Miers Marches To Bush’s Orders, Elects Not To Appear Before Congress
Miers Marches To Bush’s Orders, Elects Not To Appear Before Congress
The attorney for former White House counsel Harriet Miers has said that she will not appear before the House Judiciary Committee in tomorrow’s hearing, electing not to pursue the course of Sara Taylor who chose to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee today.
In a July 10 letter to Miers’ attorney, White House counsel Fred Fielding wrote:
We have been informed by the Department of Justice that Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled Congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the President. … Therefore, in view of this constitutional immunity, I respectfully request that you inform Ms. Miers that the President has directed her not to appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2007.
Read the letter here.
Today, Miers’ counsel informed the House Judiciary Committee that, pursuant to Bush’s order to defy Congress’ subpoena, Miers will not appear tomorrow. Earlier, Miers’ lawyer had suggested she would appear at the hearing. As TPM Muckraker noted “Miers does in fact have a choice” to attend and answer questions, even though Bush has asserted executive privilege.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers issued the following statement:
“I am extremely disappointed in the White House’s direction to Ms. Miers that she not even show up to assert the privilege before the Committee,” Conyers said. “We understand that the White House has asserted privilege over both her testimony and documents, and we are prepared to consider those claims at tomorrow’s hearing.”
Congress can issue a contempt citation if Miers does not appear. Asked last Sunday if he would consider doing that, Conyers said, “Well, yes. It means moving forward in the process that would require him to comply with the subpoenas like most other people.” Marty Lederman explained the potential legal avenues Congress might pursue at that point.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
110 Responses to “Miers Marches To Bush’s Orders, Elects Not To Appear Before Congress”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hmm... they might get her with the contempt charge.
But that's what she's there for. To take the fall.
July 11th, 2007 at 3:57 pmThese people will not submit to any aspect of the law as it stands. They are a rogue administration without any respect for the constitution's system of checks and balances.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:02 pmI am sick to death of hearing these spineless dems saying, "I am extremely disappointed in the White House’s decision to..."
Stop kowtowing to these criminals! Call them on their bu11s#1t and MAKE them answer to the people!
Politeness is wasted on these pariahs!
July 11th, 2007 at 4:02 pmLooks like the NSA spying is beginning to pay off for Cheney/Bush/Rove cartel. They must have something on everyone if all their players are willing to take the bullets for them.
They either don't hand over the information or their memories are gone or they just plain old lie and obstruct justice. Same thing happened with the German Nazis. These American Nazis are no different.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:03 pmEnough already. IMPEACH. And if Pelosi won't do it, ditch her and get someone who will.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:03 pmContempt of congress...that could get her disbarred.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:03 pmDamn - she would have made one hell of a Supreme Court justice, hey?
...way to go chimpy
July 11th, 2007 at 4:03 pmInteresting...
So, this is clearly Chimpy's decision, not Miers'.
Time for Contempt of Congress proceedings, and then impeachment.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:04 pmContempt of congress…that could get her disbarred.
Comment by Karim
What does that matter? She traded that for a $400,000 gig at Halliburton.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:06 pmAnyone get the idea that they were waiting to see how Ms. Taylor fared in her testimony before deciding NOT to send Ms. Miers to testify?
(Trial sacrificial lamb?)
July 11th, 2007 at 4:11 pmnon-story
July 11th, 2007 at 4:11 pmShe will be rewarded for her loyalty. At worst, she'll get a pardon and multi million dollar bonus.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:12 pmRest assured, all Bush is doing is painting himself into a corner.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:12 pm"We have been informed by the Department of Justice that Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled Congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the President."
Um...I'm assuming that "Department of Justice" means Gonzo the lap dog? Hey, he's just doing what he's told. (good boy! here's a biscuit!)
Wasn't Ms. Miers one of the primary executioners of the firings? How is this going to be spun into attorney-client privilege? And what other justification can there be?
Put another mark in the "contempt of Congress" column...
