Welcome to Gonzales Watch - Blawging the Ex-Attorney General

Expect a nasty court battle between Congress and the Executive Branch to end up in federal court within a few weeks.

Here’s how it is likely to play out:

• White House Counsel Fred Fielding will argue that ‘Executive Privilege’ protects the President’s advisers from being forced to testify under oath.  The term refers to a belief that the President needs to be able to speak freely with advisers if he is to carry out the duties of his Executive Office. Advisers wouldn’t do so, the argument goes, if they had to fear being prosecuted every time they gave the President advice.
• Although the U.S. Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention Executive Privilege, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard a number disputes betwen the Presidents and Congress about this very issue.  In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Nixon that even the President and his aides cannot evade prosecution for criminal acts under the guise of Executive Privilege.
• The Senate Judiciary Committee and House Judiciary Committee are both likely to argue that if conversations were held between the President’s staff and Justice Department officials, or members of Congress, that urged the commission of illegal acts, then there would be no Executive Privilege.

But the real issue boils down to this: if the President’s current and former advisers truly have nothing to fear, why wouldn’t they be forthcoming to testify under oath — before the American people and their constituency — about whatever may have transpired?

If there is truly nothing to hide or cover up, then wouldn’t the White House garner more support from Congressional hearings?