Text 4954, 126 rader
Skriven 2007-07-09 23:30:54 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (070709) for Mon, 2007 Jul 9
==================================================

===========================================================================
Communication to Congress on President's Assertion of Executive Privilege
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release July 9, 2007

Communication to Congress on President's Assertion of Executive Privilege

˙˙White House News

˙˙˙˙˙ PDF (153kb, 3 pages)

Dear Chairman Leahy and Chairman Conyers:

I write in response to your letter of June 29, 2007.

Let me begin by conveying a note of concern over your letter's tone and
apparent direction in dealing with a situation of this gravity. We are
troubled to read the letter's charge that the President's "assertion of
Executive Privilege belies any good faith attempt to determine where
privilege truly does and does not apply." Although we each speak on behalf
of different branches of government, and perhaps for that reason cannot
help having different perspectives on the matter, it is hoped you will
agree, upon further reflection, that it is incorrect to say that the
President's assertion of Executive Privilege was performed without "good
faith."

As the letter from the Acting Attorney General explained in considerable
detail, the assertion of Executive Privilege here is intended to protect a
fundamental interest of the Presidency: the necessity that a President
receive candid advice from his advisors and that those advisors be able to
communicate freely and openly with the President, with each other, and with
others inside and outside the Executive Branch. In the present setting,
where the President's authority to appoint and remove U.S. Attorneys is at
stake, the institutional interest of the Executive Branch is very strong.
The Acting Attorney General's letter clearly identifies the subject matter
of the deliberations and communications at issue and provides an extensive
treatment of the issues implicated by the subpoenas and the legal basis for
the President's assertion of Executive Privilege.

Your letter does not dispute these principles. It does not take issue with
the practical fact that, in order to fulfill his constitutional functions,
the President, no less than Members of Congress and federal judges, needs
the protection of a principle that shields his close advisors from
open-ended inquiry by another branch of government. The letter does not
challenge the exclusive character of the President's appointment and
removal power, nor does the letter attempt to establish a constitutional
basis for the Committees' inquiry into this matter. Although the letter
sets forth certain generalizations relating to Congress's investigatory
authority, it does not explain how that authority extends to White House
communications about the possible dismissal and replacement of U.S.
Attorneys. And, even if Congress's authority might be deemed to extend that
far, the question remains whether the Committees have demonstrated that the
information sought here is demonstrably critical to the responsible
fulfillment of the Committees' legislative functions.

In response to your inquiry concerning the mechanics of the President's
assertion of the privilege, you may be assured that the President's
assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that
it has been appropriately documented. I do hope that your Committees will
appreciate that I write on behalf of the President and therefore understand
that my letter of June 28, 2007 precisely expresses the President's
position on this matter.

Your letter also "direct[s]" the President to provide certain additional
information to the Committees before 10:00 a.m. on July 9, 2007. The letter
goes on to say that a very detailed "privilege log" is necessary "to
facilitate ruling on" claims of Executive Privilege and your letter
thereafter announces an intention to "take the necessary steps to rule on
[the President's executive] privilege claims." We are aware of no authority
by which a congressional committee may "direct" the Executive to undertake
the task of creating and providing an extensive description of every
document covered by an assertion of Executive Privilege. Given the
descriptions of the materials in question that have already been provided,
this demand is unreasonable because it represents a substantial incursion
into Presidential prerogatives and because, in view of the open-ended scope
of the Committees' inquiry, it would impose a burden of very significant
proportions.

One final observation underscores the preordained futility of any White
House compliance with this demand. When your letter states that your
Committees "will take the necessary steps to rule on [the President's]
privilege claims and appropriately enforce our subpoenas" and that the
Committees will enforce their subpoenas "[w]hether or not [they] have the
benefit of the information"(emphasis added), only one conclusion is
evident: the Committees have already prejudged the question, regardless of
the production of any privilege log. In such circumstances, we will not be
undertaking such a project, even as a further accommodation.

As noted in my previous letter, as we remain at the present impasse, the
President feels compelled to assert Executive Privilege with respect to the
testimony sought from Sara M. Taylor and Harriet E. Miers covering White
House consideration, deliberations or communications, whether internal or
external, relating to the possible dismissal or appointment of United
States Attorneys, including consideration of possible responses to
congressional and media inquiries on the United States Attorneys matter,
consistent with the advice provided by the Acting Attorney General. The
President has instructed me to notify you and the counsel for Ms. Taylor
and Ms. Miers of his decision and to inform counsel of his direction to Ms.
Taylor and Ms. Miers not to provide this testimony.

I renew again the President's offer: in the absence of subpoenas he remains
willing to provide you with information as previously offered. And I
likewise convey the President's request that further interbranch relations
in this matter be distinguished by respect for the constitutional
principles of both institutions and marked by a presumption of goodwill on
all sides.

Respectfully yours,

Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070709.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)