July 11th, 2007 at 4:13 pmContempt of congress? What's the penalty? She won't get disbarred for that. It's not a crime of dishonesty and half the lawyers in the country have been sanctioned/held in contempt. The other half aren't doing their jobs. BAD MIERS! BAD! There, I handed down the sentence. Now can we move on to Impeachment already?
July 11th, 2007 at 4:13 pmDid TP HAVE to show that picture of Miers fawning over Bush? Didn't we see enough of that pose during her short-lived SCOTUS nomination?
July 11th, 2007 at 4:15 pmWatching our 'government' in action is heart-wrenching. I am so demoralized that an elected official, Bush, believes he has some extra power, beyond the Constitution, to direct the rights and responsibilities of persons who serve or had served in his administration. And our Congress plays along so subserviently with this charade as shown in the Sara Taylor testimony today.
I expect government workers to be able to comment on what they do on the job, what they see as their responsibility, who they speak to and why in pursuit of the paid position. I see no possible grounds, in our democracy, for the president to assert rights (executive privilege) that protect him and his staff from any misdeeds, illegal activity or abuses that Congressional oversight may reveal. It is up to the president to act ethically and we provide many attorneys for his access. We do not condone nor need to assist in cover up of wrong doings. Who is out there to save us from all the madness?
July 11th, 2007 at 4:15 pmBlocking testimony by misusing executive privilege (only valid for national security) and giving clemency to a subordinate apparently to keep him from talking in jail is just helping seal a case against him for Obstruction and Conspiracy to Obstruct.
He thinks he's winning, but he's just ensuring his downfall.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:16 pmThat also explains why the Trolls are all defending him / her, they want Harriet to give them one, too.
What are you talking about. Did you read my #1 post? I couldn't care less what happens to her.
But now it's time to go home, have some dinner and watch some nice, relaxing TV. I've got the entire season 2 of Future Weapons to watch. :-)
July 11th, 2007 at 4:16 pmI'm experiencing some hardcore contempt FOR congress right now...
July 11th, 2007 at 4:16 pmCONTEMPT OF CONGRESS. For gawds sake Democrats. It's time to stop with all this nonsense. Charge both Taylor and Meiers with Contempt of Congress. If you don't, the Bush Crime Family will continue to thumb their noses at Congress and "we the people".
July 11th, 2007 at 4:16 pmrighties are just celebrating Bush produced a deficit of only 205 billion $
July 11th, 2007 at 4:16 pmHow is this going to be spun into attorney-client privilege? And what other justification can there be?
Comment by missmolly — July 11, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
He's not invoking attorney-client privilege. He's invoking "Executive Privilege" which is a clause put aside only for matters of nationals security, which this is not.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:18 pmTestify about what?
July 11th, 2007 at 4:18 pmCool! Lock her up for contempt of congress!
July 11th, 2007 at 4:18 pmSUPRISE SUR MUTHAFU#$KING PRISE BUSH TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING??
July 11th, 2007 at 4:19 pmgoodbye harriet, hello impeachment.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:19 pmTo Bartlebee --
Ye gods -- I guess I was optimistic enough to think maybe he wouldn't invoke that tired "executive privilege" again (how many more times does he have to invoke that to beat Nixon's record?). I should have known better -- he really DOES think Americans are stupid.
Unfortunately, Bush has come to believe that "executive privilege" means "I am omnipotent and can do whatever the hell I want". Pity is that 26% of the country still agrees with him.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:22 pmThe way I see it, these people worked for us, you know "we the people". It is our taxes that pay their salaries. They were not paid by George Bush or the RNC. So, that makes them answerable to us. It does not give George Bush the right to say that anything they said in their career in the government, whether it was a discussion with him or not, is executive privilege. Because that is what he is doing. I can almost buy his argument if it is testimony about a discussion the person had with HIM. But, they want to ask Harriet Meiers and Sara Taylor about conversations they had with each other and with the Justice Department. That would in no way involve the President, unless, of course, they were talking to each other and to the Justice Department about the fact that Bush ordered the firings of the US Attorneys.
Time's up for the Bush Crime Family. It's time to start prosecuting.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:22 pmComment by BARTLEBEE
Under this administration "executive privilege" is extended to include "anything that may harm the present of future freedom of the president by placing him in prison."
