New slogan for the GOP: "Subpoenas are optional."

... unless we're handing them out.

RULE OF LAW! RULE OF LAW!

except if you're republican.

How about we have a hearing about impeaching Bush for interefering with an investigation and felony obstruction of justice?

tekel- Rule of law?

well, they make up there own LAWS>there way to fit there need!

I watched the hearings and I will say it was ugly!

I'll I can say is yesterday, I called every rep. and senator to voice my anger on how they seem to be allowing Republicans over take the committee's and they (democrat's) are starting to have no backbone to take control of the topic~

Also, I voiced that Impeachment needs to be openly talked about regarding this adminstration! and act on what WE the people are sick of daily scandals.

if for some reason, if I ever find myself on the wrong side of the law, I'm simply going to say that if the president of the United States or any of his friends, relatives, pals, associates, advisors, attorneys, drinking buddies, Yale classmates, oil industry friends, political donors, fellow Bonesmen, etc etc et al don't have to obey the law - then neither do I.

Discounting the above, Congress can, upon a vote by the Comittee, hold Miers in inherent contempt, which requires no further finding, and leads to immediate detention. That is, the Sergeant-at-arms is directed to apprehend the subject.

Search "inherent contempt" at Wikipedia. It was last employed in 1934.

Note that executive privilege is precisely that, a privilege. It does not hold beyond the Office, nor does it hold if criminality is being investigated. Perhaps Cheney can classify Mier's (likely poor) memory.

Maybe Harriet just mislaid her subpoena behind the sofa cushions, where that unsent check for her bar dues is.

Jake-paragraphs are your friends.

"That previous comment isn't from me. Some immature person is trying to make me look foolish."

someone's trying to put you out of a job.

Did Feeney's face turn red after Conyers put him in his place? That man is an embarassment to the house.

"Some immature person is trying to make me look foolish."

Anybody who thinks they can do a better job of that than you has delusions of grandeur.

For Jake D. a@1:38

Other than your rambling, what's your point? To see your words in print on the internet?

A subpoena has been issued. Objections to that subpoena should have been made before it was issued. And Mr. Conyers is correct; if Myers can flout the Congress so can anyone else.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Not complicated. The Bush administration didn't challenge the subpoenas in court, and Miers did not invoke her 5th amendment rights, so she is compelled to testify.

The question for this congress, indeed, from Bush is, "WHAT YA GONNA DO ABOUT IT?" The republicons ARE going to paint the new Democratic majority as a "do nothing" congress only interested in investigation and NOT doing America's business. Is the Democratic majority listening to the American people? Can they walk and chew gum at the same time? Now is not a time for cowards. A bully must be shown there is ALWAYS someone bigger than him.

Will the real Jake D. stand up.

Jake sounds like a republican...We don't have law licenses so Harriet Myers shouldn't have to show up for a congressional hearing. WE shouldn't listen to Hollywood lefties but they can run Reagun...now they are pulling up old Fred Thompson out of the Archives. He comes up with sky high approval records. Family values are so yesterday..for Fred and Rudy.

Oh, and BTW -- what *is* it about the writing style of wingnut posters?

Are nonsensical arguments, offered with misspellings *and* a lack of punctuation or paragraph breaks, supposed to indicate anything beyond intellectual poverty?

Didn't think so.

"But ranking member Chris Cannon (R-UT) also offered a more nuanced argument against proceeding with contempt proceedings -- without "evidence of criminality" on the part of the White House (he cited the example of Nixon), the House would likely lose the battle in court. And such a loss, he feared, would hurt the House's ability to investigate the White House in the future."

Must not investigate criminality since that gets too close to home from Mr. Chris Cannon http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/cannon.php

Moderator: Can we get Jake D. banned from the comments forum, please?

Hell impeach them all now. On what grounds, "Absence of evidence it not evidence of absence"

Ha

Here's a simple test for anyone who thinks Miers' refusal to appear is legal:

Is there any question the Committee could ask her -- even one question -- that would not intrude even upon the broad privilege asserted by the White House?

Hint: the answer is "yes, plenty of questions." Questions like "What is your name?" and "What was your position in the White House?"

The assertion of privilege goes to a specific subject matter. It is not an all-purpose hall pass exempting a witness from appearing or having questions posed to him/her.

If the House Republicans really dig in and try to fight against a contempt citation for Miers, they will very much come to regret it down the road, because Miers' refusal even to appear is a direct affront to Congressional authority. Giving Miers a pass today means giving the Bruce Lindsays and John Podestas of the future an equal pass -- and I just can't believe that even House Republicans would be that dumb.

So, in what state is Harriet Miers a member of the bar?

DOJ OLC Legal Citations Are Inapposite

IT is absurd for WH legal counsel to cite DOJ OLC opinions on issues which have nothing to do with today's issues. Unlike the 1970s, the subpoena relates to information already disclosed. Then, the issues remained hidden. It can hardly be said that there is a solid legal foundation behind Miers' decision not to appear.

DOJ OLC fails to make the case that the cited precedent is relevant. Rehnquist's statement from the 1970s is inapposite and hardly any legal foundation to shield Meirs. The issues then were whether counsel would or would not testify about _Presidential_ issues. Today's issues are different:
- The review is about _post decision_ actions, which are not protected;
- Miers is being examined not to reveal confidence -- which has not been disclosed-- but to highlight what actions she took _after_ the decision was made to fire, as documented in the revealed e-mails.

The issue is not a deliberation, but _activity_ personnel in the WH were involved _after_ the decision was made. Privilege cannot be used to shield illegal activity. Immunity in light of Miers' position as WH Counsel is an assertion to be challenged. Asserting a dubious claim of privilege, even on the back of an inapposite case, hardly qualifies as meeting the "absolute immunity" standard. This is an assertion which DoJ has yet to be challenged in court; and not for the public to blindly accept. DoJ needs to make the case:

1. Why is a claim of privilege as it might have related to 1970 relevant to the 2007 issues?
2. How can an invocation of privilege in re a deliberation also include Miers alleged actions: Documented e-mails?

If Mier's was absolutely shielded, that shield only exists if there is nothing yet disclosed. Yet, the evidence before us suggests the opposite: That Miers, as documented in the e-mails, was involved. She cannot, after that disclosure, claim she has absolute immunity: That "absolute" immunity fails when the information and Miers activity is disclosed.

Contrary to the Rehnquist issues, Miers is not acting under the umbrella f Executive Privilege. Te issues do not relate solely to the President, but to _Miers_ herself. She's not protecting privileged conversations, but doing the opposite: Relying on a broad claim of privilege to hide her _actions_ after the original firing _decision_

It remains to be reconciled how _individual_ conduct which the Congress is reviewing can enjoy a sweeping claim of executive privilege. Privilege applies to the _deliberations_, but not to the _subsequent actions_ after the deliberations which the Congress seeks information.

The decision was to fire. The post-decision actions are not protected. The issue isn't the deliberations, but the _actions_ of Miers as a witness and principal. It cannot be said that the DOJ OLC positions apply.

The only reasonable conclusions:
A. DOJ OLC reliance on "absolute immunity" belies the existence of DOJ-WH memoranda which fatally disclose details.
B. Once the information is disclosed, privilege does not exist; and one is not immune from testifying on what has been disclosed;
C. Absolute immunity from testifying only applies to _deliberations_ which have _not_ been disclosed; once the issue sifts to _actions_, Miers is not shielded
D. DoJ OLC cannot use the shield to protect _deliberations_ when those deliberations have been disclosed
E. DOJ OLC cannot use the shielded to protected _disclosed actions_ which Miers has documented in the e-mails the WH has disclosed
F. There is no basis to assert absolute immunity when the basis for the immunity is on an illusory believe that the information must be protected; this information has been disclosed
G. Miers can be compelled to testify, regardless the DOJ OLC assertion that she is "absolutely" immune.
H. One cannot be "absolutely immune" to any inquiry when they have disclosed details, and that line of questioning is not about the protected information, but about Miers' _conduct_ as she self-reports within the e-mails that the EOP-WH-DOJ-RNC have voluntarily disclosed

Qualified immunity may apply; but absolute immune cannot exist when the details of the witnesses actions have been self reported in information that has been lawfully obtained by Congress. Once disclosed, the President is deprived of any claim of privilege with respect to that narrow line of evidence which Congress alone may choose to review. Miers is absoltely immune from testifying on protected information; but she is not absolutely immune to sanctions for her failing to appear to answer questions about information which does not enjoy Presidential privilege protection: Miers' own e-mails which she freely disclosed information Congress has the lawful power under the Constitution to compel Miers to discuss and respond. The Focus of Congress in re Miers is one for Congress to decide: Miers may not prejudge the line of questioning to decide whether she will or will not cooperate with questions about information which Miers disclosed, documented, and placed into evidence through the lawful process the White House provided to Congress.

It is not appropriate for outside counsel, the WH, or anyone in the Executive Branch to assert what "is" or "is not" a proper line of questions on information that cannot be protected: The open information about Miers' _actions_ which are disclosed in open memoranda. Whether that information and evidence is linked with criminal activity is one thing; but Miers has no authority to rely on the President's broad claim of executive privilege when the focus of Congress is not to breach the privilege, but to examine that which has already been breached: The information which Meirs' included in the e-mails; and the subsequent _action_ of Miers following the decision to fire.

These are not complicated issues. Deliberations are protected. What are not protected, an what Miers cannot hide behind, is a claim of absolute immunity from testifying about issues which Miers herself has disclosed. It's too late for Miers to pretend her she is absolutely immune from testifying, when Congress is not focusing on deliberations, but on information disclosed, breaching the President's claim of privilege.

Miers actions today are not s supported by any law; and there is no basis for her to decline to appear when Congress is asking information not about non-disclosed deliberations, but about _post decision_ communications Miers herself documents within the e-mails Congress is lawfully reviewing.

The President's claim of executive privilege fails; and Miers reliance on that invalid claim of privilege should have been known to not apply to disclosed information which Miers was well connected. Miers knew, or should have known, that her non-deliberative actions, and disclosed e-mails were not protected; but were subject to lawful Congressional inquiry. It is our view that Miers today in refusing to appear is not protected by the DOJ OLC assertion of absolute immunity; and that she as counsel should have known that the disclosed information is a mater for Congress to legally compel her to appear to respond.

Miers did not appear as required; and sh she does not appear to have exercised the standards of professionalism expected of counsel: To only protect what is protected; and to remain subject to discuss what is outside protection and within the Legislature's oversight: Her conduct as she documented in the disclosed e-mails.

I wish that more would be made by the Democrats that getting at the basis of the firing of the attorneys is so important is because of the investigations or lack of investigations that were going on or weren't in the respective offices of those fired. Particular the refusal of investigations of voter fraud. The line "there was nothing criminal, the president has the right to fire" is repeated over and over. What is not repeated over and over is that it is illegal to conduct an investigation, particular a highly suspect one, for partisan reasons just prior to an election. The Democrats still do not know how to hold the moral legal ground in an argument.

Remember back in the 90's how every single Republican on the Hill was utterly and in the foremost concerned that the rule of law MUST be preserved on even the tiniest and most inconsequential matters in the White House? I guess they figure no one remembers, but I suspect every human with ears and eyes that function recall their deep and heartfelt concern.

But people also remember, especially those of us with a few years on us, that whether it be the Nixon, Reagan, Bush the first or Bush the second White Houses the standard and really sole defense they use for their criminal conduct is "there is no proof any law was broken". That's the defense mobsters use: "they can't prove it!" I guess all crooks use the same defense.

It seems readily apparent that unless and until this congress is able to enforce the subpoenas that it issues, the process of legislative oversight will continue to be corrupted and subverted into irrelevance.

Isn't it unprecedented for someone not to even appear when subpoenaed?

If so, why aren't the Dems making that point in rebuttal to the claim that a White House letter is unprecedented?

I guess if the president put a potential witness, one who is not even a presidential advisor, in custody to physically prevent them from testifying, Feeney would simply say that the unprecedented nature of the move is sufficient justification for Congress to bend over for the president.

Code word = wind, as in that's some "wind" coming out of Feeney's ass!

So, where is the contempt citation? Better, where is the inherent contempt citation?

Conyers and the rest of them can blather on. Put your money where your mouth is and do something.

pointus: Conyers specifically mentioned Inherent Contempt yesterday when responding to the word that Miers was going to snub the committee.

>>"Some immature person is trying to make me look foolish."

Anybody who thinks they can do a better job of that than you has delusions of grandeur.

Posted by: Gary
Date: July 12, 2007 2:02 PM <<

I'll second that.

"This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That’s the principle that we all hold very dear in this country."

By Tom DeLay, (R-TX) speaking of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

"are OLC opinions absolutely binding on all employees of the DOJ?"

Posted by:
Date: July 12, 2007 3:41 PM

Illegal OLC opinions are not binding: FISA violations, immunity for contractors complicit with illegal activity, rendition, prisoner abuse, Geneva, immunity for war crimes.

Today's hearing was a moment in history. This hearing was not a very proud moment. But, neither was it yet among our most shameful moments.

I would sincerely ask the current supporters of this subcommittee, supporters of the full Judiciary committee, supporters of the House of Representatives, supporters of the United States Congress, and supporters of the Constitution of the United States of America to take a long view of this moment in history.

In your haste, and zeal, please do not go overboard. As you argue for the powers and privileges of this committee inquiry, please don't forget the shameful moments of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. That disbanded committee's responsibilities now belong to this same House Judiciary Committee. Don't argue that this committee's powers may never be abused. They have been, and most probably will again be someday.

Instead, please take a long, deliberative view. Think hard about what's best for the people of the United States of America, our enduring institutions, and our Constitution.

Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities.

NOW!

Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities. Declare this an investigation of criminal activities.

NOW!

Ms. Meier was the White House counsel, an employee of the United States, and therefore, she does not have an attorney-client priviledge vis-a-vis the President. However, that does not resolve issues of executive priviledge.

It's both amusing and nauseating how Cannon's Catch-22 argument echoes the recent appeals panel's logic in the illegal wiretapping matter.

In that case, standing was denied for relief from secret warrantless wiretapping -- because the secrecy prevented the plaintiffs from proving they were individually targeted.

Here, Fielding (speaking through Cannon's mouth) claims that Meiers can flip Congress the bird and obstruct a criminal investigation because no evidence of criminality has yet been established because of her obstruction.

As someone said yesterday, we are all Yossarian now.

So when do they arrest Miers? Or is this yet another instance where the Dems get our hopes up only to back down with their tails between their legs? What happens next? Anyone know?

"no evidence of criminality",....no evidence?... just a mountain of suspicious stonewalling.

Just a bunch of ex-USA's testimonies asserting obstruction of Justice.

Just a list of fired USAs that noone in the DOJ knows where the list originated.

Just a bunch of excuses and dishonest responses and finger pointing.

Just Republicans looking the other way,..That's all,..

If Democrats did anything remotely like this,...it would HIGH TREASON 24/7, all week, all year long on FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS etc, etc

So this is how the AP says it would proceed if the Dems actually decided to go after her:
First the committee has to debate and vote on this. No telling how long that will take. Nothing has been quick so far.
After that the full House will debate and vote on it- again, no telling how long the Republicans will be able to drag that out.
Then Pelosi to refer the matter to the US Attorney for DC- a Bush flunkie named Jeff Taylor, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action," according to the law. How much time is left in the Bush Administration? Maybe the final verdict could come after Bush has left office and wouldn't be able to pardon Miers?

All power can be abused. Yes, Congress has abused its powers at times in the past. But at the moment the immediate threat of a presidential dictatorship is what we have to be concerned with stopping.

Shorter all of this -- Harriet Miers, though an attorney, is certainly ignorant of the basic tenents of law in refusing to appear before Congress after being issued a subpoena.

Shorter all of the above -- Harriet Miers is a dumbass.

I think the story would have more legs in the MSM if somebody could tell us what Harriet did today. If only we had a sighting at a Starbucks or a phonecam snapshot at the nail salon or something.
Posted by: Jerzy

I'm guessing that whatever she did it involved eyeliner.

And she don't care.
My baby don't care.

This guy from fla (where we know the water is toxic) sez "it's never happened before"
That can be said about this last 7 years of contempt for the people of the world,not just us.
You know what?These guys are not worried about being disliked.In fact they are fine with it.
They feel that is part of what distances them from all the normal people in their ant farm.
We need someone with all brain cells connected to do some talking.
Nothing changes if nothing changes.
Anyone who stands up and says enough will be the winner.Anyone.Doesn't have to be one of the big names.
Everyone else playing with words is now looking like they are all at the same country club cocktail party fight over who gets to drive the golf cart.
BTW: that is where all the money is passed out.

Hey could you fix all your youtube embeds?

The issue surrounding Miers is not complicated. The House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena. Miers ignored it. There is a penalty for ignoring subpoenas from Congress. The penalty should be enforced.

All the rest is nothing but an attempt to distract, deflect, delay, excuse, confuse and evade. Such tactics have become the hallmark of modern conservatism and it doesn't take a genius to spot them, just some discipline to keep from getting sucked in.

Haul her in.

Where and to whom do I report my observations of suspicious activities going on in the White House?

I fear there is an active terror cell installed there which is responsible for acts of massive destruction of US interests and ongoing coverups of its true nature and real purpose of subverting the American promise.

Before I launch into my rant, permit me the prelude caveat that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly shatter the illusion that Chairman Conyers has his moral compass in tact. Nevertheless, I do have the will to celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth. That's why I truly maintain that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of the most abysmal lamebrains I've ever seen, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but Chairman Conyers's arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. In that respect, we can say that the police should lock Chairman Conyers up and throw away the key. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that I want nothing more -- or less -- than to demonstrate conclusively that the scores of goose-stepping yahoos who comprise Chairman Conyers's band must all be held accountable for helping Chairman Conyers crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate. To that task I have consecrated my life, and I invite you to do likewise. Now for some parting advice: Look at the facts. Analyze the arguments. Think about the motives of the people who are telling you that Chairman Conyers has the authority to issue licenses for practicing demagogism. And have confidence in yourself. Remember, he has a problem not only with civil rights but also with the legal responsibility and accountability as to what is considered appropriate behavior.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 12, 2007 1:38 PM

It is illegal to ignore a subpoena, ass. Were you a lawyer, and concerned with the rule of law before your swinish political party, you'd know and sadmit that.

Conyers was on the committee which investigated the impeachment of Nixon. He knows what he is doing, and his statement of the facts is based upon the law and the evidence. His statement of the fact is accurate.

These matters are not a joke, anti-American. And partisan attacks on Conyers are irrelevant to the seriousness of these issues -- and the rule of law.

Go back to Free Republic and slobber with your fellow swine about how much better this country would be if only it were all-white and "Christianly" Fascist, with no political opposition to your utterly corrupt party.

That previous comment isn't from me. Some immature person is trying to make me look foolish.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 12, 2007 1:47 PM

You certainly don't need help to look foolish; at doing that you are sufficiently competent all by yourself.

Shorter all of this -- Harriet Miers, though an attorney, is certainly ignorant of the basic tenents of law in refusing to appear before Congress after being issued a subpoena.

Shorter all of the above -- Harriet Miers is a dumbass.

Posted by: jane_al
Date: July 12, 2007 5:47 PM

She isn't ignorant of the law, though she certainly appears to be about as bright as a used match.

Compare her with Republican lawyer Simpson, in the Siegelman matter. Miers is a political operative who subordinates the law to politics. She goes back a long way with Rove and Bushit, so trusts that they will always return the favor by covering her ass. She needs a rude shock to free her from that commitment to corruption as the way to opersate.

In the recent letter by Simpson, she makes clear that the rule of law, and ethics, transcend politics. "Jake" hasn't a clue that Simson's position is the legitimate foundation of self-respect. Any other foundation is a lie supporting a lie.

I agree with everyone here backing "inherent contempt". According to what Congressman Robert Wexler has said, a contempt citation could come as early as next week, and a vote before the full house could be the following week or maybe even the following day. So, I expect the pace will pick up from here.

Even so, representatives must be reminded that tossing this issue to the judicial system would effectively be an abdication of their authority. It would show demonstrate to the imperial Bush administration that stall tactics work.

Write to the Judiciary Committee and to your own representative, urging them to use "inherent contempt" specifically, and keep the ball in their own court. Stop the expansion of executive power dead in its tracks.

Here's a suggested letter (go to work):

Dear Representative:

It is now abundantly clear that the oversight authority of the United States Congress is in jeopardy of becoming irrelevant. The Executive Branch is making claims of "Executive Privilege" in cases where it is wholely unsubstantiated. Road-blocks have been thrown up during the investigations of the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the former White House Counsel, the former Director of Political Affairs, and more.

As an example of the impending irrelavence, prior to the questioning of Sara Taylor, the former Director of Political affairs at the White House, Senator Arlen Spector urged the Senate Judiciary Committee not to pursue a judicial solution, as the matter would languish for years. If this is was only recourse for failure to comply with a Congressional subpoena and questioning, you'd have the authority to call witness, but you'd lack they ability to compell any substantive testimony. Fortunately, you have more power.

I implore you to exercise the authority of Congress, as upheld by the Supreme Court, and as outlined in the Congressional Oversight Manual. Page 42, Section III.B.3.C.1.a, outlines the enforcement power of "Inherent Contempt". It reads:

"Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.20 Between 1795 and 1934 the House and Senate utilized the inherent contempt power over 85 times, in most instances to obtain (successfully) testimony and/or documents. The inherent contempt power has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years. This appears to be because it has been considered too cumbersome and timeconsuming to hold contempt trials at the bar of the offended chamber. Moreover, some have argued that the procedure is ineffective because punishment can not extend beyond Congress’s adjournment date."

Faced with growing contempt. It's clear that this long dormant power of the legislature must now be used. Please act on your sworn oath to uphold our Constituition and hold this criminal Executive Branch accountable for its criminal activities.