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.''
Same as the Old Boss.
SOS for four more years,
CATO
I see that the President must occasionally give a state of the union presentation of information to Congress.
And I see where The president, vice-president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
What I don't see is anywhere that it says that Congress has general oversight duties, responsibilities, or powers over the Executive branch or the Presidency.
That phrase states that they make the laws necessary and proper for carrying out all other powers vested by the Constitution. It does not say that they have oversight responsibility for the execution of said laws.
Do some readingI have. Have you?
Where in the Constitution does it give Congress that power?
Just because Congress has claimed it, does not mean it is rightfully their's.
And, I have spent YEARS here on FreeRepublic trying to warn the Sheeple that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Gore, Bush, Democrats or Republicans.
If these two bozos would treat private, confidential deliberations by prosecutors as they should be treated, there'd be no issue.
I totally agree! Burton is going to far in seeking working prosecution papers especially when his only purpose is to leak them in such a way it would be impossible to prosecute him.
I missed your flag to this one. It doesn't show if it's not rdavis84.
The 84 is my IQ and I'm proud of it. So I made it part of my screenname! 'Course, it probably causes a LOT of jealousy to flaunt stuff like that, but what the heck!
The Bushbunnies will just have to get over it!
That's NOT TRUE!!
It's Cattle Country down where his ranch is!
There's the simple, Valid point.
B. History of Oversight
Oversight has been a key function of Congress since its very beginning. It is an implied power, not an enumerated power in the Constitution. It is based on the constitutional powers given to Congress to pass laws that create agencies and programs, to provide funding for these agencies and programs, and to investigate the Executive Branch. The first congressional oversight investigation took place in 1792, an inquiry into the conduct of the government in the wars against the Indians, and they have been taking place ever since.
Congress overhauled its oversight responsibilities in 1946 with the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. It reinforced the need for "continuous watchfulness" by Congress of the Executive Branch, and placed most of that responsibility in the standing committees rather than in specially created investigatory committees. The extent of congressional oversight has fluctuated in recent decades, with some Congresses taking it much more seriously than others. In the 96st Congress, for example, Speaker Tip O'Neill gave it very high priority and called the 96st the "oversight Congress". More recently, Speaker Gingrich shifted the emphasis of oversight, seeing it not just as a way to oversee but to shrink the size and reach of the federal government. He also used it to aggressively investigate the White House. Speaker Hastert, as I noted earlier, is encouraging the committees to move away from oversight as political micro management to oversight as congressional review of agency performance and effectiveness."
Source: http://wwics.si.edu/congress/background/oversight-hamilton.htm
Clarity-----7/31/2001
Your screen name reveals what you might do...rant and rave...and accomplish nothing. Burton and Waxman certainly haven't done anything with all 'the facts' that have already been leaked.
If bush were covering for clintong (which I doubt sincerely) it would be bad enough.
If bush is concerned about how this would impact national security, the China connection or other yet unrevealed, and extremely unsettling truths regarding the "state of the union" I am even more concerned.
There are things MORE insidious than the Mena debacle with W's dad at stake here... I am afraid to ask just what. I am afraid that if he is NOT covering for Clinton, that whatever the reason is, will be more shocking than the "X-Files" and so serious that no thickness of "tin foil" can shield us from the fallout.
Why would they claim executive privilege if there was nothing to hide about the fbi, clinton and the national state of security... answer.. we are in a more serious position, than anyone is going to admit publicly.
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.