Bush executive-privilege claim draws ire

President Bush's claim of executive privilege in rejecting a congressional subpoena for records related to both a Clinton-era campaign finance probe and a 30-year-old Boston mob case – in which a man the FBI knew to be innocent was imprisoned for 30 years – has drawn the ire of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

On the advice of officials inside the administration, Bush – for the first time in his young administration – invoked executive privilege Dec. 13 in a memo to Attorney General John Ashscroft, instructing him not to release the documents because to do so would "inhibit the candor necessary" to the deliberative process in the executive branch.

TRENDING: Capitol authorities on high alert Thursday over 'real inauguration' threat

Releasing the documents would be "contrary to the national interest," Bush wrote.

The decision not to comply with the subpoena, issued by the House Government Reform Committee, was summarily criticized by chairman Dan Burton, R-Ind., as well as ranking minority member Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and the rest of the panel.

Burton, who accused the administration of behaving like a "monarchy," said "the legislative branch has oversight responsibility to make sure there is no corruption in the executive branch."

The committee is especially interested in securing documents related to the FBI's handling of mob informants in Boston during the 1960s but excluded documents related to cases that are currently still open.

The committee also subpoenaed records related to former Attorney General Janet Reno's decision not to appoint a special counsel to examine charges that then-Vice President Al Gore may have violated campaign finance laws.

Executive privilege generally "refers to the assertion made by the president or other executive branch officials when they refuse to give Congress, the courts or private parties information or records which have been requested or subpoenaed, or when they order government witnesses not to testify before Congress," according to C-SPAN's Congressional Glossary.

"The assertion is based on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, is always controversial, subject to interpretation and often litigated," the definition continued.

Burton says he is especially interested in a case involving Joe Salvati, which is now closed. Salvati is a man the FBI knew to be innocent when he was imprisoned for 30 years on murder charges.

The committee chairman said Salvati had been convicted because of lies told on the witness stand by another suspect, Joe "The Animal" Barboza, who just happened to be a prized informant for the FBI and who had a grudge against Salvati.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the committee, told WND that Bush's decision flies in the face of past precedent.

Congress has routinely been granted access to similar records in the past, he pointed out, but Bush's decision set the stage for "withholding all such documents from Congress" in the future.

"Everyone on the committee was shocked that the president asserted executive privilege over these particular documents," he said. As the story spread, he added, "other members of Congress who are not on our committee – both Republican and Democrat – have contacted us to say, 'This is wrong; we should do something about it.'"

For the time being, Corallo said the committee would hold hearings "while we decide whether or not to press this all the way to the courts." He said Burton is "fairly committed" to a court battle if necessary, noting that "the history of the Supreme Court suggests it will rule in favor of" disclosure.

"We don't know why the administration did what it did," he said. "The White House basically ignored the subpoena we sent. We asked for documents but were told we would not get them. We tried negotiating for them" before sending the subpoena, he added.

"I think if the president really knew the story of what happened in Boston, he might not have chosen this case to make his stand," Corallo said.

Waxman said he found himself in the rare position of agreeing with Burton.

"I have often disagreed with Chairman Burton when it comes to this committee's investigations and its criticisms of the Justice Department," he said last week. "But today I find myself in an unusual position. I agree with Chairman Burton. The Justice Department's new policy not to turn over any deliberative documents to Congress that relate in any way to criminal cases – even closed criminal cases – goes too far."

"The Bush administration appears to believe it is entitled to operate outside the public eye and outside the view of its elected representatives in Congress," Waxman added. He also noted "well-publicized allegations" that FBI agents in the agency's Boston office "willfully ignored crimes committed by confidential informants and cooperating witnesses who gave them information on organized crime in New England. ..."

The claim of executive privilege by a White House is nothing new, nor is the outrage to such claims by Congress.

"The use of the claim of 'executive privilege' to withhold government information from the Congress and the public is an issue of importance to those who recognize the need for a fully informed electorate and for a Congress operating as a coequal branch of the federal government," Rep. John E. Moss, D-Calif., chairman of the House Government Operations Committee, wrote in a letter to President Lyndon Johnson March 31, 1965.

Moss was urging Johnson to adhere to President John F. Kennedy's limited use of the claim, as compared to President Dwight Eisenhower's somewhat regular usage.

"I am confident you share my views on the importance to our form of government of a free flow of information, and I hope you will reaffirm the principle that 'executive privilege' can be invoked by you alone and will not be used without your specific approval," Moss wrote.