July 11th, 2007 at 4:23 pmHow is it that a private citizen can claim executive privilege? Does not Bush’s instructions to private citizens not to testify constitute witness tampering and obstruction of justice?
July 11th, 2007 at 4:24 pmI was hoping that Democrats had finally developed a spine. Well, its back to 'viewing with alarm' and 'carefully deliberating' once again. Unless the Democrats remember what it means to walk upright, they're condemning this nation to 18 more months of madness. They've got to do what the Founding Father's wanted them to do, Oversight! Since when does the Chief Public Servant have the right to tell ex-employees what to do? Why do the same ex-employees feel that they took an oath to support the Chief Public Servant?
July 11th, 2007 at 4:26 pmImpeach Bush and Cheney and Save the Constitution!
The problem is that this is not an issue where a President would want to protect Executive Privilege. It's an issue where a President wouldn not want to be incriminated.
After all, what is the big question to be asked? It's not What did you advise the President, but, "Did the President meddle in the DoJ and order the US Attorneys fired?" That's not something covered by EP.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:27 pm"How is it that a private citizen can claim executive privilege? Does not Bush’s instructions to private citizens not to testify constitute witness tampering and obstruction of justice?"
Good point! I would like to hear Jonathan Turley weigh in on that one. Watch Countdown tonight. My bet is that Keith Olberman will have Turley on to get his take on this latest Bush assault on our government.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:29 pmInteresting question. Did Miers, like Taylor, take an oath to "protect the president"? Has the White House been making employees take pledges of allegiance to the C-in-C? Is Miers part of a parallel government?
July 11th, 2007 at 4:30 pmWell, it was either this or "I don't recall."
July 11th, 2007 at 4:30 pmWhy is that so many US soldiers have German surnames?
July 11th, 2007 at 4:32 pmSend Nancy Pelosi an e-mail and tell her to either do her job and find Taylor and Meiers in Contempt of Congress or get out of the way to allow some other Democrat with a spine to do it for her.
http://speaker.gov/contact/
July 11th, 2007 at 4:33 pmThese people aren't going to follow the law, period. And if Congress were to cut funding, then this administration would let the soldiers sit there and starve with no ammo, before he brings them back.
This administration would disolve Congress before they could impeach them. Nothing will bring them around.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:34 pmI hate this "We might pursue that avenue" crap. Supeona them and if they don't show hold them in contempt. Take it to the courts. Why are they still trying to reason with them? The American people got it. They are not willing to abide by the rules. They want to make up their own. We got it already. No need to play around anymore and act civil. That is way past the point. Either take back the country and Constitution or fail trying and let the people decide what to do next. Stop this pussy-footing.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:37 pmPrediction: Sometime in the next few weeks or months, the Kool Aid Drinking Bushies will pull off "Jonestown 2: Teh Dubya." Dozens of them will take their own lives to protect Dear Leader. And their enablers (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage et al) will blame it all on us mean ole dirty fuc&in hippies.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:37 pmPunch Bush to the stomach!
July 11th, 2007 at 4:38 pmThere will never be an impeachment no matter how load you morons cry.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:39 pmCongress needs to just quit pussyfooting around with the White House. Don't "threaten" to cite her for contempt of Congress. DO IT!!!! And while they're at it, they should cite the White House counsel who advised her not to appear as well.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:39 pm#43: I'll punch you! Virtually, of course.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:40 pmLaw and order republicans at it again. The "Bush crime family" is a piece of work. Hey Vitter, you gonna step down? you wanted Clinton to step down for cheating on his wife. And what's up with not going to rehab??
July 11th, 2007 at 4:41 pmLook. This is simple. Bush CANNOT invoke Executive privilege over this domestic matter that in no way can be tied to national security.
Executive privilege is for matters pertaining to National Security, and even then is not a carte blanche to just ignore congressional subpoenas.
So sayeth the Supreme Court of the United States.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:41 pmHold her in contempt and send her off to jail with the rest of them.
