Comments (83)

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 3:46 PM:

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

KilgoreTrout XL wrote on July 11, 2007 3:54 PM:

A "much different tack" is one way to put it ;).

kmdala wrote on July 11, 2007 3:55 PM:

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

kmdala wrote on July 11, 2007 3:56 PM:

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

kmdala wrote on July 11, 2007 3:56 PM:

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

John Brownlow wrote on July 11, 2007 3:56 PM:

hmmm.... this couldn't have anything to do with Taylor's disastrous appearance today, could it?

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 3:57 PM:

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

mycotropic wrote on July 11, 2007 3:59 PM:

Now THAT'S contempt of congress isn't it?

Man it will be fun when she is finally made to appear and we find out just how stupid an administration supreme court nominee is....

theWalrus wrote on July 11, 2007 4:00 PM:

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!

Dennis wrote on July 11, 2007 4:02 PM:

Here we are, both sides playing the game of "chicken" - who will blink first.

If Bush wins this, our country will always be at the mercy of whoever occupies the White House.

In times past, when these confrontational episodes occured between the White House and Congress, they were worked out so that the issues of checks and balances between these two branches of government were not thrown to the Supreme Court to decide.

But, if ever there was an issue, or a time, when the American people need an honest look at the ethics and the respect for law of their government, including the Supreme Court, it's this issue and this time.

Bring it on.

If not, our government has collapsed anyway.

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

EH wrote on July 11, 2007 4:04 PM:

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?

jak1 wrote on July 11, 2007 4:06 PM:

>> "Ms. Miers has no choice other than to comply with direction given her by Counsel to the president."<<

What?? NO CHOICE??

what will happen if she does show up? Will she get fired? Or maybe she'll burst into flames?? Yeah that might be it.

No choice other than to comply with direction given her by Counsel to the president. What exactly does that mean anyway? Or what??

Ralph Kramden wrote on July 11, 2007 4:07 PM:

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

F/O wrote on July 11, 2007 4:09 PM:

Maybe ordering a person to disobey a lawful subpoena from a co-equal branch of government is impeachible conduct.

Dave wrote on July 11, 2007 4:09 PM:

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?

jerri wrote on July 11, 2007 4:11 PM:

Harriet will never appear before the committe. bush will issue pardon, commute her sentence, whatever it takes. She will never testify as long as bush is president.

beachcomber wrote on July 11, 2007 4:13 PM:

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

JinnRikki wrote on July 11, 2007 4:13 PM:

Wake me when they hold someone, anyone resposible for anything.

AJ wrote on July 11, 2007 4:16 PM:

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.

LTO wrote on July 11, 2007 4:16 PM:

I guess she is un-preparable....

Repugnicans can't risk an appearance.

Let the violins begin!

Dave wrote on July 11, 2007 4:17 PM:

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

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 4:19 PM:

Surely a woman considered to be a US Supreme Court Justice would be able to appear before a House Committee.

1/If she can't dish out what Congress gives her, then, wow, how clearly NOT qualified she would have been for the Court.

2/For someone nominated to hold a seat in the High Court, what remarkable contempt for the rule of law favoring an Executive argument over a Legislative right.

Really.

mo2 wrote on July 11, 2007 4:22 PM:

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/

EH wrote on July 11, 2007 4:26 PM:

Indeed. Now we see what we missed out on with the Supreme Court confirmation hearings that never happened.

However, 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."

Gandhi wrote on July 11, 2007 4:30 PM:

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.

Gandhi wrote on July 11, 2007 4:31 PM:

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.

Busta wrote on July 11, 2007 4:33 PM:

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?

kozmik wrote on July 11, 2007 4:33 PM:

wow. It's intermittently continually surprising, and not the slightest bit surprising, the extent to which this administration holds the law in complete and utter contempt.

When was Texas and the Republican party taken over by martians?

They apparently are from another world and share none of the nation's heritage of respect for government and the law. They interpret the law however it's convenient, often with absurd deconstructions to circumvent precedent.

I hope people are spreading the word to the mainstream voter how crooked this administration is, so that politicians can proceed with a popular mandate to stop the insanity.

paul wrote on July 11, 2007 4:37 PM:

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.

jak1 wrote on July 11, 2007 4:37 PM:

To borrow a phrase from the GOP, this is a purely SYMBOLIC gesture to comply with direction given her.

"Ms. Miers has no choice other than to comply with direction given her by Counsel to the president."

