Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush to Invoke Executive Privilege
AP ^ | Sept 5, 2001 | John Solomon

Posted on 09/05/2001 1:23:51 PM PDT by jern

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is prepared to invoke executive privilege if Congress demands to see documents about prosecutors' decisions in three Clinton-era cases, administration officials said Wednesday.

The claim, if made, would be Bush's first known use of executive privilege, a doctrine recognized by the courts to ensure presidents can get candid advice in private without fear of it becoming public.

White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales recommended that Bush make the privilege claim if a Republican-led House committee subpoenas the memos or seeks to question Attorney General John Ashcroft about them, the officials told The Associated Press.

The House Government Reform Committee prepared subpoenas demanding the disputed documents and planned to serve Ashcroft on Thursday, setting up a possible legal showdown.

The officials said the administration has researched at least four other instances in which executive privilege was cited involving similar documents.

Executive privilege is best known for the unsuccessful attempts by former Presidents Nixon and Clinton to keep evidence secret in impeachment investigations.

Rep. Dan Burton (news - bio - voting record), R-Ind., the chairman of the House committee, said the Bush administration's stance threatened Congress' ability to oversee the executive branch.

``While I have a great deal of respect for the attorney general, he has announced a new policy that broadens executive privilege,'' Burton said. ``If this unprecedented policy is permitted to stand, Congress will not be able to exercise meaningful oversight of the executive branch.''

Burton's committee has for months been seeking Justice Department (news - web sites) memos about prosecutors' decisions in cases involving Democratic fund raising, a former Clinton White House official and a former federal drug enforcement agent.

A senior administration official said while the decisions were made during Clinton's presidency, Bush had accepted Gonzales' recommendation and was prepared to invoke the privilege and create a clear policy that prosecutors' discussions should be off-limits from congressional scrutiny.

White House lawyers and the president concluded ``the fair administration of justice requires full and complete deliberations and that most often can best be accomplished when prosecutors think through their options in private,'' the official said, speaking only on condition of anonymity.

The claim would be the latest in a string of efforts by the new administration to restrain the flow of information to Congress about private deliberations.

Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) has rebuffed requests by the General Accounting Office (news - web sites) and a Democratic congressman to divulge information about people he met with and how he helped develop Bush's energy policy.

And a Senate committee chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news - bio - voting record) was initially turned down when it demanded several documents detailing the administration's decision to review regulations enacted by Clinton. Eventually, the administration allowed the committee to review the memos, but an aide to Lieberman said officials sent a clear message they would assert their right to withhold documents.

Ashcroft indicated last week the administration intended to reverse the practice of sharing prosecutors' deliberative documents with congressional committees.

Several such memos were shared with Congress during both Republican and Democratic administrations. Most recently in the 1990s such documents were turned over to the Whitewater, fund-raising, pardons and impeachment investigations.

But the concept of extending executive privilege to Justice Department decisions isn't new. During the Reagan years, executive privilege was cited as the reason the department did not tell Congress about some memos in a high-profile environmental case.

And then-Attorney General Janet Reno (news - web sites) advised Clinton in 1999 that he could invoke the privilege to keep from disclosing documents detailing department views on 16 pardon cases.

Legal experts are split on how such a claim might fare in a court challenge.

``Prosecution is a core executive function and from that starting point, a claim of executive privilege is quite a good one,'' said John Barrett, a former Iran-Contra prosecutor who now teaches law at St. John's University.

But Noah Feldman, a constitutional law professor at New York University, said courts would have to balance the president's right to confidential advice against Congress' right to oversight. Feldman said the fact that several prosecutorial decision-making memos have been disclosed to Congress in the past without apparent harm to the presidency could influence the debate.

Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta, said most new administrations test the limits of congressional oversight then conclude it is better to reach a negotiated settlement.

``Ultimately the public loses faith in fair administration of justice from over-claims of executive privilege, especially in matters that don't have to do with direct advice to the president,'' Podesta said. ``It appears to me that every administration has to learn that the hard way.''


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-294 next last

1 posted on 09/05/2001 1:23:51 PM PDT by jern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jern
``While I have a great deal of respect for the attorney general, he has announced a new policy that broadens executive privilege,'' Burton said. ``If this unprecedented policy is permitted to stand, Congress will not be able to exercise meaningful oversight of the executive branch.''

That says it all.

2 posted on 09/05/2001 1:28:13 PM PDT by Lanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jern
Most recently in the 1990s such documents were turned over to the Whitewater, fund-raising, pardons and impeachment investigations.

Not without massive redaction, stonewalling, and in some cases - not at all.

3 posted on 09/05/2001 1:28:35 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jern
"Podesta said. ``It appears to me that every administration has to learn that the hard way.''

Problem is, Mr. Podesta, you made it too easy for Bill Clinton.