And check her income tax returns for the past 7 years too, while you're at it.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:43 pmIf this becomes a legal squabble, does it go to the Supreme Court? And, if so, can we count on SCOTUS voting along the same lines they did in the 2000 Presidential election?
July 11th, 2007 at 4:43 pmThere will never be an impeachment no matter how load you morons cry.
Comment by Anti-Lefttard
But there WILL be TRAITORS to the USA like YOU and Bush...
July 11th, 2007 at 4:43 pmRepublicans are more interested in protecting Bush than in protecting the troops. Pass it along........
July 11th, 2007 at 4:43 pmThe US Supreme Court
July 11th, 2007 at 4:43 pmUnited States vs Nixon
1974
Comment by dlet
I would agree with you, dlet, but taking it to court could take a year or so with the legal wrangling. And that's what they want; time. Time to get dug in like ticks into Iraq. 6 months? Who bought that? no one, now the report is back, no benchmarks met, and Bush says "so what". They are NEVER LEAVING IRAQ. never.
So, go to court, drag it out, give them more time to steal oil and plant favorable legislators in the Iraqi Congress.
This is an emergancy. They are a rogue White House. Impeach/cut off all funding/ declare a state of emergency and do it all with bi-partisan press conferences with Republican leaders who want to save the reputation of their party.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:44 pmAnd what’s up with not going to rehab??
Comment by marcus robinson — July 11, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
He claims to have already received counseling.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:44 pmSo those who are saying this needs to go to the Supreme Court are wrong.
It has already been ruled on, and as Chief Justice Roberts so adamantly stated, he is hard pressed to go back and revist a previous ruling, much less overturn one.
The ruling has already been made. The law has already been set in stone.
Bush has no legal claim to executive privilege, period.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:46 pmAlthough this issue is crucial and needs to be addressed there is a piece of legislation currently before congress that needs attention. The Global Poverty Act (H.R. 1302) will help bring attention to global poverty worldwide. The Borgen Project is working to bring congressional attention to H.R. 1302 and encourage co-sponsorship among predominate congressional leaders.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:47 pmBush has no legal claim to executive privilege, period.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — July 11, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
So it's impeachment then. For obstruction of justice. No need to go to SCOTUS.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:49 pmI would agree with you, dlet, but taking it to court could take a year or so with the legal wrangling.
Comment by willyloman — July 11, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Hate to disagree with you Willy but thats just not correct.
The ruling has already been made.
Unless Justice Roberts is going to announce that he is considering overturning the courts ruling, the jury is "in" on this one.
The law is already in place, and the 1974 ruling leaves no room for latitude.
If its not a matter of national security or treaty, then its not under the guise of Executive Privilege, and thats all there is too it.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:50 pmComment by Jade Sepolen
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't trust a single piece of legislation in this congress that deals with money under the guise of helping the poor. Probably got Stevens bridge in there or another 20 billion to Blackwater or KBR.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:51 pmComment by willyloman
I agree impeachment is in order but start the court proceedings as soon as possible so it happens before they get out. These cases need to be heard so the future infants who get into office don't have a leg to stand on when they try this crap. It is worth no matter what Pelosi or whomever says. The larger picture is more important than her career strategy.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:52 pmI think I meant for contempt of Congress instead of obstruction. It's getting hot here, my brain melts, and I eventually become a Republican.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:52 pmOne of us, one of us,....
July 11th, 2007 at 4:54 pmIf its not a matter of national security or treaty, then its not under the guise of Executive Privilege, and thats all there is too it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Let's say for arguments sake, you are right. You think they don't know that already? But they still say it, till someone proves otherwise in a couple of weeks.
Lets say, that is done tonight by Keith. Ok, now what? Hold them in contempt? Goes to trial couple of months later they are convicted, sentencing...appeals...commuting of time. pardon. what else?
They are breaking the law. We know that. Now what?
July 11th, 2007 at 4:54 pmSo the idea is to simultaneously impeach and go to SCOTUS, willy? I'm just trying to understand.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:54 pmAnd thats right, it is impeachment for Bush. He will be impeached over this, watch.
