Leahy and Specter (Again) Demand Subpoenaed Surveillance Documents

[babylonsister]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004522.php

Leahy and Specter (Again) Demand Subpoenaed Surveillance Documents
By Spencer Ackerman - October 22, 2007, 4:48PM

Another day, another letter from top Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) demanding the warrantless surveillance documents they subpoenaed from the White House and the Justice Department 100 years ago.

Last week, the White House released the judiciary committee's long-sought material -- documentation of the legal basis for the warrantless surveillance program -- to the Senate intelligence committee instead. That committee was about to complete draft legislation of a new surveillance bill, and the White House desperately wanted to include a provision granting retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that complied with the warrantless surveillance program. The White House conditioned access to the documents on a willingness to grant immunity. Sure enough, quid met quo.

Only judiciary committee members, cut off from the documents, didn't appreciate the White House conditioning access to the documents on providing immunity, which Leahy and Specter say "would turn the legislative process upside down." After all, there is the small matter of a subpoena here. In their latest letter today to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, the two senators remind the White House that the path to approving the bill runs through their committee, which will mark up the bill ahead of next month's scheduled floor debate. "If the Administration wants our support for immunity, it should comply with the subpoenas, provide the information, and justify its request."

October 22, 2007

Mr. Fred Fielding

Counsel to the President

Office of the Counsel to the President

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Fielding:

Since the existence of the President’s secret wiretapping program became public in December 2005, the Judiciary Committee has been seeking information on the legal justifications for conducting such surveillance outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We have done so through oral and written requests and by conducting oversight hearings. Former Attorney General Gonzales was asked about these matters. The lack of satisfaction with his responses led to further investigations, including the ongoing probe by the Justice Department’s Inspector General. In light of the Administration’s failure to respond fully, the Committee was prepared in November 2006 to consider subpoenas to telecommunication companies. Those subpoenas were not issued at that time, however.

After our repeated requests did not yield the information the Committee requested, the Committee proceeded in June to authorize subpoenas for documents related to the legal justification for the Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program and to serve those subpoenas upon the Administration.

You have now had more than ample time to collect and process the relevant documents. Responsive information to those subpoenas is long overdue. You have made commitments to provide responsive information over the last several months and even recently, but no such information has yet been provided.

Instead, we read that a White House spokesperson has now conditioned the production of information on prior Senate agreement to provide retroactive immunity from liability for communications carriers. That is unacceptable and would turn the legislative process upside down. If the Administration wants our support for immunity, it should comply with the subpoenas, provide the information, and justify its request. As we have both said, it is wrongheaded to ask Senators to consider immunity without their being informed about the legal justifications purportedly excusing the conduct being immunized. Although the two of us have been briefed on certain aspects of the President’s program, this cannot substitute for access to the documents and legal analysis needed to inform the legislative decisions of the Committee as a whole.

By letter dated October 5, 2007, your office committed to assembling the documents responsive to our subpoenas by today’s date. We expect the commitments of your office to take priority over any White House comments to the media. Accordingly, we urge your compliance with the Committee subpoenas and other information requests without further delay. We can discuss precise arrangements for the production of and access to the documents, but they should be provided in a manner that permits them to be reviewed and considered by all Members of the Committee and appropriate Committee staff.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman

ARLEN SPECTER
Ranking Member

[robinlynne]

1. I like the words "next months' scheduled floor debate", which means there is time

to undo this FISA bill! If I understand correctly. This is one thing worth abnding together on, and making sure this bill does not get through congress.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

7. Maybe, that "hold" is gonna' be a HOLD!

I hope. I'm getting pretty tired of so many disappointments on all this crap.

[robinlynne]

9. Reid is going to ignore th hold. But 4 senators have promised a filibuster.

They are: Dodd, Biden, Feingold, and Wyden. I'm hoping more senators will join this effort, if there is time.

[msongs]

2. no new attorney general without subpoena compliance across the board!!! nt

[Kagemusha]

3. What do they mean, "would turn... upside-down"? It's there already!

Congress won't even try to get subpoenas enforced! Committee chairmen are making deals with the White House behind their peers' backs! This stopped being right-side-up a while ago!

[cali]

5. Are you aware that the admin has instructed U.S. Attny for DC

Jeffrey Taylor, not to prosecute?

[Kagemusha]

6. Why would they have? No one's managed to get a criminal referral to him!

I realize there's a working department policy on the issue, but instructions would be a formal thing and I don't understand why they would take place if Congress can't even manage to ask, please pretty-please prosecute this case. It's not even at that point!

[cali]

11. It's been pretty widely reported and blogged

that the admin told Taylor not to enforce any potential contempt citations. Why they'd do that seems fairly obvious to me.

[Kagemusha]

12. I see, I was not sufficiently informed about that step. Thank you.

I was sure if they hadn't, they would sooner or later, but anyway, thanks.

There's still that old inherent contempt thing but my point was, Congress isn't even trying, and is talking like, "if you don't comply with this properly, the legislative process will be a joke."

It already is.

[spanone]

4. send the marshalls

[VP505]

8. Wonder how they will

let Bu$h screw them over to get his immunity?

"If the Administration wants our support for immunity, it should comply with the subpoenas, provide the information, and justify its request."

[robinlynne]

10. Rockefeller, Feinstein, Hatch, and now Reid are pushing the bill with immunity!

[Disturbed]

13. If the Corps have done nothing wrong why do they need

Immunity?

Have these folk heard of Inherent Contempt?

[flordehinojos]

14. they just make a lot of noise. in the end they let bush get away with murder.