Comments (43)

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 4:34 PM:

RECESS APPOINTMENT time!!!!

Steve In Seattle wrote on July 19, 2007 4:43 PM:

Miers could not have relied in good faith on the opinion as she knew its author no longer had the authority to issue it.

Bradbury should be in trouble with his local bar for issuing an opinion that made it look like he had qualifications he no longer posessed.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 4:47 PM:

LOL -- I'm sure the local bar is going to get right on that!!!

pirx wrote on July 19, 2007 4:54 PM:

Most of the publican legal theory seems to invented in a local bar, probably a blind pig at that. (FYI - Blind pig is an illegal after hours joint)

Mrs. K8 wrote on July 19, 2007 4:58 PM:

What department is responsible for issuing Bradbury's paycheck??? Perhaps they can be threatened with legal action -- for issuing a paycheck for someone who no longer holds a valid position. Maybe those folks are the kind of low-level functionaries who would respond to pressure (as opposed to the arrogant bastards running the show).

sunnylander wrote on July 19, 2007 5:01 PM:

this just underscores the fact that until they are behind bars they haven't done anything wrong. all of these people are following bush and cheney's lead .

molly wrote on July 19, 2007 5:07 PM:

Bush and Chenney to the Hague and everybody else to jail. Get replacements for Conyers and Leahy. Don't have the balls to do what has to be done.Started out fine but got cold feet or threatened ..whatever. Does Leahy have a business deal with Rumsfeld? If so, he is dirty.

molly wrote on July 19, 2007 5:09 PM:

Bush and Chenney to the Hague and everybody else to jail. Get replacements for Conyers and Leahy. Don't have the balls to do what has to be done.Started out fine but got cold feet or threatened ..whatever. Does Leahy have a business deal with Rumsfeld? If so, he is dirty.

JEP wrote on July 19, 2007 5:21 PM:

Semi-fiction from JEP;

US Headlines, ca. July 2007;

In response to their devastating election loss in November 2006, a secret branch of the Republican Party has developed a new organization, called "Trolls for The New American Way", which channels funds from Republican campaign coffers around the country to pay these "trolls," as they are known on the blogosphere.

"It is good to see experienced right wing bloggers are finally getting paid for their work," said one well-known troll who calls himself "King of Zouk, and who also uses many other names on "The Fix" blog at The Washington Post (despite the fact that The Fix host has promised not to let people post under more than one name).

According to sources close to the source, this new wave of Republican paid trolls has been recruited to infest the left-leaning, liberal blogs on the internet. When asked why these blogs were targeted, one Republican operative, who spoke anonymously, answered "cuz those go%$#&mn tinfoil-hat lib'rul sunsabitches on the blogs lost us the last election!"

When asked what they were being paid for their pieces, "Jake", a recent newcomer to the paid-troll ranks, said "We only get paid when someone responds, but that's so easy to do, all you gotta say is "Bush is Great!" and you get a whole string of responses from these stupid leftwing geeks! I'm rakin' in the dough, especially over at TPMMuckraker!"

When asked how much he was paid for his work, the new troll responded, "about a hundred bucks for every one who responds."

The interview then ended, because a fight broke out immdeiately among the trolls, apparently because some of the other trolls were only getting $50 for each response.

Harriet wrote on July 19, 2007 5:26 PM:

Look, Jake, pipe down! You are going to get me into further hot water if you try to meddle where you're not wanted! Are you going to be there to take the heat when the furnace gets fired up over this?

You take orders, buddy! You don't give them.

Cowboy wrote on July 19, 2007 5:27 PM:

Opps! No more Senate recesses this year!

(Remember the long recess ain't happening this year, thanks to some Senate maneuvering. Every couple weeks at least one member will be holding the shop open.)

So sorry for you Mr. Preznint!

Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 5:27 PM:

Impeach Gonzales or stop complaining. This past humiliation for the Democrats a very long time ago.

Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 5:30 PM:

The Senate will too recess. It’s just silly to pretend otherwise. The fact that this guy is on the job proves official appointment is unnecessary anyway.

Jane wrote on July 19, 2007 5:31 PM:

So impeach Bradbury for using powers of office he is not entitled to.

