Bush to Invoke Executive Privilege

AP ^ | Sept 5, 2001 | John Solomon

[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.''

[sinkspur]

Too many people have alluded to a Heirarchy , the Illuminati , the TriLateral Commission , the Bilderbergers for too many years for it to be untrue.

You call us "children," and you believe this bullshit?

[1rudeboy]

I will take [] brand of objectivity over yours anyday.

Oh yeah? Then you can be turned, comrade.

[The Old Hoosier]

Hmmm, weren't there some people around last year saying Bush would never do things the same as Gore?

Well, they both breathe.

[calypgin]

Unless there are two "John Solomons" who write for AP, this fellow is the AP reporter whose telephone records were the subject of a subpoena. He reported on charges against Toricelli which were based on federal wiretapped records; Torricelli charged law enforcement officers illegally "leaked" information to Solomon. Full story.

But you're right, the AP is "the source" of so-called news in this country, the trough from which they all feed.

[HalfIrish]

Where have I excused criminal conduct?

He he he. I'm saving this reply of yours.. it'll come in even handier than your idiotic statement about voting for a pro-PBA 'pubbie over a pro-life Democrat.

[sinkspur]

Astounding. You actually revel in our lack of access to what our "public servants" claim as justification for not prosecuting their bi-partisan cronies!

I don't "revel" in anything; these "public servants" may be protecting the civil rights of someone who may be falsely accused.

Would you want the subjective opinions of prosecutors paraded for all to see if Bold Fenian were accused, say, of pedophilia?

Not everything is your business.

[HalfIrish]

I think this is probably the third or fourth time in the last couple months that you've interjected a comment that didn't seem to fit the argument. I usually ignore them but this time I am curious enough to ask what the heck it means? Thanks.

[sinkspur]

I'm saving this reply of yours.. it'll come in even handier than your idiotic statement about voting for a pro-PBA 'pubbie over a pro-life Democrat.

So, your statement that I excuse criminal conduct was a bold-faced lie, wasn't it? And your hyperbole ("you revel in it. You bathe in it.") was some sort of verbal masturbation on your part.

I'm saving this reply, too.

[Hidy]

Nixon was the first president I ever heard use the words "Executive Privilege." Since then, I've heard it dozens of times and, every time, it was because the president wanted to keep embarrassing facts away from the people.

What's so odd about this situation is that Bush seems to be using exec priv to cover for Clinton, not himself.

Maybe he's just drawing the line here, when it doesn't matter, so that he'll be able to get away with claiming executive privilege when it DOES matter?

[HalfIrish]

I cannot believe you just told a poster that the dealings of his constitutional government are none of his business.

Oh, yeah.. I forgot you LIKE the present UNconstitutional federal government. It gives your life meaning, I guess.

[1rudeboy]

Quite simple for a sentient, really. If you believe in different levels of objectivity, then you can be turned. Furthermore, I apologize if my "interjections" [read "posts"] don't seem to "fit." Pardon the inconvienience.

[Don Myers]

So now the Bush Administration is openly providing cover for the Clinton Administration. Can anyone honestly say these two are not hand in glove?

[HalfIrish]

You are a complete moron at times. We have not yet discussed the criminality of this. I do believe it is criminal. You prefer to allow criminal, unconstitutional governance. I do not.

[willyone]

Bush Sr. threw the election in 92. Now it looks like junior is going to rollover too. Just what is in those files that the Clintons have that scares the Bush family so badly?

[onedoug]

Might Bush be reluctant to have fingered Clinton as the greatest traitor in American history? Maybe a nod to "bipartisanship"?

[HalfIrish]

Too bad it doesn't fit the statement I made. But that's par for the course.

[Howlin]

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

This isn't quite the same, is it? I mean those were concerning CRIMES; these aren't.

[The Old Hoosier]

I see your point that Bush is just the same as Gore.
Surely, Gore would have returned to the Mexico City policy on international abortion funding.
Gore would have successfully sabotaged the UN racism conference, instead of going himself and "feeling good" along with all the race-baiting, anti-semitic delegates.
Gore would have presented a tax cut to Congress and then he would have signed it.
Gore would have put at least some limit on funding for fetal stem-cell research.
Gore would have let the House leadership block the patients' (lawyers') Bill of Rights without a nuclear PR campaign.
Gore would have installed an atty general who believes in the right to bear arms, and who will delete gun sale data within 24 hours instead of 90 days.
Gore would have successfully convinced the world that we need NMD, just like Bush has.
Gore would have handled that Chinese problem just fine -- "Oh, sorry, we'll ground all of our spy planes from now on. We don't need to spy on our campaign contributors!"
Gore would have just stood by as the House leadership blocked the unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform bill.

Problem is, you can't always get what you want in politics, especially not right away. Some people never learned that lesson when they were children.

[willyone]

You must be joking. That is why there are three branches of govt. Do some reading. Bush is not God. Get over it.

[HalfIrish]

Clinton hiding behind exec priv means he was a dictator. Bush hiding behind it mean nothing. See how easy it is to figure out once you swallow the koolaid?