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that he cannot invoke executive privilege in any matters not directly pertaining to national security or international treaty. There is no "gray area" here. No room for confusion or debate. The law is the law, and the Supreme Court has ruled on this matter, so the jury is IN.
Unless the court is willing to overturn that ruling, and change the very structure of the executive branch, putting it above congress (and themselves), making it completely unnaccountable to any other branch, thus disolving any balance of power, (and as rigth wing as Roberts is I doubt he wants a peice of that) then there is no more debate.
They've ruled.
Bush can't do it.
End of story.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:55 pmThere will never be an impeachment no matter how load you morons cry.
Comment by Anti-Lefttard
But there WILL be TRAITORS to the USA like YOU and Bush…
Comment by Mr. Bush Goes To Hell
I think all of you people on the left are the traitors, Clinton should be in jail for taking money to pardon people. But nooooooo thats not the same. All you lefties should just shut up and stop making asses of yourselves.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:55 pmI don't mind making an ass out of myself and I'm not going to shut up just because a Fascist-lover tells me to.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:57 pmThey are breaking the law. We know that. Now what?
Comment by willyloman — July 11, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Well thats the million dollar question, and I was not attempting to answer that, or cover the entire play of events from here to his eventual removal from office.
I am merely stating fact.
And the fact is the US Supreme Court has ALREADY RULED on this issue.
The ruling is a matter of record.
So this debate that whether Bush can invoke executive privilege or that it will need to go to the Supreme Court is irrelevent. The case has already been heard, and ruled on.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:59 pmI'm a Fascist am I? Maybe you should study alittle more on what the Left really stands for, like I said MORONS.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:59 pmHere is the ruling one more time, as recorded in our Archives and with the US Supreme Court.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:01 pmThe US Supreme Court
United States vs Nixon
1974
So the idea is to simultaneously impeach and go to SCOTUS, willy? I’m just trying to understand.
Comment by Egreggious
There has to be an emergency provision to remove a rogue administration. Yes. impeach all of them and seize all documents in the Executive branch offices. Start arresting these people like Myers and Tracy and AG for obstruction of justice and accessory to committe Treason.
The claim of treason,once charged, should immediately freeze all powers of the White House until taken over by Speaker of the House. All paperwork all records all communications would then be available to the Judiciary Committee.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:03 pmYet the Administration is fully aware of this ruling and are invoking Executive Privilege anyway. They must think they (1) can successfully challenge this ruling, or (2) can intimidate Congress into backing down, or (3) can run out the clock, or (4) are so backed into a corner they don't have any other avenue, or (5) any combination of the above.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:06 pmThe charge of Treason needs two witnesses. One would be Colin Powell...the other Richard Clark? i don't know. But grant them immunity and proceed with the charge
July 11th, 2007 at 5:06 pmThats one possiblity to be sure Willy. But I don't think they'll go that far yet. I think what will probably happen, or at least what the natural course would be, is to arrest Harriet Miers and Tayor and hold them in jail under contempt charges until they testify.
Bush can't do anything to stop them from having them arrested.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:08 pm"How is it that a private citizen can claim executive privilege?"
Bush is claiming executive privilege for the time that Miers was, in fact, working for him. If you accept that "executive privilege" applies (I don't), then it would make sense that it would apply for the things she did in her tenure at the White House. Executive privilege could not be used for anything she did after she left, but nothing she did after she left is of interest to Congress.
"and as rigth wing as Roberts is I doubt he wants a peice of that)"
Don't count on that. Both Roberts and Alito are known to have a very, shall we say, expansive view of presidential power and privilege. There is widespread speculation that they were chosen specifically for that reason, more so than for their views on abortion and other issues important to the Republican base. At this point, I don't think anyone can safely predict what the Supreme Court would do if it were to come to that.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:09 pmComment by BARTLEBEE
i agree with you. They will not do this. Because the majority of them profit from this invation just like BushCo.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:10 pm#73: That's a ridiculous fantasy. The last thing this country needs is something as polarizing as that. Investigate and impeach and let the bastard resign like Nixon.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:13 pmRemember the whole "we don't have the votes" logic for submitting the suplimental funding bill?
Only Kucinich had the balls to say the truth...don't present one! The minority couldn't bring it to the floor!
But the Dems did. Why?
I don't know, did Hillary still have stock in the Blind Trust from GE, Mobil, Bechtel at that time? Ah, yep. How many others have these "blind" trusts?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:13 pmDon’t count on that. Both Roberts and Alito are known to have a very, shall we say, expansive view of presidential power and privilege. There is widespread speculation that they were chosen specifically for that reason, more so than for their views on abortion and other issues important to the Republican base.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Oh I'm counting on it.
This particular ruling would take power from their own Branch of government, and give it to Bush. No matter how much the like Bush, or the office of President, they're not about to limit their own powers of enforcement, which overturning the previous courts ruling would automatcially do.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:14 pm#73: That’s a ridiculous fantasy. The last thing this country needs is something as polarizing as that. Investigate and impeach and let the bastard resign like Nixon.
Comment by RealistDem
You think this isn't treason? How long would that impeachment trial take? long enough to go into Iran, perhaps?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:15 pm#80: What Iran? Can you show me any credible evidence that an attack on Iran is imminent. I don't think so.
Investigate and impeach. That's it.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:17 pm#80: Oh, and do you think getting them on treason would take any less time. No. It would take more. Far more time.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:17 pmI mean, just what do you think they are hiding, realistdem?
Some connection to removal of US Attorneys?
Cheneys office is hiding intel and documents pertaining to the justification of war. Fabricated evidence and twisted intel from the CIA.
Meeting with members of oil companies and defense contractors.
It was staged and people died- for profits. If thats not treason, it damn well should be.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:19 pmMaybe, but to prove all that... there's no way to do that.
Bush has done enough to get him impeached. That'll remove him and destroy his precious legacy. Good enough.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:20 pmMaybe, but to prove all that… there’s no way to do that.
Bush has done enough to get him impeached. That’ll remove him and destroy his precious legacy. Good enough.
Comment by RealistDem
Access to his file cabinet, and Colin Powell. Sounds pretty complicated to me.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:24 pmIn fact, "executive privilege" was overruled by a Federal Judge against Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, citing the landmark 1974 Supreme Court ruling.
Executive privilege has no role in the Attorney firings, and Congress needs to arrest Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers and compell them to testify or rot in jail.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:36 pmBush WILL lose this one.
In fact, he already has.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:37 pmAnd the fact is the US Supreme Court has ALREADY RULED on this issue.
The ruling is a matter of record.
So this debate that whether Bush can invoke executive privilege or that it will need to go to the Supreme Court is irrelevent. The case has already been heard, and ruled on.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — July 11, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Of course, just part of their Rovian (Orwellian) denial of reality at every turn. WMDs, last throes, no torture, no illegal spying, deep Deep DEEP constitutional issues...
I’m a Fascist am I? Maybe you should study alittle more on what the Left really stands for, like I said MORONS.
Comment by Anti-Lefttard — July 11, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
The boogie man cometh! Wanting to follow the rule of law and the spirit of our Consitution makes us what, COMMIES? Wake the f- up! Modern liberalism has nothing to do with communism, and most of the 70% of Americans who now know Bush is a liar and a criminal consider themselves moderate or conservative. On the other hand, those who trash our Bill of Rights (Bush) and those who cheer them on (you, 'load'-mouth) should be suspected of totalitarianism.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:42 pmAnd WHO ORDERED the firings of the US Attorneys?
THAT is the REAL question that needs to be answered?
Was it---
TRAITOR Kkkarl Rove, BRAIN of TRAITOR Bush???
Yup!!!
Master Satan says he is SO EVIL, and will be one of the WORST SOULS to EVER be here in hell....
Master Satan LOVES him SO MUCH!
Satan Bless the Bushes, Cheneys, Libbys and Rove.
Treasonously yours,
Traitor Ronnie and my Master Satan
July 11th, 2007 at 5:43 pmI say they take ol Scooter on one of these midnight flights to one of the black sites that don't exixt and see if anyone from the School of the Americas can convinve him to give an interview on camera about prewar intel.
