DOJ’s Attempt to Shield Obstruction of Justice

I agree with bmaz. This letter from DOJ refusing to turn over the Bush and Cheney interview reports is a load of crap (h/t WO, who’s doing all the heavy lifting today). I’ve gotta go to a meeting, so check back later for (I hope) some real smack-down of DOJ’s crap. But here are the key passages.

In seeking to accommodate the Committee’s requests, however, we must take into account core Executive Branch confidentiality interests and fundamental separation of powers principles, and we must avoid taking steps that could compromise the effectiveness of future criminal investigations involving White House personnel. Consequently, as we have informed the Committee, we are not prepared to provide or make available any reports of interviews with the President or the Vice President fiom the leak investigation. To do so would allow Congress to obtain through access to Justice Department investigative files information that it otherwise could not gather through its own inquiry because of separation of powers.

Your various letters on this matter have explained that the Committee’s legislative purpose for its inquiry concerns the review of White House procedures for handling classified information. We have attempted to accommodate this interest by permitting the Committee to review the reports of interviews of senior White House staff, which contain some information relevant to this subject. However, these reports also contain considerable information detailing the internal White House deliberations and communications of senior White House staff concerning how they should respond on behalf of the President to public assertions challenging the accuracy of a statement made in the President’s State of the Union Address. The Executive Branch has important institutional interests in the confidentiality of such White House deliberations and communications, and we therefore accommodated the Committee’s interests by making interview reports of senior White House staff available for review but not copying, with limited redactions of presidential and vice presidential communications and personal information not germane to the leak investigation.

We are not prepared to make the same accommodation for reports of interviews with the President and Vice President because the confidentiality interests relating to those documents are of a greater constitutional magnitude. The President and the Vice President are the two nationally elected constitutional officers under our Government. The President heads the Executive Branch and, as the Congress has by law recognized, the Vice President often advises and assists the President in the President’s performance of his executive duties. It is settled as a matter of constitutional law, reflected in court decisions, and congressional and Executive Branch practice, that the communications of the President and the Vice President with their staffs relating to official Executive Branch activities lie at the absolute core of executive privilege. The interview reports sought by the Committee deal directly with internal White House deliberations and communications relating to foreign policy and national security decisions faced by the President and his immediate advisers. Congressional access to those reports would intrude into one of the most sensitive and confidential areas of presidential decision-making.

Moreover, fiom the institutional perspective, the Committee’s request for copies of FBI reports of interviews with the President and the Vice President raises a very serious additional separation of powers concern relating to the integrity and effectiveness of future law enforcement investigations by the Department. There is an admirable tradition, extending back through Administrations of both political parties, of full cooperation by the White House with criminal investigations. In keeping with this tradition, the President and the Vice President (as well as the White House staff) cooperated voluntarily with the Special Counsel’s leak investigation and agreed to be interviewed informally outside the presence of the grand jury. Were future Presidents and Vice Presidents (or their staffs) to perceive that providing such voluntary interviews would create records that would likely be made available to Congress, there is a clear and unacceptable risk that they might limit the scope of any voluntary interview or insist that they will only testify pursuant to a grand jury subpoena and subject to the protection of the grand jury secrecy provision, Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, if the Department were to make available records of voluntary interviews with the President and the Vice President (or release copies of the interview reports of senior White House staff), this precedent could create an unfortunate disincentive for voluntary cooperation with future Department criminal investigations involving official White House actions. Such a result would significantly impair the Department’s ability to conduct future law enforcement investigations where such investigations would benefit from full White House cooperation.

Just a few quick points. First, DOJ is suggesting that the President and Vice President wouldn’t have to comply with a subpoena to testify–they’re basically saying that separation of powers puts the President and his Barnacle above the law. That doesn’t jive with the reasons why Presidents and Vice Presidents have been given that courtesy in the past and is dangerous on its face.

Second, DOJ is hiding–in the name of national security–damning evidence of presidential abuse of power. It is absolute bullshit on its face–absolute bullshit.

Third, Looseheadprop has made compelling arguments before that, since the SOTU is compelled by the Constitution, lying in it–as opposed to, say, on Meet the Press–is much more serious legally. And that is what’s at question. But DOJ wants to shield discussions about how the White House ignored evidence when it put together its SOTU.

