Waxman to Test Whether Mukasey Lied to Win Confirmation
Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 10:01:52 PM PDT
When president bush nominated Michael Mukasey to fill the AG vacancy left by the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, the immediate question was, “Will Mukasey pledge to protect the U.S. Constitution, or like Gonzales, blindly defend the administration's deconstruction of the Constitution, claims of new Executive powers, secrecy and torture. “ Now, a looming confrontation between Congress and the administration will put that question to an immediate test.
Many, myself included, have been dubious that president would appoint a true Constitutional defender to the post, given how much he relied on gonzales to blindly defend his administration on tortured legal grounds. Indeed, during his hearing, Mukasey steadfastly refused to identify waterboarding as torture, signaling that he knew the risks to his potential boss in doing so.
Despite the concerns and questions, Mukasey won confirmation, in part with the help of Democratic Senators Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein. And now Henry Waxman’s House Oversight Committee is about to give him his first real test of where his loyalties truly lie.…..More on the issues involved and what’s at stake below the fold:
In today’s WaPo Blog White House Watch, columnist Dan Froomkin spells out the looming confrontation:
The White House is refusing to let special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald turn over to congressional investigators key documents from his investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, including reports of interviews with President Bush, Vice President Cheney and five top White House aides.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman disclosed … that Fitzgerald…had agreed to turn over the documents -- until the White House intervened. ….Waxman today appealed to newly installed Attorney General Michael Mukasey to overrule his White House masters and release the documents…
The Waxman letter goes on to note that under the Clinton Administration, then Attorney General Janet Reno had established precedent by providing .,,,”numerous FBI inerview reports to the Committee including reports of interviews with President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and three White House Chiefs of Staff,” and did so without seeking White House consent. Waxman then added, “I believe the Justice Department should exercise the same independence in this case."
Froomkin continues:
During the Libby trial, witnesses testified that contrary to fervent White House denials, both Libby and top presidential adviser Karl Rove had indeed told reporters about Plame's identity. Fitzgerald repeatedly indicated that there had been a coordinated campaign to out Plame in an attempt to discredit her husband, an administration critic -- and that he had been hot on Cheney's trail until that line of investigation was cut off by Libby's repeated lies.
At that point, Froomkin noted, Fitzgerald decided he could only solidly prove the Libby charges and decided not to pursue any others involved.
Waxman told Mukasey his office had worked closely with Mr. Fitzgerald’s office to frame its request for documents:
"I have been careful in my dealings with Special Counsel Fitzgerald to narrow the Committee's request to documents that would not infringe on his prosecutorial independence or intrude upon grand jury secrecy. Before the Committee requested any documents, my staff, Justice Department staff, and Mr. Fitzgerald's staff discussed the types of documents that could be properly provided to the Committee. Mr. Fitzgerald's staff agreed that the Committee's request was appropriate and has already produced a number of the requested documents relating to CIA and State Department officials and other individuals."
The documents in question are "transcripts, reports, notes, and other documents relating to any interviews outside the presence of the grand jury" of Bush, Cheney, Rove, McClellan, former chief of staff Andrew Card, national security adviser Stephen Hadley and former communications director Dan Bartlett.
Waxman writes that Fitzgerald agreed to give those documents to the committee.
"However, to date, four months after the Committee's request, he has been unable to produce these documents to the Committee because the White House has not consented to their production. "
His letter continues:
"There is no legitimate basis for the withholding of these documents. Mr. Fitzgerald has apparently determined that these documents can be produced to the Committee without infringing on his prosecutorial independence or violating the rules of grand jury secrecy. As records of statements made by White House officials to federal investigators, outside the framework of presidential decision-making, the documents could not be subject to a valid claim of executive privilege.
So now the lines area drawn. Waxman, blocked by White House stonewalling from getting the documents which Fitzgerald and his staff agreed could be legally produced without compromising the law or other legal standards, has turned to the nation's Attorney General. Mukasey faces the classic test of his office - whether to uphold the law and the Constitution, or serve primarily as a legal defender of the president and his interests regardless of whether they are legal or valid.
In a recent column in Salon.com called The Sad Decline of Michael Mukasey, Sidney Blumenthal writes:
In his confirmation hearings, Mukasey has proved he will dance as the strings are pulled. His positions on waterboarding express precisely the relationship between the Bush White House and its Justice Department. Mukasey's testimony telegraphs that the White House will continue to call the shots. He has already ceded the essence of his power even before assuming it. His vaunted integrity and independence have been crushed, short work for (Vice Presidential Chief of Staff David) Addington.
Are Blumenthal and other critics of Mukasey right? Will he quickly reveal himself as another Alberto Gonzales? Or will he instead assume the role of an Elliot Richardson and Archibald Cox...choosing the Constitution over the President?
