Redstate

nt

It sounds more and more to me that your angst over this is because Grassley is not playing partisan politics that you favor. Could that be the case?

What is the harm in testimony if no wrong doing has taken place? It will only make the dems look bad.

And a very bad one.

That's OK: a two thousand word essay on the Federalist Papers should fix that right up. Send it in via the...

(offscreen muttering)

moby, huh?

Ach, well. Nevermind...

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Sound the bell; school's in, sucker.

President Jefferson used Executive Privilege in the matter of Aaron Burr's impeachment trial; before him, President Washington invoked it regarding documents on the negotiation of the Jay Treaty.

The harm would be to the Seperation of Powers.

the right to an abortion is there in black and white - right?

Which article and section of the Constitution gives Congress the right to subpoena the executive branch?

As to your statement that the law is clear that the executive has no right to assert executive privilege, might I suggest you read U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, where the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege is not absolute, and permitted an in camera review of subpoenaed materials in a CRIMINAL trial.

Unless you are willing to assert that the firing of US Attorneys amounts to a crime (when such individuals explicitly serve at the pleasure of the President) and conviction for such crime is pursued in the courts (not Congress), your assertions as to the current state of the law regarding executive privilege are incorrect.

Jimmlee

418 U.S. 683 strongly begs to differ:

The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondence, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and, added to those values, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution. 17 In Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 487 F.2d 700 (1973), the Court of Appeals held that such Presidential communications are "presumptively privileged," id., at 75, 487 F.2d, at 717, and this position is accepted by both parties in the present litigation. We agree with Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's observation, therefore, that "[i]n no case of this kind would a court be required to proceed against the president as against an ordinary individual." United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas., at 192.

(emphasis added)

If you have evidence the Bush Administration committed a criminal act in the firing of (8) U.S. Attorneys, as was the case in U.S. v Nixon, you may have a valid point.

But this presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This [418 U.S. 683, 709] is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that "the twofold aim [of criminal justice] is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S., at 88 . We have elected to employ an adversary system of criminal justice in which the parties contest all issues before a court of law. The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence. To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense.

Otherwise, this is an Article II matter, and the Democrats can go pound sand.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Talks about communications with the President, which can remain private as a matter of testimonial perogative. In fact, Snow says Bush has no recollection of even being consulted on the matter. A testifying official has every right to invoke executive priveledge while under oath, presuming the question pertains to conversations with the President.

There are alleged criminal actions under investigation here as well, which would be fair game under this decision. Congressional interference is alleged, for instance, in a grand jury investigation, though they would not necessarily involve the oval office directly.

Know what Reagan did? He waived executive priviledge in order for his people to testify and remove the cloud of doubt hovering over the executive. He reserved the right to challenge future investigations on the basis of executive priviledge.

If Bush did that now, while there is a cloud of suspicion over Justice, in order to remove doubt about the independence of USAs, then there would be no concern over judicial precedent that would weaken executive priviledge in matters where no real wrongdoing is alleged or where executive priviledge will provide a basis for good governance. Even if there is no "cloud" over Justice (and there is), the discussions over hirings and firings are of minimal importance to good governance, and there is no reason for Bush to insist on hiding them behind executive priviledge.

Why would Bush want to risk a judicial weakening of the institution of executive priviledge over something as trivial as the hirings & firings of USAs?

Make or prove the charge of Congressional interference. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Executive Branch nor, as of the information I have reviewed, is it alleged the Executive branch conspired or colluded with the individual Congressman involved (as you pointed out).

Nonetheless, should that be the charge, sufficient documentation and testimony outside Executive Privilege exclusions exists to pursue that claim. What cloud of suspicion exists outside the relative political players in this theater? None in my mind and the President has correctly asserted his right of Executive Privilege in the appropriate manner. Had he ceded or should he eventually acquiesce, it would be a monumental mistake. We will have investigations du jour for the remainder of his term. It will be a witch hunt of monumental proportions designed to handcuff the President. That is not productive for this country.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Perhaps not. But, a court fight over this matter may not be productive either, and may undermine the presumption of executive priviledge where it concerns congressional subpoenas. If, indeed, this does manifest as a witchhunt with future investigations, then surely one of those *will* merit a constitutional fight. Why not save that fight for where you need it, and where you have a better chance of winning it?

I don't know if the players in the Congressional leaning case include administration officials, or the President. Possibly the former; I doubt the latter. If they don't then the only criminal matters that might include administration officials would be obstruction type cases. Why would the administration not want to see their people cleared in the sunshine of such cases, or prosecuted if they did actually obstruct?