Fourth, this basically says any time the President and Vice President want to smear a citizen to hide their own embarrassment, their discussions about that smear are protected from Congress, the body Constitutionally obliged to guard against abuse of power. This argument is basically carte blanche for the President and his Barnacle to ruin the lives of citizens at will–with no possibility for oversight.

This is a dangerous letter–and only goes to show how desperate the Administration is to avoid releasing these reports.

image_print
54 replies
  1. tbsa says:

    Congressional access to those reports would intrude into one of the most sensitive and confidential areas of presidential decision-making.

    I thought it was called oversight, mandated by the constitution.

  2. rosalind says:

    psst ew: That doesn’t jive jibe

    (though the letter on the whole is a stinkin’ pile of jive)

  3. WilliamOckham says:

    This is a dangerous letter–and only goes to show how desperate the Administration is to avoid releasing these reports

    I disagree with part of that. Not the dangerous part, that’s right on the money. But I don’t think this is about avoiding releasing the interviews. This is part of Cheney’s quest to institute a constitutional dictatorship restore the Presidency to its rightful place. I was re-reading Cheney’s Iran-Contra minority report this weekend. It’s really quite breath-taking in a number of ways. The sweeping assertions of executive power coming from a legislator are hard to grasp. The hypocrisy is staggering (page after page whining about leaks when Cheney and crew had been leaking pro-Admin spin faster than the Dems had been leaking the truth). Most of all, it is a blueprint for the current Administration and the actions of the Republican-led Congress. It’s the quintessential ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ approach to secret government.

    • bmaz says:

      I think it is both. There is the element of what you describe, but there is some bad medicine in those interviews for Bush and Cheney no matter how you look at it; and either way, there is every reason in the world for them to avoid disclosure. Either they admitted things that made them look very very bad, if not somewhat culpable; or they lied about things, and it is even more obvious now than it was then. The interviews hurt them one way or another, it is just a question as to how and which way.

  4. WilliamOckham says:

    Also, did you notice that this letter was signed by:

    Keith B. Nelson
    Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

    (for the Office of Legislative Affairs)

  5. PraedorAtrebates says:

    This is a dangerous letter–and only goes to show how desperate the Administration is to avoid releasing these reports.

    Ah, but see, it will work. Nothing will happen, the blowing off of subpoenas can (and will) continue because “impeachment is off the table” which literally means that the Congress has NO power to do ANYTHING. Of course, they don’t WANT to do anything anyway. This is more of the same old same old: run out the clock.

  6. freepatriot says:

    can the DOJ be charged as an “Ongoing Criminal Conspiricy” ???

    I mostly read the civil action parts of RICO, so I’ll have to check

    if the DOJ can be prosecuted under RICO, the status of limitation provision extends to 10 years

    this could get interesting

  7. SparklestheIguana says:

    It’s like Watergate never happened. This administration – the administration of the Barnacle – has not been a failure. It’s been a huge, gigantic, massive success. They’ve turned back the clock to 1973.

    • TobyWollin says:

      I just had this really weird thought: What Bush2 is to Bush1, Dick Cheney is to Nixon. Bush2’s entire career has been designed to show that he’s a bigger(if not better)man/president than his father; Cheney’s since 1973 has been focused on finishing the job that Nixon could not.

  8. freepatriot says:

    this is off topic, but kinda relevent:

    I been sayin we were thru the looking glass in America, and apparently a three judge panel on a US Court of Appeals agrees with me

    With some derision for the Bush administration’s arguments, a three-judge panel said the government contended that its allegations against a detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents.

    The court compared that to the absurd declaration of a Lewis Carroll character: “I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”

    Court Is Skeptical of U.S. Evidence in Guantánamo Case

    curiouser and curiouser

  9. hackworth says:

    Were future Presidents and Vice Presidents (or their staffs) to perceive that providing such voluntary interviews would create records that would likely be made available to Congress, there is a clear and unacceptable risk that they might limit the scope of any voluntary interview or insist that they will only testify pursuant to a grand jury subpoena and subject to the protection of the grand jury secrecy provision, Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

    However, there is one exception – whereby the bullshit I spew herein can be circumvented and it is well known. Interviews involving blow jobs and Democrat President receivers of said blow jobs are – balls to the wall wide open to Congress and every American Consumer. (On account of family values.)

