Wallace failed to challenge Lott's reversal on White House aides and executive privilege
SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Trent Lott claimed that President Bush would be "making a huge mistake" if he allows "his close advisers in the White House to testify before Congress under oath," adding: "There is a thing called executive privilege." While host Chris Wallace noted the number of Clinton administration officials who testified, he did not question Lott about his assertions then about the limitations of executive privilege: that the president should not be able to claim executive privilege unless national security considerations are involved.
On the March 25 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) claimed that President Bush would be "making a huge mistake" if he allows "his close advisers in the White House to testify before Congress under oath," adding: "There is a thing called executive privilege." Host Chris Wallace pointed out that "a lot of these Clinton aides testified under oath," referring to a Congressional Research Service study he had referenced earlier that found 31 aides to President Clinton "spoke to Congress a total of 47 times." Lott responded that "that doesn't mean it was a smart thing to do or that it should have been done." But Wallace did not raise the position on executive privilege that Lott articulated during the Clinton administration -- that the president should not be able to claim executive privilege unless national security considerations are involved.
On the March 23, 1998, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Lott -- then the Senate majority leader -- argued that the Clinton administration "made a mistake by trying to assert executive privilege when it doesn't involve national security or national interest conversations." Lott was referring to the Clinton administration's effort to keep White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal and deputy White House counsel Bruce Lindsey from testifying before a grand jury in independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation of Clinton's relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Additionally, on the March 24, 1998, edition of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, a report by Margaret Warner quoted Lott saying that Clinton made "improper use" of executive privilege; Lott also asserted, "It looks like they are hiding something, so I think they shouldn't have done it." Also, a March 2, 1998, article in The New York Times on Blumenthal's invocation of executive privilege before the grand jury noted Lott's assertion that "[i]f this White House is intent on phony claims of executive privilege as a means to hide facts from the American people, then it's going to be time for us to get off the sidelines."
Later on Fox News Sunday, Wallace asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), "Doesn't it say something that here you are, you've been looking at this for weeks, you've got 3,000 documents, and there's still no 'there' there in this story?" But earlier in the program, Wallace himself had observed, "Friday night, the Justice Department released documents that showed that [Attorney General] Alberto Gonzales met with top advisers 10 days before those eight U.S. attorneys were fired to discuss the matter," and added, "This seems to contradict what he said about how far removed he was from the discussion." Wallace then aired a clip of Gonzales saying he "was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on." Yet Wallace went on to assert that "there's still no 'there' there in this story," even after noting that Gonzales had given misleading answers at his press conference.
From the March 25 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Lott about that, because you said we need to find out what really happened here.
There is, as you well know, a long history of White House aides coming up and talking before Congress. There was a congressional study that was done that showed that 31 aides spoke -- in the Clinton administration spoke to Congress a total of 47 times.
Since the president is willing to allow his aides to talk to Congress, how do you defend, or do you defend, his insistence that they testify in private, not under oath, no transcript being made?
LOTT: I believe that something could be worked out and can be worked out in that regard.
The question is, are the Democrats in the Senate interested in information or confrontation? In my mind, I think if the president would agree for his close advisers in the White House to testify before Congress under oath, he'd be making a huge mistake.
There is a thing called executive privilege. I do think President --
WALLACE: A lot of these Clinton aides testified under oath.
LOTT: Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean it was a smart thing to do or that it should have been done. I mean, I do think that presidents should pay attention to the precedents they set for their successors. Going back to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, I mean, you have a right to have executive privilege there.
Can a way be worked out to discuss with these people what happened? But, you know, in the end, eight were removed, and I assume that there was some good cause.
But frankly, if you just don't think the, you know, U.S. attorney is particularly to your liking, you ought to be able to remove him.
And by the way, the attorney general is the chief law-enforcement officer. He has, you know, a high responsibility to do that job in the Constitution. He also works at the pleasure of the president.
And that's the thing with Alberto Gonzales. As long as the president says, "I have confidence in the attorney general," he's going to stay.
WALLACE: Senator, let's follow up on this issue that Senator Lott has brought up a couple of times. Congress has been looking at this for weeks. You have received more than 3,000 documents from the White House and the Justice Department.
[...]
