Bush orders Miers not to testify

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush ordered his former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to defy a congressional subpoena and refuse to testify Thursday before a House panel investigating U.S. attorney firings.

"Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the president," White House Counsel Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to Miers' lawyer, George T. Manning.

Manning, in turn, notified committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., that Miers would not show up Thursday to answer questions about the White House role in the firings of eight federal prosecutors over the winter.

Conyers, who had previously said he would consider pursuing criminal contempt citations against anyone who defied his committee' subpoenas, revealed the letters after former White House political director Sara Taylor testified Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070711/ap_on_go_co/fired_prosecutors;_ylt=AtuiHABPDtsvaS0SzuIpuhes0NUE

Am I being an alarmist for thinking we could be under a Constitution crisis if Congress rolls over on this?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Geez that is really an ugly word. I don't care how much you don't like her. Imagine the disgust you would feel if some RW commentator called Hillary that!

I could care less. I wouldn't feel disgust if someone called Hillary that. It's just a word. Why is it any worse than any other curse word? :shrug:

I'm an asshole, what do you expect? It's my mission to offend people.

:(

that's how you do it...and evade the language police :)

for the love of fucking God relax a little bit. Jesus this fucking whining is getting pathetic.

And the Sargeant at Arms can haul her away. It's called Inherent Contempt.

I'd forgotten all about that old chestnut. It may come to that, actually I wouldn't mind seeing them do it.

The theatrics of it alone would be worth it froma PR standpoint. It would be a huge story and bring lot's of attention to the issue, and it happens to be the right thing to do considering the admins extreme position. Their extreme positions demands and extreme response.

I am psyched to see how this one plays out. Love to follow the interplay between the three branches especially when they start fighting over who gets oversight over the the other! It's a turf war!

Just tell the truth, folks. Why did you fire them? It's not that complicated.

Can I invoke privilege when my wife asks me why I'm home so late, and is that whiskey on your breath?

do what?

Alito - wrote the rules for presidential signing orders
Roberts - was a good little Federal Society member (has had record scrubbed)
Scalia - do I even need to go into it?
Long John Dong Thomas - naaah - you know that story
Kennedy - will always go with the above members

the other four are in the minority and have a snowball's chance in hell of being the ones that would make the ruling.

He can swing anything either way.

It'll be interesting to see how he'll go on this one.

:popcorn:

she doesn't work for him...

She must be PISSED!!!!

the letter only says she has "immunity". The headline saying he "ordered" her
not to testify is misleading. Although he is clearly turning the wrench here.
I hope she goes to jail for this. Didn't Judy Miller go to jail for refusing to
give info.? I know this isn't a judge, but our Congress is supposed to have
the power to do this!!! Impeach the asshole!

To paraphrase George Wallace, "Impeachment now, Impeachment tomorrow, Impeachment forever!!!!"

Pelosi, let my Conyers Free!!!!


(No sarcasm -- I want bush/cheney impeached and removed/resigned as soon as possible)


On Edit: This sure SOUNDS like ordering:

"President Bush ordered his former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to defy a congressional subpoena and refuse to testify Thursday before a House panel investigating U.S. attorney firings.

"Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the president," White House Counsel Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to Miers' lawyer, George T. Manning.

Manning, in turn, notified committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., that Miers would not show up Thursday to answer questions about the White House role in the firings of eight federal prosecutors over the winter."

the first is from the writer of the article. The second is a quote
from the letter sent to Conyers. It either means "we've got your back",
or "we'll kill you if you talk." I think the impeachment idea is finally
catching on, don't you? Even some republicans are speaking out against
Bush. And this Miers trick-can't Conyers et all throw her in jail for comtempt?
I'm so sick of the threats that Congress puts out without acting on them!

I didn't even know about this hearing today:

Hearing on: The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2913512&mesg_id=2913512

One more nail in the coffin...

republican stacked Federal Courts.

I don't hold out much hope. The Federal Courts are riddled with right-wing, fascist fucks from the Federalist Society...it's not like it was in '74...

http://www.fed-soc.org/

The Federal Judiciary is beginning to resemble the Nazi "People's Courts"...

If he cites Inherent Contempt, then there is no Judicial review, it is a legislative thing. THe bill of contempt is voted on by the full house and a simple majority wins. She is then compelled by the Sgt At Arms to appear or be jailed.

-Hoot

to Dog's ears... :hi: Thanks...

there better be some contempt charges filed if she's a no-show.
Perhaps it's even time to subpoena the monkey.

n/t

I'm not sure that clemency is available for someone jailed for contempt.

Jailing for contempt is a wholly judicial process, isn't it? The Executive has no power there...

Or is this just a Neocon fairy tale?

something he made up in his treehouse awhile back

Wish I could find that cartoon where they keep one-upping each other with ever more grandiose titles.

if old raccoon eyes testifies.

If Bush can "order" her to not testify and can grant her immunity from testifying, then he can fucking order anyone of us private citizens to obey the same, and can fucking grant each and everyone of us immunity to testify before any committee hearing of any kind at any given time.

ITMFsA! :grr: :mad:

Ain't no way the Dems are layin' down and takin' this. I look forward to watching the battle unfold.

:eyes:

I have a bad feeling about this!

And if Bu$h said for her not to testify, we have got something with his name on it to IMPEACH!

:evilgrin:

who is Ms. Miers "mouthpiece"..........

I'll start at the second paragraph from the letter from the Judiciary Committee dated July 11, 2007

"We are aware of absolutely no court decision that supports the notion that a former White House official has the option of refusing to even appear in respose to a Congressional subpoena. To the contrary, the courts have made clear that no present or former government official - even the President - is above the law and may completely disregard a legal directive such as the Committee's subpoena. In fact, both present and former White House officials have testified before Congress numerous times, including both then-serving and former White House counsel. For example, forner White House Council Beth Nolan explained to our Subcommittee that she testified before Congressional committees four times, three times while serving as White House counsel and once as former White House counsel. A Congressional Research Service study documents some 74 instances where serving White House advisers have testified before Congress since World War II* More over, even the 1999 OLC opinion refered to in Mr. Fieldings July 10 letter refers only to current White House advisers and not to former advisers and acknowledges that the courts might not agree with its conclusion. Such Justice Department opinions are not law, state only the Executive Branch's view of the law, and have no legal force whatsoever. We note finally that another former White House adviser subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Commettee in the U.S. Attorney matter, Sara Turner, appeared today pursuant to Congressional subpoena and testified about many of the relevant facts while also declining to testify about other relevant facts based on the assertation of executive privilege.


A refusal to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. sec 194 and under the inherent authority of the House of Representatives.


We are prepared at the hearing tomorrow to consider and rule on any specific assertations of privilege in respose to specific questions. We strongly urge you to reconsider, and to advise your client to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow pursuant to her legal obligations. The Subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Ms Miers to appear as required by her subpoena.

Sincerely,


John Conyers, Jr. Linda T. Sanchez
Chairman Charwomen, Subcommittee
on Commercial and Admistrative Law"


I have watched this administration of thugs violate this country's laws and our inalienable rights since they stole the first election in 2000. I love John Conyers, and his involvement in all of this in the last 3 years since they stole the second election. I can no longer sit by and watch this continue........I'm gonna cheer, support, and do everything in my power to see these wrongs get righted !!! Get ready everybody, it's gonna be a hell of a show !!!

sorry I forgot to post the link, that was a lot of typing for me !!! You'll find the letter here........


http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=330

How many more laws must they break?

Or did they yank her Supreme nomination before she even got a hearing? I seem to remember hearing that she did poorly and failed miserably on some basic law questions.

maybe there is a transcript?

He outlined three options: The third one was to have the House bring charges of contempt. Last done in the 1930's.

The first two options involved bring to courts--either as a civil matter in DC jurisdiction (he did not sound optimistic as this is a Bush appointee)---or US justice Dept (Gonzo).

Source: Associated Press

Showdown Looms Over Fired Prosecutors

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration says the president's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from having to appear before Congress, but legal scholars say the issue isn't that clear cut. The question grew more pressing Wednesday as President Bush ordered former White House counsel Harriet Miers to defy a congressional summons in the controversy over the administration's dismissals of federal prosecutors.

The Democratic chairmen of the Senate and House judiciary committees have said they would consider introducing contempt of Congress citations against any subpoena recipients who resist. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., could begin that process as early as Thursday if Miers ignores her subpoena and skips his hearing, based upon the White House's assertion of executive privilege.

- snip -

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said the White House ''could not have picked worse ground'' on which to fight executive privilege. Many of the communications involve political operatives outside the White House; the White House already has offered to disclose the information and simply refused to do so under oath or with a transcript, and the issue is not in the sensitive areas of national security or diplomacy.

- snip -

No president has gone as far as mounting a court fight to keep his aides from testifying on Capitol Hill, but court is just where the battle could end up absent the usual negotiated agreements of the past. President Ford testified on Capitol Hill about his pardon of former President Nixon. President Clinton's aides testified in the Whitewater investigations launched by congressional Republicans.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Fired-Prosecutors.html

ASAP.

What a farce! Now we're going to a Bush-rigged court for a decision!

The coup of of our former democracy continues indefinitely.

assessment by the professor. Why would they pick such lousy ground? WHAT are they hiding, that requires such vast, unprecedented assertions of executive privilege? I'd say, at minimum, criminal Rove actions in trying to influence prosecutions for political advantage, and possibly Bush implicated. But deeper, I think the US attorney firings/hirings and the RNC/Rove emails probably contain 2004 election theft "smoking guns."

If 2004 election theft "smoking guns" are found--confirming the mountain of evidence that already exists--then not only could it be grounds for impeachment, but it could be the foundation for invalidating the 2004 election and rescinding all Bush appointments since that time, including his fascist appointments to the Supreme Court and the federal bench.

THAT could be why Bush/Rove are so determined to prevent people like Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers from testifying under oath before Congress, and Congressional access to Rove documents--and why they are asserting such an absurd executive privilege position, which has the air of ludicrousness of Cheney saying that his office is not part of the Executive Branch. Serious desperation. But we also have a loony fascist Supreme Court, which crowned this murderous little shit as emperor in 2000, and has become even more fascist since then.

The only guarantee that the Supreme Court won't blockade holding Bush, Cheney, Rove & Co. accountable for their numerous crimes is for Congress to impeach Bush/Cheney. Then the decision is up to Congress. The House draws up the bills of impeachment and the Senate votes (acts as judge). Although the Supreme Court Chief Justice presides at this, neither the Chief Justice nor the Supreme Court decides the matter. The Senate does.

Personally, I don't think this Congress is going to do squat, as to restoring the rule of law in this country. I think we have a long, hard road back to democracy that has to start with the American peoples' rebellion against electronic voting machines run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations--a phenomenon that has profoundly affected Congress, and is the obvious explanation for its failure to represent--and failure to even come close to representing--the interests and views of the American people. Our priority no. 1 needs to be restoring transparent vote counting. And that is not going to be easy, and it's going to take time.

If Smirk wants to drag out these investigations, maybe he should get his wish. Maybe we should wait until Bush is out of office to go after Rove, Cheney, et al. That way, Smirk couldn't obfuscate the hunt for truth, nor prevent justice from being done. (It also might make stonewalling underlings more willing to talk, if they knew they were going to be out there on their own facing what looks to be a heavily democratic congress.)