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.''
And that's a birdie.
(1) It's time to move on ...
(2) He's setting the precedent for his successor ....
(3) Clinton has some major big time dirt on GW or Poppy.
IMHO, its door number 3!!!!
Clinton and Bush are not hand in glove.
Honest.
By your reasoning, Bush can never use executive privilege. Carville thanks you.
The claim, if made, would be Bush's first known use of executive privilege, ....
'To invoke' as the author's title says and 'is prepared to invoke' as the article says are two different things... so we will see. Write the article to maximize the spin factor against the President, or was this just a "Parody"?.. LOL
Well, then, I guess that settles it.
Ronald Reagan invoked executive privilege several times. Criminal Reagan.
(Think Archie and Meathead and the refrigerator repairman here.)
No, incorrect. Pat, you free to move on but I won't be.
I assume we are talking about the Ray office ending and the full report not yet out and Burton is mad about the indictments not being made and wants to paw through raw information to have his just revenge. Ah, too easy...Burton will never get redress for the Clinton smears and belittlement...It was too massive and Big Lies always work in the Media.
A quotation comes to mind (doesn't it always in my posts?) so let's have a little Robert Bolt playwrite view of Thomas More sort of on target:
More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
No, incorrect. Pat, you free to move on but I won't be.
*** JUDICIAL WATCH SAYS THEY WILL PURSUE THE LORAL SHAREHOLDERS CASE ***
The AG's office controls the Justice Department, the FBI, the ATF and now FEMA. A rogue AG could essentially bring this nation down. Only 33% of Congress the likes of Hillary, Waxman, Jackson-Lee, Kennedy and other miscreants could block an impeachment remedy.
If we're going to hold the AG's documents untouchable, then we're also going to hold every other cabinet offical's papers untouchable.
These are not mere political challenges to Bush's method of conducting his official business. We are talking about a likely criminal conspiracy, not even involving Bush, but rather Clinton and his Justice Department? You really see this as protected by the Separtations of Powers doctrine? Organized crime, treason, obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, destruction of evidence, collusion, racketeering and other charges were not only possible but likely. Yet you feel that research into these charges should be blocked to protect Executive Privilege and the Separations of Powers?
If you are correct the Justice Department is free to do anything they could possibly think of with impugnity.
Imagine a Justice Department which manufactured false charges against enemies of the Executive Branch. Then imagine them executing all sorts of judicial proceedings against them, with false evidence under the cover of legal proceedings. Imagine a court with no investigative aparatus to root out these criminal acts.
Is this the power you seek to give Bush or the next Clinton? If so, count me out. I do believe in the concept of separation of powers as long as it pertains to legitmate areas.
No - - INCORRECT. Pat, you feel free to move on, BUT I WON'T BE.
TERRY MCAULIFFE - DNC CHAIRMAN - WAS KEY DEFENDENT IN LORAL SHAREHOLDERS CASE ie. CHINAGATE- - #12
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.