The Heighth of Hypocrisy

Former presidential counselor Beth Nolan shows some crust in asserting that the White House is carrying the concept of executive privilege too far by refusing to allow White House advisors to be put under oath in a show trial atmosphere so that Democratic senators can conduct a fishing expedition.

First, it's worth pointing out that Nolan worked for an Administration that the courts found claimed executive privilege illegitimately in order to shield the President from a legitimate independent counsel investigation of the President's own sex scandal. Here, in contrast, President Bush and his administration aren't looking to shield themselves from the consequences of behavior outside the scope of their official duties.

Second, Nolan's piece is profoundly misleading. She writes:

When Congress has already received information and testimony that raises serious questions about possible wrongdoing, the White House counsel's offer -- a closed-door session that may not be recorded, even by a transcript, and on the condition that Congress has only one bite at the apple, no matter what it may subsequently learn -- is simply inadequate.

Needless to say, politics dictates that if the Congress found something dramatic in the closed-door testimony, it would definitely get more than "one bite at the apple." That proviso is put in to guarantee that Democrats can't simply prevent Karl Rove from doing his job by tying him up constantly in congressional meetings. What's more, why should the Democrats determine that the offer is "inadequate" if they haven't tried it -- and they're sincerely interested in just getting the facts?

Nolan likewise misleads by suggesting that there are fewer grounds for claiming executive privilege on behalf of advisors who have already left the White House:

Out of respect for the separation of powers, Congress should not ordinarily call on such officials for testimony but should leave such officials to devote their attention to their duties for the president. This rationale no longer has force for those who have left the White House, such as Harriet Miers . . .

That's simply disingenuous. The primary rationale for executive privilege for presidential advisors is to allow them to be able to offer advice to the President without worrying about subsequently being hauled before Congress under oath. Where they are working at the time they are called for such testimony is irrelevant -- as Nolan surely knows, as the Clinton Administration made this argument frequently.

She winds up with this:

When I was counsel to the president, we were deluged with subpoenas, many of which were issued unilaterally by a committee chair and served on us without even the courtesy of a phone call first. So much for respecting a co-equal branch or engaging in a process of accommodation.

So what? The Clinton Administration rarely attempted to "engag[e] in a process of accommodation" like the one President Bush tried futilely to initiate. From Whitewater on, it was "batten down the hatches" -- and all of us can recall the "take no prisoners" siege mentality that the Clinton Administration adopted.

Funny: Nolan thinks that when Democrats were on the end of Republican subpoenas, Congress was unreasonable. Now that the shoe is on the other foot -- and without any evidence to substantiate the highly inflammatory allegations, while emails and other correspondence have backed up the Administration's account -- it's the executive branch that's being unreasonable.