White House Claims Executive Privilege on Subpoenaed Documents

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:01:25 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The White House announced today it won't turn over documents subpoenaed by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees concerning Harriet Miers or Sara Taylor in the U.S. Attorney firing probe. The text of White House Counsel Fred Fielding's letter is here.

The deadline for the document production was today.

In reaction, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy accused the administration of shifting "into Nixonian stonewalling" and revealing "disdain for our system of checks and balances."

This is the first time Bush has claimed executive privilege since 2001.

John Conyers is threatening legal action against the White House:

More....

""The President's response to our subpoena shows an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government. The executive privilege assertion is unprecedented in its breadth and scope, and even includes documents that the Adminstration previously offered to provide as part of their 'take it or leave it' proposal," the Michigan Democrat said in a statement. "This response indicates the reckless disrepect this Administration has for the rule of law. The charges alleged in this investigation are serious - including obstruction of justice and misleading Congress - and the White House should be as committed to this investigation as the Congress. At this point, I see only one choice in moving forward, and that is to enforce the rule of law set forth in these subpoenas."

< "Stripping Away The Inflammatory Rhetoric" | Integrating Public Schools Not a Legitimate State Interest Says Roberts Court >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

White House Claims Executive Privilege on Subpoenaed Documents | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It probably all goes back to Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by atlanta lawyer on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:15:30 AM EST

And he's not in the executive branch, he's in the legislative branch so he can't claim the priviledge. Subpoena Cheney.

I'm glad the Dems are doing this (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by HeadScratcher on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:30:13 AM EST

It's not as if there is a war going on and 12% of the people don't have health care...Go after something political for a change!

Good point.... (5.00 / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:27:58 AM EST

its all about getting the power and keeping the power to hook up their respective set of cronies....D and R are the same in this regard. Make the other guys look bad first, maybe serve the country later...if you have time and its not to much effort.

I will quibble though and say there is no war going on...just a couple occupations.


kdog (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:01:38 AM EST

I will quibble though and say there is no war going on...just a couple occupations.

Tell that to the troops in Iraq.... and then run.


: If Anyone Knows (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by squeaky on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:16:12 PM EST

That we are occupying Iraq it is the troops. Why do you suggest running after telling that to the troops? Do you think that they are stupid?

: Explain it (5.00 / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:23:57 PM EST

to the troops yourself.
And then run, ppj. Actually you're probably safer explaining it to them from your keyboard under a pseudonym.
Since they're dying to hear your explanation.

So am I. (none / 0) (#11)
by Fritz on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:35:38 PM EST

They have as much a chance to get the documents from the Executive Branch as they would be able to get documents from SCOTUS. This is misuse of power by Congress, blatant harassment. Keep the highly partisan witch-hunt going, SCOTUS ain't going to help you.


: checks and balances (none / 0) (#13)
by Sailor on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:24:07 PM EST

They have as much a chance to get the documents from the Executive Branch as they would be able to get documents from SCOTUS.
cheney claims he's not a part of the ewxec, therefore no exec privilege.
Besides, nixon already lost this fight.
In United States v. U.S. District Court (1972) the Court rejected 6-2 Nixon's claim of presidential power to carry out electronic surveillance (wire-tapping) without a court warrant in order to investigate suspected subversive activities. In a catastrophic decision for Nixon in United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court voted 8-0 to reject Nixon's claim of executive privilege in withholding tape recordings in the Watergate scandal.

IMPEACHMENT (none / 0) (#3)
by pigcat on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:47:31 AM EST

It's time for the House to get off their behinds and IMPEACH Bush and Cheney. There are ample grounds for criminal charges to say nothing of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." With SCOTUS stacked against justice and liberty (as badly as the Taney court in the 19th Century; it must be impeachment and it must be now.

Whatever (none / 0) (#5)
by HeadScratcher on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:08:24 AM EST

Since they don't have the votes to remove from office it will be a waste of time. There are many more urgent needs to be taken care of. Focusing on the hate for Bush/Cheney doesn't solve anything except to make you feel better. Besides, if they got rid of both of them (fat chance) then who do you think would take over and would he/she be any better? Would you like a President McConnel or President Guiliani or President Boehner? How about President Lieberman?


This is not a personality issue (none / 0) (#8)
by Dadler on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:56:59 AM EST

While I can't stand the sight or sound of Cheney or his politics, this has nothing to do with whether we should choose to IGNORE egregious breaches of the law by the most powerful people in the land. If you don't want corruption and abuse of power dealt with, then you have no logical leg to stand on in expecting any "real" national problem to be dealt with. A VP who waves his lawlessness and disregard for the public's will in our faces must be brought to account. If not, we disgrace the very notion of democratic governance. And any solution of "real" problems will continue to be crippled by the greater culture of graft and above-the-law entitlement.


LOL (none / 0) (#9)
by wlgriffi on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:31:40 PM EST

" Besides, if they got rid of both of them (fat chance) then who do you think would take over and would he/she be any better? Would you like a President McConnel or President Guiliani or President Boehner? How about President Lieberman?"

Would YOU "like" President Pelosi???? Do you know the constitutional line to the presidency??


Beg to differ (none / 0) (#16)
by Repack Rider on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:19:36 PM EST

There are many more urgent needs to be taken care of.

What could be more urgent than removing the most criminal gang who ever took the White House?

Is there something about corruption that you LIKE?


: Not to mention ... (none / 0) (#17)
by Sailor on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:55:23 PM EST

... that the current group in the WH is why there are more poor people and why more of them are starving.

What's your best guess (none / 0) (#4)
by joanneleon on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:55:47 AM EST

about how this is going to play out?

I support the need for some muckraking (none / 0) (#6)
by atlanta lawyer on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:11:47 AM EST

but, what is the end game? Has the White House done anything illegal? Well, okay, let me be more specific- If attorney's got fired for political reasons, is it illegal? And if not, won't executive priviledge rule? Seems to me the end game is a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that puts even more power in the hands of the president and is legal precedent forever and ever. The only good outcome I see politically is that if you beet Bush over the head enough about legal/justice issues, maybe there's more political will, and less capital needed the next time he appoints a crony to a legal/judicial position. In a general political sense, the man's ratings are at 30% and those 30% are pissed at him for not kicking out all the Mexicans.

: blah blah political blah blah (none / 0) (#14)
by manys on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:39:48 PM EST

It's illegal to fire an attorney in order to stymie an investigation, such as the one involving Duke Cunningham's friends and associates. It's called "Obstruction of justice," and is what Shooter Libby is going to jail for.

Finally! (none / 0) (#10)
by MSS on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:19:16 PM EST

At last, a Congressional body is recognizing their right to oversight, and insisting that the office of the vice president (and president) comply.

Hopefully the right-tilting Supreme Court will eventually agree, putting another nail in Chaney-Bush's political coffins.

Nixon's ghost is laughing in Hades (none / 0) (#12)
by SeeEmDee on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:22:38 PM EST

This is what comes of not making Tricky Dick do the perp walk when the chance to do so presented itself. Those who warned against it thought that the die-hard Nixonian True Believers would tear the country apart if that were done, so Tricky got to ride Marine One into the sunset, smiling and waving...and laughing all the way to the bank with his books. Potential Presidential lawbreakers were heartened; the lesson was learned: the Executive Branch was above the law.

Those True Believers are now in power, with the expected results of trying Tricky's gambit all over again...only this time they have what Tricky didn't, namely, the power he always plotted to grant himself and wield but was ousted before he could take it.

Do it right, this time. Perp walk with chains, with two guys with fixed bayonets prodding both Smirky and Sneery's arses. IMPEACH!

: I see. (none / 0) (#15)
by manys on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:42:24 PM EST

So are you saying that the power to pardon should be removed from the President?