    • bmaz says:

      Their line of reasoning is pure unadulterated horsemanure. Future Presidents and administrations will be left in EXACTLY the same posture as this one was, if through their actions and those of their staff they intertwine themselves in malicious action that becomes the subject of a criminal investigation, they can elect how they wish to proceed – either be subpoenaed or cut a deal to give cooperative testimony. Then they can live with the normal and predictable consequences, just like Clinton did, and just like Bush and Cheney should have to as well.

  10. MadDog says:

    What the DOI (Department of Injustice) is saying, to quote EW, is absolute bullshit!

    …It is settled as a matter of constitutional law, reflected in court decisions, and congressional and Executive Branch practice, that the communications of the President and the Vice President with their staffs relating to official Executive Branch activities lie at the absolute core of executive privilege…

    There is no such thing as Executive Privilege regarding criminal investigation interviews of Administration miscreants. That includes both the Barnacle and his Sock Puppet.

    …To do so would allow Congress to obtain through access to Justice Department investigative files information that it otherwise could not gather through its own inquiry because of separation of powers…

    There is no such thing as a conflict in separation of powers as claimed by the DOI regarding criminal investigation interviews of Administration miscreants. That too includes both the Barnacle and his Sock Puppet.

    …Were future Presidents and Vice Presidents (or their staffs) to perceive that providing such voluntary interviews would create records that would likely be made available to Congress, there is a clear and unacceptable risk that they might limit the scope of any voluntary interview or insist that they will only testify pursuant to a grand jury subpoena and subject to the protection of the grand jury secrecy provision, Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure…

    Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!

    The Adminstration was the one who pleaded with Fitzgerald not to go the Subpoena and Grand Jury route! Their rationale was to put out a wildfire that threatened to explicitly point criminal fingers directly at the Barnacle and his Sock Puppet.

    Fitzgerald, in a brief moment of weakness, gave the Barnacle and his Sock Puppet a break and instead of subpoenas and standing nude in front of a Grand Jury, the Barnacle and his Sock Puppet got to dissemble in private.

    But that ain’t got nothing to do with Executive Privilege, Separation of Powers, National Security, or the price of bullshit in Crawford.

    The facts are real simple and nothing the DOI says can change them. The Congress has every right to obtain those interview reports.

    The underlying premise that the DOI is operating on is that they know that their claims are legally bullshit and they don’t care. They’re just trying to kick the ball down the road and any fatuous excuse will do if it will only buy them time.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Oh, yeah, they’re in Full Victim Mode.
      That’s why I happen to agree with EW’s assessment that they’re desperate.

      This is a mix of VictimhoodAndInnocence.
      Watch FauxNews start handing out hankies any minute.
      Wankers.

      • MadDog says:

        The game being played here by the WH, the politicized DOI and Mukasey is to avoid Watergating the 2008 Election.

        Regardless of the Obama vs McSame national polls showing McSame losing, the Repugs believe that they can still Swiftboat their way to Presidential victory.

        And they know that if the Barnacle and his Sock Puppet’s Plame Betrayal interviews get out before November 2008, it will make Watergate look like a two-bit burglary.

        Stalling is the name of the Repugs’ game. Anything to avoid sinking the Arizona Crazy’s chances faster than the sinking the USS Arizona.

        If the Barnacle and his Sock Puppet’s Plame Betrayal interviews get out before November 2008, it is game over and the Repugs know it.

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          If the Barnacle and his Sock Puppet’s Plame Betrayal interviews get out before November 2008, it is game over and the Repugs know it.

          Oh, I think it’s all over but the shoutin’ currently.
          But don’t tell the MSM, because they love to tell the story of the Challenger versus the Old Guy.

          The game is over already.
          It’s just a question of how over-the-top-over it’s going to be by Jan 20th.

          If they want to believe that keeping Plame docs under wraps is going to give them some kind of winning margin, they are even more delusional than I’d supposed.

        • MadDog says:

          If they want to believe that keeping Plame docs under wraps is going to give them some kind of winning margin, they are even more delusional than I’d supposed.

          Actually, my point is that it’s the reverse of that. The release of the Plames docs would affect how big the losing margin is.

    • sojourner says:

      You know, we all regard Fitzgerald as some great paragon of virtue. I have to admire the man, personally, just because he was able to walk through such a minefield to convict the VP’s right-hand man.

      IANAL, but reading through the comments of those who are, it appears that there is nothing to keep Fitzgerald from releasing those documents. It is no longer a Republican question, or a Democrat question. It is a question of doing the right thing — of which it appears he is quite capable.

      I sincerely hope that he will release the documents just because he is the only avenue to reveal, once and for all, exactly what this administration has been doing. If he is truly a patriot (and I sincerely hope that he is) he can blow the lid off this thing and stop the chaos.

      If nothing else, I need to know the truth — and I think the public does too. Then all of the people who are complicit will fall, one by one, and maybe, just maybe, America can recover…

      • FrankProbst says:

        IANAL, but reading through the comments of those who are, it appears that there is nothing to keep Fitzgerald from releasing those documents.

        The documents don’t “belong” to Fitz. They are under the control of the DOJ. He won’t release them for the simple reason that it is not his place to do so.

    • FrankProbst says:

      Fitzgerald, in a brief moment of weakness, gave the Barnacle and his Sock Puppet a break and instead of subpoenas and standing nude in front of a Grand Jury, the Barnacle and his Sock Puppet got to dissemble in private.

      I disagree with you here. It was not weakness. It was respect (undeserved, in my opinion, but respect nonetheless) for the offices of the President and the Vice-President that led Fitz to this compromise. And for what it’s worth, the fact that the interview occurred outside the grand jury room is what makes it fair game for Congressional subpoenas. This was not a misstep on Fitz’s part in any way.

      • MadDog says:

        You have an excellent point. However…*g*

        A different past might have presaged a different present.

        Hauling Barnacle and his Sock Puppet before a GJ would have made some monstrous public fireworks to the detriment of this Administration’s “reality” playbook.

        Who really knows if more names than Scoots would shown up in indictments?

        Both Barnacle and his Sock Puppet could have themselves been caught in myriad forms of dissembling.

        Heck, there might have been enough to move these critters to the dock of the Senate on impeachment charges.

        The deference you describe Fitz giving might also have been the bolthole for the rats.

  11. bobschacht says:

    I just wish Congress was as zealous in protecting its prerogatives as the President & VP are in protecting theirs. But instead, our witless Congress throws its most important assets (impeachment, inherent contempt) in the trash, and then whines pathetically about being powerless. They are all either (a) spineless wimps, (b) a complicit part of the conspiracy, or maybe (c) hyper-triangulators, caring only about winning elections, and not about the Constitution they have sworn to defend, or the Rule of Law, or ethics, or morality, or anything else.

    Bob in HI

    • BayStateLibrul says:

      True, and also they have trashed their “only Congress can appropriate”
      power…

  12. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    … the President and the Vice President (as well as the White House staff) cooperated voluntarily with the Special Counsel’s leak investigation and agreed to be interviewed informally outside the presence of the grand jury….Thus, if the Department were to make available records of voluntary interviews with the President and the Vice President (or release copies of the interview reports of senior White House staff), this precedent could create an unfortunate disincentive for voluntary cooperation with future Department criminal investigations involving official White House actions.

    The WH has taken a lot of care to present their own ‘participation’ as ‘voluntary’.
    They’ve implied that Congress oversteps — after all, this was all ‘voluntary’. The WH ‘cooperated’. And anyone who doesn’t believe that a sow’s ear is a purse is a moron, an idiot, and an Unbeliever.

    They are still creating their own ‘reality’, it seems.

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Executive “privilege” exists as a practical means to protect the process of advising the President regarding his exercise of legitimate presidential authority, in compliance with his oath of office, which entails first and foremost, protecting and defending the Constitution and ensuring that the laws of the land are fully and faithfully executed. Acting as the civilian head of the country’s armed forces is only one of his tasks, even in war time.

    That’s why there are different kinds of executive privilege, such as communications that directly with the President as distinct from those only among his advisers. That’s why there are various circumstances that merit piercing the privilege claim in order to promote a greater good. On military matters and those involving diplomacy and national defense, the President has virtually carte blanche to keep his secrets. Regarding discussions involving other matters, particularly where Congress is investigating crime in the executive branch, he has a more limited right to shield his communications from disclosure, because the public has heightened interest in finding out the truth and minimizing the damage done by corrupt office holders.

    What privilege does not protect is a President covering his backside from the exposure of his dirty politicking. Arguably, it is the President and his White House’s involvement in leaking Plame’s identity that threatened national security. Disclosing that involvement would promote national security, not threaten it. But if Congress and ultimately Obama aren’t up to enforcing that distinction, our troubles deepen.