Why delay the inevitable? This is a tactic Democrats telegraphed they were going to use and it will not cease. The President is standing on solid legal ground and this largely eludes the public grasp. It is an issue which has great importance to the President personally as Democrats have continuously tried to attack his credibility. However, this much the public will understand; if he relents it appears he is guilty or frail.

The initial Executive posture was finite and confident in presentation. In following, their response to Congress’ defiant subpoena position has been equally as firm. While every sagacious position leaves some room for negotiation, any proposition involving testimony under oath or without a requisite ability to protect executive privilege should remain a non starter.

The use of terms such as obstruction and prosecution are fairly premature and based in political rhetoric, not any identifiable legal matter. Otherwise, I believe we would be having a much different conversation and Democrat tactics would be severely adjusted, with better standing. In respect to that latter point, they do not have sufficient grounds or prospects as this involves a sufficiently identifiable political process that has existed practically ad infinitum. That is the entire basis of Democrat claims, which appears to be a house of cards.

Any adjudication of their claim would have to consider those underlying facts. Frankly, Congress can filibuster; they have proved it is something they do well. Does that harm the Executive Branch in perception or otherwise? On a matter such as this where they (Executive Branch) have strong, righteous standing and the Presidential bully pulpit; I would advise them to not waiver. The risk from any tangible political pablum is negligible

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

to a much broader interpretation. One in which Executive Privilege is not limited to conversations with the President. Case in point would be Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force.

Congressional interference, absent any evidence of criminal wrong-doing by the Executive, is a blatant attempt by the Democrats to usurp the constitutional authority of the Executive in what is clearly an Article II matter.

"Why would Bush want to risk a judicial weakening of the institution of executive priviledge over something as trivial as the hirings & firings of USAs?"

It's not trivial, and IMHO, it's the Democrats sitting on the House and Senate Judicial Committees who are putting at risk the credibility of the US Congress.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Do you want to defend you broader-than-the-case-law-under-discussion theory of executive priviledge, or just mention your opinion?

It's not trivial, and IMHO, it's the Democrats sitting on the House and Senate Judicial Committees who are putting at risk the credibility of the US Congress.

That would be the hardline viewpoint. Of course, when the testimony is done, and the air is cleared, and it turns out there is no wrong-doing, it would be far easier to make the case that the Democrats are undermining the credibilty of Congress. That will be far more difficult to establish while taking the hardline stance and stonewalling the congress, and it may be both self-defeating and hurtful to the idea of executive priviledge as understood by the SC or as you understand it.

Of course, when the testimony is done, and the air is cleared, and it turns out there is no wrong-doing...

Yeah, why don't you go talk to Scooter Libby about that.

If there isn't any wrong-doing, they'll invent something out of thin air and count on the media to back them up, or try to gin up a contradiction then put someone on trial for perjury.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

in the case doesn't refer to the man but to the office.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I appreciate the quotes, but I was struck by the highlighted section: "These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications." Presumptive? That's not a real strong leg to stand on when trying to argue the case in a court. I know I would want unvarnished truth and multiple options, some unappealing, to be presented to the President. Clearly criminal behavior would be a strong reason to lift the veil though. Does obstruction of justice count as criminal behavior because unless I'm misunderstanding the issues here that's what Democrats are arguing might be happening in at least one, maybe two cases. How do you prove that either way if you can't get access to documents and testimony?

Who wants to see Congress annoying a President by dragging his aides to give testimony all the time on every little thing? On the other hand, what if you get a president who is subverting the rule of law but can't be convicted or impeached because he hired everyone in on it as "assistants" and put them on the White House payroll? I'm more inclined to believe 50 Senators or 217 Reps are less likely to be doing something criminal than 1 person is. Therefor, I'd rather side with Congress on this one.

A couple of problems with your analysis.

A presumption of applicability is a high standard that must be rebutted.

There are no criminal charges pending or being investigated.

If there were, Congress could appoint a special counsel to investigate.

The special counsel could then attempt to get testimony under oath.

Does this sound familiar? Like a Wilson/Plame-like fishing expedition where no underlying crime was committed?

I believe your trust in Congress to do what's right (as opposed to what's partisan) is misplaced.

Jimmlee

In US v Nixon, the SCOTUS found "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process."

