US Attorneys investigator accuses White House of cover up by blocking Miers' testimony Michael Roston

Published: Thursday July 12, 2007 Print This Email This Enjoy this story? Get breaking politics headlines with RSS . Sitting before an empty chair with a name placard for Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, a top Democrat on the House committee investigating the firing of 8 US Attorneys accused President George W. Bush of perpetrating a cover up. "The President's inconsistent position on allowing senior advisers to testify may reflect [President Bush's] concern about what the advisers may say rather than steadfast adherence to concept of executive privilege," said Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, the House Judiciary Committee body that authorized a subpoena for Miers' appearance. But her Republican counterpart argued that there was no need for Miers to appear. He insisted that the White House was not involved in the firings. "We don't generally need Ms. Miers' information, and we don't need a showdown," said Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), who then accused the Democratic members of the committee of "smoke and mirrors." But the committee's chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) made it clear that he saw there was a legal necessity for the hearing. "I'm still catching my breath after the six or more myths that Mr. Cannon has propounded," he said. "We're here today because we issued a subpoena." He added, "We're still trying to get to the bottom of this." The committee had believed that Miers would attend the hearing, announcing via a statement on Monday afternoon that it would attempt to evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether the answers to particular questions were covered by executive privilege. But Miers's attorney Tuesday informed the committee that she would not appear on Capitol Hill hours after Sara Taylor, former White House political director and top aide to Karl Rove, completed her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Taylor admitted on several occasions that she had probably answered questions that were covered by executive privilege. "I'm trying to walk a very fine line here and I'm probably answering questions that really fall within the guidelines of Mr. Fielding's letter," she said during the Tuesday hearing. "And I'm going to do my best not to do that." Committee rejects claim of 'executive privilege' In the hearing, Rep. Sanchez presented a detailed legal argument in which she rejected the claims of executive privilege that Miers was relying on. She dismissed them as 'novel' legal reasoning that was not in keeping with long-standing precedent. "Those claims are not legally valid, and Ms. Miers is required, pursuant to the subpoena, to be here now," "No one is here on behalf of the White House to assert that claim...a statement from the president is legally required in order for the claim to be legally valid." She added that the Bush White House's went beyond that of President Richard Nixon, who eventually allowed his counsel John Dean to testify in the Watergate probe. [Rep. Sanchez's full statement can be downloaded at this link.] Cannon argued in response that there was no evidence of underlying criminality that justified legal enforcement of the committee's subpoena. He argued that attempting to enforce the subpoena would undermine Congress's power in the future to investigate executive branch wrongdoing. Sanchez did not agree. "Witnesses cannot simply refuse to appear before the subcommittee," Sanchez answered, stating that Cannon should enforce the subpoena's enforcement if he wanted to protect the power of the legislative branch. Democratic member raises specter of criminal contempt While the motion that Rep. Sanchez was advancing was limited to rejecting Bush's assertion of executive privilege, other Democrats suggested that a 'contempt of Congress' citation was in order. "I support the chair in bringing a contempt citation," said Rep. Stephen Cohen (D-TN). "This is an affront to each of us, Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian." But a Republican responded, suggesting that executive privilege was needed for the same reason that the legal system protected spousal privilege and attorney-client privilege. "We want folks to be honest and candid with each other, that's the best thing for society," Rep. Ric Keller (R-FL) stated. He went on to suggest that without executive privilege, President Bush could not get 'honest and candid advice' about policy issues, such as an honest assessment about the failure of America's warfighting strategies in Iraq. Keller added, "The President is acting not just to protect himself but to protect the Presidency, and future Presidents." Committee prepares subpoena for Republican e-mails As a final matter, Sanchez's subcommittee authorized the issuing of a subpoena for e-mails written by senior White House staff on Republican National Committee e-mail accounts. Rep. Sanchez noted that the committee had attempted to gain the e-mails, but was stymied by a White House assertion of executive privilege. "The White House has interfered, insisting that it first be allowed to review and redact e-mails based on whatever privileges it unilaterally deemed appropriate," Sanchez said. She went on to reason that, "The committee has exhausted all reasonable means to obtain the RNC communications through cooperation. And it is evident that the RNC communications, which may include complaints about US Attorneys by political officials and Republican Party activists are essential to our investigation." The subcommittee authorized the issuance of subpoena by a voice vote, and the hearing was adjourned. Background: Miers played large role in Attorneys firings The White House's insistence that Miers not appear before the House Judiciary Committee may prevent Congressional investigators from piecing together key details of the US Attorneys firings. Earlier testimony made it clear that Miers was an important player in the current controversy. D. Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, explained how he received informal instructions from Miers and her lieutenant Bill Kelley at the White House on a regular basis. "I remember speaking with Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley about that. Sometimes this subject would come up after a Judicial Selection Committee meeting, which was a once-a-week meeting that happened in the Roosevelt Room," Sampson told Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in his March 29 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He added, "The issue of replacing U.S. attorneys most frequently came up as sort of a pull-aside after a Judicial Selection meeting." E-mails turned over to Congressional investigators also made clear that Miers was running damage control around Jan. 16 when Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) first complained on the Senate floor about the firings. "The US Attorneys themselves haven't fired any shots. Harriet feels very strongly that we shouldn't respond to the merits, even though we are convinced that they have disloyally stirred up the Senators," her aide Kelley wrote to Sampson on Jan. 16.



