Tweet
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Monday reiterated its claim of executive privilege in the firings of federal prosecutors, saying former aides would not comply with congressional subpoenas for their testimony.
In a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, White House counsel Fred Fielding also said the Bush administration would not provide any descriptions of documents it was withholding in the case.
The Democrats chairing the Judiciary Committees, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, had set a Monday morning deadline for the administration to turn over the documents.
Monday's letter reiterates the arguments the White House made in a letter dated June 28.
Executive privilege protects "a fundamental right of the presidency," Fielding wrote in Monday's letter, allowing Bush to "receive candid advice from his advisors and that those advisors be able to communicate freely and openly with the president
The committees are investigating the firing of several U.S. attorneys last year and whether political considerations were behind them. The controversy has led many Democrats -- and some key Republicans -- to call for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Gonzales and several other officials have testified before one or both of the committees, and the Justice Department has released thousands of documents about the firings. Democrats say the documents and testimony so far have indicated White House involvement in the process, and so have sought further documents and testimony from the president's office.
After receiving Fielding's letter Monday, Conyers indicated that a battle in federal court is likely.
"Contrary to what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally," Conyers said in a statement Monday.
Leahy challenged the White House's veracity.
"I have to wonder if the White House's refusal to provide a detailed basis for this executive privilege claim has more to do with its inability to craft an effective one," he said in a statement.
Fielding, in his letter, said the chairmen's previous statements indicated they were not looking for any compromise in the matter, saying any White House attempt to comply would be "preordained futility."
"The committees have already prejudged the question," Fielding wrote.
Fielding repeated in Monday's letter Bush's offer to have two former aides involved in the case and who were subpoenaed, Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, interviewed off the record and not under oath, something the committee's had rejected once.
Taylor is a former White House political director and a key deputy to Karl Rove, the top political adviser to Bush. Miers is the former White House counsel.
Taylor resigned from her White House job in May. Miers resigned her White House post in January. Bush nominated Miers to serve on the Supreme Court but later withdrew her nomination.
Democratic congressional sources said last month the committees wanted to hear from Rove, but they decided not to subpoena him because they are building their case by gathering information from lower level officials before they get to the more senior, more important witnesses.
In a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, White House counsel Fred Fielding also said the Bush administration would not provide any descriptions of documents it was withholding in the case.
The Democrats chairing the Judiciary Committees, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, had set a Monday morning deadline for the administration to turn over the documents.
Monday's letter reiterates the arguments the White House made in a letter dated June 28.
Executive privilege protects "a fundamental right of the presidency," Fielding wrote in Monday's letter, allowing Bush to "receive candid advice from his advisors and that those advisors be able to communicate freely and openly with the president
The committees are investigating the firing of several U.S. attorneys last year and whether political considerations were behind them. The controversy has led many Democrats -- and some key Republicans -- to call for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Gonzales and several other officials have testified before one or both of the committees, and the Justice Department has released thousands of documents about the firings. Democrats say the documents and testimony so far have indicated White House involvement in the process, and so have sought further documents and testimony from the president's office.
After receiving Fielding's letter Monday, Conyers indicated that a battle in federal court is likely.
"Contrary to what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally," Conyers said in a statement Monday.
Leahy challenged the White House's veracity.
"I have to wonder if the White House's refusal to provide a detailed basis for this executive privilege claim has more to do with its inability to craft an effective one," he said in a statement.
Fielding, in his letter, said the chairmen's previous statements indicated they were not looking for any compromise in the matter, saying any White House attempt to comply would be "preordained futility."
"The committees have already prejudged the question," Fielding wrote.
Fielding repeated in Monday's letter Bush's offer to have two former aides involved in the case and who were subpoenaed, Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, interviewed off the record and not under oath, something the committee's had rejected once.
Taylor is a former White House political director and a key deputy to Karl Rove, the top political adviser to Bush. Miers is the former White House counsel.
Taylor resigned from her White House job in May. Miers resigned her White House post in January. Bush nominated Miers to serve on the Supreme Court but later withdrew her nomination.
Democratic congressional sources said last month the committees wanted to hear from Rove, but they decided not to subpoena him because they are building their case by gathering information from lower level officials before they get to the more senior, more important witnesses.