« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Miers A No-Show, Committee to Rule against Claim of Privilege
Harriet Miers, as expected, defied a Congressional subpoena and did not show for her hearing before the House Judiciary Committee this morning.
In response, subcommittee chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) ruled that the White House's claim of executive privilege was invalid. We'll have more soon.
Sanchez's opening statement is below.
Sanchez's opening statement:
I am extremely disappointed and deeply concerned that former White House Counsel Harriet Miers has apparently chosen to forego this opportunity to give her account of the firing of the U.S. Attorneys and the potential politicization of the U.S. Department of Justice.Through extensive interviews and review of documents, it appears clear that Ms. Miers played a significant role in the Bush Administration’s decision to fire at least nine U.S. Attorneys.
For example, documents released by the Department of Justice demonstrate that Ms. Miers was involved in the earliest known conversations on the matter, including her recommendation to consider the unprecedented mid-term replacement of all 93 U.S. Attorneys.
Acknowledging the jurisdiction and proper role of the Congress in investigating the U.S. Attorney firings, the White House had previously offered to allow Ms. Miers to talk with this Committee – on the condition that it not be under oath and that there be no transcript – so I presume that her testimony is not a grave threat to the interests of the Executive Branch. It is curious that the White House is now asserting a blanket claim of executive privilege and has directed Ms. Miers not to even appear today.
In fact, there is ample precedent of presidential advisors from both political parties testifying before committees and subcommittees of Congress. According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, presidential advisors have testified before Congress at least 74 times since 1944. Even a sitting president, President Gerald Ford, testified before this committee about his rationale for pardoning President Richard Nixon.
More recently, White House advisors in the Clinton Administration frequently testified before Congress. Former White House Counsel Beth Nolan explained to this Subcommittee that she testified before Congressional committees four times, three times while serving as White House Counsel and once as former White House Counsel.
Even President Bush has allowed close advisors such as Thomas Ridge, then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, and Condoleezza Rice, then Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, to testify before Congress. In contrast to his current assertion with regard to Ms. Miers, the President did not raise the issue of executive privilege when he wanted Mr. Ridge or Ms. Rice to tout a White House legislative priority before Congress.
It seems that the President’s inconsistent position on allowing senior advisors to testify may reflect his concern about what that advisor might say rather than a steadfast adherence to the concept of executive privilege.
Through our patient and good-faith efforts to negotiate with the White House on this matter, we have been trying to avoid a constitutional confrontation between the Executive and Legislative Branches. The White House could have prevented an escalation by engaging in reasonable negotiations. Unfortunately, Ms. Miers and the White House have chosen a path of confrontation instead of cooperation.
The Framers of our Constitution created a system of checks and balances to make sure that no branch of government could escape scrutiny and accountability. They gave Congress the responsibility to provide oversight of the Executive Branch.
The truth is that we are here today because this Congress takes that obligation seriously.
"democracy is coming to the u.s.a."
July 12, 2007 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pray to God that her final paragraph there is true.
July 12, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watching the proceeding - who had Tom Feeney in the "Clintondidit!" pool? Come on down!
My guess is that Bush WANTS a court battle...he thinks God's going to protect him.
(Gotta love all the Nixon references though)
July 12, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP keeps saying that President Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys and no one said anything. We want justice!
OK, let's consider the fact the President Clinton's administration fired Billy Dale and the White House Travel Office staff. Dale and his cohorts were Bush appointees. And they were embezzling.
Where's the justice, now? Clinton fired those appointees and the GOP was all over him. And they worked in the White House.
GOP Members, any comment?
July 12, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
please post Sanchez's statement on the basis of rejecting Miers' claims of privilege. It was outstanding.
July 12, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Inherent Contempt:
"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."
July 12, 2007 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I'm scared -- Sanchez is "ruling" on Executive Privilege -- does she want everyone to come into the bathroom and see what she does there too?
July 12, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sooooooo hoping Chris Cannon ( R-Utah) shows up on the DC Madame phone list...please please please...
The Repubs are obviously very rehearsed in their talking points, how they pass the speaking time among each other this, and even laying out the future court's line of reasoning ...wonder how they know how a future court will rule??? ( yes, that was sarcasm)
High Noon time....a historic moment happening here, folks....
July 12, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I told them back when there was some concern about NSA Rice setting a precedent that it would definitely be used against them some day. Even the fact that the President offered to compromise on Miers' testimony is being used against them. No good deed goes unpunished.
July 12, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cannon is on Gannon's list. Not the madam's list.
July 12, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post your troll-ratings by clicking on "Troll Patrol" (below).
Keep the threads clean!
July 12, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anna S,
Yeah, God'll fix it. Hell, he's the one who told Georgie to invade in the first place!!! Sheesh.
July 12, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good deed?
"We'll let her testify as long as she can lie with impunity and no record of the proceeding will be written."
Yep, that's fair. And then when congress insists that testimony be sworn... Well, we can't do that because... because we won't and you can't make us, so there!
You're not a very honest person Jake.
July 12, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
not to nitpick, but, while the Democratic members are the force for good here, Conyers is showing his age and Sanchez sounds like a bumbling idiot with all her stammering. Can't we get some more polished folks running these things? What about Watt, or Lofgren?
July 12, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
David,
Let's not blame God for bush's delusions.
July 12, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't even bother to show up?! So what are the Dems going to do about it.
July 12, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Offering to let her testify in closed chamber with no transcript contradicts the new claim of Executive Privilege.
It shines a new light on Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court, too. Like, that in itself was preplanned obstruction.
-Impeach Gonzales today.
-Demand that Karl Rove lose his security clearance and be removed from federal payroll today.
-Assign a special prosecutor to the USA firing scandal today. Broaden this to voter suppression and subpoena Ken Mehlman.
July 12, 2007 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
More polished than Conyers?!? Have you no respect? Man, how do you live with that head so big?
July 12, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
My personal opinion is that it will take a statement by the Speaker of the House to shake these bozos loose from Busholini. The Courts can be depended upon to rule, one way or the other. If the Congress is afraid of the ruling that may come down, let's find out what that ruling is before the fear sets in. The longer the Congress waits for a ruling, the less likely the ruling is to go in their favor. If the ruling goes against the Congress with regard to "executive privilege" that includes likely illegal acts by the President's own faction, it can be certain that impeachment of those Supreme Court Justices upholding overly broad privilege should be done.
The Congress needs to blow the dust off the inherent contempt concepts and material power and start to flex its muscle. If the legal machinery of the Republic only supports the Executive against the Assembly of the People, we can be sure that the crisis is very real and that the rule of law by "respecting the Constitution" is a fraud by the thugs in the Executive and Judiciary and it will set the People on notice of precisely how badly "their" Administration is being conducted.
July 12, 2007 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, I believe I am an honest person, but at least I use my real name to post here.
July 12, 2007 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
sigh,
these guys don't lose battles. I mean christ, scooter was going to jail and they commuted his sentence.
why should Harriet or any of the rest be worried if they don't show up.
The scooter thing totally set the tone.
"Stick with me, I'll take care of you" Example A for reference = Scooter
sigh, how disgusting.
I have no delusions that ANYTHING will come of this. Congress doesn't want to impeach, they wont even say the word.
what a joke our political system has become in 6 short years.
code word = free....free my ass!
July 12, 2007 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Posted by: dixiegirl
Date: July 12, 2007 11:17 AM
I think a good chance it will occur, for unsubstantiated rumor has it, like Vitter, he has a diaper fetish, however, this fetish may give him a defense. Being from Utah, he may likely proclaim he called the DC Madam and her underlings in an attempt to save their souls and convert these jezebels to Mormonism. As part of this most noble cause, he needed to meet with the hookers at least once a week to have them fitted with undergarments, as well as to model his undergarments in their presence as part of the conversion prcess. Amen.
July 12, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course, I believe I am an honest person, but at least I use my real name to post here."
NICE comeback, Jake!
July 12, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jake go prostrate yourself before your king george.
America threw off one king george and we can throw off another. Your days as a lickspittle, and his days in the oval office, are numbered.
July 12, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it disturbingly telling that neither the LA Times, NY Times, nor CNN.com has bothered to include the headline that Meirs is in contempt of Congress on their main pages. The Chicago Tribune has a barely discernable picture of an empty chair with the sign “Reserved for Ms. Meirs.” CNN, however, does inform us in one of their headlines that Miss New Jersey: Photos not ‘ladylike.’
July 12, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The defining moment for me was during yesterdays hearing when Taylor said "I took an oath the president, and I take that oath very seriously."
Just for historical reference, here are two other oaths sworn to a head of state rather than a country:
For Soldiers
"I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be ready, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath."
For public servants
"I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to Adolf Hitler, Führer of the German Reich and people, to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfil my official duties, so help me God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_oath#Civil_servant_oath
July 12, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has the vp's impotence been elevated to the slungshods god now?
Maybe that's always been the case.After all splattershot did say they would let him live in the wh if he behaved.
July 12, 2007 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone suggest a valid reason why the White House won't be able to sucessfully stonewall this (and all) subpoena attempts? I've seen a lot of people on this forum, and others, quoting law. But the relevant law is becoming more irrelevant every day because there's no one willing to enforce it.
Since 9/11/01, this administration has increasingly claimed that they are exempt from following the law and that they are exempt from oversight by the legislative branch. These ridiculous claims have reached the point where we now have the Vice President claiming he's not part of the executive branch. The founders of this country would have laughed Cheney right out of his office.
But the Republican Congress and Senate have enabled this rogue administration and today we have an administration that regularly ignores the law with impunity. An administration that makes the most incredible claims and does so with a straight face.
The Democrats simply do not hold a firm enough marjority to demand much of anything. And even if they did, their past track record suggests that they are not capable of real oversight. Many are unwilling to stand (and perhaps lose) on principle.
I see no reason to believe that any of this will change anytime in the next 18 months. In summary, I don't believe these hearings or subpoenas are going anywhere.
July 12, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
feel free to send the following letter (and add your sentiments):
Democratic Members of The House Judiciary Committee:
I applaud your incredible work this morning at the "Hearing on: the Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters". Your duty has transformed from mere oversight to the protection of the separation of powers, fighting the encroachment of an imperial president, and you're performing it admirably.
Time and again Republican members of Congress, yesterday Arlen Specter and this morning Chris Cannon, have noted their hesitance with answering executive contempt with judicial proceedings. I share those feelings. Such proceedings would be time-consuming, showing that fighting congressional oversight is just a waiting game.
Furthermore, the Department of Justice, as noted in this morning's LA Times ( http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usattys12jul12,0,2659732.story?coll=la-home-center ) is on the side of the President, leaning towards support for authoritarianism. The three-page memo that the DOJ produced supported the action of Ms. Miers, ignoring your subpoena. The likelihood that they would cooperate with criminal contempt charges is slim.
I urge you, in your deliberations, to strongly consider exercising your authority of "inherent contempt". You seem to have few other avenues available to you.
Again, after hearing you this morning, I have the utmost respect for your abilities. You are doing the people's work, and I thank you for it.
July 12, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah, blah, freaking blah!!
DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!! Damn it...
July 12, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
BS
Thank you for the histoical reference. For those students of the Nazi era who have long wondered how the cult of Hitler could have taken root in a "civilized" society, we no longer have to wonder because we are witnessing the same phenomenon occurring before our eyes.
July 12, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best picture of Miers I've ever seen.
July 12, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posted by: BS
Date: July 12, 2007 12:20 PM
Anyone have a copy of the RNC oath to Bush? Would be interesting to compare it with 5 USC 3331; and the Hitler-era oaths cited.
July 12, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"not to nitpick, but, while the Democratic members are the force for good here, Conyers is showing his age and Sanchez sounds like a bumbling idiot with all her stammering. Can't we get some more polished folks running these things? What about Watt, or Lofgren?"
Posted by: Passing Shot
Date: July 12, 2007 11:37 AM
I very strongly disagree with you. Conyers may speak slowly, but there's nothing wrong with his mental acuity and agility. He's been on top of things all through this investigation. Please go back to previous clips for hearings or read transcripts of what he has said. The content is sharp and clear, and that's what matters.
As to Sanchez, again, please judge the content over the performance. I actually like her superficially mild-mannered and self-effacing style. That's just the kind of demeanor that lulls those testifying into a comfortable state that lets Sanchez go in for the kill, as she's done in several interrogatories. Look at the clips and see the results.
Sanchez has also written some solid, strong positions for her subcommittee. Her statement in this story is puncture proof, in my opinion.
And whether it's solely the intelligence of the representatives, the ammunition their aides' research provides, or a combination of the two, the House Judiciary Committee is doing good work and providing a good complement to their counterparts in the Senate.
July 12, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why George W. Bush and Dick Cheney MUST Be IMPEACHED.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney MUST Be IMPEACHED.
If the U.S. Congress does not IMPEACH George W. Bush and Dick Cheney together with the Bush administration for their “culture of criminal behavior”, false claims to and use of "unitary power", and violations of the Constitution and laws against the American people as a whole, the U.S. Congress will cede the powers claimed and used by Bush and the Bush administration, not only to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as President and Vice President of the United States, but to ALL other Presidents and Vice Presidents that follow George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
It is of the utmost importance that both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney be IMPEACHED as a remedy for the false power that Bush and Cheney have both claimed and used during the Bush/Cheney Administration, so that the power Bush and Cheney have falsely claimed and used is not 1st ceded to Bush and Cheney, and thereafter to all future presidents and vice presidents that follow Bush and Cheney as a precedent that went UNCHALLANGED by the Congress of the United States.
If the American people allow a “do nothing” U.S. Congress to cede “unitary executive power”, the power of a KING, to George W. Bush by NOT IMPEACHING Bush and Cheney, the American people in allowing the U.S. Congress to do so will also be allowing DEMOCRACY in the United States to go quietly into the night without a fight, and thereby, enable government powers falsely claimed and used by Bush and Cheney as a precedent for RULE by ALL presidents and vice presidents that succeed Bush and Cheney.
By way of the IMPEACHMENT of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the American people MUST set a precedent that “unitary presidential powers” that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have falsely claimed and used are an illegal attempt at usurpation of Democracy in the United States and the U.S. Constitution, in the name of “autocracy” by Bush and Cheney.
The false powers for the President that Bush and Cheney have falsely claimed and used constitute HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, and MUST NOT BE PASSED DOWN AS PRECEDENTS FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS, but rather, as attempted criminal conduct against the citizens of the United States.
WE, ALL of the AMERICAN PEOPLE, must not allow FALSE CLAIMS TO POWER and THE USE OF POWER FALSELY CLAIMED that is NOT CHALLENGED by a “do nothing” U.S. Congress to empower a “unitary executive” as President of the United States, KING GEORGE I.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney MUST Be IMPEACHED.
July 14, 2007 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tough Talk on Impeachment -- PBS
July 13, 2007
A public opinion poll from the American Research Group recently reported that more than four in ten Americans — 45% — favor impeachment hearings for President Bush and more than half — 54% — favored impeachment for Vice President Cheney.
Unhappiness about the war in Iraq isn't the only cause of the unsettled feelings of the electorate. Recent events like President Bush's pardoning of Scooter Libby, the refusal of Vice President Cheney's office to surrender emails under subpoena to Congress and the President's prohibition of testimony of former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers in front of the House Judiciary Committee have caused unease over claims of "executive privilege."
In addition, many of the White House anti-terror initiatives and procedures — from the status of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo to warrantless wiretapping — have come under legal scrutiny in Congress and the courts.
Bill Moyers gets perspective on the role of impeachment in American political life from Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and THE NATION's John Nichols, author of THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT.
"The founding fathers expected an executive who tried to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch... They [Congress] have basically renounced — walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check." — Bruce Fein
"On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this Administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any President has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools." — John Nichols
Bruce Fein
Bruce Fein is a nationally and internationally recognized expert on Constitutional law. Fein became the assistant director of the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice. Shortly after that, Fein became the associate deputy attorney general under former President Ronald Reagan. His political law career would take him to various outlets, including general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, followed by an appointment as research director for the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. Mr. Fein has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation, a lecturer at the Bookings Institute, and an adjunct professor at George Washington University.
Fein has also penned a number of volumes on United States Constitution, Supreme Court, and international law, as well as assisted three dozen countries in constitutional revision, including Russia, Spain, South Africa, Iraq, Cyprus, and Mozambique. Fein currently writes weekly columns for THE WASHINGTON TIMES and CAPITOL LEADER, and a bi-weekly column for the LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER devoted to legal and international affairs.
Recently, Fein has been in the national spotlight after his editorial in the online news magazine SLATE called for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, in which he outlines the various cases against the Vice President. Fein also testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2007 about President Bush's use of "signing statements."
* According to Fein, Cheney has:
*Asserted Presidential power to create military commissions, which combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the trial of war crimes.
* Claimed authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay on the President's say-so alone.
* Initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists.
* Championed a Presidential power to torture in contravention of federal statutes and treaties.
* Engineered the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
* Orchestrated the invocation of executive privilege to conceal from Congress secret spying programs to gather foreign intelligence, and their legal justifications.
* Summoned the privilege to refuse to disclose his consulting of business executives in conjunction with his Energy Task Force.
* Retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, through chief of staff Scooter Libby, for questioning the administration's evidence of weapons of mass destruction as justification for invading Iraq. (Read Fein's SLATE article)
John Nichols
John Nichols, author and political journalist has been writing the "Online Beat" for THE NATION magazine since 1999. John Nichols, also serves as Washington correspondent for THE NATION, as well as the associate editor of the CAPITAL TIMES, the daily newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin and a contributing writer for THE PROGRESSIVE and IN THESE TIMES.
Along with fellow author Robert McChesney, Nichols co-founded the media-reform group Free Press. Nichols has also authored several books, including JEWS FOR BUCHANAN, which analyzed the recount vote of 2000, and DICK: THE MAN WHO IS PRESIDENT, his best-selling biography of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Nichols most recent book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT, argues that impeachment is an essential instrument of America's democratic system. Nichols' argument also bases the power of impeachment in the hands of the people, rather than the congress. In his recent article, "In Praise of Impeachment," Nichols argues "While the Constitution handed Congress the power to officially check such despotism, Jefferson and his colleagues fully expected the American people to be the champions of the application of the rule of law to an errant executive."
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html
July 14, 2007 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink