A White House Wrapped in Secrecy

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers released this statement today: "The president's response to our subpoena shows an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government. The executive privilege assertion is unprecedented in its breadth and scope. . . . The charges alleged in this investigation are serious - including obstruction of justice and misleading Congress -- and the White House should be as committed to this investigation as the Congress. At this point, I see only one choice in moving forward, and that is to enforce the rule of law set forth in these subpoenas."

The letter from the Justice Department, interestingly enough, appears to confirm that there was more White House involvement in the decision to fire the U.S. attorneys than has previously been acknowledged by the administration.

Clement noted that the department's Office of Legal Counsel reviewed the documents that would have been responsive to the subpoena. He wrote that "internal White House communications about the possible dismissal and replacement of U.S. Attorneys . . . discuss the wisdom of such a proposal, specific U.S. Attorneys who could be removed, potential replacement candidates, and possible responses to congressional and media inquiries about the dismissals."

And an interesting note: Clement signed his opinion in his capacity as "Solicitor General and Acting Attorney General." Evidently every one above him has been recused from the matter. (Correction: An earlier version of this column stated that Fielding had made a mistake in calling Clement the "Acting Attorney General." In fact, Clement is the Acting Attorney General in this matter.)

The Beginning of the End?

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, yesterday announced the issuance of subpoenas to the White House and Justice Department relating to the authorization and legal justification for the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Specifically, Leahy is seeking: "documents related to the authorization and reauthorization of the program or programs; the legal analysis or opinions about the surveillance; orders, decisions, or opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) concerning the surveillance; agreements between the Executive Branch and telecommunications or other companies regarding liability for assisting with or participating in the surveillance; and documents concerning the shutting down of an investigation of the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) relating to the surveillance."

Here is the letter and subpoena Leahy sent Fielding yesterday.

"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. 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," Leahy wrote.

"All indications are that the legal analysis supporting this program of warrantless surveillance, and perhaps the program itself, has changed more than once since its inception; it could very well change again. For the Congress to legislate effectively in this area it must have full information about the Executive Branch's interpretations of FISA and how those interpretations have affected its enforcement of the Act.

"The Administration's FISA proposal also contains provisions that would bring to an end lawsuits concerning participation of telecommunications carriers and other companies in this program of warrantless surveillance. This Committee cannot responsibly consider those provisions without knowing what government officials and the companies understood to be the legal basis for that participation at the time it occurred. . . .

"The testimony of former Deputy Attorney General James Comey before this Committee raises serious questions about the Administration's commitment to the rule of law. He testified that only the prospect of a mass resignation of virtually every senior officer in the Department of Justice caused the President to address serious Justice Department concerns about legality of the program. This came after the program had already been operating for more than two years. Later, when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked during testimony before this Committee whether senior Justice Department officials expressed reservations about the warrantless surveillance program, the Attorney General responded 'I do not believe that these DOJ officials . . . had concerns about this program.' That response, at the very least, calls into question the Attorney General's candor with this Committee. . . .

"Finally, when the Department of Justice's own Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) began an internal investigation into the role of Department of Justice attorneys in the authorization and oversight of the warrantless surveillance program, the Department of Justice and the White House denied the investigators the clearances they needed, thereby shutting the investigation down. The head of OPR has noted that in its 31-year history OPR has never before been prevented from pursuing an investigation. This action, too, raises questions about the Administration's motives and behavior.