" />
Aug. 1, 2014 SIGN IN | REGISTER

Darrell Issa Suit: Eric Holder's Executive Privilege Claim 'Legally Baseless'

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call File Photo
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa's complaint contains a long, detailed history of his committee's attempts to secure the documents at issue.

Although the subpoenas demand a far wider range of documents, in the suit Issa is only focused on a specific category of internal communications that followed the DOJ's Feb. 4 denial letter. The lawsuit said the documents are crucial to understanding who in the department knew of and approved the use of gunwalking and whether efforts were made to keep Congress in the dark.

The initial denial "suggests, at best, a serious breakdown in communications and lines of authority within the Department's chain of command, a breakdown that may need to be addressed by legislation; at worst, it suggests a conscious effort on the part of senior Department officials to mislead the Committee and frustrate a legitimate oversight investigation," the complaint said.

Citing the potential need for legislation is legally pivotal because Congressional oversight authority is linked to a "legislative purpose."

Holder said in his June 19 letter that the documents are covered by executive privilege because they are "deliberative communications." Holder cites legal memos from several previous attorneys general arguing those types of documents are protected by the privilege, including Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush.

Issa's suit said Holder is relying "entirely on a common law privilege known as the 'deliberative process privilege'" because no communications with the president or his senior aides are claimed to have occurred.

In the most recent conflict between Congress and the president over a Congressional subpoena, Democrats' and Republicans' roles were reversed.

The Democratic-led House held two White House aides, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas issued to the George W. Bush administration. Republicans, including Issa, defended the administration, while Democrats said it was unlawful.

After the House held Miers and Bolten in contempt, the Judiciary Committee sued the two aides in federal district court.

In August 2008, a federal judge ordered Miers to testify and Bolten to turn over documents, overruling the administration's claim of executive privilege. That ruling was appealed.

In March 2009, a year after the suit was filed, Miers and Karl Rove, who had also become ensnared in a separate contempt proceeding, agreed to testify behind closed doors to the House Judiciary Committee. The deal broke the stalemate.

A report by the Congressional Research Service on Congressional oversight of the DOJ offers a broad view of Congress' legal authority to demand internal documents.

The report says that from 1920 to 2007, Congress has "consistently sought and obtained" internal DOJ documents and successfully demanded information "from the Attorney General down to subordinate personnel," adding that court precedents have affirmed broad Congressional investigative authority in nearly every instance, regardless of whether the documents relate to ongoing criminal investigations.

comments powered by Disqus

SIGN IN




OR

SUBSCRIBE

Want Roll Call on your doorstep?