WASHINGTON -- The White House has declared that the executive branch will not cooperate with the House's impeachment inquiry, but some officials have nevertheless provided testimony to Congress about what they know about whether President Donald Trump's attempts to pressure the Ukrainian government into investigating his political rivals were a quid pro quo in return for aid.One such witness, Laura Cooper, a Pentagon official, received a warning letter that shows how the administration has attempted to persuade officials to keep silent. Cooper appeared before impeachment investigators Wednesday during a closed-door session that was delayed by Republican lawmakers who burst into the House Intelligence Committee's secure suite to protest the inquiry.Below is a copy of the letter Cooper received, obtained and annotated with context and analysis by The New York Times.Deputy Secretary of Defense1010 Defense PentagonWashington, D.C. 20301-1010Oct. 22, 2019(The date stamp shows that the deputy secretary of defense, David Norquist, sent this warning letter Tuesday, the day before Cooper was scheduled to give voluntary, private testimony. That same day, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, signed a subpoena stating that Cooper was legally required to appear.)Daniel LevinWhite & Case LLP701 13th Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20005-3807Dear Mr. Levin:I understand that you have been retained by Ms. Laura Cooper, the Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, as her private counsel for a deposition to be conducted jointly by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform, "[p]ursuant to the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry." The Department's October 15, 2019 letter to the Chairs of the three House Committees [Tab A] expressed its belief that the customary process of oversight and accommodation has historically served the interests of congressional oversight committees and the Department well. The Committees' purported "impeachment inquiry," however, presents at least two issues of great importance.The first issue is the Committees' continued, blanket refusal to allow Department Counsel to be present at depositions of Department employees. Department Counsel's participation protects against the improper release of privileged or classified information, particularly material covered by the executive privilege which is the President's alone to assert and to waive. Excluding Department Counsel places the witness in the untenable position of having to decide whether to answer the Committees' questions or to assert Executive Branch confidentiality interests without an attorney from the Executive Branch present to advise on those interests.It violates settled practice and may jeopardize future accommodation. Furthermore, the Department of Justice has concluded that "congressional subpoenas that purport to require agency employees to appear without agency counsel are legally invalid and are not subject to civil or criminal enforcement." See Attempted Exclusion of Agency Counsel from Congressional Depositions of Agency Employees, 43 Op. O.L.C. (May 23, 2019) [Tab B].The second issue is the absence of authority for the Committees to conduct an impeachment inquiry. In its October 15, 2019 letter, the Department conveyed concerns about the Committees' lack of authority to initiate an impeachment inquiry given the absence of a delegation of such authority by House Rule or Resolution. This correspondence echoed an October 8, 2019 letter from the White House Counsel [Tab C] expressing the President's view that the inquiry was "contrary to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent" and "violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process."This letter informs you and Ms. Cooper of the Administration-wide direction that Executive Branch personnel "cannot participate in [the impeachment] inquiry under these circumstances" [Tab C]. In the event that the Committees issue a subpoena to compel Ms. Cooper's appearance, you should be aware that the Supreme Court has held, in United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953), that a person cannot be sanctioned for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena unauthorized by House Rule or Resolution.To reiterate, the Department respects the oversight role of Congress and stands ready to work with the Committees should there be an appropriate resolution of outstanding legal issues. Any such resolution would have to consider the constitutional prerogatives and confidentiality interests of the co-equal Executive Branch, see Tab D, and ensure fundamental fairness to any Executive Branch employees involved in this process, including Ms. Cooper. Sincerely,[signed] David L. Norquist Attachments: As statedThis article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company
