of Virginia School of Law.

“The key for the Administration is going to be drawing the lines on these boundaries of executive privilege and access to documents and congressional oversight — drawing the lines around the really important issues and trying to be a little more flexible on the others,” said a former colleague of Fielding. “They’re not going to fold, because Fielding is a very serious, hard-nosed person, and he’s a tough negotiator. But they’re also going not to take a totally stonewall position. That doesn’t meant they’re going to cave in. What it means is they’re going to negotiate and focus on the things that they’re truly protecting and that are truly important.”

Hmm, White House lawyer for Nixon during Watergate, White House lawyer for Reagan during Iran-Contra … sounds perfect for George W. Bush.

Fielding was persuaded to leave his lucrative position as a senior partner in the Washington law firm of Wiley, Rein & Fielding with “an appeal to patriotism” and an assurance that he would not just be the President’s lawyer but would be deeply involved in Congressional strategy and negotiations, the official said.

“Congressional strategy and negotiations” covers a tremendous amount of ground. What I want to know is, what did he really get offered to climb aboard the SS Minnow? A top partner at a successful law firm doesn’t get pulled back into the cesspool because of ‘patriotism’ unless that is the new codeword for “retainer spelled with a lot of zeroes.”

If he was really a patriot, Fielding would be urging his client to resign before getting fitted with the leg irons and orange jumpsuit.

-GFO

  • Gee, sounds like real Supreme Court material, doesn’t he?

    Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, Harriet. 😉

  • Fielding was Counsel to President Reagan from 1981 to 1986, deputy White House counsel from 1972 to 1974 and associate White House counsel from 1970 to 1972. He was Clearance Counsel for the Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition in 2000 and 2001,

    In other words a real thug’s thug, made his bones working for Nixon in Watergate, helping Reagan break the law for five years, and helping the current irnoranus steal an election.

    Where is there anything about this guy that gives one the thought he is “cooperative” when it comes to dealing with Democrats?????

  • “Fielding is a very serious, hard-nosed person…”

    Were George and Dick notified of this in advance? I mean, this could hurt — unless they’re into that sort of thing.

  • Patriotism?

    Is Time just stupid or do they put these characterizations, like “In a signal that he could be open to working more closely with congressional Democrats rather than stonewalling…” in there out of habit? There is nothing in the article to warrant a lede like that.

    Same old Bush. Same old Republicans. Same old MSM.

  • GuyFromOhio,

    I think Curmudgeon has the best call on why Fielding took the job:

    Gee, sounds like real Supreme Court material, doesn’t he?

  • …Makes no difference how much whitewash you put on a rail fence with dry-rot; it’s still a rail fance with dry-rot, and it won’t keep the sheep in the meadow for much longer….

  • In a signal that he could be open to working more closely with congressional Democrats

    Like fighting hand to hand instead of trying to protect the fortress?

  • Spoiling for a constitutional dispute — the first may be the subpoena requiring Bush to appear before one or another Congressional investigative committee?

  • Yeah, and what happened to Nixon? Hoo boy. This might work out as well as dragging Kissinger out cold storage.

    “an appeal to patriotism”

    Mwahaha!

    “…and an assurance that [BushCo would not expect him to take a pounding when Pelosi goes to work with the gavel].”

  • How, exactly, do you think the Congress can “subpoena” the President of the United States? Have you idiots ever heard of “Separation of Powers”?

  • Didn’t a lot of people think Fred Fielding might be “deep throat” (back before that mystery was solved)? If he had that kind of access in the Nixon Whitehouse, he is truely an excellent choice for this administration. Maybe they could make Kissinger secretary of state again and go for the whole 1970’s reinactment thing.

  • How, exactly, do you think the Congress can “subpoena” the President of the United States? Have you idiots ever heard of “Separation of Powers”?

    Oh, I guess I forgot the President is above the law. I must’ve missed that day in 10th grade civics.

    Were you outraged when Ken Starr subpoenaed Bill Clinton?

    I’m sure when Jefferson argued against forcing the President to comply with a subpoena he never envisioned a President so much like the King he resented.

    Are you all really that afraid of checks and balances? Bunch of criminals, all of you.

  • Now then, the concept of “checks and balances” are just fine — in fact, they are all spelled out right there in the U.S. Constitution — as for Ken Starr, I was ALWAYS against the Independent Counsel statute as an unConstitutional infringement on the Executive, Democrat or Republican.

  • Thomas – here’s how they subpoena the POTUS: a secretary types up a subpoena…..

    I have the Constitution here in front of me – could you point me to the provision that mentions “checks and balances”? No? Then how about the part that says the President is above the law and is not required to accept service of a subpoena? Still no? How about the part of the Constitution that says that Congress cannot subpoena the President?

    Unless you subscribe to Nixon’s view that if the President does it, it’s not illegal, then can we please agree that the POTUS is not above the law? Don’t you also agree that it’s sad that it would come to the use of a subpoena to get Bush to provide the information that Congress is entitled to consistent with (here’s that C-word again) the Constitution that you apparently revere?

  • LOL — I said “concept” because neither phrase is included in the U.S. Constitution. If you really don’t know which powers are “checks and balances” try Art. I, Sec. 2 (Clause 5), Sec. 3 (Clause 6), or Sec. 7 (Clause 2).

  • Ok, but nowhere does it say that “Congress shall have no authority to issue a subpoena [or some legal 1780’s equivalent] to the President.” To the contrary, Congress has the authority to take whatever action is necessary and proper to ensure that IT’S responsibilities are fulfilled. If the President is interfering with Congressional oversight, the issuance of a subpoena, certainly not illegal action in any sense, would seem necessary and proper.

  • Nope. Congress has the “checks and balance” powers listed in the Constitution. Although not mentioned specifically either, “Executive Privilege” is the power held by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch that allows them to resist certain search warrants and other encroachments. As presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued, the separation of powers embodied in the United States Constitution implies that each branch will be permitted to operate within limits free to some degree from the control or supervision of the other. The Supreme Court indeed re-affirmed this in United States v. Nixon but ruled the tapes had to be turned over in that context: “To read the Art.II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a genaralized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of ‘a workable government’ and graveley impair the role of the courts under Art. III” 418 U.S. 683, 707. Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence. The war in Iraq is much different, my friend.

  • Some more excerpts from United States v. Nixon:

    Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of [418 U.S. 683, 685] Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution. Pp. 703-707.

    Although the courts will afford the utmost deference to Presidential acts in the performance of an Art. II function, United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 190, 191-192 (No. 14,694), when a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President’s generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. Pp. 707-713.

  • I thought that the Newsweek article was very complimentary to Fielding.

    Furthermore, David Gergen’s comments reassure me that Fielding wil be more ethical than Cheny or Rove, who in my opinion, have been the President’s primary advisors.

    Who did you folks expect? Laney Davis? Ramsey Clark?

  • Wow. Hiring this guy seems to be the equivalent of hanging a “I’m guilty of something” sign around your neck…

    • Comments are closed.