Comments (105)

John Bertsch wrote on July 12, 2007 9:43 AM:

Let's stop farten around and go to court

Anon wrote on July 12, 2007 9:44 AM:

Dear God, please put Harriet Miers in jail where she belongs.

kevo wrote on July 12, 2007 9:46 AM:

'Tis its own hubris that blinded this WH to the rule of law. -Kevo

tbhull wrote on July 12, 2007 9:46 AM:

The House should either employ inherent contempt or seek the appointment of an independent prosecutor as the DOJ is hopelessly corrupt.

C 92 wrote on July 12, 2007 9:48 AM:

Someone in the Administration also offered an opinion that the Vice President is not a part of the Executive Branch.

That's what this crowd is about. Offering conjecture in place of fact. Saying "I believe" a whole lot and then thinking it's law.

It's not. It's not "a debate." It's not "an interesting thought." Pure and simple, it's unfounded conjecture.

They're wrong. Regardless of what letterhead this bunk appears on. Rove has been at it since the 70's.

NYFM wrote on July 12, 2007 9:49 AM:

put Harriet Miers in jail? Seem the 'contempt' is coming from Bush himself.

Anon wrote on July 12, 2007 9:49 AM:

Paul Kiel, what are your qualifications to judge the merit vel non of the privilege assertion? Just asking. The Fielding letter also says that the current DOJ opinion provides the same opinion as a Janet Reno opinion from the Clinton Administration. It might have been helpful for you to had mentioned this and let your readers know whether that was true or not. If true, it would seem to undermine your assertion that the privilege assertion is "extraordinarily expansive."

bdl wrote on July 12, 2007 9:59 AM:

The answer is impeachment. Both Bush and Cheney. And I'm a moderate Dem. If we don't impeach - then we are allowing them to lay a precedent for future presidents. There needs to be a clear declaration that the all powerful executive is not what the founding fathers had in mind and is outside the bounds of even the most liberal reading of the constitution.

We may never know wheher there were any actual crimes committed because of their complete defiance of the process of law... (I mean obstruction of justice.) The extreme positions they have taken with regard to the VP office not being a part of executive branch, ordering persons not to obey subpoena's, deliberately failing to comply with oversight agencies (that they set up) amount to impeachable offenses because their conduct is beyond the bounds of the constituition ---and likely in violation of federal law on the disobeying the subpoenas.

By allowing this to continue is we enable their corruption and the destruciton of our government system.

Please, Impeach.

MLS wrote on July 12, 2007 10:00 AM:

This doesn't just "raise questions" about whether the Justice Department would prosecute Miers for contempt. The fact is that the Justice Department is not going to prosecute her, or anyone else, for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena pursuant to the direction of the President, at least where the President is raising a colorable legal claim supported by a Justice Department opinion. Even if the question should arise in a subsequent Democratic administration, it is highly unlikely that the result would change. The Justice Department might change its legal opinion, but it still isnt likely to prosecute a former executive branch official for complying with the President's instructions (at least under the circumstances here). If it did so, the President (not just this President, any President) would lose the ability to withhold any information from Congress, as his or her subordinates would be required to gamble on whether or not a future court would agree with the privilege assertion, with jail time possible if it did not.

Rick wrote on July 12, 2007 10:02 AM:

This administration has an established track record of making up the rules (and the facts) as they go along. Don't like the way the game is going? Just change the rules.

TheraP wrote on July 12, 2007 10:06 AM:

More than ever, we need whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers, come out, come out wherever you are!

Anonymous wrote on July 12, 2007 10:07 AM:

More than ever, we need whistle blowers.

Whistle blowers, come out, come out wherever you are!

richard lasater wrote on July 12, 2007 10:12 AM:

ITMFsA

bobh wrote on July 12, 2007 10:13 AM:

these bastards really want a night of the long knives to get rid of them eh?

Rionn Malechem wrote on July 12, 2007 10:16 AM:

The Supreme Court, back when it was more liberal, installed George Bush in the first place. So, I don't know where any hopefulness about this going to court comes from.

Ad Absurdum wrote on July 12, 2007 10:18 AM:

There is no court in the judicial branch that would put up with this for a second and the Bushies would know better than to attempt to pull off their "constitutional immunity" on a judge. A subpoena from the legislative infringes no more on any executive privileges than one from a court.

Waiting in Texas wrote on July 12, 2007 10:18 AM:

Ever notice that when things seem to be closing in on the Bush Adm., the terror threats seem to "all of a sudden increase?" Its so obvious that all of these people are protecting the wrongdoings of the Bush Adm and if Bush can't see that that is what the American Public sees, then he truly is an idiot.

Interesting timing on the press conference this morning. Got to get out in front of all the negative publicity that Bush is facing.

As Congress and the Amercian public are closing in on the lies of the White House, how long before another attack? I know there are those out there (in the Bush Adm) that could pull the scab off on all of the wrongdoings of the Pres, VP, Karl Rove and countless others, but won't. When we get attcked again, you'll be partly responsible for not doing something about it in the first place.

breakspear wrote on July 12, 2007 10:18 AM:

Harriet Miers should be tossed in jail for her staggering arrogance in believing Bush was right in selecting her for that Supreme Court nomination a few years ago. When she knew that she wasn't the best qualified candidate for that job. But as she adores and idolizes Bush she couldn't say no, and also her huge ego wouldn't let her say no to such a premier position. Arrogant witch.

Waiting in Texas wrote on July 12, 2007 10:19 AM:

Ever notice that when things seem to be closing in on the Bush Adm., the terror threats seem to "all of a sudden increase?" Its so obvious that all of these people are protecting the wrongdoings of the Bush Adm and if Bush can't see that that is what the American Public sees, then he truly is an idiot.

Interesting timing on the press conference this morning. Got to get out in front of all the negative publicity that Bush is facing.

As Congress and the Amercian public are closing in on the lies of the White House, how long before another attack? I know there are those out there (in the Bush Adm) that could pull the scab off on all of the wrongdoings of the Pres, VP, Karl Rove and countless others, but won't. When we get attcked again, you'll be partly responsible for not doing something about it in the first place.

Anna S. wrote on July 12, 2007 10:22 AM:

Wow.

I don't even know how to respond on this one. I never would have imagined that the Justice Department would stoop so low as to blatantly cover for the Administration in this manner. They are completely without shame here. An opinion issued on the 10th? Reprehensible.

I hope now that it goes to court. I hope that some judge declares this to be the bunk that it is. I hope that Congress ignores this wrangling and slaps her for contempt anyway. I almost hope that the Dems push the contempt charge through the Justice Department route, just to see the Department refuse to prosecute her. That day might be a sad day for Justice in our nation, but I can't help but believe it would be the final nail in the coffin for any hopes of a Republican winning the presidency in 08.

At some point this has got to end. A government this corrupt just can't keep on indefinitely.

Michael wrote on July 12, 2007 10:24 AM:

The Democrats have been playing footsy with these criminals long enough. Cut off funding now for the non-justice department and the war, along with Darth Vader's office. Just cut off the money and these bozos may, just maybe, start singing a different tune. I'd rather have no justice department than a taxpayer funded wing of the RNC.

crispus wrote on July 12, 2007 10:25 AM:

The Manchurian Candidate has really lost his mind. The President simply cannot be questioned under any circumstances and neither can any of his immediate advisors? What country is this anyway?

mbbsdphil wrote on July 12, 2007 10:26 AM:

Scott Horton at No Comment points out that failure to comply with a valid Congressional subpoena is a felony under 2 USC sec. 192, and advising someone not to comply is a separate felony under 18 USC sec. 1505.

Congress should demand prosecution of both Miers and Fielding, or use its inherent contempt powers. Ratchet this up, or this president's monarchical powers become routine for the next.

Anyone who is a member of Mr. Fielding's state bar should report him for felonious conduct. Yet another Bush lawyer who should be disbarred for too willingly doing his client's bidness.

bjobotts wrote on July 12, 2007 10:27 AM:

The WH will do nothing that might incriminate themselves. Why members of congress expect any type of cooperation is amazing. The DoJ serves at the pleasure of the President. In fact they are joined at the hip. The Legislative branch stands alone against both the Executive branch and the Judicial branch. Bush's expects impeachment and the constitution demands it. But just so you know how joined together the Exec. and DoJ are. The last USA appointed through that now revoked provision of the patriot act by Gonzales(after claiming he wouldn't do that) and while the amendment to remove that provision from the patriot act sat on the president's desk waiting to be signed, was the USA for the District of Columbia, right? Is the last USA appointed without Senate approval, picked by Gonzales, the one that would be charged with enforcing the subpoenas from congress?
Naw...I know what you're thinking...it's just a coincidence. Still Pelosi and Conyers think impeachment is just "a waste of time"

D. Fell wrote on July 12, 2007 10:30 AM:

The citation in question:
Executive privilege with respect to clemency decision, 23 OP. OLC 1, 4 1999

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/falnpotus.htm

Anna S. wrote on July 12, 2007 10:31 AM:

Just a thought, but it isn't just the Miers debacle that this affects. Is there any way that this could have bearing on the Taylor testimony, since it was issued eleventh-hour before she testified?

From the excerpt posted here, the DoJ seems to be claiming that they wouldn't pursue any attempts from Congress to compel her to override the Bushies' gag order about the attorney general firing conversations.

improper wrote on July 12, 2007 10:31 AM:

Miers may like prison time, as it is will be her best chance of getting laid in years.

Xman wrote on July 12, 2007 10:33 AM:

In the name of overall justice and efficiency, just put one against the wall and things will clear up pretty quick.

It is a War on Executive Terrorism.
We have to expect a certain amount of collateral damage.

RW wrote on July 12, 2007 10:34 AM:

If DOJ refuses to act, doesn't the House Seargent-at-Arms have the right to arrest and jail someone for contempt of Congress? People have said there's no jail in the capital building but that could be remedied in a matter of hours.

RW wrote on July 12, 2007 10:35 AM:

Everything the WH is doing is coming back to Yoo and his post 9/11 memo that the unitary President in times of National Security can do anything and not be bound by Congress or the Courts. They will initially use any scrap of tactic at their disposal but the dye is cast. Cheney has been at this since Oliver North and his minority opinion regarding his testimony and probably back to Nixon and Ford.

The situation is simple although arduous and tasking. The Congress must make the unmitigated case that the WH is rogue and acting and working outside the Constitution. Eventually that is what Treason is, now the Congress then needs to impeach the WH and all its minions on the charge that describes a RICO Treason....meaning the systemic and conspiratorial enterprise to overthrow the Constitution.

It will engage political opponents but once the behavior is fully exposed it will isolate them as the Confederacy was isolated. Continue the process, I suspect incrementally Leahy will come back and seek a contempt citation against Taylor as Conyers moves on Miers. The failure to answer substantive questions of whether the President had meetings or not, not the content of the meetings is contempt.

The answers regarding email and the oath are quite revealing. Ultimately we will see how the court looks at.

Politically I feel that the Senate should hold up all appointees from here on in.

Gordon wrote on July 12, 2007 10:35 AM:

Let's start by impeaching Gonzo. A return to a functioning Justice Department would be a good place to begin and might get more career members of the DOJ to be willing to take risks to do the right thing and blow the whistle.

Xman wrote on July 12, 2007 10:36 AM:

In the name of overall justice and efficiency, just put one against the wall and things will clear up pretty quick.

It is a War on Executive Terrorism.
We have to expect a certain amount of collateral damage.

Chesire11 wrote on July 12, 2007 10:39 AM:

I hate to be gauche, but isn't this EXACTLY the reason the founding fathers gave Congress the power to impeach and convict???

Get it straight, Bush and Cheney, through repeated refusals to comply with Congressional subpoenas, their blatant effort to obstruct justice by commutating of Scooter Libby's sentence, their repeated use of signing statements to defy the will of Congress, their blatant corruption of the DoJ have made it excruciatingly clear that they intend to do whatever they want, Congress, the law, the courts and the costitution be damned.

The ONLY recourse left is impeachment. It may be a longshot, but even if it fails, at least American democracy will have died with a bang rather than a whimper. The question facing Democrats now is whether we are truly DEMOCRATS, or merely a castrated faction providing cover for an American oligarchy.

Ferruge wrote on July 12, 2007 10:41 AM:

Again, this is just par for the course with this administration. It is utterly outrageous, but no longer surprising that they'd try this.

What really gets my dander up is the Democratic Congressional response. What is it going to take to make these people take on the Executive Branch and all their overreaching?

Security code: bent, as in the Congress is currently bent over for the White House

susan wrote on July 12, 2007 10:42 AM:

sorry, but the end result will be a 5-4 ruling from the SCOTUS in favor of the "unitary executive"-likely to come after the nov 2008 elections, which will most likely be stolen by the republicans anyway.

Joe wrote on July 12, 2007 10:43 AM:

There are two species of contempt: civil and criminal. Civil is "coercive"; a recalcitrant witness can be incarcerated civilly until s/he agrees to cooperate (a la Judith Miller et al). The witness is said to "hold the keys to the jail cell." Criminal contempt, in contrast, is punitive: it is "a crime in the ordinary sense" and must be initiated by a duly empowered prosecutor (such as a US Attorney).

mark wrote on July 12, 2007 10:53 AM:

Are you kidding me?!?!?!?

They write an opinion on Tuesday to get out of testifying on Thursday!?!?!?!?

These people have some major cajones!

mark wrote on July 12, 2007 10:54 AM:

Are you kidding me?!?!?!?

They write an opinion on Tuesday to get out of testifying on Thursday!?!?!?!?

These people have some major cajones!

Mike Conwell wrote on July 12, 2007 11:01 AM:

SCOTUS - It'll be in the hands of Scalia and Kennedy.

My concern about the contempt of Congress making it's way through the Justice Dept and the courts, is it will move up to SCOTUS quicker than goose shit. There we have two new characters on the Court that may rule to institutionalize the unitary executive theory.

Justice Alito practically invented signing statements in its current usage as a way of boosting the power of the Presidency. Chief-Justice Roberts went down to Florida to beat in the doors of the counting stations to force Bush's victory without a proper recount. Would either of these two bozos (and liars*) side with Congress and Constitution?

No. It will have to be Scalia and Kennedy that take a stand and prevent the hard coding of the monarchy that is looming over all of this.

*Liars: Swore in confirmation hearings that they would uphold prior rulings by the Court.

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 11:04 AM:

"Paul Kiel, what are your qualifications to judge the merit vel non of the privilege assertion? Just asking. The Fielding letter also says that the current DOJ opinion provides the same opinion as a Janet Reno opinion from the Clinton Administration."

And the courts have consistently held that the Privilege is not absolute, as example, in the face of Congressional investigation of possible crimes.

It only takes one exception to demolish the non-existent "absolute" -- as has already been explained to you, "Jake".

And Clinton's claims of the Privilege resulted in further narrowing of its scope, in addition to which the courts held that his invocation of attorney-client privilege was trumped by the fact that the lawyer was paid by the taxpayer.

"It might have been helpful for you to had mentioned this and let your readers know whether that was true or not. If true, it would seem to undermine your assertion that the privilege assertion is "extraordinarily expansive.""

It is absurdly expansive when it is extended to incorporate, as example, the unelected non-gov't Republican National Committee.

Better you seriously listen to Bushit project onto the "enemy" the fact that his gang is about imposing a "dark vision" on the world instead of defending the efforts to destroy your country. Based on the evidence, Nixon was a criminal. By comparison with Bushit -- who, based upon the extensive evidence already at hand, is a criminal -- Nixon shoplifted candy from the corner mom and pop store.

Posted by: Anon
Date: July 12, 2007 9:49 AM

It is dishonest to post under multiple identities in effort to make it appear there is support for your anti-American lies, "Jake" and "Jake D.," etc.

dixiegrl wrote on July 12, 2007 11:04 AM:

10:50 am E. Time and we are watching the Repubs
on the Comm. lay out the plan to take the issue to the Supreme Court.
Wonder if the Dems will take the bait?

Obviously the plan is to really run out the clock waiting on the Supremes to decide if they will even rule. assuming the case wends its way up to the Supremes in my lifetime.

Repubs are very hostile intone and Cannon of Utah is especially rudely aggressive. It is clear Repubs consider this hearing the showdown, erect -the-barricades moment.

mark wrote on July 12, 2007 11:09 AM:

Are you kidding me?!?!?!?

They write an opinion on Tuesday to get out of testifying on Thursday!?!?!?!?

These people have some major cajones!

BJL wrote on July 12, 2007 11:10 AM:

It is time for the House to excersise it's Inherent Contempt power and direct the House Sergeant at Arms to arrest her and bring her before the bar of the House for a contempt trial.

mo2 wrote on July 12, 2007 11:12 AM:

Fielding's letter says "from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional committee."

It does not say anything about compulsion to appear before a full House or Senate or both. Under oath with a transcript, of course.

KB wrote on July 12, 2007 11:13 AM:

This is just a thought: Why are members of the government allowed to refuse to testify or plead the 5th when being asked by Congress to account for their actions in the course of performing their jobs? I would never refuse to tell my boss about something to do with my job.
I do not think they should be allowed this. It seems the 5th amendment was put in place to allow individuals protection from self incrimination arising from a crime they may or may not have committed as private citizens. To me, when you go to work for our government, especially in the DOJ, policy making departments, etc, you are NO LONGER just a private citizen - you work for the PEOPLE and that carries a much different responsibility than a person who is only answerable to himself, family, etc. If these folks were asked to testify about themselves in relation to a murder or robbery, that's one thing, but where the integrity of the government, laws and the will of the PEOPLE are concerned, that is a wholly different story and should be treated as such.

paul wrote on July 12, 2007 11:15 AM:

Obviously the next president should declare Roberts and Alito enemy combatants. Executive privilege will prevent any questions being asked about the act.

(code, appropriately enough: "judge")

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 11:16 AM:

"This doesn't just "raise questions" about whether the Justice Department would prosecute Miers for contempt. The fact is that the Justice Department is not going to prosecute her, or anyone else, for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena pursuant to the direction of the President, at least where the President is raising a colorable legal claim supported by a Justice Department opinion. Even if the question should arise in a subsequent Democratic administration, it is highly unlikely that the result would change. The Justice Department might change its legal opinion, but it still isnt likely to prosecute a former executive branch official for complying with the President's instructions (at least under the circumstances here). If it did so, the President (not just this President, any President) would lose the ability to withhold any information from Congress, as his or her subordinates would be required to gamble on whether or not a future court would agree with the privilege assertion, with jail time possible if it did not."

Your defense of Bushit is ahistorical and specious.

Clinton's Privilege claims were denied him. Even his claim of attorney-client privilege was denied. It did not destroy the Privilege, any more than the DOJ, which is to be independent -- representing the legal interests of We the people, not instead acting as Bushit's personal legal team against Congress/We the people -- prosecuting Executive branch officals, even including members of Bushit's inner cult, would destroy it.

Any more than impeachment would destroy the Privilege.

Posted by: MLS

I've been saying for years the impeachment is inevitable. Turley says essentially the same. And that's clearly the Bushit criminal enterprise's position: "I dare you to." The miscalculation is that impeachment is initated by Congress, when in fact it is initiated by We the people, and "forced upon" Congress.

And if impeached, what will Bushit do? Invoke martial law, then round up and execute the political opposition?

Date: July 12, 2007 10:00 AM

Hitler took power "legally" based upon a few "little" changes in existing German law which gave his doing so the appearance of legality. The war crime of torture cannot be made legal, not even with "signing statment" -- yet Bushit wants you to believe it can be, the Constitution -- with its impeachment clause -- notwithstanding.

Michael Conlen wrote on July 12, 2007 11:17 AM:

Wouldn't it become well past time to start thinking about impeachment for the attorney general if he refuses to have his department enforce charges of contempt of congress?

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 11:23 AM:

There is no court in the judicial branch that would put up with this for a second and the Bushies would know better than to attempt to pull off their "constitutional immunity" on a judge. A subpoena from the legislative infringes no more on any executive privileges than one from a court.

Posted by: Ad Absurdum
Date: July 12, 2007 10:18 AM

Exactly. The Bushit gang efforts to aggrandize the Executive beyond the law is hogwash -- a blatantly claim of exemption from the rule of law definitely refuted by by the Impeachment Clause.

The fools who falsely see the president -- but only when a Republican -- as equivalent to a king with no constraints on him are not only the enemeies of their country, but enemies of themselves: there is no way their blind loyalty would exempt them from the full weight of the tyranny Bushit is asserting. The Privilege is not "Divine Right" -- so demonstrates the Impeachment Clause.

zoyd wheeler wrote on July 12, 2007 11:24 AM:

Book 'em Dano!

Jake D. wrote on July 12, 2007 11:26 AM:

This is the first post I've submitted on this thread -- "Anon" above makes a great point, but that was not me -- the reason I added the "D" was to avoid any confusion with someone else posting as "Jake" as well. Have a nice thread.

D. Fell wrote on July 12, 2007 11:32 AM:

My reading on the Reno paper is this: 16 Clinton advisers were subpoenaed to appear before a Congressional committee investigating Clinton’s Presidential commutations.

The first part of the opinion was that Congress has no oversight of clemency decisions by the President. "Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one of the other branches of the Government." Therefore it had no compelling reason to “justify a demand for information protected by executive privilege.”

The second part of the opinion states the Counsel to the President, is along with the President, immune to compelled congressional testimony in all respects: “Subjecting a senior presidential adviser to the congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the President himself to appear before Congress on matters relating to the performance of his constitutionally assigned executive functions…”

So there you have it. The W and the Chicken Lady win this one.

D. Fell wrote on July 12, 2007 11:37 AM:

I forgot to add, that Reno opined in the second part that Counsel need not even appear before the committee.

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 11:39 AM:

"The WH will do nothing that might incriminate themselves."

They already have, ass. Torture is a war crime defined and prohibited by treaties to which the US is signatory. Those treaties are part of the law of the land. The law of the land is the Constituion. The Constitution cannot be changed by Congress, the Executive, or even both with the approval of the Judiciary. And cannot be changed by "signing statement".

And we have the memoranda authorizing torture signed by Bushit himself.

"Why members of congress expect any type of cooperation is amazing."

It's constituionally require, ass.

"The DoJ serves at the pleasure of the President."

The DOJ is not the personal law firm of the president; it is a Constitutional entity inttended to represent the legal intersts of We the people, not of the president.

By contrast, wer it true that the DOJ "served at the pleasure of the president," then he could fire everyone in it and shut it down. It does not, and he cannot.

"In fact they are joined at the hip."

The DOJ is not, under law, "joined at the hip" with the president -- see above.

"The Legislative branch stands alone against both the Executive branch and the Judicial branch."

Under the Constitution the three branches are co-equal. Each is a check against each/both of the others. The SC can overturn Congress enactments -- which is a form of "judicial activism". Congress can overturn the SC.

"Bush's expects impeachment and the constitution demands it."

Exactly.

"But just so you know how joined together the Exec. and DoJ are."

We all know how corrupted, how politicized the DOJ has been made under Busht. We also know there are non-partisan career professionals still in the bowels of the DOJ. There are any number of crises which can be precipitated, such as mass strike or resignation.

"The last USA appointed through that now revoked provision of the patriot act by Gonzales(after claiming he wouldn't do that) and while the amendment to remove that provision from the patriot act sat on the president's desk waiting to be signed, was the USA for the District of Columbia, right?"

I'm not certain on that claim.

"Is the last USA appointed without Senate approval, picked by Gonzales, the one that would be charged with enforcing the subpoenas from congress?"

Leahy and Durbin have already launched a shot across the bow of Kavanaugh, on that court, as a broader warning to the judges there.

". . . . Pelosi and Conyers think impeachment is just "a waste of time"."

Not only did neither of them saya any such thing, it isn't true. The least you could do is cease misstating the facts as false excuse to bash Democrats.

On the day the Detroit City Council unanimously adopted an impeachment resolution -- introduced by Councilwoman Conyers -- Conyers publicly encouraged the impeachment movement.

In addition to which, Conyers has been compiling evidence of imeachable offenses during the last six-plus years, as Waxman for as long has been compiling evidence of crimes by the Bushit gang.

Posted by: bjobotts
Date: July 12, 2007 10:27 AM

Linda wrote on July 12, 2007 11:42 AM:

Is it time to get rid of our government and start over? How on earth can this mess ever be cleaned up? The executive and judicial branches of government appear to be in cahoots with each other and the legislative branch is in gridlock. Wasn't it Albert Einstein who made a statement about the impossibility of solving problems using the same mindsets from which the problems arose?

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 11:43 AM:

Harriet Miers should be tossed in jail for her staggering arrogance in believing Bush was right in selecting her for that Supreme Court nomination a few years ago. When she knew that she wasn't the best qualified candidate for that job. But as she adores and idolizes Bush she couldn't say no, and also her huge ego wouldn't let her say no to such a premier position. Arrogant witch.

Posted by: breakspear
Date: July 12, 2007 10:18 AM

She isn't bright enough to be arrogant. She is an anti-intellectual dim bulb who is oblivious to the rule of law -- as are most in the Bushit criminal enterprise -- having the confidence and assurance that Bushit's lawyers will take care of those details.

NitPicker wrote on July 12, 2007 11:44 AM:

Mark:

I think you mean "cojones."

("cajones" are "drawers," as in a chest of drawers)

Squeeky wrote on July 12, 2007 11:47 AM:

The second solution looks mighty good... No presidential pardon there.

tbhull wrote on July 12, 2007 11:48 AM:

Posted by: D. Fell
Date: July 12, 2007 11:32 AM

Are we to take an internal DOJ memo from Janet Reno s the Supreme Law of the Lnd? If so, I would expect DOJ, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of BushCo, to gin out a more refined version.

By the way, are you related to the late great Norman Fell?

DNS wrote on July 12, 2007 11:50 AM:

Let's make a note of this -- that in July 2007 the Bush Justice Department took the position that "the President and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional committee."

Then, when the Republicans try to force the advisers to the next Democratic President to appear before Congressional Committees, we can trot this out and ask them to explain the inconsistency.

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 11:50 AM:

"Scott Horton at No Comment points out that failure to comply with a valid Congressional subpoena is a felony under 2 USC sec. 192, and advising someone not to comply is a separate felony under 18 USC sec. 1505.

"Congress should demand prosecution of both Miers and Fielding, or use its inherent contempt powers."

Fielding is doing that his client requests/demands, after informing his client of the possible consequences, based upon a good faith legal theory. It is not Fielding who is violating the law.

"Ratchet this up, or this president's monarchical powers become routine for the next."

It is being ratcheted up.

"Anyone who is a member of Mr. Fielding's state bar should report him for felonious conduct."

Usually the client is held in contempt, not his lawyer, because the lawyer is only following the client's instructions, after advising the client of the possible consequences. Fielding is not in violation of the law, or of the Canon's.

Posted by: mbbsdphil
Date: July 12, 2007 10:26 AM

sagrilarus wrote on July 12, 2007 11:51 AM:

No impeachment, no charges. It's time to start treating the President and Vice President as their current station demands -- as roadkill. They're less than lame ducks. They have essentially no support in their own party -- GOP congressmen and senators are still manning the battlements solely because they haven't received any new orders in the last two years.

Let the investigations fester. Subpoena everyone and let POTUS tell them not to show up. Each time he does he becomes that much less relevant.

It's time to lead, not follow.

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 11:57 AM:

The Democrats have been playing footsy with these criminals long enough. Cut off funding now for the non-justice department and the war, along with Darth Vader's office. Just cut off the money and these bozos may, just maybe, start singing a different tune. I'd rather have no justice department than a taxpayer funded wing of the RNC.

Posted by: Michael
Date: July 12, 2007 10:24 AM

The Democrats have not been "playing footsy"; they have been engaged in the due process of law, and building a case based upon hard evidence. I'm beyond fed up with twits such as you who groundlessly assume to know more about the rule of law, and the requirements of due process, and Congress' investigative activities behind the scenes, than does Congress itself.

Leahy is a lawyer and former prosecutor; I'll take his expertise over your groundless, presumptive bashings, 24/7.

Conyers was on the committee which investigated the impeachment of Nixon. He knows what he is doing -- stop projecting your not knowing onto him and Congress.

Meanwhile, subpoenas are as serious as a heart attack -- which is why the penalty for willfully ignoring them is a felony.

RockGolf wrote on July 12, 2007 11:58 AM:

(to the tune of the John Lennon classic)

All we are saaaaaying
Is impeach the chimp.
All we are saaaaaying
Is impeach the chimp.
All we are saaaaaying
Is impeach the chimp.
All we are saaaaaying
Is impeach the chimp.
All we are saaaaaying
Is impeach the chimp.

nofltwlt wrote on July 12, 2007 11:59 AM:

Not one of these GOP bastards will do the right thing.

mbbsdphil wrote on July 12, 2007 12:07 PM:

I'm sorry? A lawyer advising someone not his client to commit an illegal act is only the responsibility of his client? I don't think so.

killinginthenameof wrote on July 12, 2007 12:11 PM:

Its my understanding that Janet Reno's memo referred to standing members of Clinton's staff, not to retired criminals. May both Bush & Cheney hang for their offenses to our country and our constitution. amen.

Tomazulob wrote on July 12, 2007 12:11 PM:

Why are we wasting our time with these people and their so-called directive? Put them in jail. Use the Democratic-majority House of Representatives to put them on trial (a legal option) since the Justice Department is fraught with corruption. Watch how quickly the rats start eating their own.

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 12:12 PM:

"Just a thought, but it isn't just the Miers debacle that this affects. Is there any way that this could have bearing on the Taylor testimony, since it was issued eleventh-hour before she testified?"

There are two claims, which have been described as "competing," though in fact they are not.

There is the claim -- and right -- of Congress to compell testimony and production of documents by means of subpoena; and no right to ignore the subpoena. And their is Bushit's calim of executive privilege imposed upon those subpoenaed.

Assuming, _arguendo_, Bushit's claim of privilege is legitimate, one must comply with both; thus one testifies to that which is not within the claim of Privilege, but to that which is within the Privilege, as marginally did Taylor.

Miers is simply ignoring the subpoena -- to do which ther is no right under any circumstances; she is compelled to appear, and must, even if when so doing she sits there like a lump and "responds" to all questions with silence.

"From the excerpt posted here, the DoJ seems to be claiming that they wouldn't pursue any attempts from Congress to compel her to override the Bushies' gag order about the attorney general firing conversations."

It appears so -- yet more evidence that the DOJ is politicized, and is being run not independently, and not by the AG, but directly by the White House which is able thereby to generate DOJ opinions relfecting the view of the law upon which it insists, rather than providing objective legal advice.

The Bushit criminal enterprise is engaged in a lawless assertion of raw power -- unlimited by any law, but using the law only as means to protect and advance that lawless assertion. The efforts by Congress are steadily clarifying the circumstances, and establishing the line between what they have in hard evidence, and what they need to determine either way whether the firings were politically motivated, as alleged. And it is increasingly clear that the allegation is the fact. When they succeed in fully clarifying that fact -- and they will -- it will be self-evident to even the doubters and Bushit defenders, and regardless Bushit's withholding of evidence/obstructing justice, that the allegation is the fact.

Bushit, et al., are playing chicken, allowing no option short of impeachment. There is plenty of time to impeach and remove (some argue it would be better to allow this to continue, and hang it around the Republicans' necks as a campaign issue), and it will happen; it is inevitable, as Bushit, et al., will settle for no less than that.

Posted by: Anna S.
Date: July 12, 2007 10:31 AM

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 12:21 PM:

The citation in question:
Executive privilege with respect to clemency decision, 23 OP. OLC 1, 4 1999

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/falnpotus.htm

Posted by: D. Fell
Date: July 12, 2007 10:30 AM

It didn't work for Clinton. Even though the pardon power is unreviewable, the "We never do wrong" REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress reivewed Clinton's pardons anyway, in effort to find dirt by means of which to engage in yet another round of false smears against Clinton.

The republicans set the precedent for Congress to review pardons; now they have to lie against themselves in effort to argue the opposite. And you, "Jake," continue to put party before country, to the detriment of both.

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 12:25 PM:

"sorry, but the end result will be a 5-4 ruling from the SCOTUS in favor of the "unitary executive"- . . . ."

You're able to predict the future? no, you are not. Your fashionable cynicism is a lazy excuse to remain disengaged, and refuse to learn the basics.

". . . likely to come after the nov 2008 elections, which will most likely be stolen by the republicans anyway."

The predictions that these issues will be "tied up in court for years" are false: _US v. Nixon_ was expedited, as would cases arising from the current circumstances.

Posted by: susan
Date: July 12, 2007 10:42 AM

If any cases

osisbs wrote on July 12, 2007 12:29 PM:

The Muslims hate our freedom to not testify.

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 12:30 PM:

SCOTUS - It'll be in the hands of Scalia and Kennedy.

My concern about the contempt of Congress making it's way through the Justice Dept and the courts, is it will move up to SCOTUS quicker than goose shit. There we have two new characters on the Court that may rule to institutionalize the unitary executive theory.

Justice Alito practically invented signing statements in its current usage as a way of boosting the power of the Presidency. Chief-Justice Roberts went down to Florida to beat in the doors of the counting stations to force Bush's victory without a proper recount. Would either of these two bozos (and liars*) side with Congress and Constitution?

No. It will have to be Scalia and Kennedy that take a stand and prevent the hard coding of the monarchy that is looming over all of this.

*Liars: Swore in confirmation hearings that they would uphold prior rulings by the Court.

Posted by: Mike Conwell
Date: July 12, 2007 11:01 AM

Excellent analysis, and well said.

Anonymous wrote on July 12, 2007 12:31 PM:

GETTING THE RNC E-MAIL RECORDS: TRACING THEM THROUGH THE STAFF COUNSEL PRIVATE PHONE NUMBERS

Taylor testified: "She said she received complaints from persons outside the White House about U.S. attorneys but could not recall specific phone calls."

- Timing: When did Taylor receive these phone calls?

- Vitters Database: What review has been done of the Staff counsel phone numbers as they related to the various databases, phone numbers, and telecom lists that have been recently been released [In re Vitters]?

SHIELDING METHODS

- E-mail Cloaking, Shielding: Which shielding methods did the WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ-RNC legal counsel use to thwart detection, tracing, and auditing of the use of e-mails, file transfers, and file access systems to review staff counsel private phone number in EOP-OVP-DoJ-WH-RNC?

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

- Subpoena: When will Congress subpoena her WH and private home phone records?

- Search: When will Congress specifically direct the WH Counsel's office to do a _search_ of the RNC e-mails and WH e-mails for _all_ WH-DoJ-EOP-OVP legal counsel private home phone numbers?

WH COUNSEL RESPONSE, ATTESTATION TO CONGRESS

- WH Counsel Subpoena Compliance: What review has the RNC-WH-EOP-OVP done of all means that outside counsel, law firms, media, RNC, and others have been using, accessing, and sharing private counsel's e-mails?

- WH Counsel Subpoena Compliance: Which RNC-EOP-OVP-WH-DOJ Staff counsel e-mails included the private numbers of EOP-WH-RNC-DoJ-OVP legal counsel?

- Audit: If it is the position of the WH Counsel's office that no information related to any WH-EOP-OVP-DOJ-RNC staff counsel private phone numbers can be released, what is the plan of the WH Counsel's office to discipline those who have [a] accessed the information; [b] disclosed this information; [c] transmitted the information; and [d] not complied with the President's direction not to disclose the information contained within these privileged files, e-mails, file transfer systems, schedules, and non-official data transmission systems?

- WH Counsel Attestation: Is it the view of the WH Counsel's office that all personal phone numbers of all WH Staff have never been sent -- ever -- through any WH/RNC/file transfer system?

- WH Counsel Attestation in Writing: When will the WH Counsel's office make a statement to Congress that it has done a complete review; and can or cannot explain how close hold information that is non-public has somehow migrated from the WH phone lists, sent through some sort of system, and is publicly available?

- WH Counsel Report to Congress on Data Protection: If the WH Counsel's office has done a thorough review, documented this to Congress, what is the explanation of WH Counsel why this information related to private staff counsel phone numbers is available: WHO released it; who defied the direction not to disclose these e-mails; which e-mails contain these phone numbers; when is the WH Counsels' office going to review who has communicated to anyone to disclose these DoJ-OVP-WH-EOP staff counsel e-mails?

CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF WH COUNSEL RESPONSE

- Adequacy of WH Counsel Response: What is the explanation how these phone numbers have been disclosed if the RNC-WH-EOP-OVP-WH Counsel has asserted under penalty of perjury that there is no way that any of this information has been disclosed; and that the only way for that information to be reviewed is only through an improper purpose?

- WH Counsel Audit: What method did the WH counsel's office make to determine how this information was disclosed; and what the punishment should be for the improper release of these phone numbers should be?

- Audit compliance: What was the result of the Congressional audit or the DOJ-EOP-OVP-WH Staff counsel private phone numbers: What patterns were there; did the Staff counsel use private phone numbers to leave information they did not want to have recorded in the RNC-EOP-OVP-DoJ-WH e-mail systems?

- What was done to ensure that the IT auditing methods the WH Counse's office use to search for the DOJ-EOP-OVP-WH Counsel phone numbers in the EOP-OVP-EOP-WH-RNC emails was adequate?

- What independent certified fraud examiners did the WH Counsel's office use?

- How was it determined that the review conducted on the e-mails to search for the WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ-RNC staff counsel emails was reasonable, and met the fiduciary duties of legal counsel when complying with a Congressional subpoena?

- Did the WH Counsel give Congress sample test commanders and search routines used to demonstrate that the search attempts were bonafide, consistent with Congressional intent?

- Would Congress like a method to independently verify, on a regular and routine basis, whether the WH-EOP-OVP-DOJ-RNC have or have not fully complied with their data archiving requirements?

EOP-OVP-WH-DOJ-RNC Legal Counsel Communications

- Information method: Is there a reason counsel were using phone numbers as opposed to e-mail?

WH COUNSEL AUDIT

- Audit: What review has WH Counsel done of the outside counsel release of these private phone numbers?

- WH Counsel Subpoena Compliance: Is there no record of any WH-DOJ-OVP-EOP staff counsel ever communicating with anyone in the OVP related to the phone numbers of any of the DOJ-EOP-OVP-WH-RNC Staff counsel?

- WH Review: When did the WH Counsel's office do a complete review of all EOP-OVP-WH-DoJ-RNC legal counsel phone numbers to determine [a] what the numbers are; [b] which e-mails they are contained; [c] whether that e-mail has been properly disclosed; [d] why members of Congress were not made aware of these private phone numbers; [e] what plan there is to provide to Congress a full list of these private phone numbers and redacted e-mails containing them; and [f] when will the Committees get a chance to review whether the e-mails containing these staff counsel phone numbers have or have not been appropriately withheld?

- Access: Has the WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ Staff counsel done a complete review of all e-mails containing all DoJ-EOP-OVP-WH counsel's phone numbers to determine: Who has opened the e-mails containing these phone numbers since delivery; which e-mails containing these DOJ-OVP-EOP-WH counsel phone numbers have been forwarded outside the White House; which media personnel have transmitted this information after receiving the EOP-OVP-WH-DOJ phone numbers?

POLICY COMPLIANCE

- Appropriateness: Once those private e-mails are searched _for the attorneys home phone numbers_ does it not raise the question: Why were attorneys releasing their home phone numbers, and not conducting that communication within the White House?

- Explanation: Why are the phone numbers for WH-EOP-OVP-DOJ staff counsel being released through e-mail systems?

- Reasonableness: Is there a reason Staff counsel would release their home phone number, but not expect that phone number to be released?

- Release Protocols: If these phone numbers are private, non-public, privileged, what review did WH Counsel make of the EOP-OVP-DOJ-WH e-mail systems to determine when these phone numbers were transmitted; to whom they were provided?

DATA PROTECTION

- Data Protection, Security Audit: Is it he position that information sent trough the EOP-OVP-WH-RNC-DOJ e0mail systems that do contain this "non public information" could only be known to the public if one of those e-mails had been leaked?

- Data Security: Does the WH Counsels' office have total control over who has access to their private phone numbers, publication, and who is able to use and transmit this phone number to anyone?

- Resource protection: Is there any possible way that someone within the white House has privileged these private phone numbers of DOJ-OVP-WH-EOP-RNC staff counsel phone numbers to anyone without permission of the staff counsel linked with this phone number?

- Data, Resource Protection: Is it the position of the WH Counsel's office that anyone who has access to, released, or has viewed this information which has not been disclosed must have reviewed a separate listing only available on a "need to know" basis?

- Protection of Phone Rosters: Is the position of the WH counsel's office that there is no phone number, any sequence of number, nor any line of evidence that lists any WH-EOP-OVP-RNC private phone numbers in any MicrosoftOutlook software, e-mail, of file transfer system?

- Data Protection: What review did WH Counsel's office make of the RNC-EOP-OVP-DoJ-WH e0mails to find whether there is an explanation how the EOP-OVP-DOJ-WH counsel's numbers -- which are on these non-disclosure lists -- have been disclosed: What was the means by which the private phone numbers were shared, disseminated, and transferred?

- WH Data Protection: Is there a leak within the WH that is disclosing the private phone numbers of WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ-RNC legal counsel private phone numbers?

- Protected information: Is it the view of the WH Counsel's office that all discussion outside the WH related to staff counsel phone numbers is or is not public information?

PERSONNEL ACCESS, DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED INFORMATION

- POTUS Access: Is it the policy of the President to disclose information to counsel at the late hours, calling them at home?

- Staff Access: Who within the WH IT office and Staff Administrating areas would have access to these private EOP-OVP-DOJ-WH-RNC Private staff counsel phone numbers?

DISCLOSURE

- Discosure: How can something be privileged when that DoJ-OVP-WH-EOP staff counsel's phone number has been released?

- Disclosure: How can anyone argue that information that is "not public available" is "not being released or sent through the WH-RNC-EOP-OVP e-mails", when the personnel accessing that phone number have a personal interest to not disclose the _existence_ of the phone number?

- Disclosure: What explanation does WH-EOP-DoJ-OVP counsel have for the open discussion of private phone numbers, transmission of these phone numbers; and release of the phone numbers outside EOP-OVP-WH-DOJ-RNC email systems?

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

- Executive Privilege: Is it the opinion of the WH legal counsel's office that any communication related to these private WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ Staff home phone numbers is privileged?

- Privilege: How can the President involve privilege on any document containing these phone numbers?

OVP ENTRY EXIT DATA

- OVP FOIA: How did the OVP Secret Service logs factor in the information related to DOJ-OVP-EOP-WH-RNC counsel private phone numbers?

- OVP FOIA: If the OVP access logs have not been disclosed, what is the explanation for the OVP-WH-DoJ-EOP legal counsel's phone numbers being disclosed?

- Court Order: How did the information contained in the OVP Entry-Exit logs, as it relates to EOP-OVP-WH-DOJ-RNC Staff counsel phone numbers, get released if the decision of the court was that this information would not be disclosed?

PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTION TO PROTECT INFORMATION

- Compliance with EO: Is it the position of the WH Counsel's office that despite the President's letter to all personnel not to discuss privileged information that the information was disclosed?

- Noncompliance with EO: How does the WH legal counsel's office explain the open availability of the DOJ-OVP-EOP-WH phone numbers?

32 CFR 2800: OVP SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

- OVP Security Compliance: What is the position of the WH Counsel's office for the security compliance audits in re 32 CFR 2800: Does the OVP-WH-EOP-WH legal counsel not have an explanation why staff counsel numbers related to EOP-OVP-RNC-DoJ have been disclosed despite apparent markings on the phone rosters?

- OVP Security Compliance: What is the explanation how these phone rosters were released?

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 12:37 PM:

"10:50 am E. Time and we are watching the Repubs
on the Comm. lay out the plan to take the issue to the Supreme Court.

Wonder if the Dems will take the bait?"

The Republicans are attempting to pretend there is no "tehre" there, which is the opposite of any "plan" to take the matter to the SC.

"Obviously the plan is to really run out the clock waiting on the Supremes to decide if they will even rule. assuming the case wends its way up to the Supremes in my lifetime."

1. The plan is not to "run out the clock"; the plan is to _"win"_.

2. The "prediction" that it will take years for this/these case/s to wend its/their way through the courts is false. They will be expedited, as was _US v. Nixon_.

"Repubs are very hostile intone and Cannon of Utah is especially rudely aggressive. It is clear Repubs consider this hearing the showdown, erect -the-barricades moment."

The Republicans are increasingly desperate, as this continues, and continues, while not only are there more revelations of wrongdoing -- Gonzales' lie to Congress that there were no abuses under the Patriot Act -- but also while Bushit, et al. -- not the Democrats in Congress -- themselves escalate the crisis, which latter gives the lie to the lie that there's no "there" there.

Posted by: dixiegrl
Date: July 12, 2007 11:04 AM

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 12:44 PM:

Meanwhile, the Siegelman case is a direct and blatant instance of the Rove-run politicization of the DOJ. And it entails hard evidence of corruption of the judiciary, including by the presiding judge, is beyond the reach of Executive Privilege, and has willing and credible witnesses such as Simpson.

In the face of that, the Republicans are increasingly desperate to derail the larger investigation, but becaues of this case are increasingly unable to do so. Steadily, increasingly, their concern is reduced and limited to their re-election prospects.

Hoppy wrote on July 12, 2007 12:45 PM:

Impeachment will not result in conviction, because the Republicans in the senate are beholden to the party, not to the people. The movie Sicko had a scene that tells us how to solve this problem: a man in France states "In America the people are afraid of the government, but in France the government is afraid of the people."

In France, and other European countries a general strike is used to enforce the people's will. This is a strike that literally shuts down the nation's economy, ruining the profits for corporations all over the country. If we were to do that here, those corporations would very soon order Bush to follow the laws. It doesn't take 100% compliance with such a strike. It takes truckers blocking freeways, police staying home, firemen staying home, airlines shut down, grocery stores shut down, etc. all over the country. Our government would then fear the people too.

But, of course we Americans are too chicken to do anything that might inconvenience us. And we insult Frenchmen?

JF wrote on July 12, 2007 12:46 PM:

Paul --

Could you guys post a link to the SG's July 10th letter, which is referred to & supposed to be attached to the Manning/Fielding letter? Manning's July 9th letter to the HJC included the SG's June 27th letter, but for some reason, he doesn't seem to have forwarded the more recent SG advice.

Michael wrote on July 12, 2007 1:00 PM:

jnagarya, you are an arrogant and ignorant bozo. Are you a first year law student? As people say a little knowledge is dangerous. You obviously have ZERO experience with the justice system, due process, building a case and all the other bs you constantly spew. I have more knowledge in my pinky concerning the law and due process than you do. The administration is using standard defense bar tactics, "I don't recall." That's all the dems will get. Screw "building a case." They can keep doing it, but they need to bring out the sledge hammer NOW. Cut off funding. That's the only real power they have.

low-tech cyclist wrote on July 12, 2007 1:22 PM:

as I reported earlier this week, it seems likely that somehow, some way, the whole mess will land in court.

By what means??

Suppose the House holds Miers in contempt of Congress. The House refers the charge to the US Atty for D.C., who on the basis of the DOJ OLC opinion, declines to take action. What then? You can't sue a prosecutor for failing to prosecute a case. All I see there is a dead end.

And the opinion also effectively moots inherent contempt: if Miers is charged with inherent contempt, she can defend herself by saying she had every right to accept the opinion as valid. If the author of the opinion is charged, he (or she) says he was following orders. Which he was.

So impeachment is the only option. There are really two issues here.

One is the claim that senior White House advisors are exempt from Congressional oversight. It's an even more important claim with this Administration than ever before, because policy decisions have been restricted to a fairly small group of White House staff. To exempt White House advisors from oversight is to all but exempt this Administration from oversight.

The other is the 'unitary Executive' interpretation of the Executive Branch. There's no point in going after the writer of this OLC opinion, because according to Bush, that writer is part of the unitary Executive, and has no business acting independently of Bush. Hence Bush is directly culpable for the opinion. So let's impeach him over it.

G.D. Hamann wrote on July 12, 2007 1:28 PM:

Congress does not need the Justice Department to pursue Contempt of Congress violations, each house has its own power to hold persons in contempt and to lock them up for the remainder of the Congressional session.

Michael wrote on July 12, 2007 1:37 PM:

We will never get anywhere with impeachment because of the status of the Senate. Unless we find the king with a smoking gun in his hand with 100 witnesses, impeachment will be a waste of time.

One other observation on another post, Scalia is a lap dog for republicans. He would never ever ever render an opinion contrary to what the administration wants. See Hamdan ruling, among, many many others. Scalia is a pig and has no concept of the law or the constitution. Our only hope is Kennedy right now, which is scary.

D. Fell wrote on July 12, 2007 1:44 PM:

No relation to Norman but thank you for asking.

The second part of the Reno opinion is what applicable here, and it’s not a novel idea; Counsel to the President is a unique extension of the Presidency, and therefore cannot be made to appear before a Congressional Committee for any reason relating to their duties in that position. Like the President, Counsel to the President does not have to appear before a committee answer a subpoena even to invoke executive privilege. This includes former Counsels to the President.

Again this is not novel, similar opinions, in addition to the 1999 citation, have been offered in 1971, 1977, and 1982.

Sully18 wrote on July 12, 2007 1:46 PM:

Yet another instance of the brave,courageous,and free Bush administration hiding behind a woman willing to go to jail for them.

Xenos wrote on July 12, 2007 2:01 PM:

"Wasn't it Albert Einstein who made a statement about the impossibility of solving problems using the same mindsets from which the problems arose?
Posted by: Linda"

Maybe one way to change the discourse quickly is for some states to declare a constitutional convention due to the Federal Government's failure to fulfill the guarantee of a republican form of government in, IIRC, Article IV, Section 4. It would be a stunt, but could be an effective one.

Anonymous wrote on July 12, 2007 2:05 PM:

Posted by: Michael
Date: July 12, 2007 1:00 PM

Agree: Cut off funding. Zero-out the budgets. If the DNC would reuire the bills to leave committee with zeros, that would prevent the GOP from passing/blocking an Amendment to change the budget.

Budget needs to include zeros for a full floor vote. DNC does itself a disservice when it can "only" change the President's request with an Amemdnet. The GOP can block it all day long.

Xenos wrote on July 12, 2007 2:05 PM:

And where is Meiers, anyway?

If she stays out of DC, does the Sergeant-at-Arms have the means to arrest her?

molly wrote on July 12, 2007 2:33 PM:

Since the justice dept. and the Supreme Court have been corrupted and stacked...Bush stole 2 elections...shouldn't WE put some time and attn. into that? WE can't be sure the justice dept. would do the right thing if our congress does. And WE don't know that for sure yet.

lysias wrote on July 12, 2007 2:56 PM:

Sara Taylor isn't and wasn't an immediate adviser of the President, is/was she?

Middle Earth wrote on July 12, 2007 3:16 PM:

You should know that Americans are increasingly seen in Europe as docile sheep, on the verge of losing their democratic form of government to a kind of creaping fascism embraced by the southern, born-again aristocracy that currently owns the Republican party (and runs the country). And you don't seem to give a damn. Americans are looked upon with amazement here as a beaten down people who take little or no vacations, have a barely functioning public transportation system, no health care, a lousy educational system, a declining standard of living, and no real say in their government.

The only way to change course would be to elect a Democrat president—frankly unlikely if the candidate is a woman or black. Discounting the northeast and west coasts, America is populated in the main by an uninterested, uneducated bloc that votes its beliefs, which are reactionary and neo-religious (remember, almost a third of the country still thinks Bush is doing a good job!). To imagine that a this gross politic would go to the polls in a year and vote for either of the leading Dem candidates is wishful thinking by the handful of liberals who read blogs like this.

The result will predictably be another Republican president, and the wool will stay pulled over the American idealist vision for at least another four years. It's the stupid factor stupid.

lysias wrote on July 12, 2007 3:45 PM:

DOJ opinion? Does that mean it came out of OLC? John Yoo's old shop?

I wonder if someone will pay Harriet Miers to spend the next couple of years in a nice place like Paris.

mls wrote on July 12, 2007 3:51 PM:

J Nagarya

With respect to your point that Clinton lost on certain privilege claims, these involved subpoenas issued by various independent counsels, not congressional subpoenas. No executive branch official (current or former)in the Clinton Administration or any other has ever been prosecuted for refusing to testify before Congress on grounds of executive privilege. The reason for this was explained in my earlier post.

You may find these facts inconvenient or deplorable, but they are still facts. On the other hand, you may not be interested in facts, but simply in venting your spleen at the administration. If so, feel free, but leave me out of it.

Official A wrote on July 12, 2007 4:05 PM:

I agree with those who think the time for impeachment has arrived. So what if he is acquitted the first time around? Just impeach him again. Call lots of witnesses at each trial, and dare 'em not to show up.

The Bush legacy can be that W was the only president impeached twice.

Security Code: book, as in "Book 'em, Danno."

Official A wrote on July 12, 2007 4:10 PM:

Am I the only one who doesn't think Bush's wrongs are justified by Clintons' wrongs?

I say impeach them both.

KB wrote on July 12, 2007 4:23 PM:

Middle Earth:
I take exception to your geography. If you look at the blue/red maps of 2004 (especially those by county and those that show shades of color), you will see the divide is not between the apparently brilliant ne/west coast and the exceptionally stupid south and midwest, it tends to be rural vs. urban (remember the electoral college?). Also, the country is not run by southern fascists, it's run by corporate fascists.

BTW, what about this report http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/ at mediamatters? I think it helps put things in perspective.

Jake D. wrote on July 12, 2007 4:34 PM:

MLS:

JNagarya doesn't do "facts".

Xenos wrote on July 12, 2007 4:38 PM:

"Also, the country is not run by southern fascists, it's run by corporate fascists."

Indeed. The Europeans invented the phenomomenon, but we have perfected it. Bush 43 is a cutout - one he is removed, corporate interests will remain unscathed.

thepeoplechoose wrote on July 12, 2007 5:35 PM:

The possible result from all of this is that the executive branch will have been successful at insulating itself from any regulatory constraints and accountability for alleged misconduct of any sort.

The tactic would leave to congress only impeachment. And that would be impossible even under the most dire circumstance given a congress structured as we have today. It would effectively give a president tremendous discretionary authority that well exceeds any constitutional expression of executive authority.

The Bush WH is trying to figure out a way to craft a result that eliminates the possibility of criminal prosecution for persons of the executive branch. Heading off the publics right to ascertain the conduct of public officials flies in the face of common sense. The citizens, via the congress, must retain this right in the face of the certainty that without it abuses of power will occur.

Jake D. wrote on July 12, 2007 6:27 PM:

thepeoplechoose:

Bush ALREADY has a way to eliminate the possibility of criminal prosecution for persons in the Executive branch -- he commuted Libby's sentence, didn't he? He and Attorney General Gonzales are also in charges of the Department of Justice. You really think he is desperately trying to figure out some OTHER way to craft a result that eliminates the possibility of criminal prosecution for said persons?

LOL! Quick: how many Jews died on 9/11?

lanceroni wrote on July 12, 2007 10:59 PM:

I sent this letter to both of my senators Today. I believe it is the only way to get them to enforce current law. The only thing over an incumbents head is reelection.

This is probably the last straw for me as a citizen of the US. Now there are people no longer employed by the US government (Harriet Meirs Etc.) being told they cannot respond to congressional subpoenas by the president. I would like to remind you of current laws on the books. failure to comply with a valid Congressional subpoena is a felony under 2 USC sec. 192, and advising someone not to comply is a separate felony under 18 USC sec. 1505. I would hope that as a duly elected Senator of the good state of Oregon you would press this matter of contempt for the rules. Unless you have no regard for the rule of law yourself and then can count ma as a most ardent and vocal opponent of your election in 2008.

Respectfully Lance McNulty

Middle Earth wrote on July 13, 2007 12:32 AM:

KB: Your rural/urban dichotomy in no way refutes my suggestion that the coasts (mostly urban) think differently than the south and midwest (less urban). Thanks to your bizarre "electoral college", those less urban states have outsized voting power and they just happen to be the ones captured by the right wing zealots and bible thumpers.

On a recent trip through the south I was struck by how many reasonable, educated, polite people I met who were still eager to rhetorically fight the last war (the "war between the states") which they invariably thought the south should have won. And so they have won--southerners (Reagan was an honorary one and the Bushs adopted ones) have won every presidential election since the 1960s!

My point is that the European perspective is worth considering, whatever the polls say: America appears to be a nation in decline. And that, believe me, worries Europe in a big way. The only way to change course would be to elect a Democrat president with a solid majority in congress. But if Americans failed to see through the Swift Boaters they will never comprehend what hit them if Hillary or Obama are the candidates. I think the phrase is "dead on arrival".

You liberals who populate this blog are a curious lot. You don't seem to know a lot about your own country (at least the rural south and midwest) you know little about the way your own government works (as if impeachment could structurally succeed) and you are so impractically idealistic.

As I said before, it's the stupid factor stupid.

Michael wrote on July 13, 2007 9:51 AM:

Middle Earth, I agree with everything you say. I am frightened as well. If the dems do not make a huge clean sweep and dramatically change the situation, I am moving to Europe. Also, I agree on the two front runners as well. I am hoping that Gore gets in and saves the day.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 12:22 PM:

That would be WONDERFUL if more of you moved to Europe -- helpful hint: make sure you visit any U.S. consulate (or Embassy office if you make it to a foreign capital) and remounce your citizenship too -- as for our "electoral college" and "outsized voting power", Bush beat Kerry by millions of votes too. It was a horserace though:

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2007/Pres/ec_graph.html

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 12:25 PM:

remounce = renounce

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

Michael wrote on July 17, 2007 10:13 PM:

Jake D., I guess you are a result of the shrub's no child left behind. I don't want my kids growing up to be a moron like you. Can't even spell can ya. AMF.