As Marty Lederman lays out here, the president's assertion of executive privilege is not legally binding -- but the committee's subpoena is.

zoyd wrote on July 11, 2007 4:41 PM:

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

EH wrote on July 11, 2007 4:44 PM:

They aren't Martians, they're Americans for the most part. You sound like you're confusing "the way things are" with "the way things are supposed to be." The latter is always different than the former.

But hey, maybe you like treating your opponents as less than human. We've all seen plenty of examples of role models in this regard over the past several years, so you can hardly be blamed for adopting the administration's point of view of its opponents.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 4:49 PM:

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

P J Evans wrote on July 11, 2007 4:51 PM:

Will Conyers at some point actually do more than issue letters? He was doing a fairly useless job of running the committee today: he even let Issa accuse Valerie Wilson of perjury, after he cut off a Democrat's questions to let Issa have the floor.

The House Judiciary looks - and sounds - like a bunch of Republican wolves with a flock of Democratic sheep.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 4:51 PM:

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?

PatrickB wrote on July 11, 2007 4:53 PM:

Geez...
If the White House is at the mercy of Congress to continue funding for the war, why doesn't Congress threaten to suspend funding effective IMMEDIATELY if White House aides don't show for House Judiciary hearings? The Congress is a doormat to the White House as long as they allow themselves to be walked on.

Uncle Don wrote on July 11, 2007 4:53 PM:

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!

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 5:03 PM:

Congress has my full support in using all lawful options, including force, to issue and enforce this contempt citation.

If the US Attyrs are blocked; or they are delayed in acting on this contempt, I fully support the House impeaching Miers for contempt.

I support the House looking at the record and history to get a sense what would be a reaonable time for the US Atty to prosecute this contempt citation. I would think this could be done in a few short days.

Bottom line: if the DOJ Staff or US Atty think they're going to delay this prosecution, they have another thing coming: House impeachment of the DOJ Staff involved with the slow rolling on this.

They've chosen the wrong Constitution to defy. Congress has my full support in using all lawful options, including lawful force to timely resolve this issue.

CJR wrote on July 11, 2007 5:10 PM:

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.

impeach cobbler wrote on July 11, 2007 5:14 PM:

Stunning. The Administration is no longer simply conducting furtive obstruction of justice -- it is now blatant, public, and obvious.

We need to pound them on every crime: write letters to the editor and your reps, call talk radio, talk to your friends, put up signs and bumper stickers....

The subject of impeachment needs to be broached at every opportunity. Impeachment for Bush and Cheney is polling in the high 40s to mid 50s, and the subject isn't even being discussed in the GOP/MSM
complex. When the poll numbers reach critical mass somewhere in the mid-to-high 60s (and they will soon) Madam Speaker will consent to the people's will, and set the table.

This needs to happen by fall, because '08 is too late...

Samsara wrote on July 11, 2007 5:23 PM:

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.

lestatdelc wrote on July 11, 2007 5:26 PM:

Wake me when Conyers and the Congress actually DO something about this flagrant disregard for the law, and as noted above, criminal conspiracy to do so.

lestatdelc wrote on July 11, 2007 5:28 PM:

"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.

dude wrote on July 11, 2007 5:39 PM:

what's up with Harriet "Goth" Miers' eyeliner?

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 5:45 PM:

If impeached she could never serve in Government again.

Gonzo should be impeached.

EH wrote on July 11, 2007 5:51 PM:

Samsara: The President can pardon anybody for anything, except that the President cannot pardon him or herself.

breakspear wrote on July 11, 2007 5:51 PM:

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.

Steve5117 wrote on July 11, 2007 6:02 PM:

Evidently Karl feels that Harriet Miers' face is not distracting enough for her to properly mislead.

The way I hear it, Karl made the choice of Beauty over the Beast.

Are they afraid of things getting ugly?

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 6:18 PM:

What prevents the President from pardoning himself?

Hank Gillette wrote on July 11, 2007 6:25 PM:

"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?"

Of course. Haven't you been paying attention for the last six years?

People! Could you please quit hitting "Post" multiple times? The posting works, it just takes a little while when the site is busy. No matter how wise or witty your remarks are, they lose something the second or third time they show up.

Numero Uno McLean Stevenson/Hello Larry Fan wrote on July 11, 2007 6:27 PM:

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.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 11, 2007 6:29 PM:

Keep the threads clean.

If you want to comment about a troll, click on "Troll Patrol" (below) - a public service blog, dedicated to troll trivia, troll rants, troll research.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 6:32 PM:

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.....

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 6:45 PM:

Numero Uno McLean Stevenson/Hello Larry Fan:

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.

I assume that's because you would not be protected under Executive Privilege.

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.