FEINSTEIN: I heard Senator Lott say, "Well, they shouldn't take an oath." The oath isn't that important as the transparency and the transcript is.
And you know, you saw one right now. If it hadn't been in public when the attorney general said, "I've seen no memos, I've had no discussions" -- that was a very affirmative and definitive statement. If that hadn't been in public, he would have denied it.
WALLACE: But I mean, doesn't it say something -- and we'll get back to that issue with Senator Lott. Doesn't it say something that here you are, you've been looking at this for weeks, you've got 3,000 documents, and there's still no "there" there in this story?
FEINSTEIN: The "there" there is why were they dismissed? And, you know, every day something new comes out.
Lott reminds me of an american flag on a pole. It points whichever way the wind blows but you are only supposed to notice that it represents the country.
An outstanding example of integrity, of putting law above politics, country before team.
why, because the flag distracts you from the weather?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Like a black woman executive in the business world whom must do twice as good as their white male counterpart, a Democrat must do a better job, be sincere, and is held to a much higher standard all around.
So, why would anyone vote for a Republican??? To hold down good governance, equality, and honest public severants from showing the nation how a Democracy may be competantly governed!!
Happy Thought is the next Republican President this time in the next century;
Dan Grady
Too bad the Democrats don't live up to those higher standards. In fact, most fall far short.
Wait just a damn second.
If Bush and the WH didn't have anything to do with the firings, as they are claiming, then there should be no concern of executive privilege.
What privileged secrets could Rove & Meiers possibly divulge in this case if they weren't involved?
The mind boggles.
I guess its just second nature to Chris by now. The double standard for the far right is so ingrained it doesnt even register anymore. You mean he had a different standard for a Democrat than a Republican? OF COURSE HE DID. If he hadnt THAT would have startled Chris and he might have commented on it.
This item hits the nail right on the head... that there's nothing involved in this matter that involves matters of National Security or other things that require secrecy.
What could or should be more transparent than these matters, of who are our U.S. Attorneys (our agents of Justice), and why...
...and if they're removed from or stopped in their work, then why that has happened, what are the true reasons for it.
For what reason would the president keep these things from being transparent, and try to hide these matters?
Has a crime been committed here?
If not, then why are these people refusing to be sworn when they speak to Congressional investigators?
Why are they refusing to have their words on the public record, or recorded and transcribed at all?
Why is the AG's aide (reportedly) going to invoke the fifth amendment, and refuse to speak on the condition that she may incriminate herself?
All of these are good questions, and do not involve matters that require secrecy...
And I hope the U.S. Senate compels the AG's aide to answer their questions (should she refuse, as is being reported), and orders her held in Contempt if she does not...
...because these people sure are acting as though they're hiding a crime, the crime of Obstruction of Justice, with their refusal to be sworn or appear in public or have their words placed on the public record or transcribed at all...
And refusing to answer questions on the ground that it may incriminate them.
i think chris wallace must have been adopted, or just not inherited the honesty and integrity genes his father has fearleesly displayed throughout his career.
i also think sen. lott should take up improving the educational standards and textbooks in mississippi. did anyone catch this statement-
" I do think that presidents should pay attention to the precedents they set for their successors. Going back to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton,"
wasn't hamilton dead before jefferson's second term, courtesy of v.p. aaron burr? (any relation to v.p. cheney?)
You're right about Hamilton's untimely passing, but how many times did Alexander Hamilton invoke "Executive Privilege"? Maybe Lott recalled seeing Hamilton's face on money and decided he must have been a President?
I think you're right, I think this Fox Hack makes his wallet his guide, in interpreting U.S. history.
WALLACE: "What... Alexander Hamilton wasn't a president? And I suppose you're going to say the same thing about Ben Franklin too? Dang, there should be a Constitutional Amendment or something: Only presidents on the money... no mere Department heads, or kite flyers."
My bad... I see that I confused the Fox Hack with the Senator from Mississippi, in his thinking that the ten-dollar bill depicts a U.S. president.
My bad... it's hard to tell the dogs apart sometime, when they run in a pack the way they do.
i left something out- who would expect chris wallace to challenge any republican on anything like this. i don't believe he is bright enough to even know the backgrounds of his guests.
one of my favorite t.v. moments evr was wallace the younger being put in his place by pres. clinton last year.