Marcy Wheeler at Empty Wheel has an excellent analysis of the Department of Justice’s (DoJ) supplemental response to a lawsuit filed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The intent of CREW’s lawsuit is to force the disclosure of materials related to former Vice President Cheney’s interview with former Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald with respect to the criminal investigation into the Valerie Plame affair.
I won’t repeat any of Marcy’s observations, insights that were gained as a result of live-blogging during the Libby trial. However, I will add a few of my own. Two quotes from the DoJ filing in particular strike me.
The first quote is from Lanny A. Breuer, the Assistant Attorney General currently in charge of DOJ’s Criminal Division. Specifically:
“[I]f law enforcement interviews of the President, Vice President or other senior White House officials become subject to routine public disclosure, even upon the conclusion of an investigation, there is an increased likelihood that such officials could feel reluctant to participate in voluntary interviews or, if they agree to such voluntary interviews, could decline to answer questions on certain topics.”
Based upon my 34-years of public service in the Federal Government as a career civil servant, I know that if it ever got to the point that I felt compelled to not cooperate with a criminal investigation or not agree to answer questions on certain topics, it was time for me to get out of the public service profession. In our form of representative democracy, the concept of the President or the Vice-President "taking the 5th" and retaining an ounce of legitimacy is incomprehensible.
Furthermore, Breuer talks of “routine public disclosure” of law enforcement interviews of the President and Vice President. Yet, the DoJ declaration goes on to clearly indicate that such interviews are anything but “routine” and instead are extraordinarily rare, thus making it all the more compelling that the public should eventually gain access to the contents therein.
As bad as Breuer’s statement is, the quote from former Attorney General Michael Mukasey (which the current administration apparently supports since they included it in their declaration) is even worse. Specifically:
“Were future Presidents, Vice Presidents or White House staff to perceive that such voluntary cooperation would create records that would likely be made available to Congress (and then possibly disclosed publicly outside of judicial proceedings such as a trial), there would be an unacceptable risk that such knowledge could adversely impact their willingness to cooperate fully and candidly in a voluntary interview.”
So, not only does Mukasey echo Breuer’s claim that the most senior elected officials may feel compelled to not cooperate with a lawful criminal investigation, but he goes on to add that if the President or Vice President thought that the public might one day learn of what they said, they may also feel compelled to perjure themselves. So says the top law enforcement officer in America.
Patrick Fitzgerald said it best in his rebuttal to the defense’s closing argument in the Libby trial. Specifically:
"There is a cloud over the vice president . . . And that cloud remains because this defendant obstructed justice. … There is a cloud over the White House. Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury and the American people are entitled to straight answers?"
Apparently, the DoJ of the most open and transparent administration in history doesn't think so.
I won’t repeat any of Marcy’s observations, insights that were gained as a result of live-blogging during the Libby trial. However, I will add a few of my own. Two quotes from the DoJ filing in particular strike me.
The first quote is from Lanny A. Breuer, the Assistant Attorney General currently in charge of DOJ’s Criminal Division. Specifically:
“[I]f law enforcement interviews of the President, Vice President or other senior White House officials become subject to routine public disclosure, even upon the conclusion of an investigation, there is an increased likelihood that such officials could feel reluctant to participate in voluntary interviews or, if they agree to such voluntary interviews, could decline to answer questions on certain topics.”
Based upon my 34-years of public service in the Federal Government as a career civil servant, I know that if it ever got to the point that I felt compelled to not cooperate with a criminal investigation or not agree to answer questions on certain topics, it was time for me to get out of the public service profession. In our form of representative democracy, the concept of the President or the Vice-President "taking the 5th" and retaining an ounce of legitimacy is incomprehensible.
Furthermore, Breuer talks of “routine public disclosure” of law enforcement interviews of the President and Vice President. Yet, the DoJ declaration goes on to clearly indicate that such interviews are anything but “routine” and instead are extraordinarily rare, thus making it all the more compelling that the public should eventually gain access to the contents therein.
As bad as Breuer’s statement is, the quote from former Attorney General Michael Mukasey (which the current administration apparently supports since they included it in their declaration) is even worse. Specifically:
“Were future Presidents, Vice Presidents or White House staff to perceive that such voluntary cooperation would create records that would likely be made available to Congress (and then possibly disclosed publicly outside of judicial proceedings such as a trial), there would be an unacceptable risk that such knowledge could adversely impact their willingness to cooperate fully and candidly in a voluntary interview.”
So, not only does Mukasey echo Breuer’s claim that the most senior elected officials may feel compelled to not cooperate with a lawful criminal investigation, but he goes on to add that if the President or Vice President thought that the public might one day learn of what they said, they may also feel compelled to perjure themselves. So says the top law enforcement officer in America.
Patrick Fitzgerald said it best in his rebuttal to the defense’s closing argument in the Libby trial. Specifically:
"There is a cloud over the vice president . . . And that cloud remains because this defendant obstructed justice. … There is a cloud over the White House. Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury and the American people are entitled to straight answers?"
Apparently, the DoJ of the most open and transparent administration in history doesn't think so.
No comments:
Post a Comment