Download raw source

Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com Received: by 10.140.18.137 with SMTP id 9csp42635qgf; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:48:04 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: <peter.timothy.carey@gmail.com> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of peter.timothy.carey@gmail.com designates 10.52.186.230 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.52.186.230 Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of peter.timothy.carey@gmail.com designates 10.52.186.230 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=peter.timothy.carey@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com X-Received: from mr.google.com ([10.52.186.230]) by 10.52.186.230 with SMTP id fn6mr13243074vdc.14.1393249684467 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:48:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=HdnUOJJU7aFZTY4Q1Dt1ASkS04qcKkvQ/goifLKK4Zc=; b=B1ve1PAZOXnamBGl5Fg2O0sAd5Vqa6eey3TNFycJ3BqDUjG4zIyIxRC43Fo1Ns6dl5 sXlPL7FMLxriwO/NcpM6C2BAoXSFpYhCRQt+FOPZLh4Ky7stP6kLaVTQg2vMKqeV2FHt XHKQzztKo+/RU+ngH2RU4iacLB5v64/nkAltHhjlQA2v3ErkQIbP7Lf879NsN/UyM5qn QzlMdUvjiUXN/khxKg8BFDv8o4Ak9UDc7slarqOPK8fMXKPT5Qaq0ZWKFvdOJP9LiUYV 2lAAOrJW2iqe3SRTfm6+lo+roWiD84sr1+FNRQrkcp5qDhIcDYbpaOglMZZTyWPmMC0S XiWg== X-Received: by 10.52.186.230 with SMTP id fn6mr10857539vdc.14.1393249684402; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:48:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: peter.timothy.carey@gmail.com Received: by 10.220.166.144 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:47:34 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Carey <ptc27@law.georgetown.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:47:34 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: o7Js1HkgoTmftSKneOIxgJMbZYA Message-ID: <CAFmasA1gEJ15i12LOp8qS8FTBL0tYCcmz1BU+WMpYRCNtdRNQw@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Congressional Investigations Paper Topic To: richard_leon@dcd.uscourts.gov, john.podesta@gmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54858ca85b9ac04f3273848 --bcaec54858ca85b9ac04f3273848 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Professors Leon and Podesta: My proposed paper topic examines claims of executive privilege with regard to the testimony of executive branch officials before Congress. The case that prompted my interest in this topic is Sara Taylor's testimony during the investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings. My understanding is that she took a unique approach in choosing to testify while also having her attorney present and refusing to answer a broad range of questions on the basis of President Bush's claim of executive privilege. My plan is to compare Taylor's case with the more typical claim of executive privilege case where the official simply refuses to testify and is held in contempt, as happened to Harriet Miers in the same investigation. Through this comparative analysis I hope to get at some of the underlying questions about when executive branch officials can claim executive privilege to prevent them testifying, which officials can claim this privilege, and the mechanics of how this is done in practice. The ultimate conclusion may be to recommend, from a policy perspective, whether the Taylor approach of providing partial testimony is preferable to the Miers approach of refusing to testify at all. Regards, Peter Carey --bcaec54858ca85b9ac04f3273848 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Dear Professors Leon and Podesta:<div><br></div><div>My pr= oposed paper topic examines claims of executive privilege with regard to th= e testimony of executive branch officials before Congress.</div><div><br></= div> <div>The case that prompted my interest in this topic is Sara Taylor's = testimony during the investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings. =A0My un= derstanding is that she took a unique approach in choosing to testify while= also having her attorney present and refusing to answer a broad range of q= uestions on the basis of President Bush's claim of executive privilege.= </div> <div><br></div><div>My plan is to compare Taylor's case with the more t= ypical claim of executive privilege case where the official simply refuses = to testify and is held in contempt, as happened to Harriet Miers in the sam= e investigation.</div> <div><br></div><div>Through this comparative analysis I hope to get at some= of the underlying questions about when executive branch officials can clai= m executive privilege to prevent them testifying, which officials can claim= this privilege, and the mechanics of how this is done in practice.</div> <div><br></div><div>The ultimate conclusion may be to recommend, from a pol= icy perspective, whether the Taylor approach of providing partial testimony= is preferable to the Miers approach of refusing to testify at all.</div> <div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Peter Carey</div></di= v> --bcaec54858ca85b9ac04f3273848--