Miers A No-Show, Committee to Rule against Claim of Privilege

Harriet Miers, as expected, defied a Congressional subpoena and did not show for her hearing before the House Judiciary Committee this morning.

In response, subcommittee chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) ruled that the White House’s claim of executive privilege was invalid. We’ll have more soon.

Sanchez’s opening statement is below.

Sanchez’s opening statement:

I am extremely disappointed and deeply concerned that former White House Counsel Harriet Miers has apparently chosen to forego this opportunity to give her account of the firing of the U.S. Attorneys and the potential politicization of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Through extensive interviews and review of documents, it appears clear that Ms. Miers played a significant role in the Bush Administration’s decision to fire at least nine U.S. Attorneys.

For example, documents released by the Department of Justice demonstrate that Ms. Miers was involved in the earliest known conversations on the matter, including her recommendation to consider the unprecedented mid-term replacement of all 93 U.S. Attorneys.

Acknowledging the jurisdiction and proper role of the Congress in investigating the U.S. Attorney firings, the White House had previously offered to allow Ms. Miers to talk with this Committee – on the condition that it not be under oath and that there be no transcript – so I presume that her testimony is not a grave threat to the interests of the Executive Branch. It is curious that the White House is now asserting a blanket claim of executive privilege and has directed Ms. Miers not to even appear today.

In fact, there is ample precedent of presidential advisors from both political parties testifying before committees and subcommittees of Congress. According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, presidential advisors have testified before Congress at least 74 times since 1944. Even a sitting president, President Gerald Ford, testified before this committee about his rationale for pardoning President Richard Nixon.

More recently, White House advisors in the Clinton Administration frequently testified before Congress. Former White House Counsel Beth Nolan explained to this Subcommittee that she testified before Congressional committees four times, three times while serving as White House Counsel and once as former White House Counsel.

Even President Bush has allowed close advisors such as Thomas Ridge, then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, and Condoleezza Rice, then Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, to testify before Congress. In contrast to his current assertion with regard to Ms. Miers, the President did not raise the issue of executive privilege when he wanted Mr. Ridge or Ms. Rice to tout a White House legislative priority before Congress.

It seems that the President’s inconsistent position on allowing senior advisors to testify may reflect his concern about what that advisor might say rather than a steadfast adherence to the concept of executive privilege.

Through our patient and good-faith efforts to negotiate with the White House on this matter, we have been trying to avoid a constitutional confrontation between the Executive and Legislative Branches. The White House could have prevented an escalation by engaging in reasonable negotiations. Unfortunately, Ms. Miers and the White House have chosen a path of confrontation instead of cooperation.

The Framers of our Constitution created a system of checks and balances to make sure that no branch of government could escape scrutiny and accountability. They gave Congress the responsibility to provide oversight of the Executive Branch.

The truth is that we are here today because this Congress takes that obligation seriously.