There is no evidence or suggestion of any law-breaking (and the dems have admitted this). So what are they trying to accomplish? They are trying the Scooter Libby method of asking someone enough questions until they mis-speak or their memory fails them, at which point they charge the person with perjury and trumpet a 'scandal' and talk about how awful the GOP president is and use that to help them get elected. It is a circus and using executive privilege is very appropriate in this case.

in the end it is an expedition designed to get somebody to lie-and then be able to call them a liar.

do you find Congress' power to subpoena? (Hint: it's in the same place where Executive Privilege is).

Perhaps because eeeeevil Republicans don't want a Latino on the SCOTUS?

Question is, are you a troll, a moby, or just an unclear communicator?

and I don't think it's unclear.

He's simply asking if Grassley doesn't like Gonzales for SCOTUS. There are a lot of people who thought AGAG wasn't conservative enough. I've never heard Grassley mention that, but it is another possible explanation.

He could also just be reading the tea leaves in Iowa.

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) Guiliani; 4) McCain; 5) Gingrich

Love the signature line. :-)

After all, the Attorney General is the attorney for the people, not the executive. If he has done nothing wrong the Dems will have egg on their faces, if he has acted inappropriately then of course he should go.

Here is some required reading;
1- U.S. Constitution
2- Federalist papers
3- 28 U.S.C.:1365
4- Oh, and 28 U.S.C.:192 (which requires DOJ to get involved and when the President asserts Executive Privilege; it's over).
5- Perjury "trap"

Consistent with the statements in this thread; this is a political show trial. Now why is Grassley doing this? Anybody?

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

in Phoenix in July of a SCOTUS nomination anyway.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

US ATTORNEYS SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.

What part of that is so hard to understand, and what part of that is so difficult to defend?

This is absolutely unbelievable. If I say that Harry Reid had sex with a zebra in Las Vegas, should we have an investigation to "remove the cloud of suspicion"?

Geez. The straws from the polls in Iowa have found a home in Grassley's head.

There goes a night of romancing the wife.

Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

Grassley with straws sticking out of his ears (or worse)?

Or Reid romancing a zebra in Las Vegas?

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

Harry Reid being a guy who reminds me somewhat of a cyborg or an inanimate object, the tale from the zebra's perspective could be, "Romancing the Drone."

Lame joke, I know. Thank you. I'll be here all week!

Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

yes and the president serves the people, not a political party. So if anyone in his administration fired them for political reasons (and there are some credible allegations that that was the case) then they should be held accountable.

This is not "absolutely unbelievable". Again, if there was no political motivation for firing them, there is absolutely nothing to lose for the president's staff to testify under oath. If nothing wrong was done than it is for his best interest to go through this as quickly as possible and expose the investigation as a whitch hunt only AFTER the investigation is complete. But if there was wrongdoing, than the person or persons responsible should be held accountable. That is how it always should be regardless of which party controls congress and the presidency.

you don't give up Executive powers because of a particular case. This would carry on to every President that follows. It's not what happened with the firings. Gonzales and his staff will testify to the congress.

GWB's predecessor had an Attorney General who did nothing in 8 years in office other than run interference for the president and his cronies. That, and a little sub-urban renewal outside of Waco, TX.

What grounds could there be for firing a US attorney, besides "political grounds"? Not showing up to work on time? Not keeping his/her desk neat enough?

We elect Presidents to run the Executive Branch. The Constitution gives them broad latitude to do just that. They can replace US attorneys for any reason, or for no reason. Doesn't matter which party, the rules are the same.

Oh, and "held accountable"? That's why we have elections.

This is fairly simple.

It is about trying to produce a Fitz-Libby situation via a perjury trap, period. Ask yourself, why the need for testimony under oath in a situation involving political appointees? Where is the crime, can anyone identify it for me?

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Where is the need to lie under oath in a situation involving political appointees? No need to lie under oath, no need to fall into a perjury trap.

Did the jury convict Libby of lieing under oath or of forgetting details of conversations he had had months or years prior?

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

they convicted him of lying to a grand jury.

that worries us. Take a DC jury (ala OJ) add a prosecutor knowing early on that he has no case on the original charge but feels he must bring home a scalp. Top it off with a judge that stifles the defence and gives the jury terrible instructions. Let bake for a week or so and: The felony conviction of a good man with poor recollections and a jury who thinks they were somehow convicting the wrong man. THATS what worries us.

And these are people who can afford fancy lawyers. I don't completely trust the justice system either, but Bush's staff have it made compared to the average blue collar defendant. I don't think distrust of the justice system is sufficient reason to wage this kind of battle. No one is going to get a perjury conviction and have it stick from just a faulty memory. Even if they did something wrong & don't want it to come out in front of Congress, there is always the "I cannot recall" option - which would have saved Libby and would save an amnesiac testifying before Congress today.

"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." - Plato

Personally, until the jury convicted Libby, I didn't think our justice system would allow an initial perjury conviction for a bad memory...so until Libby's appeal is successful I'm not putting too much trust in appeals courts either...

The problem with the "I cannot recall" defense comes when you are naturally honest and believe that you do recall. Then it comes out that your recollection was wrong and it looks like you lied. A better defense would be "I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege." as an answer to every last question. Personally, if I were subpoenaed by one of these committees run by witch-hunting dems that would be my response to every question, including "What is your name?"

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

...with the Separation of Powers was clearly not a system whereby the Legislative Branch could use the power of subpoena to effectively hamstring the Executive Branch for an entire Congressional term.

Congressmen, who are returned to office at a 99% clip, are just about the least accountable politicians on the planet. As long as they keep bringing home the bacon (or in this case, ethanol subsidies), their loyal constituents keep reelecting the nitwits.

The fishing is good in Florida, but the Dems prefer to fish in D.C.

Sanctimonious, boneheaded crap.

Question: "What is the definition of political appointee?"

Seriously, if you know what one of those is, then how could you say something so ignorant?
The ONLY, and I repeat ONLY reason to hire or fire a political appointee IS a political reason. Period.

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

US attorneys are NOT political appontees. There are servents to the people of the United States. I could care much less if a presidents fires his staff members.

Anyway, if they did perform poor at their job I would understand terminating their positions, and if that's what happend, so be it. Otherwise I certainly would very much like to know.

to question DoJ under oath and Rove and Miers in private and examine 3000 pages of documents. If they are still not happy they can subpoena. They want no part of that. They want a show under the lights.

US Attorneys are SOLELY political appointees. If that were not the case, why did Clinton (and Bush pere) replace ALL of them at the beginning of their terms?

NO US attorney can prosecute every available case. All make judgements as where to use their limited resources. As political appointees, a President wants to make sure they use their limited resources to go after A,B,&D. If they want to go after C,E,&F then they get replaced.

US Attorneys are political appointees. I'm not going to allow this brazen lie to procede on step farther.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

The president is the head of his party, he is political, he hired these guys for political reasons and there is no problem in firing them for political reasons.

There is no claim of wrongdoing and the Congress has no right to question employees of the Executive Office of the President.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Representative Issa (R-CA) has said that it appeared that one or more Justice Department officials lied under oath to Congress. That sounds like wrongdoing. (If you read his words he uses a stronger characterization than "appeared.")

Rep. Issa:
"The House and the Senate, Republican and Democrats, agree that this attorney general and everyone involved needs to come down and explain to us, not per se why the president chose to fire these people, but why we were deceived."

And:
"I can't speak to every one of these U.S. attorneys, but I do expect this administration to give us now the details of the process, not because they owed it to us initially, but they owe it to us now because we've been deceived and, in our oversight, we have a right to know how we got told things which were not true."

And:
"So let's not mix whether or not these people should have been let go or the president had a right to do, with the fact that all of us want to know who led Congress astray. The House and the Senate were lied to, not by the people that were sent to the Hill, but by the people who sent them there. And every one of those people owes us a resignation."

And finally:
"I'm including anybody who would mislead, deliberately mislead the Congress, and the senator is absolutely right. Resigning doesn't change the fact that we're going to get to the bottom of who knew and failed to let us know what -- well, members of the government were being sent to us to give us false information.

That's not tolerable ever, by either party, because we have an obligation. We were simply using our legitimate oversight responsibility in the House and the Senate. And then we were lied to by well-meaning young men who came up to give testimony, that they were given false. And that irritates us beyond belief.

And if it's the attorney general who had a hand in it, then he will have to step down. It certainly included Kyle Sampson, and he has stepped down.

And the senator is right: We're not going to quit until every one of these people has testified and we know the whole truth about the failure to be candid about these firings."

All quotes from a transcript of an interview on The Newshour:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june07/attorneys_03-13.html

The argument is not so much about the rightness or wrongness of firing the attorneys -- that can only be determined by an investigation -- but about members of the administration lying to Congress. Having lied to Congress, the administration has raised questions about the firings themselves. There is at a minimum a very strong "appearance" of wrongdoing.

anything on this.

The attornies involved were political appointees-they could be fired for wearing the wrong colored suit-the serve at the pleasure of the president.

If congress is concerned about congressional political pressure, then let them investigate themselves.

I am as much an authority on this as Darrel Issa and I say he's wrong. So I'm going to issue an subpoena to Issa to make him tell me why he made this statement.

I looked long and hard at this and I didn't find the word "prosecutor" or "police" or "FBI" or "indictment" or "grand jury" or "court". Without one or more of those words, there is no investigation that the White House has to cooperate with.

Issa is a twit. We've known that for some years. Why he bears quoting on this and not me is inexplicable.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

that the Dem line on matters like this are, "It's not the factuality of the matter, but the seriousness of the charge."

Well, here we go then. I have it on good information that John Kerry committed treason in how he comported himself during and after Vietnam. Furthermore, Jane Fonda aided and abetted the enemy.

There. That's out there, and I have way more evidence to back up my claims. Would some Congresscritter please investigate this already?!?

Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

isn't with the testimony it's precedence. This is a non-crime and it's dangerous to shift balance of power. The President isn't asking for more power the congress is. For the preservation of executive power. Bush is right to refuse.

Grassley is a pompous ass. He doesn't stand out because he is a Senator and the body has a hundred of them.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

AGAG lied to Congress. I think it's way too early to say that with the sense of finality you've laid on us.

Frankly, the idea that this little tempest in a teapot has gotten one column inch of coverage simply shows the lengths the enemies of the Administration will go to to toss mud. If Grassley has nothing better to spend his time on, he's as big an idiot as Schumer.

____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I'd like to have seen AGAG gone two years ago when nothing happened after the NYT and WaPo started publishing the CIA and NSA diaries.

I have no question that AGAG has serious communications problems, and IF he lied (which I have some doubts about) toss him under the bus.

My problem is that the D's are making this into the next "Plame Affair". It's a nothing, they have been offered (given) everything they asked for but "sworn testimony" and I have no problem with POTUS telling them to pound sand. Bush has every right to fire these folks for any reason or no reason, without question from any of the bozos in the Senate. He should have told them, when the questions first came up, "It's none of your damn business, have a good day."
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

My problem is that the D's are making this into the next "Plame Affair".

Given that it's equal to the "Plame Affair" in terms of criminal conduct and wrongdoing (i.e. pretty much none) you can understand the MSM/Dems making equal hay over both.

____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Johnny Sutton of the Western District of Texas is now prosecuting another border agent who accidently shot an illegal who was hiding in the trunk of a car that another illegal tried to hit the border agent with!

This administration is really p*ssing me off the way it is going after border agents doing their jobs and letting illegals walk through untouched!

1. Please use the "Reply to This" link on the blue bar of posts. Makes it easier for us old guys to figure out who you're talking to. :>)

2. Why give 'em documents? Take your pick: new tone in DC; spirit of bipartisanship; stupidity. The first is the same as the last. The second only means that both R's and D's attack the Administration.

3. The Bushies don't need to be "super sharp", they need to learn how to give these guys the finger. Perhaps having Cheney explain things would work better.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

There are two entirely different sets of documents in question.

(1) Department of Justice Documents: Congress has oversight responsibilites regarding this cabinet-level department. Congress has legitimate need for access to some of these documents in order to exercise its oversight responsibilities. The Department of Justice has already made more than 3,000 of these documents available to Congress.

In keeping with the President's commitment to ensure that Congress and the American people understand the resignations of the U.S. Attorneys, the Department of Justice has produced more than 3,000 pages of documents relating to this matter. These documents do not reflect that any U.S. Attorney was replaced to interfere with a pending or future criminal investigation or for any other improper reason. These documents, together with the interviews to be provided by Department officials, will provide extensive background on the decisions in question, including an account of communications between the Department and senior White House officials. Congress, in short, is receiving a virtually unprecedented window into personnel decision-making within the Executive Branch.

(2) White House Documents: The Executive is a separate but equal branch of government as mandated by the US Constitution. Unless there is sufficient evidence supporting criminal wrongdoing by the Executive, the separation of powers dictates that Congress has no legitimate claim to internal White House documents. That said, the Bush Administration has offered relevant internal documents to Congress with certain restrictions.

As an additional accommodation, and as a part of this proposal, we are prepared to provide to your Committees copies of two categories of documents: (a) communications between the White House and the Department of Justice concerning the request for resignations of the U.S. Attorneys in question; and (b) communications on the same subject between White House staff and third parties, including Members of Congress or their staffs on the subject.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan