Many of you have been following the US Attorneys issue that has been dominating the news and much of my time in the Judiciary Committee. You probably know that the Committee authorized me to issue subpoenas to Rove, Miers and other staffers prominently featured in the emails recently made public by the Department.
Although these emails have provided some new information, it is clear to see where holes leave out crucial details. And there is excessive redaction that masks more information.
The situation clearly calls for the White House to make its staff available and explain its role in the politically-motivated firing of prosecutors, several of whom were investigating Republican malfeasance.
Sadly, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow
indicated today that the administration would not allow any of its staff to testify under oath or for their comments to be recorded in a transcript. The reason given was "executive privilege."
As reporter Ed Henry exposed at the press conference yesterday, however, if the president claims never to have been consulted in the decision to fire the US Attorneys, how can he claim that conversations with staff are protected by executive privilege. It seems clear that if he never had conversations with staff on this issue, then there is nothing that "executive privilege" would need to protect.
Here is the text of the that exchange:
Q Just to follow up on one point earlier, yesterday the President said, and you've repeated, that the principle at stake here with executive privilege is that the President needs to get candid advice from his advisors, right?
MR. SNOW: What the President has talked about is privileged communications with close staff members, that is correct.
Q But earlier you were saying that, when I asked about, well, was the President informed of this decision, did the President sign off on U.S. attorneys being fired, you said the President has no recollection of being informed of all this.
MR. SNOW: Correct.
Q So were his advisors really advising him on this? Is this really privileged communication involving the President and his advisors, if the President wasn't looped in, you're saying, on this decision? So it was other people --
MR. SNOW: Well, that also falls into the intriguing question category.
Q But, I mean --
MR. SNOW: No, you're asking -- you're asking me to -- look, Ed, there are a number of complex legal considerations in here, and I'm not going to try to play junior lawyer. These are the sort of things that people are going to have an opportunity to talk about.
Q But aren't you having it both ways? If you're saying the President wasn't in the loop, but we need to cite executive privilege for the President's communications --
MR. SNOW: No, what you're -- what you are saying is, are conversations that didn't take place privileged? Well, no -- they didn't take place.
Q So what are you protecting, if they didn't take place?
MR. SNOW: Well, no, we're not -- what we're trying to do is to protect the ability of the American people to see folks in Washington get at the truth without, in fact, engaging in the kind of unseemly partisanship that has too often been a factor in recent political life.
I look forward to the hearing the administration's further explanations on this matter, and hopefully they conclude that the White House has nothing to hide and will cooperate fully in this investigation.
http://johnconyers.com/node/108House Panel Authorizes Subpoenas Of Officials
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032100200.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