4 posted on 09/05/2001 1:29:08 PM PDT by prognostigaator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Lanman
What's this, another instance of Bush doing exactly what Gore would have? Hmmm, weren't there some people around last year saying Bush would never do things the same as Gore?
6 posted on 09/05/2001 1:31:23 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
what is this, the first or second time out of a hundred? I can see your point. They are obviously identical.
7 posted on 09/05/2001 1:34:34 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jern
Now comes all of the Bush apologists who have been apologizing about stem cells and increased education wasting(funding) with no parental choice. I can hear the same group again making excuses.
8 posted on 09/05/2001 1:36:08 PM PDT by mattflogel.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jern
The claim would be the latest in a string of efforts by the new administration to restrain the flow of information to Congress about private deliberations.
Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) has rebuffed requests by the General Accounting Office (news - web sites) and a Democratic congressman to divulge information about people he met with and how he helped develop Bush's energy policy.

If this was still Clinton doing this Bush lovers would be outraged.

Business as usual.

9 posted on 09/05/2001 1:39:45 PM PDT by Aerial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Waxman and Burton leaked every document turned over by the Clinton administration. I've got no love for the Clinton administration, but, depending on whose purposes were served, nothing given to Congress wasn't blared to the press within five minutes.

If these two bozos would treat private, confidential deliberations by prosecutors as they should be treated, there'd be no issue.

10 posted on 09/05/2001 1:40:56 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
They are obviously identical.

Nah. Dubya hasn't started to grow a scraggly beard... yet.

Give him time.

11 posted on 09/05/2001 1:40:56 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aerial
They all do it. Lets move on.The names and faces change but the agenda basically remains constant.
12 posted on 09/05/2001 1:43:05 PM PDT by Patrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lanman
Watermelon Dan couldn't touch Clinton now he's causing trouble for his own party?
13 posted on 09/05/2001 1:43:18 PM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vedicstar
Unfortunately,I couldn't agree with you more.No need to bring up the past....the past is irretrievable....W does not want the crap to hit the fans.
14 posted on 09/05/2001 1:45:47 PM PDT by oust the louse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

I was just wondering.

Where in the Constitution does it vest in Congress the responsibility and authority to provide oversight of the President's activity or over the executive branch in general?

15 posted on 09/05/2001 1:46:51 PM PDT by Hugh Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: Bold Fenian
Why, we might be tempted to believe that these prosecutors actually work for US? Please, keep us subjects in the dark!

You don't have access to the deliberations of your local DA, who also works for you, do you?

Wanna try to get access to them?

Good luck.

17 posted on 09/05/2001 1:50:24 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Bush would never do things the same as Gore?

I seem to remember that too.

18 posted on 09/05/2001 1:50:54 PM PDT by Lanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: oust the louse
"W does not want the crap to hit the fans."

That would only create distrust and impede the important work gubmint has to do.
19 posted on 09/05/2001 1:55:25 PM PDT by gjenkins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
Some of the Privilege Claims under the Clinton Administration:

1993 - to block an inspection of Vince Foster's files after his suicide
1994 - to block turning over documents from its ethics review regarding Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy
1995 - to block lawyer's notes from conversations with Hillary Clinton
1996 - to block turning over documents relating to arms shipments from Iran to Bosnia
1996 - to block turning over a memo by FBI Director Louis Freeh criticizing the drug policy
1996 - to block turning over documents subpoenaed concerning Haiti police violence
1996 - to block turning over Travel Office documents
1997 - to block turning over campaign finance related records
1997 - to block testimony of Bruce Lindsey concerning James Riady - campaign finance
1997 - to block turning over documents pertaining to cancellation of an Indian casino
1998 - to block testimony of Paul Begala - filegate
1998 - to block grand jury testimony of Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal - Lewinsky
1998 - to block grand jury testimony of Bruce Lindsey ("attorney client") - Lewinsky
1998 - to block Secret Service testimony - Lewinsky (new privilege, "protective function") - Lewinksy
1998 - to block answers to 2 questions Hillary Clinton ("spousal privilege") - Whitewater RDMHQ Funding Document
Secret 3rd privilege claim.
(see Count 11 of the Starr impeachment report)
1999 – to prevent testimony of Lenzner concerning Tripp
1999 – to block testimony by NSA concerning Echelon (attorney/client privilege)
1999 – to block white house aides testimony and documents re clemency of 16 Puerto Rican prisoners
1999 – to withold one document from Federal Judge Walter Smith re Waco
1999 – to prevent tesimony of Larry Potts re Judicial Watch lawsuit (attorney/client and work product)
2000 – to prevent testimony of Leslie Gail Kennedy (ex of William Kennedy) – re FBI Files
2000 – to block in litigation concerning Kathleen Willey (release of her letters) – Privacy Act
2000 – to block tesimony concening emails hidden from congress
2000 – to block Hillary testimony (spousal privilege) re Kathleen Willey
2000 – to block tesimony of Earl Silbert (attorney/client privilege) re emails


20 posted on 09/05/2001 1:55:33 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-294 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson