1 minute ago: Bush orders Miers not to testify

Bush orders Miers not to testify By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago



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.

<MORE>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/fired_prosecutors;_ylt=AodWCZdNmfBxEFnRxuZa846yjuBF

Defying a subpoena is illegal, so Bush telling Miers to defy the subpoena is criminal conspiracy, ain't it?

It is a seperateion of poweres issue.


The question is whther or not the presinde has the right to comepl a private citizen to defy Congress,



If it were a court compelling testimony it would be a different matter,

If Bush ordered Miers to break Jimmy the Rat's kneecaps with a tire iron would it be a seperation of powers issue?

A subpoena's a subpoena.

but the separation of powers puts limits on what kind of control Congress has over the executive, and vice versa.

That's the reason Congress exempts itself from many laws it passes - it's not arrogance. It's that the Executive Branch enforces the laws, and Congress doesn't want to make itself subject to executive control. It's why there was such an uproar, even among Republicans, when the FBI raided Rep. Jefferson's office.

There realy IS such a thing as executive privilege.

as is true of most things regarding the law.

Seems to me something's usually illegal or it isn't.

is not constitutional, then it's not illegal to ignore it.

It'll take a judge to decide.

:rofl:

but it's true.


I'm not defending it - I'm just explaining the reality.

And Bush can legally order Harriet Miers to break Jimmy the Rats knee caps, because maybe some day a judge will decide that the law outlawing assault is unconstitutional.

:eyes:

you're missing one very important point.

Ordering her to assault someone has no separation of powers issue.

Congress subpoenaing the executive branch does.

Congress outlawing assault when the President does it is an unconstitutional violation of the seperation of powers.

:eyes:

Look. If Bush wants to challege the constitutionality of Congressional subpoena's, he's perfectly welcome to do so. But he's going to have to do it through the courts, and he can't break the law in the mean time.

I've explaned the reality. Sorry you can't understand it.

Seems to me, all you did was play devil's advocate. And didn't do a very good job at that.

A congressional subpoena, such as the one issued to Ms. Miers, carries with it two obligations: the obligation to appear, and the obligation to testify and/or produce documents. Even if a witness intends to assert privilege in response to a subpoena, that intention to assert privilege does not obviate the obligation to appear.

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 response 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, former White House Counsel 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

that saying "she has to obey a subpoena" is too simplistic.

There are constitutional issues involved. I'm cautioning people not to expect to see Miers hauled off in cuffs any time soon.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that Bush could order a private citizen to ignore a subpoena and risk being considered Contempt of Congress. In an attempt to find answers, I came across this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399 (1961), the Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area which have been authorized for investigation.

The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, Courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, the Courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy.

It's implied via the separation of powers.

One can't just read the literal text of the constitution. One must study the history and relevant court decisions.

IF DOJ issuesd a subpoena of a memeber of Congress do you think congress would comply?


DOJ might go to a court to ask for a subpoena be issues or a warrant, but the reuirement that a supposedly nuetral third party, the judiciary is an important stopgap on executive power.


Likewise in the reverse.


Now having said thet COngress does have the right to compell testimony, but the president has the right to claim the privelge. The court is going to have to arbitrate this oput becuase bothe have constitutionaly legitimate rights. the courts are going to have to figure out which right is more important.

Are you suggesting Congress is somehow less powerful than the judiciary?

Me, not a lawyer, says yes.

Who you gonna believe?

...look like, sound like, feel like and taste like a criminal conspiracy of the highest order

<Snip>
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement.

There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence).

For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced.

Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.

<way more here>

http://www.answers.com/topic/conspiracy-crime

Georgie, Georgie, what are you so scared of? A rope? A firing squad? The truth?

...of having yet another aide shown up for the dissemblers they all are.

Sara Taylor did not help them today. She stumbled and bumbled and ultimately used the phrase "I do not recall" even more than Gonzo. Not to mention the inconsistency of standing on executive privilege, while at the same time saying that El Presidente was not involved -- an inconsistency that Leahy pointed out to her.

He really can't afford much more of this. Better just have them refuse to testify and force the issue legally.

We on the other hand need to keep the heat on. Our mantra should be: What Are They Hiding?

Make them sweat blood. No peace, no rest, no end in sight. Do unto them as they've done unto us.

That is exactly why Bush and Rove don't want Miers there.

..and ANY Dem that votes against it gets booted...

defense, clearly it wasn't powerful enough. Gotta shut down any testimony.

Obviously Sara Taylor's deliberate obfuscations just weren't obfuscatory enough! Even the little bit that she slipped out is perilous.

Very interesting! :popcorn:

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

:sarcasm:

got confused, he had a blue crayon too

Oh the lovelorn..........


:rofl: that is too funny

ordering someone to commit a criminal act has got to raise to this standard.....

and as if shrub didn't look enough like a monarch drunk on his own power already, now he can just grant immunity to whomever he deems it appropriate, patently flaunting the rule of law? when is it going to be enough to say ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

Wow, he really is King George!

...involvement. This becomes not a situation where the screwing she was involved in is nothing like the screwing she is going to get from the BushCo thugs who will be all over Sara Taylor's and Harriet Meyer's asses!

All of the BushCo crowd is coming down!

it was obvious to anyone that she was
lying, obfuscating
stuttering and sputtering.

But Yahoo, conveniently ignores it all

What's the next step? SCOTUS?

Imagine the "conspiracies" going on in trying to make sure that the fascist Supreme Court won't move on stopping this farce --

Talking about the idiots in service to this fascist administration -- we could have had Liebermann in the White House --

and Harriet on the Supreme Court -- !!!

Obviously, fascists need idiots around in order to get the misdeeds done --
and, of course, it helps that they all have no memory.

They just make shit up, don't they?

never vote to convict and ....... Did I get it right? :argh:

and back away from it. Carefully.

I know it looks like iced tea, but it's not. Someone has slipped you Kool-Aid instead. Don't worry, the effects wear off in a few hours and you can come back to reality... :rofl:

Yeah, you got it right though. ;)

The only time Bush is a top is with Harriet.


















Yes, I am truly ashamed.

Supreme court. She wasn't nominated to be A-G.

it's getting late

:kick:

was nailed this morning. Yipeee thanks George. Expose your cover up some more.

Spread the word.... President invokes Executive Privilege again...

...over this to prepare for the barrage of RW spin and flak that will be coming through the MSM and other places. This could be as bad as or even worse than the Nixon Watergate cover ups:

<snip>
The "Saturday Night Massacre" (October 20, 1973) was the term given by political commentators to U.S. President Richard Nixon's executive dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus during the Watergate scandal.
<MORE>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

Or FindLaw --

I think that's where John Dean is?

Muckracker is usually pretty current with what's going on legally --

eh . . . in the case of Bushco -- illegally.

I'd love to see Ms. Thomas repeat that question to Tony snow.

Yep--this may very well be the bombshell; we can be sure there's a cover-up nowand it goes straight to the Oval Office.

I can't hear it though...too loud at work. damn it!

:rofl:

:mad:

No mention of the word "court".

1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

"...Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or 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—
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001505----000-.html