See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: White House and Lawmakers Alike Face Risks in an Executive Privilege Fight
Source:
The New York Times
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/w ... 2095699-PWs7sRWra1t37u8L7rW6qQ
Published: Jun 17, 2007
Author: SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Post Date: 2007-06-17 11:57:24 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 74
Comments: 4
June 17, 2007 WASHINGTON, June 16 — President Bush was strangely quiet this week when Democrats issued subpoenas to two former White House officials in the firing of federal prosecutors. Mr. Bush had been quite vocal, and perfectly clear, back in March when Democrats first delivered their subpoena threat. “I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials,” Mr. Bush said then. Asked if he would be willing to fight a subpoena in court, he added, “Absolutely.” But when the subpoenas actually arrived on Wednesday, for Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, Mr. Bush said nothing. The White House counsel, Fred F. Fielding — who recently beefed up his staff, hiring additional lawyers to handle the growing demands for documents and testimony — has yet to offer a response. The press secretary, Tony Snow, refused to say if the president would fight the subpoenas in court. “That is way premature,” Mr. Snow said. Those sounds of silence suggest that the White House is grappling with a dilemma. If Mr. Bush reaches an accommodation with lawmakers on testimony from Ms. Miers and Ms. Taylor, Democrats will inevitably demand similar terms for Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political adviser. The last thing Mr. Bush wants is the image of Mr. Rove going up to Capitol Hill to submit to questions from Democrats. But if the president does take the legal route, invoking executive privilege to protect his right to receive unfettered advice from his aides, he risks looking like he is stonewalling — at the very moment that he is trying to salvage his domestic agenda by working with Democrats on issues like immigration and the reauthorization of his signature education bill, No Child Left Behind. Democrats, meanwhile, run the risk of looking like they are waging a fishing expedition. “There’s a big problem for both the White House and Congress on these subpoenas, and that is that everybody looks bad,” said Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush’s first press secretary. “The White House doesn’t want to get into a visible public executive privilege court fight because it makes it look like they’re hiding something. Congress shouldn’t go down this subpoena line because they’re only cooking their own goose. It’s great for the base, but lousy for the country.” At issue is who drafted a plan to dismiss eight federal prosecutors, and why. Democrats want to know if the White House allowed politics to interfere with the Justice Department. Copies of e-mail messages already released by the department show Ms. Miers and Ms. Taylor helped orchestrate the ousters, despite early insistence from the White House that its officials had not been involved. Mr. Bush said in March that he was willing to make his top aides, including Mr. Rove, available for interviews with lawmakers — but only if the interviews were not under oath, not in public and not transcribed. Democrats balked at those terms and, after fruitless attempts to engage the White House, decided this week to issue the subpoenas instead. That Mr. Rove did not receive one was not lost on fellow Republicans. Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who is leading the investigation in the Senate, said it made sense for lawmakers to “go to the underlings first.” But Charles Black, a Republican strategist close to the White House, characterized Mr. Rove’s absence from the subpoena as a delaying tactic intended to keep the controversy alive. “I think the Democrats have a three- or four- or five-act play scripted here,” Mr. Black said, “and Karl is probably Act 5.” Mr. Bush has already said he would not stand for top aides like Mr. Rove being dragged up to Capitol Hill for “show trials” under “the klieg lights.” And Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, complained on Friday that the Democrats’ “obsession with trying to get Karl Rove is bordering on the weird.” Now the president must decide how aggressive he wants to be about defending his right to receive confidential advice, from Mr. Rove or anyone else in his inner circle. Mr. Bush has assiduously protected presidential prerogatives. He has expanded presidential powers, claiming authority to try terror suspects in military tribunals and eavesdrop on Americans without court warrants — and without the knowledge of Congress. Some allies of the White House say an executive privilege battle is the next logical step. “I think they have excellent prospects of winning in court,” said David Rivkin, who served in the White House counsel’s office under the first President Bush. Mr. Rivkin said he saw no political downside to a fight: “This has become very sharply edged, very partisan. People who do not like the administration will say he is stonewalling no matter what.” One possible way out of the impasse would be for the White House to agree to interviews with transcripts, in exchange for Democrats’ withdrawing the subpoenas. Two leading lawmakers, Mr. Schumer and Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, have said they might agree to such terms. And Ms. Perino hinted Friday that the White House would like to find a graceful exit, though she would not put Mr. Fielding, the White House counsel, on the phone to discuss the possible alternatives. “I think there’s a variety of things we feel we can do; we’d like to be able to give them the information they want,” she said, adding, “The smart lawyers are thinking through that right now.”
White House Memo
White House and Lawmakers Alike Face Risks in an Executive Privilege Fight
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin (#0)
Man - how I miss the bentmember.
Did anyone ever imagine that one day they would miss Clinton?
Rivkin has a history of being an administration shill. What the administration has an excellent prospect of doing if they stonewall is delaying the inevitable.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Only those who thought that smirk would do the exact opposite of everything that he said that he would do if elected...I was not one of those people, sadly.
#2. To: lodwick (#1)
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
Ron Paul for President
#3. To: robin (#0)
“I think they have excellent prospects of winning in court,” said David Rivkin, who served in the White House counsel’s office under the first President Bush. Mr. Rivkin said he saw no political downside to a fight: “This has become very sharply edged, very partisan. People who do not like the administration will say he is stonewalling no matter what.”
#4. To: robin. everyone (#2)
Did anyone ever imagine that one day they would miss Clinton?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest