[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Chairwoman Sánchez Rules Against Invocation of Executive Privilege Chairwoman Sánchez Rules Against Invocation of Executive Privilege July 19th, 2007 by Jesse Lee Today the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law met to consider the executive privilege claims asserted by White House Counsel in response to the subpoena for the production of documents issued to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff or appropriate custodian of records. Chairwoman Linda Sánchez’s ruling: Ruling on White House Executive Privilege Claims We have received letters from White House Counsel Fred Fielding on June 28 and July 9 refusing to produce documents concerning our U.S. Attorney investigation that were called for in our June 13 subpoena to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, and further refusing to even provide the necessary information to explain his purported executive privilege claim. On July 17, Chairman Conyers and I again wrote to Mr. Fielding, notified him we would formally consider those privilege claims today, and again urged compliance with the June 13 subpoena. Let me say at the outset that Congress certainly recognizes and appreciate the fact that, in appropriate circumstances, a President may need to assert executive privilege over White House information. We therefore take executive privilege claims seriously, and treat them with the careful consideration we believe is appropriate. In this case, we have given the White House’s privilege claims careful consideration, and the Chair is prepared to rule that those claims are not legally valid and that Joshua Bolten of the White House is required pursuant to subpoena to produce the documents called for. After I make my ruling, I will entertain a motion to sustain it, but first I would like to set forth the legal grounds for it. A number of these grounds are similar to the grounds in the ruling sustained by this Subcommittee on July 12 overruling the related executive privilege and immunity claims sought to be raised by Harriet Miers through her counsel, and where appropriate, I will incorporate the reasoning and legal authorities by reference. The grounds for my ruling today are as follows: First, the claims of executive privilege are not properly asserted. We have not received a statement from the President himself asserting the privilege, even though Chairman Conyers has specifically requested one. As stated in my July 12 ruling and as incorporated by reference herein, the courts have ruled that a personal assertion of executive privilege by the President is legally required for the privilege claim to be valid, as, for example, in the Shultz case. 1 The second basis for my ruling is essentially the same as the fourth ground for my July 12 ruling as to Ms. Miers, which is incorporated by reference herein. The courts have required a party raising a claim of executive privilege as to documents to provide a “descriptive, full, and specific itemization of the various documents being claimed as privileged” and “precise and certain reasons for preserving their confidentiality.”2 Such a privilege log has been specifically requested from the White House, both in the subpoena and in a subsequent letter, and the White House has specifically refused. In other words, the White House is refusing not only to produce documents pursuant to subpoena, but also to even explain why the documents are being withheld. In effect, the White House is asking Congress and the American people to simply trust on blind faith that the documents are appropriately being kept secret. Our system of government does not permit the White House to demand this type of blind faith and secrecy. The third basis for my ruling is essentially the same as the third ground for my July 12 ruling as to Ms. Miers, which is incorporated by reference herein. The White House has failed to demonstrate that the documents we are seeking from the White House are covered by executive privilege, because they do not concern communications to or from the President, or to or from White House advisers “in the course of preparing advice for the President.” Indeed, the White House has unequivocally asserted that the President never received any advice on, and was not himself involved in, the U.S. Attorney firings. Therefore, under the Espy case and other relevant case law, the presidential communications privilege simply does not apply here. The fourth basis for my ruling is essentially the same as the fifth ground for my July 12 ruling as to Ms. Miers, which is incorporated by reference herein. Even assuming that the information we have asked for falls within the scope of a properly asserted executive privilege, any such privilege is outweighed by the compelling need for the House and the public to have access to this information. In addition to my explanation for this basis for my ruling on July 12, it should also be noted that the White House claim is weakened by the fact that the Administration itself, through the Justice Department, has released a number of White House e-mails on this subject, including even internal White House e-mails, and that the White House has offered to make more such material available as part of its “all-or-nothing” proposal that certain White House aides be interviewed without either an oath or a transcript. How can it be credibly argued, therefore, that Executive Branch interests will be seriously harmed when a significant amount of the very same type of information has been, or has been offered to be, publicly released? For all the foregoing reasons, I hereby rule that the refusal of Joshua Bolten of the White House to comply with the June 13 subpoena and produce documents as directed cannot be properly justified on executive privilege grounds and that Mr. Bolten is legally required to produce these documents. These reasons are without prejudice to one another and to any other defects that may after further examination be found to exist in the asserted privilege. Read opening statements from Chairwoman Sánchez and Full Committee Chairman John Conyers, in which Chairman Conyers notes that “It is regrettable that this process has reached this point, and it will undoubtedly cause us to consider further actions”: Chairman Conyers: Statement of Congressman John Conyers, Jr. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Meeting to Consider the Executive Privilege Claims asserted by White House Counsel in Response to the Subpoena for the Production of Documents issued to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, or Appropriate Custodian of Records July 19, 2007 I am disappointed that we have reached this day in our continuing investigation into the U.S. Attorney controversy. Time and time again, I have emphasized the critical importance of acquiring information from the White House, yet as we sit here today we have not received a single document from them. What we have received from them is an unacceptable “take it or leave it offer” that excludes any internal White House communications and suggests informal discussions with no transcripts. If we accept that stingy offer, no one should expect that the White House would give us a second bite at the apple. In fact, they have made clear that they will not, and that a condition of the offer is that we cannot ask for more under any circumstances. This is one of the main reasons why we reluctantly had to resort to the step of issuing subpoenas for White House documents. Yet, instead of producing documents pursuant to our subpoena, the White House produced an unprecedented, blanket assertion of Executive Privilege. Our sincere effort to obtain documents from the White House is rooted in evidence that we have received to date that demonstrates White House involvement in this controversy. We have learned, for example, that the White House was involved in the politicization of the Justice Department. New Mexico Republican officials complained repeatedly to Karl Rove and his aides about a voter fraud case that they wanted former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to pursue. Mr. Iglesias was fired soon after some of these complaints, and one of the complaining Republican officials was suggested as his replacement. There is also evidence that the White House participated in false statements to Congress. Chris Oprison in the Counsel’s office signed off on an inaccurate letter that the Justice Department sent to Congress claiming that Karl Rove did not play a role in the appointment of Tim Griffin to replace Bud Cummins. Mr. Oprison did this despite the fact that he was deeply involved in Mr. Griffin’s appointment and had consulted with Rove aide Scott Jennings on the issue. We also have evidence of a concerted effort both by the Justice Department and the White House to hide or downplay the role of White House personnel in this process. If the White House’s actions were routine and above board, what is it trying to hide by blocking our access to documents? The White House has impeded our efforts to gain information by asserting a privilege that historically only applies to advice given directly to the President, and is usually limited to specific communications only, not to broad categories of information as asserted by this White House. Their privilege claim is also inconsistent with their own statements that the President was not involved in the U.S. Attorney firings. The White House must understand that Executive Privilege is by no means absolute, and it must respect the important oversight obligations that we have to the American people. Non-compliance with our subpoena has stalled our ability to get to the heart of this very serious matter. It is regrettable that this process has reached this point, and it will undoubtedly cause us to consider further actions. Chairwoman Sánchez: THE HONORABLE LINDA SÁNCHEZ CHAIRWOMAN SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Meeting to consider the Executive Privilege claims asserted by White House Counsel in response to the subpoena for the production of documents issued to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, or appropriate custodian of records. I am profoundly troubled that the White House has chosen to disregard the subpoena for documents regarding the firing of the U.S. Attorneys and the potential politicization of the U.S. Department of Justice. Through our patient and good-faith efforts to negotiate with the White House on this matter, we have been trying to avoid a constitutional confrontation between the Executive and Legislative Branches. The White House could have prevented an escalation by engaging in reasonable negotiations. While I am hopeful the White House will reconsider its hardine position, it has, thus far, chosen a path of confrontation instead of cooperation. The issuance of the subpoena to the White House was a necessary last resort for an investigation that will finally allow the American people to learn the truth about what happened. Although this Subcommittee respects executive privilege as a safeguard for internal deliberations on the legitimate creation of policy, such a claim must be used judiciously and not to prevent necessary oversight into potential abuse of power or political misconduct. It is Congress’s responsibility to provide oversight of the Executive Branch and to enforce the system of checks and balances to make sure each branch of government is accountable. We take that obligation very seriously. And accordingly, it is our obligation to obtain the truth about the decision to fire these prosecutors and the Administration’s subsequent representation of the matter. Accountability in each branch of government is imperative in restoring the trust and faith of the American people. This entry was posted on Thursday, July 19th, 2007 at 12:27 pm by Jesse Lee and is filed under General, Oversight, Draining the Swamp, Civil Rights. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
Poster Comment: every day another piece of crap falls off the crap monster
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
So which ex-Soviet Bloc country do we most resemble now I wonder. That would be a good question for Comrade Chertoff.
Ron Paul for President
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||