If you consider Iran a ticking time bomb....
July 11th, 2007 at 5:45 pmOne look at Scooter and all you would have to do is show him a picture of a pair of pliers in a Sears cataloge and he would piss himself and start squealing.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:47 pmMy Veep, Bush 41 was the BIGGEST TRAITOR of all, pardoning an INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST named Orlando Bosch,
and all of the Iran/Contra WAR CRIMINALS now in Bush 43's administration AND the PNAC...
To save HIS azz and MINE from IMPEACHMENT and TREASON trials...
Now, I'm DEAD and in HELL for my WAR CRIMES and LIES.
Master Satan says the Bushes and Cheneys will be here soon.
He LOVES their EVIL so so MUCH!!!
Treasonously yours from the pits of hell,
Traitor Ronnie and my Master Satan
July 11th, 2007 at 5:50 pmBush, like Lear, can yell into the wind all he wants. But unless he legally compels someone who has received a Congressional subpoena not to testify, such as by obtaining a court order, than anyone who fails to testify to Congress is voluntarily choosing not to testify and is, therefore, breaking the law.
Bush won't do that because then he'd have to explain in court his reasons - and get the court to agree with him. That raises a vulnerability this administration has consistely avoided. Should a federal district judge such as oh, Judge Walton, not agree with Shrub, that decision opens a huge can of worms, forcing Shrub to appeal to the DC Circuit. Even though it's now a conservative old boys' club, it still might not agree with Shrub; ditto even Roberts' S.Ct.
The only other way for Harriet legitimately to avoid testifying is by invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminate herself in a criminal matter. Should she raise that defense, it would have the concurrent effect of knocking down most of Bush's privilege claims, since most of them do not trump the need to investigate crimes.
Congress needs to take the gloves off. Its popularity is dropping precisely because they haven't done so.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:58 pmSuggest to Congress if Miers fails to show to proceed with INHERENT CONTEMPT. It bypasses Bush appointed US Attorneys and goes directly to the House for trial:
"Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
July 11th, 2007 at 6:03 pm18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : ... Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress ... [s]hall be fined under this title, [or] imprisoned not more than 5 years ... or both.
Has The Prez not broken a law here???
July 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pmI second that, bring her up on "inherent contempt" charges. Cut through all this BS the White House is throwing out there to obstruct the truth and get on with it already Congress!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pmI was hoping that she would show up wearing her jaunty Keith Richards eye liner.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:15 pmTime to throw the book. With all your might Congress. If they won't appear, use the courts to force their testimony, or impeach both Cheney or Bush.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pmDo something. Don't just sit there like a damn slug in the headlights.
Kefa461, #96, that is a brilliant observation. Lets just hope that someone, Anyone gets this particular ball rolling!
July 11th, 2007 at 7:18 pmImpeach Bush and Cheney and Save the Constitution.
Kefa461, sorry I meant #95.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pmRe: 95
Flood Pelosi with letters quoting USC 18 Sec 1505 & 1515(b) demanding impeachment for these felonies.
Mine is already hand written and waiting in the out box.
I'm sending mine with a ($1.00) return reciept.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:38 pmA way to contact the committee....
http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx
July 11th, 2007 at 8:34 pmBoth Bush and Miers can't hide behind executive privilege. Miers has to testify. Bush is not above the law, and neither is she. Also if she doesn't show up then Conyers should take steps to hold her in contempt of Congress. Bush should not be able to tell former White House officials what to say. They no longer work for him. Clearly Bush is trying to cover his tracks. It would create problems for him and other White House officials if it came to light that he had discussions with Gonzales about the US attorney firings.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:58 pmI'm not going to hold my breath on that contempt citation, but maybe Conyers will surprise us all and actually kick some ass!
July 11th, 2007 at 10:22 pmwe, the people hereby grant ye, congress permission to...drag her butt back to washington, kicking and screaming, if neccessary.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:24 pm...okay? now THAT is OUR decree.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:25 pmWasn't she one of the melting faces in "Raiders Of The Lost Ark"?
