President claims executive privilege in fight with Congress

The White House on Monday rejected demands by congressional Democrats for subpoenaed White House documents related to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year and upped the ante in the potential constitutional showdown by extending executive privilege to testimony sought from former political aide Sara Taylor and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., White House Counsel Fred Fielding also rejected requests for extra details about the executive privilege claim over the documents, saying explanations beyond those already given were not needed. Taylor and Miers have been subpoenaed to testify. Leahy released a letter Sunday from Taylor's attorney saying that, absent executive privilege, Taylor would have testified willingly.

In a statement Monday, Conyers pointed the way toward a showdown in the courts. "We are extremely disappointed with the White House letter," Conyers said. "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 sent Fielding a letter Monday asking him to waive executive privilege. Conyers also asked Bush to allow top aides to explain his decision to commute the prison sentence of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Cheney.

Leahy in a statement angrily accused the White House of "stonewalling." He questioned the validity of the White House claim that the action was needed to safeguard the president's right to private counsel from his aides, pointing to testimony by Justice officials indicating that President Bush himself was not involved in the decision-making process that led to the firings.

In his letter, Fielding rejected a demand by the chairmen to provide justifications for each document covered by executive privilege, saying reasons already given were sufficient and that the panels have indicated they would seek to enforce the subpoenas anyway.

"Given the descriptions of the materials in question that have already been provided, this demand is unreasonable because it represents a substantial incursion into presidential prerogatives and because, in view of the open-ended scope of the committee's inquiry, it would impose a burden of very significant proportions," Fielding wrote.

He renewed an offer, already rejected by Democrats, to provide certain documents and allow White House aides to speak with the committee if the conversations were not under oath and if no transcript were kept.

Conyers again rejected that offer. "While we remain willing to negotiate with the White House, they adhere to their unacceptable all-or-nothing position, and now will not even seek to properly justify their privilege claims," he said. Leahy also offered to "negotiate a workable solution to the committee's requests."