Emptywheel aka Marcy Wheeler has a great blog post today

She explains Fred Fielding's letter to the Senate re the subpoenas and Paul Clemment's letter about executive privilege:

She explains it much better than I do. The Next Hurrah:

Congresswoman Sanchez is right. Fred Fielding's letter telling Congress to fuck off is not so much a legal notice, but a lecture. It spends two paragraphs saying "no," one paragraph spinning the White House as cooperative, and then seven paragraphs talking about the exalted tradition of executive privilege.

More troubling, however, is what Fielding attaches: an opinion written by Solicitor General Paul Clement, explaining that OLC has reviewed Congress' requests and found that those requests fall squarely within the realm of executive privilege.

Dear Mr. President,

You have requested my legal advice as to whether you may assert executive privilege with respect to the subpoenaed documents and testimony concerning the categories of information described in this letter. It is my considered legal judgment that you may assert executive privilege over the subpoenaed documents and testimony.

Paul Clement, as you'll recall, is the guy currently in charge of any investigation into the US Attorney firings, since Alberto Gonzales recused himself some months ago. He's the one who technically oversees the Office of Special Counsel investigation into whether politics played an improper part in Iglesias' firing or the hiring of career employees in DOJ, he's the one who oversees the joint Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General investigations into whether anything improper--including obstruction of justice--occurred in the hiring and firing of USAs. And now, he's the guy who gets to tell the President that he doesn't have to turn over what might amount to evidence of obstruction of justice in the Foggo and Wilkes case, among others.

Of course, to some degree this makes sense. When this goes to court, it is Clement who will have to defend the White House position on refusing to turn over the documents.

But that just demonstrates how hopelessly compromised Clement is. He is--already, even before we hit the courts--in a position where he is simultaneously defending the White House, and investigating it. And all the while, Team Libby is intent on having Libby's conviction thrown out because, they insist, it's perfectly feasible for an investigation into high level Administration officers to report to some of those same high level officers.

snip

Update: Faiz at TP raises an important point. Clement's conflict of interest not only provides a reason for Democrats either to call for a Special Prosecutor or start an impeachment investigation (which are apparently the only ways to avoid the conflicts Clement has), but it also reveals that the White House has been lying.

In his letter, Clement reveals what investigators have suspected from the very beginning — that the White House was intimately involved in the attorney scandal. Upon examination of the White House documents, Clement writes:

Among other things, these communications discuss the wisdom of such a proposal, specific U.S. Attorneys who could be removed, potential replacement candidates, and possible responses to congressional and media inquiries about the dismissals.

The White House had “said that Mr. Bush’s aides approved the list of prosecutors only after it was compiled.” President Bush himself said that “the Justice Department made recommendations, which the White House accepted” regarding the removal of the attorneys.

Gosh, they couldn't have given us a clearer investigation to move this forward in a more formal investigation, could they?

Update 1.1: Oh, this is getting fun. Piggybacking on Faiz' find, above, we have this Clement statement that suggests, as soon as we find WH officials lying, we can raid their drawers as well:

The Department has recognized the Committees' interest in investigating the extent to which Department officials may have provided inaccurate or incomplete information to Congress. This interest does not, however, justify the Committees' demand for White House documents and information about the U.S. Attorney resignations. Officials in the Department, not officials in the White House, presented the challenged statements,

Um, Mr. Solicitor General? I think we're now at the point where "officials in the White House" are the one spewing lies. Now will you give us the documents?

Update 2: Here's another interesting bit from Clement:

These confidentiality interests are particularly strong where, as here, the communications may implicate a "quintessential and nondelegable Presidential power," such as the authority to nominate or to remove U.S. Attorneys.

More here. This is a must read!!