or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

Sensenbrenner Releases Memo: Obama's Executive Privilege Illegal


Location: Washington, DC

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, former Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, released the following memo showing President Obama's assertion of executive privilege is illegal:

"The President's assertion of executive privilege is an illegal attempt to avoid responsibility for the Department's misconduct," Sensenbrenner said.

From: F. James Sensenbrenner, Former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee

There are essentially 4 grounds for asserting executive privilege. (1) the state secrets privilege, (2) the presidential communications privilege, (3) the attorney client or attorney work product privilege, and (4) the deliberative process privilege.

It appears that the President is relying on the deliberative process privilege. The privilege, however, can not be used to protect documents in the face of wrongdoing. The DC Circuit wrote that the deliberative process privilege is more easily overcome than the presidential communications privilege. It continued: "Moreover, the privilege disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred." In Re: Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 746 (D.C. Cir. June 17, 1997, No. 96-3124).

The First Circuit agreed. It found that, where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, "the privilege is routinely denied," on the grounds that shielding internal government deliberations in this context does not serve "the public's interest in honest, effective government." Texaco Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs, 60 F.3d 867, 885 (1st Cir. 1995); see also In re Comptroller of the Currency, 967 F.2d at 634 ("the privilege may be overridden where necessary to "shed light on alleged government malfeasance.'")

The Department literally asserted this privilege in the face of Congressional contempt proceedings. It clearly can not argue that there is no reason to believe that government misconduct occurred. The assertion of the privilege was therefore illegal.

The Attorney General needs to produce the documents pursuant to Congress's subpoena.

Back to top