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

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

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

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.

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.

More than ever, we need whistle blowers.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

Are you kidding me?!?!?!?

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

These people have some major cajones!

"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.

Are you kidding me?!?!?!?

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

These people have some major cajones!

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.

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")

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?

Book 'em Dano!

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.

"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

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.

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

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.