Justice Department Looks Set to Fight Subpoenas (TPM/Washington Post Page A1)

[redacted]

Earlier today, House Democrats subpoenaed a host of Justice Department documents, saying that they'd tried everything else, but could reach no agreement. Well, it looks like the Justice Department will continue to fight.

From The Washington Post:

Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said, "We still hope and expect that we will be able to reach an accommodation with the Congress," but signaled that Justice will consider opposing the congressional demand.

"Much of the information that the Congress seeks pertains to individuals other than the U.S. attorneys who resigned," Roehrkasse said. "Furthermore, many of the documents Congress is now seeking have already been available to them for review. Because there are individual privacy interests implicated by publicly releasing this information, it is unfortunate the Congress would choose this option."

Legal experts said the standoff will likely end up in court unless the two sides reach agreement on a compromise.

<snip>

In almost all cases, administrations have chosen to fully or substantially comply with such requests before they lead to criminal proceedings. In 1998, for example, a GOP-led House committee issued a contempt citation to then-Attorney General Janet Reno for refusing to turn over internal Justice Department memos. Justice offered a staff briefing on the documents, and the full House never acted on the citation.

"I'm not sure how the administration could win on this claim, in terms of keeping those documents," said Martin S. Lederman, a visiting law professor at Georgetown University who worked in Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002981.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041000839.html

[Tatiana]

1. I think there is a good chance this may go to the Supreme Court.

So help us God, if it does.

[Erika]

2. They are worried about privacy?

After their violations of our privacy? Get real.

[redacted]

3. "individual privacy interests implicated by publicly releasing this information"

Like they really care about privacy.

:rofl:

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

4. If they've done nothing wrong, what do they have to worry about?

:shrug:

If they're as pure and innocent as they claim to be then full disclosure will only vindicate them. One would think that's exactly what they would want! Any other response makes no sense at all.

Methinks a few halos are slipping...

[FogerRox]

5. eff 'em. Let the public see them for what they are

THe USA's issue is one to ride hard and long. Lets do it.

[hang a left]

6. Fight all you want mf-ers...

your ass is mine sayeth Waxman the Great.

[redacted]

7. .