ASSOCIATED PRESS
President Bush’s refusal to let two confidants provide information to Congress about fired federal prosecutors represents the most expansive view of executive privilege since Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee told a federal judge yesterday.
Lawyers for the Democratic-led panel argued in court documents that Mr. Bush’s chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers are not protected from subpoenas last year that sought information about the dismissals.
The legal filing regards a lawsuit that pits the legislative branch against the executive in a fight over a president’s powers.
The committee seeks the testimony as it tries to make a case that White House officials directed the firing of nine U.S. attorneys because they were not supportive enough of Republicans’ political agenda.
The White House says such information is private and covered by executive privilege, the doctrine intended to protect the confidentiality of presidential communications.
House lawyers told U.S. District Judge John D. Bates that subpoenaed White House officials cannot simply skip hearings as Miss Miers did during the committee’s investigation. Further, they said, any documents or testimony thought to be covered by the privilege must be itemized for Congress’ assessment.
Executive privilege is not a right articulated in the Constitution, so the legal issues are murky and disputes are normally resolved politically. Courts have not been kind to the presidency in fights over subpoenas; Congress could have its power to demand information curtailed permanently.
White House officials have said Mr. Bush was not personally involved in deciding which U.S. prosecutors to fire and that any White House communications on the matter are off-limits under the privilege.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.