  14. AZ Matt says:

    I was looking through EW’s material above and the comments in this thread. Am I just missing it but did you all discuss the June 27, 2008 letter from Waxman to Fitzgerald? The one above is the June 24th letter from DOJ. The 27th letter has this:

    To assist the Committee in evaluating the Department’s position, I request that you produce the following information to the Committee no later than July 3, 2008:

    1. Documents sufficient to show the date and terms of all agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the President of the United States, regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews of the President conducted as part of the Valerie Plame Wilson leak investigation.

    2. Documents sufficient to show the date and terms of all agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Offrce of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Vice President of the United States, regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews of the Vice President conducted as part of the Valerie Plame Wilson leak investigation.

    If such agreements, conditions, and understandings were not memorialized in writing, I request that you submit a written description of the date and terms of any such agreements, conditions, and understandings.

    I just wasn’t clear if this had been covered.

  15. JThomason says:

    Its apparent that we have reached a depth of depravity and corruption in the Congress and Presidency that seems unimaginable. Facile sophistry masquerading as judgment, coercive brutality in our foreign policy, and cynical propaganda efforts toward the public. Our moment is historically significant as a moment of precipitous decline. No amount of nationalistic self-righteousness or oligarchical rhetoric will redeem. These are in fact the earmarks of the all demon tyrants. Its mind boggling. Happy 4th…

  16. kspena says:

    As I read through these recent threads on the Plame affair, I find myself wondering:

    WHY did cheney submit to be interviewed? What evidence did he NEED to give?
    (I’m assuming he wouldn’t if he didn’t HAVE to.)

    WHY did bush submit to be interviewed? Did he HAVE to say he approved de-classification? What story line were they trying to advance?

    WHY did they HAVE to appear together? Was dick’s story lie so complex that bush couldn’t keep it straight? What facts known to Fitz had to be explained?

    WHY did Fitz set it up as he did? I’m thinking he pretty well knew the whole story. I’m guessing he wanted a record for history of little tidbits that would fill out the story eventually.

    • bmaz says:

      They had to submit or they would have been subpoenaed by the prosecution and required to appear under oath in front of the grand jury. And they would have been required to appear; it was through Fitzgerald’s generosity that they were allowed to have the informal interviews. They did not appear together, that was in relation to the Iraq Study Group interviews. Trust me it was not their desire to appear or that they wanted to “in order to get something out”.

    • emptywheel says:

      They didn’t appear together. Cheney was interviewed in early June 2004. Bush was interviewed on (IIRC) June 25, 2004.

      I’m thinking about this question myself. But it seems there were several reasons why Fitz had a fair claim they had to be interviewed. There’s the matter of the exonerations of Rove and Libby. And the insta-declassification bit. Plus, Cheney was deeply involved in ordering Libby around.

      But keep in mind, they interviewed BEFORE Judy decided to give up her source, but after the Appeals Court told her she had to (IIRC, they were waiting to hear whether SCOTUS would grant cert–at least when Dick was interviewed). So they knew Judy might be thrown in jail, but probably still thought she could protect them (and, arguably, she did).

  17. kspena says:

    General Myers also shown to be more involved in stopping an investigation into ‘torture’.

  18. kspena says:

    Thanks, bmaz. Was it the 9/11 commission where they appeared together? Would their ‘informal interviews’ be similar in style to the kind of questioning they would endure if they had appeared before the grand jury? or would it have been more ‘conversational’? Do we know who did the questioning?

    • bmaz says:

      Informal interview is just kind of what I am used to calling it. It is probably a misnomer; they are structured, both sides have their attorneys there and the questioning can be intense. It is effectively a deposition without the oath and a court reporter to transcribe it verbatim. It is my understanding that Fitzgerald himself did the questioning for the government.

      • skdadl says:

        Aren’t there also reports that Cheney’s interview with Fitzgerald became, ah, audible to others down the hall? Do court reporters transcribe expletives, or are they still writing [expletive deleted]?

  19. kspena says:

    Thanks again, bmaz. What a delightful image of the position for the ‘commander’ guys to be in. I very much appreciate your work here and look forward to reading yours and others contributions daily.

  20. anatomist says:

    Probably too late to get am opinion back, but is a congressional inquiry less able to compel access to the testimony than an impeachment inquiry would be?

Comments are closed.