Do you think she made the decision after watching the debacle which was Sara Taylor's hearing?

Thats great!!! So she doesn't show up, so the senate does what a judge does and issue a warrant for her for failure to appear and let the U. S. Marshalls bring her in and then put her in jail.

kmdala

Thats great!!! So she doesn't show up, so the senate does what a judge does and issue a warrant for her for failure to appear and let the U. S. Marshalls bring her in and then put her in jail.

kmdala

It's hard to imagine her giving a worse performance than Ms. Taylor, but apparently the lawyers for the WH mob thought she would.

It's just as well. It would have been a repeat of today and would have given Arlen Speter another chance to grovel at the behest of the Bush administration.

Just issue a contempt citation and move on!

Uh, could this be just because it seems apparent that there won't be any repercussions, no contempt, and no drill-down when she mentions the oath she took to the President?

She deserves a contempt citation AND should face disbarment for her blatant violation of 2 USC 192.

I recommend everyone read Marty Lederman's excellent article at Balkinization:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/07/whatis-private-citizen-to-do-when.html

I see two things, very obvious in this:

1. Ms. Meirs won't be able to "hold up" under questioning, and might actually spill something.

2. White House thinks Congress won't really jail a sweet little old lady, e.g., how would that play in the press?

Congress can prosecute Miers to coerce her to comply. A power the Supreme Court has affirmed previously. That means the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate or House would personally arrest her and detain her.

From the web page for the Sergeant-at-Arms - The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States.

SC - snake

So Senior Barbie is taking a pass. Guess she watched Political Director Barbie making a hash of the whole executive privilege claim and figured she needed to come up with something new.

JinnRikki, you got it man. Sleep well, and Sleep long ... you'll put Rip van Winkle to shame before you need to be awakened.

A Kyle Sampson email to Harriet Miers dated September 17, 2006 says
"III. USAs Who, Rumor Has It, Will Be Leaving in Coming Months:"
(no one, zero listed)

Today Sara Taylor said that she had heard that Bud Cummins had been planning to leave as early as 2004. Why wasn't he listed under the appropriate heading in Sampson's email?

Instead, Cummins is listed under
"IV. USA in the Process of Being Pushed Out"

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/sampson-miers/

Since Gonzo relied on memory loss all the time Karl Rove fears that Meirs might unintentionally reveal some things the Bush/Cheney gang wants to keep from the people. Taylor's appearance (even though she didn't tell anything) wasn't good PR for Bush.

They would like not to be at the centre of attention.

Wake me when they hold someone, anyone resposible for anything.
Posted by: JinnRikki

Ditto.
Bluster, wheeze, whine... at the end of the day, the crooks will STILL get nothing for all their crimes. F**k this congress. Please stop using polite words like "COULD subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings" and "we urge you to reconsider" and start DOING YOUR JOB!!

Are we ready fro a 3rd party yet?

I know I'm naive, but on my planet when one person instructs another person to violate black-letter law with potential criminal consequences, and the second person does violate that law, both of those people are engaged in a criminal conspiracy.

Drag her in by the lapels!!! Best thing since OJ seems to be getting under way. I can't wait to watch more TV.

Call Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox and encourage him to draw up the papers to prosecute the President and VP outside impeachment, outside Congress.

The President has no authority to order her do do anything. If he told her to steal the china would it then have the power of law?

Paul beat me to it above. Obviously, Bush's "order" to violate a Congressional subpoena is illegal and Miers' obedience to that order is equally illegal.

When two or more persons agree to violate the law, that's the textbook definition of conspiracy. In this case, conspiracy to obstruct Congress and, quite possibly, conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Hang 'em high!

The NYT and other MSM reporting this seem to have no questions about what gives Bush the authority to "order" or "instruct" a former employee to do anything.

Can the President pardon someone for Contempt of Congress?

You have to admit this administration has created some remarkable legal questions for jurists to untangle. The same sort of the mind bending paradoxes black holes provide physicists. Black holes bend space, this administration twists justice.

"I fully support the House impeaching Miers for contempt."

How can you impeach someone who is not in office? Contempt of Congress is a crimainl act. Miers is not in any office so removal from office means nothing.

If impeached she could never serve in Government again.

Gonzo should be impeached.

Get her in just to ask why she had the arrogance to accept Bush's nominating her to be a Supreme Court nominee, when she had to know she wasn't the best qualified?!? Yeah, Herr Harriet, how would you answer that? She deserves to be held in contempt.

What prevents the President from pardoning himself?

What would happen to one of us "common people" if we told Conyers' committee to go Cheney itself? We'd be in shackles in no time. Dear Mr. Conyers- do you want to become my all time hero overnight? Send the Marshall to drag her crazy looking ass in. You do that and I will take back everything I said about you and Leahy not being tough enough.

what's up with Harriet "Goth" Miers' eyeliner?
Posted by: dude
Date: July 11, 2007 5:39 PM
Tell me about it dude! That is a scary looking lady. Cheney, Miers....the freaks come out at night, the freaks come out at night.....

EH re: your claim that "The President can pardon anybody for anything, except that the President cannot pardon him or herself" if you'd feel safer posting your answer to me question on the "public service blog" please do so.

I am re-reading the DOJ documents that have to do with Miers. This struck me:

Hertling: who has the pen on this?

Sampson: I can, I suppose.

But then the response letter that is penned is signed by Hertling, not by Sampson. "Who has the pen on this?" sounds like they sign things that they didn't write on a regular basis. Whose protocol is this? Is this a normal DOJ process?

Since when do orders form the President's legal counsel carry more weight than that of Congress?

If Miers does defy Congress without consequence, then it will show that they do believe that there is indeed a supreme presidency. An executive with no accountability, whose power is so great that even his unelected underlings have more power than the will of Congress. As of now, Congress is already dangerously close to being considered a feckless, castrated branch of government that serves no other purpose than to issue toothless claims of support or complaint.

The time is now for Congress to implement the rule of law rather than just simply cite it. Taking serious legal action against both Miers and Gonzales should be the first of many necessary steps in restoring our country back to its greatness. Go get em Leahy, Waxman, Conyers!

Here's a sample letter for your representatives:

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."
- http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf

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.

Thank You,

I love all the crackpots who respond to every perceived development with all that Sergeant At Arms business, just like those who just have to use their new phrase, "inherent contempt."

EH, your contention that "The President can pardon anybody for anything, except that the President cannot pardon him or herself." is patently false.

First, the Constitution expressly bars the President from granting reprieves or pardons in cases of impeachment.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has suggested that the abuse of pardon power should be answered with impeachment. From "ex Parte Grossman" (1925):

Executive clemency exists to afford relief from undue harshness or evident mistake in the operation or enforcement of the criminal law. The administration of justice by the courts is not necessarily always wise or certainly considerate of circumstances which may properly mitigate [p121] guilt. To afford a remedy, it has always been thought essential in popular governments, as well as in monarchies, to vest in some other authority than the courts power to ameliorate or avoid particular criminal judgments. It is a check entrusted to the executive for special cases. To exercise it to the extent of destroying the deterrent effect of judicial punishment would be to pervert it; but whoever is to make it useful must have full discretion to exercise it. Our Constitution confers this discretion on the highest officer in the nation in confidence that he will not abuse it. An abuse in pardoning contempts would certainly embarrass courts, but it is questionable how much more it would lessen their effectiveness than a wholesale pardon of other offenses. If we could conjure up in our minds a President willing to paralyze courts by pardoning all criminal contempts, why not a President ordering a general jail delivery? A pardon can only be granted for a contempt fully completed. Neither in this country nor in England can it interfere with the use of coercive measures to enforce a suitor's right. The detrimental effect of excessive pardons of completed contempts would be in the loss of the deterrent influence upon future contempts. It is of the same character as that of the excessive pardons of other offenses. The difference does not justify our reading criminal contempts out of the pardon clause by departing from its ordinary meaning confirmed by its common law origin and long years of practice and acquiescence.

If it be said that the President, by successive pardons of constantly recurring contempts in particular litigation, might deprive a court of power to enforce its orders in a recalcitrant neighborhood, it is enough to observe that such a course is so improbable as to furnish but little basis for argument. Exceptional cases like this, if to be imagined at all, would suggest a resort to impeachment, rather than to a narrow and strained construction of the general powers of the President. [p122]
- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0267_0087_ZO.html