GovernmentExecutive.com

The White House on Monday rejected demands by congressional Democrats for subpoenaed White House documents related to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year and upped the ante in the potential constitutional showdown by extending executive privilege to testimony sought from former political aide Sara Taylor and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., White House Counsel Fred Fielding also rejected requests for extra details about the executive privilege claim over the documents, saying explanations beyond those already given were not needed. Taylor and Miers have been subpoenaed to testify. Leahy released a letter Sunday from Taylor's attorney saying that, absent executive privilege, Taylor would have testified willingly.

In a statement Monday, Conyers pointed the way toward a showdown in the courts. "We are extremely disappointed with the White House letter," Conyers said. "Contrary to what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally."

Conyers sent Fielding a letter Monday asking him to waive executive privilege. Conyers also asked Bush to allow top aides to explain his decision to commute the prison sentence of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Cheney.

Leahy in a statement angrily accused the White House of "stonewalling." He questioned the validity of the White House claim that the action was needed to safeguard the president's right to private counsel from his aides, pointing to testimony by Justice officials indicating that President Bush himself was not involved in the decision-making process that led to the firings.

In his letter, Fielding rejected a demand by the chairmen to provide justifications for each document covered by executive privilege, saying reasons already given were sufficient and that the panels have indicated they would seek to enforce the subpoenas anyway.

"Given the descriptions of the materials in question that have already been provided, this demand is unreasonable because it represents a substantial incursion into presidential prerogatives and because, in view of the open-ended scope of the committee's inquiry, it would impose a burden of very significant proportions," Fielding wrote.

He renewed an offer, already rejected by Democrats, to provide certain documents and allow White House aides to speak with the committee if the conversations were not under oath and if no transcript were kept.

Conyers again rejected that offer. "While we remain willing to negotiate with the White House, they adhere to their unacceptable all-or-nothing position, and now will not even seek to properly justify their privilege claims," he said. Leahy also offered to "negotiate a workable solution to the committee's requests."

COMMENTS

• Selim,how would you know what former AG's left office for?? Bush has the ability to appoint and terminate AG's this wouldn't even be a story if the dem's weren't in power and looking for non issues to gain press headlines. I noticed that they haven't called in the Texas AG who proscuted 2 border patrol agents for shooting a drug king pin, now that's an abuse of power dan ketter Posted July 10, 2007 1:49 PM
• It is not true that the president in the past has ever hired or fired US Attorneys (not Attorneys General) on the basis of how well they performed for their political party. The point has always been to leave Justice and the USAttorneys Office as free as possible from petty political urges. Law enforcement is supposed to be non-partisan. It is, in fact, a crime to apply political considerations to staff hirings. This isn't a reflection of true presidential power. And the power to grant clemency has always been an executive power. It is sometimes used well, and sometimes used badly as political tool. You don't want to get rid of it, because it also allows at least one entity to correct miscarriages of justice or to reflect changed circumstances. When it is used politically, it tends to create other changes in the system and feed political change, and that it not all bad. Selim Posted July 10, 2007 10:04 AM
• If you review this whole fiasco, it all occured due to too much power or priviledge by the President. The President can hire or fire AG at his discretion. The President can pardon or commute a sentence. The President can envoke executive priviledge. HOW and WHY does the President have these powers? Can anyone explain why these powers are justified? How can AGs be objective on all issues when they know if they make Bush mad they can be fired tomorrow with no questions asked? Why should any one person (in this case the President) be able to erase the time or crime from a convicted person when 12 jurors and a judge have already pretermined that criminals fate? Why should the president and other top politicala be above the law and never have to answer to the law? When the common U.S. citizen sees this as well as citizens of foreign countries this just tells them that it's not too different here than it it where a Dictator reigns. In this case I believe the Democrats are fighting a loosing battle and wasting time and money. If the Democrats really want to do something constructive, they should be working to change the law to remove these stupid Presidential powers. SATOS Posted July 10, 2007 7:38 AM