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.''
What you posted states clearly what I see as a problem. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to make legitimate what Congress was doing outside the bounds of the Constitution. The Constitution provides the methodology for doing that; in this case for Congress to pass a law specifying the oversight to be conducted and the President signing it, or Congress overriding a veto.
(Bush weighs new affirmative action plan)
Note the source, though...Washington ComPost!!
(Bush to press for blanket amnesty for Mexicans now here)
"By DENA BUNIS...The Orange County Register"
Hmmmm...what's this source's slant?
Now, where were we?
FReegards...MUD
Maybe not. Maybe Bush is trying to prevent the leaking of information to a media that sways public opinion and could assist a defense so we can actually get a prosecution that could actually make the criminals (in Congress?) pay for their crimes.
That was a mouthful - hope you got it all! lol.
This campaign taught me a lot and I have taken so many positives away from it. Check your freeper mail in about five minutes. I have some information for you!
These are enough for me to know that we have a problem.
Good question. Maybe this:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Just guessing. Are there statutes on the books which empower the Congress in an oversight role, using some interpretation of the above as the foundation? I don't know.
But, unlike you, DoughtyOne stands at a distance, as an individual and keen observer, and is not so closely following the Bush Administration's every
move(ment) that both his eyes, nose and ears are rendered essentially useless.
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.
182 Posted on 09/05/2001 20:12:48 PDT by sinkspur
Let me see, which candidate said we have a problem with immigration, the decline of our military and kissing China's procelin arse? Imagine, I voted for a guy like that. And you seem to think reminding people of it strengthens your position. Frankly after watching Bush melt on these issues, I wouldn't want to remind anyone that there was a candidate that stood diametricly opposed to Bush/Gore.
Well ole Sink, if it was in the context of cutting the military further, I can assure you I called him a lot worse off the forum.
How about providing a link to that comment. I'd like to see what my motivation was.
McCAIN 2004!
Also, I don't write the pieces, I only point em out. Want another one. How about Bush's direction to the Justice Department to lay off the idea of Breaking up Microsoft? (Current thread in Breaking News on FR)
"What?" you say? That's a good thing... Yes it is, BUT this flies DIRECTLY in the FACE of the pronouncement made before the break that "Well, gee whiz, we can't change our litigation position in the Adarand case...It was set up beforehand by the previous adminsitration."
I guess that only works for the issues you really care about.
Three counter conservative positions in one day... Hard to believe...
McCain, Mr. Campaign-Finance Reform (anti-First Amendment), Mr. Patient's Bill of Rights (his version, a gift to trial lawyers), and Mr. No-tax-cut.
I'll support Bush if for no other reason than he's cut McCain off at the knees and stopped every single one of his initiatives.
There is not one ounce of venom spewed by me that cannot be backed up by facts.
Plus, I always admit when I'm wrong.
(Unlike you and the other illiterate Texans who thought SB-30 "required" parental consent).
Perhaps one day when you produce your CV for us, we'll better understand why on earth you seem to think your Personal Opinions, likes and dislikes should matter to those of us who do our homework and forego the Bush nose-ring by which we can be led down the twists and turns of his decisions re: embryonic stem cell funding, Faith-based government partnerships, "normalized" illegal aliens, seamless borders, NATO excesses and this bit of executive privilege tailored to cover his compadre Clinton's behind.
At the White House Press Corps' roast two years ago, McCain appeared and seemed quite tickled at his portrayal by them as "the Incredible Hulk" who turned green, busted his seams and screamed "I'LL PERFORM ABORTIONS MYSELF IF I MUST TO KEEP IT LEGAL" anytime Bush needed a foil so as to look "pro-life" by comparison.
McCain's a total cartoon character, in other words. His campaigns being aimed squarely at those who believe McKeating as he launches a "STOP ME BEFORE I KILL AGAIN" effort at campaign reform.
Why do you think McCain appealed to the Swingvote Dems? Because they're stupid enough to buy his schtick, that's why.
Try not to be sooooo centrist, will ya? It's embarrassing.
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.