Luckily for Ms. Miers, Congress does not get to order the Marshal's office anywhere : )

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 6:48 PM:

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.

Nancy Davies wrote on July 11, 2007 6:54 PM:

If I (an average citizen) ignored a summons for jury duty, the county sheriff's department would come pounding at my door and arrest me.

But here's a Bushie refusing a summons (subpoena) from the U.S. Congress. If Harriet Meiers doesn't appear tomorrow before the House Judiciary Committee, I believe Conyers et al should invoke "inherent contempt". Nevermind the slow process of the courts.

Let the U.S. House's sergeant of arms and cops haul her away -- just as law-enforcement officials would do if I ignored a jury summons (which I would never dare do).

BTW: The last time Congress invoked "inherent contempt" was in the 1930s. Looks like We the People are due for a refresher course.

mo2 wrote on July 11, 2007 7:15 PM:

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?

Numero Uno McLean Stevenson/Hello Larry Fan wrote on July 11, 2007 7:32 PM:

Right about now I can't think of anything crazier than a fascist loving old broad who still wears black eyeliner.

Sherlock wrote on July 11, 2007 7:52 PM:

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!

Xenos wrote on July 11, 2007 7:57 PM:

If word gets out that conyers is sending the Marshall, wait 'til Bush send Meiers overseas on Air Force 1. Or hides her somewhere. Bush has not balked at felony obstruction of justice before, so we should not expect him to do so now.

georgia wrote on July 11, 2007 7:58 PM:

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,

lestatdelc wrote on July 11, 2007 8:02 PM:

Yeah Jake D. floating the law is worth a smily emoticon isn't it... fuckhead.

EH wrote on July 11, 2007 8:09 PM:

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."

Nancy Davies wrote on July 11, 2007 8:24 PM:

Georgia:

Great post -- I already sent a similar message to my REPUBLICAN congressman (who won by 2 percent in 2006, thanks to Karl Rove tactics) here in northwest-suburban Chicago.

I'm all for "inherent contempt", which I mentioned about an hour ago on this board. I basically sent the same message (with stronger words) to my congressman.

Regardless, we need to urge "inherent contempt" action against Harriet Miers to U.S. House Judiciary Chairman Conyers and to his fellow committee members and likewise in the Senate.

Thank God I live in a blue state with Durbin and Obama as my senators.

georgia wrote on July 11, 2007 8:53 PM:

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

mj wrote on July 11, 2007 11:01 PM:

Contempt of Congress. Disbarment. End of conversation.

mj wrote on July 11, 2007 11:02 PM:

Contempt of Congress. Disbarment. End of conversation.

mj wrote on July 11, 2007 11:03 PM:

Contempt of Congress. Disbarment. End of conversation.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 11:13 PM:

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

That don't look like no sweet old lady. It looks like the sort of chain smoking, alcoholic, cougar you see in a Piggly Wiggly parking lot on a Saturday night hitting on young guys. Take off that outfit and put her in a halter top and you have the spitting image. She's already got the overdone, past her prime, eyeliner. So effin creepy how she always has this glow in her eye when she looks at Bush. Could you imagine her on the Supreme Court?! Yowza! Even the Republicans came to their senses on that one.

JNagarya wrote on July 11, 2007 11:17 PM:

Ford voluntarily testified to Congress about his pardon of Nixon.

Clinton allowed his folks to testify to Congress.

The only thing Bushit has ever volunteerily done is avoid responsibility for his conduct and its consequences. Perhaps the paramount nadir, prior to his unconstituional appointment to the White House, was to go AWOL sufficiently long that under law it constituted desertion -- traditionally an offense earning execution.

His voluntary serial-lying has become so much the norm that everyone knows -- including those who lie in his defense -- he is a liar, proven so over and over and over again.

And the "We can do no wrong" Republicans who reviewed Clinton's non-reviewable pardons, seeking dirt for yet anohter round of fraud-based smearings of Clinton, now bitch that commutations -- not even a pardon -- is unreviewable.

This is the steaming pile of elephant-in-the-room public corruption the anti-Americans such as "Jake" constinue to defend, aainst not only truth but all reason.

SC = memory. As in, Though Bushit is a drunakard and cocaine burn-out, We the people do not suffer any form of memory lapse, voluntary or otherwise.

mj wrote on July 11, 2007 11:23 PM:

Contempt of Congress. Disbarment. End of conversation.

jeffgee wrote on July 11, 2007 11:50 PM:

Jake D asks if a President can pardon himself.
Nixon considered it.
Would Jake D like the current pResident to pardon himself? Would that bring honor and dignity to the Presidency?
Next question: Can the Vice President fuck himself? He told Patrick Leahy to do it, so he must know something about it.

JNagarya wrote on July 11, 2007 11:57 PM:

". . . (even though [Taylor] didn't tell anything) . . . ."

Posted by: Gandhi
Date: July 11, 2007 4:31 PM

Go back and watch the clip of the questioning by Senator Whitehouse. She admitted violation of the Hatch Act.

The powerpoint presentation materaisl used, and her statements together, make abundantly clear that the Hatch Act was deliberately and repeatedly violated.

JNagarya wrote on July 12, 2007 12:03 AM:

"Will Conyers at some point actually do more than issue letters?"

Know-it-all ass, here are some simple basics:

1. There is law, and there are politics. They are not the same thing.

2. The Committee is engaged in a legal process.

3. 99 per cent of law is conducted in writing. At least 92 per cent of those writings are in the form of letters.

"He was doing a fairly useless job of running the committee today: he even let Issa accuse Valerie Wilson of perjury, after he cut off a Democrat's questions to let Issa have the floor."

And Issa lied, and looked like an asshole, to those who know the actual facts.

"The House Judiciary looks - and sounds - like a bunch of Republican wolves with a flock of Democratic sheep."

Right: civilitiry is wimpy; being an asshole, a bully, and lying demagogue is your notion of "balls".

This isn't "American Idol" or some silly-assed football game.

Posted by: P J Evans
Date: July 11, 2007 4:51 PM

mike wrote on July 12, 2007 12:52 AM:

"Wake me when they hold someone, anyone resposible for anything.
Posted by: JinnRikki
Date: July 11, 2007 4:13 PM"

I'm worried you'll have to sleep forever.

You said it. That's the whole story.

steambomb wrote on July 12, 2007 1:51 AM:

If she dont show up, congress needs to try her in the house with inherent contempt. It was used in 1934. Congress gets to have a trial inside the house chambers and reach a verdict on her crime. DO IT!

jonra wrote on July 12, 2007 6:22 AM:

This has become laughable in a tragic sort of way. Our president is a criminal, our VP is a criminal, the whole administration acts as a crime family led by Bush/Cheney and Americans just shake their collective heads and watch it go down. Its way past time Americans stand up and say NO MORE. Its way past time WE THE PEOPLE demand an end to the crimes of Bush/Cheney. Secret energy deals, tax cuts for the wealthy, wars, turning the DOJ into an arm of the crime family. And America does nothing. Its way past time Americans gather at the capitol with torches and pitch forks and demand the removal of these lying, murderous criminals.

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

She had to stay home to work on the SCOTUS papers.

SC: knot The R's want to tie this up in as many knots as they can.

georgia wrote on July 12, 2007 11:33 AM:

The committee has agreed to object to ALL the claims of privilege made by Miers and Fielding.

Hillary wrote on August 2, 2007 8:38 PM:

Hello, nice site look this:
rolex watch replicas
woman rolex
http://replicawatchesbargain.biz/rolex-watches/buyers-of-rolex-watches.php
http://replicawatchesbargain.biz/rolex-watches/rolex-watches-faux.php
http://replicawatchesbargain.biz/rolex-watches/men-s-authentic-rolex-watches.php
http://replicawatchesbargain.biz/rolex-watches/rolex-watch-sale.php
rolex bezel fake
review of rolex watch gmt master
http://replicawatchesbargain.biz/rolex-watches/rolex-watches-in-brussels.php
http://replicawatchesbargain.biz/rolex-watches/rolex-discount-watches.php
rolex yacht master
replica rolex watch
rolex watches retail
rolex new york
http://replicawatchesbargain.biz/rolex-watches/1981-daytona-rolex-24-hour.php
http://replicawatchesbargain.biz/rolex-watches/rolex-arabic-writing-red-submariner-syrian.php
http://replicawatchesbargain.biz/rolex-watches/new-submariner-design-rolex.php
http://replicawatchesbargain.biz/rolex-watches/replica-rolex-time.php
http://replicawatchesbargain.biz/rolex-watches/quality-italian-replica-rolex-watches.php
http://replicawatchesbargain.biz/rolex-watches/cellini-fake-rolex.php

End ^) See you

Hillary wrote on August 5, 2007 4:27 PM:

Hello, nice site look this:
chanel inspired designer replica handbags juegos
dolce 26 gabana replica handbags
chanel handbags
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/replica-handbags/replica-luisse-vuton-handbags.php
black chanel purse
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/replica-handbags/replica-large-handbags.php
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/chanel-purses-wallets.php
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/replica-handbags/10-coach-replica-purse.php
chanel inspired designer replica handbags
gianfranco replica handbags
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/replica-handbags/replica-designer-purses.php
cheapest prices replica handbags
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/chanel-fake-purse.php
handbags chanel replica
shea replica handbags
asia replica handbags wholesale
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/chanel-coco-handbag.php
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/replica-handbags/luois-vuitton-replica-handbags.php
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/kncokoff-chanel-purses.php
hermes birkin replica handbags

End ^) See you

Bill wrote on August 10, 2007 8:10 PM:

!!! If you don't want to receive this spam just email me at abuse@yourfreehandbags.biz with url of your site and I'll take you off the list.
!!!

used vintage chanel and prada purses
authentic or fake chanel handbags
chanel inspired designer replica handbags juegos
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/inexpensive-replicas-of-chanel-handbags.php
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/chanel-handbag-prices.php
chanel designer handbag inspired
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/chanel-purse-black.php
faux chanel handbag
chanel black tote handbag
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/new-chanel-handbag.php
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/chanel-purses.php
red chanel handbag
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/black-chanel-purse.php
chanel designer handbag inspired
chanel handbags online
chanel quilted black purse
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/vintage-chanel-handbag.php
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/chanel-authentic-handbags.php
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/chanel-handbag-resales.php
http://yourfreehandbags.biz/chanel-handbags/chanel-handbag-2002.php

End ^) See you

Helga wrote on September 28, 2007 2:26 AM:

Hello, nice site look this:
http://geocities.com/guirer568 serta perfect sleeper [url=http://geocities.com/guirer568]serta perfect sleeper[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/axcell-axcell-desing-homes-kiko-auction.html calzado andrea [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/axcell-axcell-desing-homes-kiko-auction.html]calzado andrea[/url]
http://blogweb75.blogspot.com/2007/09/post1.html abc12 [url=http://blogweb75.blogspot.com/2007/09/post1.html]abc12[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/best-saits-lagunas-lagunas-flexbar-joel.html contintal airways [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/best-saits-lagunas-lagunas-flexbar-joel.html]contintal airways[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/best-saits-lagunas-lagunas-flexbar-joel.html contintal airways [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/best-saits-lagunas-lagunas-flexbar-joel.html]contintal airways[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/stye-treatment-stye-treatment.html dancedancerevolution [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/stye-treatment-stye-treatment.html]dancedancerevolution[/url]
http://geocities.com/guirer568 serta perfect sleeper [url=http://geocities.com/guirer568]serta perfect sleeper[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/valentina-tereshkova.html juliana lyric theory [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/valentina-tereshkova.html]juliana lyric theory[/url]
http://blogweb75.blogspot.com/2007/09/post1.html abc12 [url=http://blogweb75.blogspot.com/2007/09/post1.html]abc12[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/pyuria-pyuria-kleberg-bank-chatspace.html tarrant county appraisal [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/pyuria-pyuria-kleberg-bank-chatspace.html]tarrant county appraisal[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/gano-excel-gano-excel-appraisal-county.html akuza wheels [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/gano-excel-gano-excel-appraisal-county.html]akuza wheels[/url]
http://blogweb75.blogspot.com/2007/09/post1.html abc12 [url=http://blogweb75.blogspot.com/2007/09/post1.html]abc12[/url]
http://geocities.com/guirer568 serta perfect sleeper [url=http://geocities.com/guirer568]serta perfect sleeper[/url]
http://geocities.com/guirer568 serta perfect sleeper [url=http://geocities.com/guirer568]serta perfect sleeper[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/gano-excel-gano-excel-appraisal-county.html akuza wheels [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/gano-excel-gano-excel-appraisal-county.html]akuza wheels[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/valentina-tereshkova.html juliana lyric theory [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/valentina-tereshkova.html]juliana lyric theory[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/pyuria-pyuria-kleberg-bank-chatspace.html tarrant county appraisal [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/pyuria-pyuria-kleberg-bank-chatspace.html]tarrant county appraisal[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/christina-milian-dip-it-low-remix.html lowrider hydraulics [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/christina-milian-dip-it-low-remix.html]lowrider hydraulics[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/axcell-axcell-desing-homes-kiko-auction.html calzado andrea [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/axcell-axcell-desing-homes-kiko-auction.html]calzado andrea[/url]
http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/best-saits-lagunas-lagunas-flexbar-joel.html contintal airways [url=http://best456.blogspot.com/2007/09/best-saits-lagunas-lagunas-flexbar-joel.html]contintal airways[/url]

End ^) See you