SJC Wants WH, DOJ’s Own “Family Jewels”

The CIA’s declassification of its “family jewels” — decades-old files on scandals past — may have attracted a ton of attention, but the Senate Judiciary Committee this afternoon subpoenaed the Bush administration’s family jewels: information on the origin and execution of President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program. Circle July 18 on your calendars — that’s the compliance deadline. If it’s not met, the committee will seek explanatory testimony from White House chief of staff Josh Bolton, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Cheney chief of staff David Addington, and National Security Counsel executive director V. Philip Lago.

The committee wants a ton of material: all documents from September 11, 2001 on the program’s legality; the administration’s filings to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; deals reached between the administration and “telecommunications companies, internet service providers, equipment manufacturers, or data processors” on potential liability to these companies for complying with the program; everything from the now-famous Comey episode; and more. If the administration wants to assert privilege over any of the subpoenaed material or testimony, it must specify the basis of that assertion “in sufficient detail to ascertain the validity of the claim,” rather than relying on blanket claims of congressional impertinence.

Here’s an excerpt from Chairman Pat Leahy’s letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding:

“Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program,” Chairman Leahy wrote in letters accompanying the subpoenas to Bush Administration officials. “All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection.”

“There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this Committee,” Leahy wrote. “The Administration cannot thwart the Congress’s conduct of its constitutional duties with sweeping assertions of secrecy and privilege. The Committee seeks no intimate operational facts and we are willing to accommodate legitimate redactions of the documents we seek to eliminate reference to these details.”

Update: This post initially stated, erroneously, that the Senate Judiciary Committee was subpoenaing testimony from Bolton, Gonzales, Addington and Lago. In fact, the subpoenas are just for the documents. If those officials don’t provide the documents sought by the committee by July 18, then the committee will seek testimony. I regret the error.