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.''
Yep. Ole Doughty, a major Buchanan supporter, stands as an objective observer.
On a thread, last week, DO referred to Bush as an "MF."
He's a real objective observer, as are you.
I would written it differently. "Now comes all of the Bush bashers who have been whining about stem cells and increased education spending (funding). I can hear the same pathetic 1% group whining about stuff but they really have no place to go or no one to support, do they? Who else will they support, Buchanan? LOL"
Folks, my first take on this is they may be just standing firm based on principle and protecting the institution of the Presidency. After all, tommorrow it could be some slimey leftist trying to clog up the works. Let's see how this plays out. I mean we are talking about George Bush, an honorable man, not some Clintonist leftist thug. So IMHO tie goes to Bush until more facts are known.
You can't outdo me on low IQ screen names so I ain't jealous. Take that, Smarty Pants!
Yes...I've noticed. And I'm sure you've got yer reasons.
"That is when Burton really got my dander up! I personally don't agree with executive privilege, but I also don't agree with Burton's leaking which came out in force during pardongate."
Has that been proven? I remember the Clintonoids accusing Starr and Burton of leaking stuff, but it ended up that the Truth was that Clinton was doin' the leaking. If you've got a link that backs up your allegations, I'd be quite appreciative.
"If I hadn't had my blinders on with my total dislike of the clinton administration, I would have looked at Burton differently then too. I have changed in a lot of areas and some of it came about during the pardongate hearings! I saw absolute grandstanding on the part of Burton and didn't like what I saw."
You call it "grandstanding", but I call it trying to get a message out to the American Sheeple when the Vast, LeftWing Media Whore'd was doing everything it could to IGNORE MAJOR CRIMES being committed at the Highest Echelons of the Federal Guv'ment. IMHO, Burton's one of the good guys...sorry to hear you disagree.
"Like I said, I don't particularly agree with Executive Privilege but Yes I have changed when it comes to Burton and it has nothing to do with GW."
Okay...I'll take you on yer word; however, Good Guv'ment is Honest Guv'ment, and how can we tell if a Branch of the Federal Guv'ment is being honest if they are so quick to hide documents that explain the reasoning behind their decisions? I am sure Clinton took bribes from some of those he pardoned...that is patently ILLEGAL!!! Why shouldn't we have access to documentation that proves this crime?
"How many times did Reagan invoke Executive Privilege (I honestly don't know and for what reasons)."
I don't know and I'm not sure exactly how it applies to our discussion.
"Executive Privilege has been around for a very long time and should be used very sparingly. If we had ethical people that knew how to keep their mouths shut instead of showing up on every TV cable show about what their committee is doing, maybe it wouldn't be necessary to use it!"
Woah...so now you're saying Congress should have access to this non-National Security info, but not us lowly Sheeple?! Yes, ma'am, you HAVE changed.
"So those emails you have are worthless or isn't a person allowed to change their opinion when they get more information."
My FRiend, I wasn't about to make our private conversations public...you oughtta know me better than that. Still, I go back and read the conversations you and I and Paul Cruce and others had, and I don't recognize you these days. Sure, folks change...but blind allegiance to any Party is never a good thing, IMHO!!
"BTW pardongate was about Clinton not GW!"
I'm perfectly aware of who the REAL Enemy is here...but thanks for the clarification all the same.
"As for defending GW on everything, you won't see me defending too much the education policy which I don't particularly like. My kids have had too many standardized test as it is! Also don't believe throwing more money at public education is going to solve the problem!"
Well, we certainly see eye-to-eye on that Fiasco...and I think Dubyuh did an amazing job getting the tax cut passed and in dealing with the Stem Cell Research issue. In fact, there's very little I choose to chide Bush II about, if you wanna know the Truth. Still, I almost think those of you who are unwilling to point out--to Dubyuh--when he's missed Left of the mark...well, IMHO, you're doing Dubyuh a dis-service. I respect loyalty as much as the next guy, and believe me, I still consider Dubyuh to be MY GUY in the White House, but he's surrounded by a bunch of Moderates and he needs our Constructive Criticism as a Spine-Stiffener!! "YesMen" need not apply.
Utmost FReegards, my FRiend...Steve
When "We the People" write the checks, it certainly is.
#2: We will see the grand wisdom of his decision later
#3 Gee this Kool-aid has a fine taste
#4 You malcantent Keyes, Pat, Phillips and JW supporters will never be happy, want president Beanie to flop, just so you can say "see".
#5 We are in a Republic, he cant do everything at once, and he will get around to putting the breaks on the imperial executive...uh....someday soon.
#6 Its all a part of a VRWC done by Bill Kristol (who is behind McCain, Bauer, Keyes, Klayman, and others).
I cant wait for these jackasses to make fools of themsleves, although they dont care.
You sure do have the uncanny penchant for calling a spade a spade.
I'm in love...
Smooches 4U Angel & nice work.
Good thing someone's got a good memory or the rest of us might forget a time ot two. {g}
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.