July 11th, 2007 at 10:37 pm"I second that, bring her up on “inherent contempt†charges. Cut through all this BS the White House is throwing out there to obstruct the truth and get on with it already Congress!"
I agree and the beauty of this is that it will only take a simple majority in the house. Let's do this with both Meiers and Taylor. Throw their asses in jail and then see if they are willing to talk.
Write Nancy Pelosi and tell her to use "inherent contempt" with both Meiers and Taylor:
http://speaker.gov/contact/
July 11th, 2007 at 10:52 pmWhen Bush was asked to appear in front of Senate Committe on 911, he refused unless the proceeding was done behind closed door without any official records and his deputy Dick Cheney came along.
When Miers was asked to appear before Congress to investigate on the firing of public prosecutors, Bush issued an order to refuse the appearance.
When Paul Wilson went out to trash the propaganda of Iraq & Niger Uranium scandal, Bush Administration went out bashing him and leaked the secret of his wife's CIA connection.
When Scotty Libby was to serve his sentence in prison related to the leak of CIA operative, Bush issued a decree 'pardoning' him.
I am sure Christian fundamentalista will continue to argue that he has done nothing wrong (as long as he can issue presidential decree to deny the evidence and witness from appearing). And they are 100% dead right especially when the Democrats are led by someone who argued that impeachment was off the table.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:43 amAs an American living abroad in the UK, I've noticed a distinct but implicit, almost to the point of unnoticed, difference in the nature of government.
In the UK, the mere insinuation of social malfeasance can humiliate a public official enough to tender his or her resignation.
However, in the US, the rule of law is supreme. And thus it is not a case of people acting "in good faith," but rather of what the law allows them to get away with. Further, the American societal structure encourages such "deal-making" and often tolerates (even encourages) what would, in other cultures, be professional suicide.
Thus, as many persons have mentioned, the ONLY solution is through a distributed effort to impose ACTION, rather than resort to social pressure in the vain attempts that the persons in questions will recuse themselves out of self-dignity or personal humiliation -- for they have none and could care less, so long as they are acting within the structures sound within their respective legal frameworks (let's not even get on the topic of what they consider legal).
Thus, action is where the rubber meets the pavement.
1. In Democratic districts, contact your representatives stating that failure to impose the Constitutional checks and balances (and thus bringing impeachment back to the table) WILL constitute a collective loss of votes. It cannot be a single or even scattered individuals but rather a concerted and directed effort to do mass callings and mailings. Essentially, to take a page from the Republican playbook, since IT WORKS.
2. In Republican districts, to fight fire with fire. You have already lost your civil liberties and your ability to trust your government. So why are you being such a wimp in defending your Constitutional rights? You are afraid you will lose your dignity and self-respect if you fight dirty, never mind the fact that while you fight clean your enemy is throwing sand in your face seducing your wife and stealing your money behind your back. Wise up.
3. Always insist on action. Where does the rubber meet the pavement? Funding. Votes. These must be targeted, as the Republicans have been doing all along. I'm not saying caging lists, but rather concerted efforts to get out the vote, to pre-emptively inform blacks and latinos and lower-income neighborhoods that they will NOT risk deportation or incarceration when they vote, that they will be approached by intimidating official-looking persons who have NOTHING to do with legitimate government, etc.
4. Be on the offensive. They're not going to give you your country back, this great land of ours they have stolen from us. It is up to use to TAKE IT BACK. And be aware, they will not relinquish it without a fight. But do you want your children to grow only ever knowing of the Dream of America as some ancient myth, or as the country it should be and can be?
5. Think pro-actively. I'm sure there are progressive businessmen and other people of means who would be willing to bankroll a concerted effort to reach out to disenfranchised voters, to participate in the act of democracy, rather than simply relish the usurption of rights through the systematic buying of congressmen.
Thus, the onus is on creating mechanisms by which the "right thing" is profitable, both to the individual and to society.
Is this possible? Only if a dedicated people hold true to their ideals, and only if they are able to spread this vision of America to others. Can it be done? I don't think we have a choice... it MUST be done.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:08 pm