Congressional Democrats investigating the firings of eight federal prosecutors issued subpoenas today for two former senior White House officials, setting the stage for a likely showdown over executive privilege with the Bush administration.
The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers, and the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House political director Sara Taylor and also documents belonging to her.
“Let me be clear: This subpoena is not a request. It is a demand on behalf of the American people for the White House to make available the documents and individuals we are requesting to help us answer the questions that remain,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat.
However, the White House accused Democrats of provoking an unnecessary fight and gave every indication it would take the matter to court.
“The committees can easily obtain the facts they want without a confrontation by simply accepting our offer for documents and interviews,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. “But it’s clear that [Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J.] Leahy and Representative Conyers are more interested in drama than facts.”
Mr. Fratto said the White House was “aware of the committees’ actions and will respond appropriately” but that no official response was planned today.
President Bush already has promised to fight any subpoenas from Congress, meaning the dispute would end up in court.
Also, White House counsel Fred F. Fielding last week warned Mr. Conyers and Mr. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, that subpoenas would “elevate the stakes” and “prolong this debate.”
Mr. Fielding has offered interviews with Ms. Miers, Ms. Taylor and the man Democrats most want to testify under oath, presidential adviser Karl Rove. But the interviews would be private, with no transcript, instead of a public spectacle in which each White House official would be forced to raise his or her right hand and swear an oath, a potent political image.
Mr. Fielding has said that there is no evidence “that any U.S. attorney was asked to resign in order to interfere with a pending or future criminal investigation or for any other improper reason.”
Democrats have questioned whether some of the U.S. attorneys were removed because they were investigating Republican officials or refusing to prosecute Democrats, but no evidence of such actions has surfaced.
Without any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, Democrats would have little chance of winning in court, legal analysts have said. This makes an eventual settlement still the most likely outcome because a court ruling against Congress might strip the legislative branch of the oversight powers it has over the executive branch.
Today, however, Mr. Leahy accused Mr. Fielding of being uncooperative.
“You have not made any effort to work with us,” he wrote in a letter accompanying the subpoenas. “You have merely restated your initial, unacceptable offer.”
Meanwhile, the Justice Department released another 46 pages of e-mails last night, showing the White House reluctant in January to answer critics’ charges about the fired prosecutors.
The e-mails also show that Ms. Taylor was upset with how the Justice Department had handled the controversy.
Ms. Taylor, in a Feb. 18 e-mail to Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, complained about statements made by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty.
Mr. McNulty told members of Congress that Bud Cummins, former U.S. attorney for Arkansas’ eastern district, had not been removed for any performance reasons but had been dismissed to make way for Tim Griffin, a friend of Mr. Rove’s.
Details later came to light indicating that Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers had pushed for Mr. Griffin to replace Mr. Cummins.
“McNulty refuses to say Bud is lazy — which is why we got rid of him in the first place,” Ms. Taylor wrote in her e-mail. “Why would McNulty say this? This has been so poorly handled on the part of DOJ.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.