Waxman Kibitzes to Conyers/Leahy: "Longstanding Precedent" for Testimony under Oath

[CorpGovActivist]

Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Administration Oversight
Longstanding Precedent Exists for Congressional Testimony from White House Officials

Chairman Waxman writes to Chairmen Leahy and Conyers regarding the extensive precedent for White House officials to testify under oath and on the record, and for the White House to provide Congress communications between White House aides. Under the Republican-controlled Congress during the Clinton Administration, White House officials routinely appeared before Congress to provide sworn testimony.

Additionally, prior administrations have provided Congress with communications between White House aides, contradicting President Bush’s statement that no precedent exists for the current request. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has in the past received thousands of pages of e-mails from White House aides. The Committee has also received communications from the White House counsel representing attorney-client legal advice.


Documents and Links
Letter to Chairman Leahy and Chairman Conyers
CRS Report: Presidential Advisers' Testimony Before Congressional Committees
January 17, 2006: Congressional Oversight Under the Clinton and Bush Administrations
September 27, 2005: Ample Precedent for White House Testimony

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1219

********************************************************************

FYI...

Best to all,

- Dave

[Tuesday_Morning]

1. thanks for the FYI

Good letter. Here's an interesting snippet:

The Government Reform Committee is the primary investigative committee in the
House of Representatives. During the Clinton Adminishation, the chairman of
this Committee unilaterally issued over 1,000 subpoenas to investigate allegations
of misconduct involving the Clinton Administration and the DemocraticParty.
The Committee issued 1,089 subpoenas during the six years that Dan Burton
served as chainnan from 1997 through 2002. During this period , I,052 of the
Committee's subpoenas - 97% - targeted officials of the Clinton
Administration and the DemocraticParty; only l l subpoenas related to
allegations of Republican abuses.* Other congressional committees, such as the
Senate Govemmental Affairs Committee and the Senate Special Committee to
Investigate Whitewater, also issued significant numbers of subpoenas as part of
investigations into allegations involving President and Mrs. Clinton.

[hughee99]

2. IIRC,

there's also longstanding precedents for Presidents rejecting subpoenas from congress based on separation of powers, including Clinton.

[Tansy_Gold]

7. Congress has oversight authority; few subpoenas are rejected

in such a manner as to result in contempt of Congress charges. The Executive branch may resist, but they do not often stand firm. Far more often, some compromise is reached (and generally the executive branch is allowed some kind of "face-saving") so that Congress inevitably wins out.

Congress may fail or refuse to exercise their oversight authority if they so choose. In the GOP-controlled congress that acceded to whatever the boooooshies wanted, for example, there was no attempt to compel testimony on the cheeeeeney energy committee. But because Congress fails to exercise its authority does not negate the existence of that authority, which is inherent in the Constitution.

I suspect that there are a substantial number of representatives and senators who at one time or another in their careers considered the possibility of running for the presidency. Such hopes having faded, it's possible that these individuals might contemplate exercising the power that even as "mere" legislators they have over and above the power of the presidency. Power, as we know, can be a heady thing.


Tansy Gold

[fooj]

3. Off to the greatest...

[IChing]

4. Yes it is thanks Dave

[lonestarnot]

5. Knock Knock....

Who's there?
It's Dave.

Dave's not here......

No man it's Dave


Oh sorry had to do that just once!

Best to you Dave! How bout that Waxman! :applause:

[CorpGovActivist]

9. Who's There?

Subpoena Shark!

; )

- Dave

[halobeam]

12. Ha!

:rofl:

[heatstreak]

6. There is no way for them to get out of this. Bush is just being stupid and pig-headed.

[Laurab]

8. Clinton did it!

Doesn't that mean they should do it, too? That's the excuse they use for everything else.....

Hi Dave! :hi:

[Justice Is Comin]

10. Pilot to co-pilot.

We're going in !!!!

[DemReadingDU]

11. also article on Truthout

Waxman Provides Precedent for Subpoenas By Matt Renner

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032207A.shtml



Big Bump!