Executive Privilege

Re "Bush refuses to cooperate in probe of attorney firings," July 10 So President Bush is invoking executive privilege to prevent his aides from testifying before Congress regarding the firing of U.S. attorneys. They may be interviewed behind closed doors, without a transcript and without taking an oath. Why does Bush object to aides testifying openly and under oath? Why does he object to them swearing to God to tell the truth?

A contrite Secret Service director today accepted the blame for a breach of security that enabled an uninvited Virginia couple to gain access to a state dinner at the White House, as members of Congress spoke of compelling the White House social secretary to testify as well. Three members of the Secret Service have been placed on paid administrative leave for the breach of security, Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said, maintaining that the security breakdown was not an institutional problem.

The investigation into the firing last year of eight U.S. attorneys could soon be moving from congressional hearing rooms to the courts. Congress is threatening to hold former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers in contempt of Congress for failing to honor a congressional subpoena. Miers, acting on orders from President Bush, cited the doctrine of executive privilege in explaining her decision not to appear before a House panel last week. Congressional leaders have given her until Tuesday to change her mind.

President Obama's appointment of "czars," or policy coordinators, is drawing new fire from lawmakers in both parties. They complain that Obama's naming of the czars circumvents the Senate's role in confirming important nominations to the president's administration. In a letter to the president this week, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and five other Republican lawmakers accused the administration of encroaching on Congress' authority in establishing what they said were too many far-reaching czars.

Re "Justices Appear to Support Cheney Task Force Secrecy," April 28: The issue of whether Vice President Dick Cheney must disclose whether corporate insiders had a hand in shaping our national energy policy is being decided by a judicial body that includes a member with questionable personal ties to the very same vice president. This must have the framers of the Constitution rolling in their graves. The processes supposedly in place to maintain government integrity and accountability have become meaningless, almost farcical.

Former President Ronald Reagan set the stage for a new constitutional challenge over presidential privacy Wednesday when he invoked the doctrine of executive privilege to avoid turning over excerpts of his White House diaries to Iran-Contra defendant John M. Poindexter. U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene has said he will hold a hearing to consider Reagan's claim, almost guaranteeing that Poindexter's trial will be delayed from its scheduled Feb. 20 start.

President Reagan brushed aside questions about U.S. dealings with Iran today as his chief of staff, Donald Regan, hinted that executive privilege might be invoked if Congress investigates the National Security Council. Reagan met with his top advisers to discuss fallout over reported deal-making with Iran and other issues after his return from an extended stay at Camp David. The disclosure that the meeting would take place caught some White House officials by surprise.

A federal judge Thursday rebuked the Bush administration for making the "unprecedented" claim that senior White House officials were beyond the reach of congressional subpoena power, and ordered two top officials to cooperate with the politically charged probe of U.S. attorney firings. The ruling by U.S. District Judge John D.

Escalating a fight with Democrats on Capitol Hill, the White House on Friday invoked executive privilege in refusing to turn over documents to a congressional committee investigating the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to deny California permission to implement its own vehicle emission standards.

Over the last six years, the Bush administration has been widely seen as one of the most secretive and resistant to outside scrutiny in modern times. It has invoked executive privilege to prevent disclosure of its internal deliberations and advanced a theory of the "unitary executive" to avoid traditional checks on presidential power. President Bush has also asserted the right to ignore parts of new laws.

USC guard Dwight Lewis looked up from his locker-room chair at a stadium named after a former vice president and took a shot at the current executive branch. Like a lot shots USC attempted Friday, this one was all net. "I guess we messed President Obama's bracket up," Lewis cracked from deep inside the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. Barack Obama, in his mock offering to ESPN, had USC losing in the first round of the NCAA tournament and the Pacific 10 Conference going 1-5.

A federal appeals court granted the White House a temporary delay in turning over documents to a House committee investigating the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. A three-judge panel ordered the stay on Thursday, the deadline set by the House Judiciary Committee for White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten to provide the records. The order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also will probably delay the appearance of former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers before the committee.

Congress and the Bush administration headed for a preelection showdown Wednesday over the issue of executive privilege, with House Democrats scheduling a hearing that would put a key former administration figure under oath and the Justice Department mapping a last-ditch court appeal. Justice lawyers said they would go to court as soon as today to block a ruling by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates that forces the White House to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the politically charged firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

A federal judge Thursday rebuked the Bush administration for making the "unprecedented" claim that senior White House officials were beyond the reach of congressional subpoena power, and ordered two top officials to cooperate with the politically charged probe of U.S. attorney firings. The ruling by U.S. District Judge John D.

President Bush invoked executive privilege to keep Congress from seeing the FBI report of an interview with Vice President Dick Cheney and other records related to the administration's leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003. At the time, the administration was trying to undercut former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's criticism of Bush's rationale for the Iraq war. Wilson and Plame are married. The House Oversight Committee had subpoenaed Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey to turn over the documents.

Lawyers for the White House and Congress sparred in federal court over whether lawmakers can force top presidential advisors to testify or produce documents for a legislative committee. The House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the firings of U.S. attorneys in 2006, filed a lawsuit in March seeking to force former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers to testify about a possible White House role in the dismissals. She has refused to appear, citing executive privilege. The committee also sued to force White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten to produce documents he says are protected by executive privilege.

With the help of the 106th Congress, President Clinton may yet do the impossible. He may succeed in giving executive privilege a good name. His refusal to disclose internal deliberative documents concerning conditional clemency for 16 members of a militant Puerto Rican independence group is not merely permissible. It is essential to the proper working of the separation of powers.

Escalating a fight with Democrats on Capitol Hill, the White House on Friday invoked executive privilege in refusing to turn over documents to a congressional committee investigating the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to deny California permission to implement its own vehicle emission standards.

Re "Eavesdropping review postponed," Dec. 18 Defending the telecom industry's warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is no more justified than Richard Nixon's assertion of executive privilege during Watergate. Where there is an allegation of illegality met by a defense of executive privilege or national security, there must be at least an in-camera examination by the judicial branch to determine the validity of such a claim. Nixon's inability to justify his illegal actions before the judicial branch ultimately cost him the presidency.