Cowboy wrote on July 19, 2007 5:34 PM:

Anon 5:27 PM, problem is you need two-thirds of the Senate to convict on an impeachment charge. Last time I checked there weren't 67 Democratic Senators. You get 50 votes, but if 16 Republicans, and 1 independent Lieberman wish to become accessories after-the-fact, then this becomes an issue for the next election cycle. This batch of Republicans may not care about wanton illegality over at Justice but this matter isn't going away.

sunnylander wrote on July 19, 2007 5:36 PM:

I tried to alert the MSM about lots of this kind of illegalities, but they will not confront the powers that be. Why, Why not? You know it sell.

A Georgia Democrat wrote on July 19, 2007 5:38 PM:

JEP: Very funny

mls wrote on July 19, 2007 5:53 PM:

The Senators seem to have mixed together a number of issues, and one would need to unpack them in order to figure out if there is anything to their claim(s). First, they are asserting that Bradbury is no longer permitted to serve as the acting head of OLC by virtue of the Vacancies Act. However, Bradbury issued the opinion as the principal deputy assistant AG, not as acting assistant AG.

Second, they seem to be saying that Bradbury should not have been "re-designated" as principal deputy assistant AG. But even assuming that Bradbury relinquished the title of principal deputy assistant AG when he became acting head of OLC, I don't know why it would be impermissible (and the Senators do not explain why) for him to resume that title when he is no longer acting. Indeed, if someone else had been appointed as acting (or confirmed as permanent) head of OLC, I cannot imagine that they would object to Bradbury remaining as deputy.

Third, they seem to be suggesting that by virtue of the fact that there is no one appointed as acting head, Bradbury is "de facto" acting head. But the regulations cited by the Senators themselves indicate that there is a provision for what happens when there is neither a confirmed nor acting head of OLC, and that the work of the office is permitted to continue under supervision of the AG.

Fourth, they contend that because Gonzales is recused from this matter, he cannot supervise OLC for the purpose of the opinion relating to Miers' testimony. But unless the Senators are claiming that OLC is entirely disabled from performing its functions with respect to this matter, logically the answer would seem to be that Paul Clement, who is acting as AG for these purposes, would be the appropriate official to supervise OLC. The Senators do not address this issue possiblity at all.

Fifth, the Senators seem to be suggesting that because Bradbury was not legally permitted to issue the opinion in question, it was improper or illegal for Miers to rely on the opinion. Miers, however, purported to be obeying the direction of the White House Counsel, not the direction of OLC. Had there been no opinion from OLC, it is doubtful that Miers would have acted any differently, and it is difficult to see why her legal position would be affected.

Moreover, even assuming that Miers were directly relying on the OLC opinion, it is difficult to see how Bradbury's (purported) lack of authority would impact her. Whether Congress has the legal authority to make Miers testify is a completely separate issue from whether Bradbury has the authority to issue this OLC opinion. Since generally it is not a defense to a contempt of Congress charge that one made a good faith mistake of law, it is not obvious that Miers' good faith would be an issue. If it were, however, one would have to do an extensive analysis, including a review of the de facto officer doctrine, in order to determine whether Bradbury's lack of authority has any impact on Miers' good faith. The Senators do not address this issue at all.

The Senators might have a legitimate claim if they argue that it is inappropriate (if not illegal) for OLC to operate for an extended period of time without an acting head. They might also reasonably request an assurance that in the absence of an acting head, neither Bradbury nor anyone else is improperly exercising authorities that are reserved to the acting head. Thus, their first two bullet points seem pretty reasonable. Asking for an OPR investigation seems rather premature, at least until the question regarding supervision is answered. And while the Senators no doubt would like Bradbury's nomination to be withdrawn, I fail to see how anything in their letter gives them a right to demand it.

OCPatriot wrote on July 19, 2007 6:51 PM:

Flapping jaws, once again. Leahy, Durkin, Feingold and Kennedy (also Reid and Convers) sure write good letters. SO WHAT? I haven't yet seen the Senate or the Congress exercise their real power, and until they do so, there isn't anything people can do except to complain, chortle, get indignant, and generally act like victims. No wonder the Congress has such low ratings! They never seem to really get angry or upset. Why isn't there a decent lawyer sitting beside them, pointing out the unlawful positions being taken? Why hasn't a marshal or a sergeant-at-arms marched into the White House and arrested these miscreants? Victims, impotent old men, jaw flappers!

Cowboy wrote on July 19, 2007 6:55 PM:

mls, the Senator's version doesn't require much unpacking.

Simply put, Bradbury has no grounds for continuing to draw a taxpayer funded salary in his current position, or to write legal opinions under the aegis of the "acting head" of the OLC.

Jane wrote on July 19, 2007 7:07 PM:

If we impeach him, how many 'Publican Senators do you think we can get on record approving of the attempted disenfranchisment of several thousand voters entitled to vote. (Maybe we can agree that those entitled to vote should be allowed to do so!}

MLS By your analysis, Paul Clement should have signed off on that letter. Did he? Would he? When Bradbury resumed his prior title, did this Administration bother to indicate who was supervising OLC? Or were they waiting for the Senators to wash their linen for them?

kenga wrote on July 19, 2007 8:48 PM:

Simply put, Bradbury has no grounds for continuing to draw a taxpayer funded salary in his current position, or to write legal opinions under the aegis of the "acting head" of the OLC.

Furthermore, it raises a possible issue of whether or not his counsel is subject to client/attorney privilege or executive privilege ...

The Oracle wrote on July 19, 2007 9:45 PM:

If local and state bar associations were anything more than rubber-stamp institutions, then all the criminally insane Republican lawyers in the Bush administration would have long ago had their law licenses stripped from them.

But since local and state bar associations continue to do nothing, then one must assume that none of the members of these associations really give a damn for the "rule of law" anymore than the criminally insane legal weasels in the Bush administration give a damn for the "rule of law."

Pathetic. The lawyers in the Bush administration are really, really giving the legal profession in America a bad name. And local and state bar associations are complicit in the widespread illegalities of the worst administration in American history due to their deafening silence in not doing anything about their criminal brothers.

Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 9:50 PM:

...Furthermore, it raises a possible issue of whether or not his counsel is subject to client/attorney privilege or executive privilege ...

Or conflict of interest...

MLS wrote on July 19, 2007 10:36 PM:

As I read the analysis in the Senators' letter, Paul Clement should have supervised the OLC in preparing the opinion in question and it is reasonable to ask whether he did so. I am just saying that if it turns out that he did do so, I am not sure what their gripe would be.

I don't think that the Senators are saying that Bradbury cannot remain as principal deputy assistant AG, only that he should not be the person who in effect runs the office. That is why it would be logical for them to urge that someone else be appointed acting head of OLC, but they did not make that suggestion. Instead they suggested that Bradbury's nomination be withdrawn, which would not solve the problem they identify.

cjop wrote on July 19, 2007 10:42 PM:

Who f'n cares. Nothing will be done. Enough said.

TEL wrote on July 19, 2007 10:52 PM:

MLS,

As I understand it, the position requires Senate confirmation. Bush cannot appoint Bradbury indefinitely without confirmation, yet he has done so. This process is well-defined, and IMPORTANT for several positions, including cabinet members etc. Bush cannot arbitrarily ignore it. I believe this trumps any other issue regarding Bradbury's standing. No confirmation, no position. I have to admit, I've never seen anyone so willing to break so many laws on so many levels. Its dizzying. I think respect for the rule of law is going to be a big issue the next major election.

Cowboy wrote on July 19, 2007 11:41 PM:

MLS, your reading is one worthy of an Alberto Gonzales protege. The issue here is obviously not whether Bradbury's nomination SHOULD be withdrawn, because the Bush administration has already done as much. A friendly GOP Senate in 2006 wouldn't even confirm this guy and the Bush administration did not resubmit his name for confirmation. At this point, the White House has waived its right to do so by letting this guy stay on for more than 120 days.

So, the question then is, "what is the authority of an 'acting' appointee who has overstayed the 120 day acting appointment limit"?

Odds are, based on recent precedent, that he could probably continue to draw a salary, although it is questionable whether the opinions of an "acting" appointee who occupies a position subject to Senate confirmation will carry the same weight as it might under normal circumstances. Doubtful.

Clement, the Solicitor General, has no direct authority over the OLC. He would be acting in violation of his duties if he had directed the OLC's opinion. The head of the OLC reports directly to the Attorney General. In special circumstances the AAG of the OLC may also be tasked with assignments by the Deputy Attorney General. However, both the Attorney General and the DAG have recused themselves in reference to this matter. In other words, the only people with direct legal authority to delegate, or seek the opinion of the OLC have waived this authority on the basis of conflict of interest concerns.

Which leaves us with a letter written by some guy who is drawing a taxpayer funded salary in violation of the Vacancies Act of 1868 (reference U.S. v. Lucido (1975) and Williams v. Phillips (1973)).

JNagarya wrote on July 20, 2007 12:18 AM:

Bush and Chenney to the Hague and everybody else to jail. Get replacements for Conyers and Leahy. Don't have the balls to do what has to be done.Started out fine but got cold feet or threatened ..whatever. Does Leahy have a business deal with Rumsfeld? If so, he is dirty.

Posted by: molly
Date: July 19, 2007 5:07 PM

Conyers and Leahy are chairs of committees. They can not and do not act unilaterally; actions by their committees are subject to vote by the members of the committees.

No cold feet; no threat. It is called democratic due process of law. The opposite of that is bullying, demanding the impossible, and then bashing whoever is handy -- so long as a Democrat -- when one doesn't get the impossible.

By contrast, politics is the art of the possible.

JNagarya wrote on July 20, 2007 12:27 AM:

Flapping jaws, once again. Leahy, Durkin, Feingold and Kennedy (also Reid and Convers) sure write good letters. SO WHAT? I haven't yet seen the Senate or the Congress exercise their real power, and until they do so, there isn't anything people can do except to complain, chortle, get indignant, and generally act like victims. No wonder the Congress has such low ratings! They never seem to really get angry or upset. Why isn't there a decent lawyer sitting beside them, pointing out the unlawful positions being taken? Why hasn't a marshal or a sergeant-at-arms marched into the White House and arrested these miscreants? Victims, impotent old men, jaw flappers!

Posted by: OCPatriot
Date: July 19, 2007 6:51 PM

Conyers and Leahy are lawyers. So are many of the members of their committees. I assure you they know the applicable laws better than you.

Phoney Jake D wrote on July 20, 2007 2:29 AM:

RECESS time!!!! I want my milk, cookies, and my binky blanket!!!

security code: neck, as in string me up, please!

melior wrote on July 20, 2007 3:16 AM:

Minus 10 points for reading comprehension.

>That is why it would be logical for them to urge
>that someone else be appointed acting head of
>OLC, but they did not make that suggestion.
>Instead they suggested that Bradbury's nomination
>be withdrawn, which would not solve the problem
>they identify.
>Posted by: MLS
>Date: July 19, 2007 10:36 PM

From the letter:

"When does the President plan to withdraw Mr Bradbury's nomination *and submit a new nominee* for Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel?"

editor wrote on July 20, 2007 3:38 AM:

I think MLS has much of the analysis correct.
Bradbury has not assumed the AAG role.
The Senators say:

AAG performs this duty, or delegates and supervises.
If there is no AAG, then AG delegates and supervises.
AG has recused from this issue.

So, that takes out the #1 and #2 person. Who is #3? Is it Clement? Then Clement could have delegated to and supervised Bradbury.

It's a curious situation.
The Senators note that under the Vacancies Act, "when there is no acting head of an office, only... the Attorney General can perform the functions... of the OLC AAG."
The Senators also note that the Attorney General has recused himself from matters pertaining to the USA scandal.
So if the AG has recused, but it's his duty alone, what happens? Does it just not get done? Or does someone else do the work?

(Security Code: when. It will be a great day for global celebration WHEN this Administration's time is over.)

MLS wrote on July 20, 2007 7:11 AM:

Cowboy- what you are missing (besides good manners) is that Bradbury is not purporting to be the acting AAG. You can see this by going to the OLC website and comparing opinions from Bradbury earlier this year (which he signed as Acting AAG) to the memorandum in question (which he signed as Principal Deputy AAG). So it is fine for you to assert that he has overstayed as Acting AAG, but that doesn't make it so.

melior-there is a difference between submitting a new nominee for the AAG position and naming someone as acting AAG until there is a confirmed person in the AAG position. My point is that by asking for the former rather than the latter the Senators are confusing these issues.

Steve In Seattle wrote on July 20, 2007 12:14 PM:

You can't renew a temporary appointment. It is written into the Statutes. You have to either submit the appointment for confirmation; leave the post open; appoint a different person (usually you pick someone less farvorable) as a temporary appointment,or nominate a new peron for confirmation.

Anyone seen the designation "Principal Deputy AAG" before? Can you act a the principal deputy for a vacant position? Also, when an opinion needs to come from the OLC can a mere AAG give it?

Justice is in freefall. They are making it up as they go. I used to think it was disgusting, now it has reached the level wher it is just pathetic and pitiful.

How about he peach of an "AG can't prosecute executive officers" all the Inspector Generals are going to scratch their heads at this one.

But at least it explains why so many coruption probes are pending rather than being actively pursued.

Steve In Seattle wrote on July 20, 2007 12:23 PM:

One other comment

"Miers, however, purported to be obeying the direction of the White House Counsel, not the direction of OLC. Had there been no opinion from OLC, it is doubtful that Miers would have acted any differently, and it is difficult to see why her legal position would be affected."

Look at the Nixon Precedent, even Paul Mitchel could not rely on the President or Whitehouse Counsel (Mr. Dean). Ms. Miers could rely on the official position of the US Agency as presented by the OLC, and the OLC has assumed expertise and good faith as would any Governmental agency.

Steve In Seattle wrote on July 20, 2007 12:23 PM:

One other comment

"Miers, however, purported to be obeying the direction of the White House Counsel, not the direction of OLC. Had there been no opinion from OLC, it is doubtful that Miers would have acted any differently, and it is difficult to see why her legal position would be affected."

Look at the Nixon Precedent, even george Mitchel could not rely on the President or Whitehouse Counsel (Mr. Dean). Ms. Miers could rely on the official position of the US Agency as presented by the OLC, and the OLC has assumed expertise and good faith as would any Governmental agency.

Cowboy wrote on July 20, 2007 1:42 PM:

MLS, you stated:

"I don't think that the Senators are saying that Bradbury cannot remain as principal deputy assistant AG, only that he should not be the person who in effect runs the office. That is why it would be logical for them to urge that someone else be appointed acting head of OLC, but they did not make that suggestion. Instead they suggested that Bradbury's nomination be withdrawn, which would not solve the problem they identify."

Where in the entire letter is the issue of the Bush "withdrawing" a nomination raised?

The nomination issue is moot. It is irrelevant. Bradbury's nomination is not before the Senate now, and it hasn't been for over 7 months because George W. Bush WITHDREW the nomination. The issue is moot.

Someone who deals with irrelevancies and who dances around core issues is engaging in the type of thinking that is worthy of an Alberto Gonzales protege. If that's rude, sorry. It's also a statement of fact.

The issues here are straightforward, they don't require any unpacking.

Simply stated: "On what legal basis is the president asserting privilege"? Who at the DoJ is in a position to provide indepdent advice on this matter?

Certainly not the OLC. Not as it has traditionally done, because the current head of the OLC has overstayed his 120-day "acting" appointment, which leaves his department without a Senate confirmed head. In that situation the Attorney General would be the next in the chain of authority, but he has recused himself. In other words, there is no legitimate head of the OLC at this moment, so there is no legal basis on which the OLC is able to issue valid legal opinions on this matter.

If Bush leaves the status quo as is, it means the OLC will have no legal standing on this matter. This would be a correct inference to make based on his violation of the Vacancies Act.

The court references that I cited above lend credence to this understanding.

MLS wrote on July 20, 2007 3:26 PM:

Cowboy- maybe we are talking about different letters. The letter I read says "As you know, President Bush has nominated Mr. Bradbury to be Assistant Attorney General of OLC." It also asks "When does the President plan to withdraw Mr Bradbury's nomination and submit a new nominee for Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel?"

Now I admit that I have no independent knowledge of the status of Bradbury's nomination but I am assuming from the Senators' letter that he was nominated again in this Congress. If that is incorrect, blame them, not me.

You may contend that since OLC has no "legitimate head," it cannot act at all on this matter, even if Paul Clement provides supervision, but the Senators did not make this claim, and it seems rather far-fetched to me. It would make a lot more sense to conclude that Clement is acting as AG for the purposes of this matter, and therefore can provide the required supervision of OLC. In any event, something more than bald assertion is required to substantiate your contention.

More importantly, the whole question of OLC's status has no relevance to the question of whether the President could properly assert executive privilege regarding Miers's testimony. If a court were ever to review the merits of the executive privilege claim (somewhat unlikely), it would not give any deference to the OLC opinion, regardless of whether the OLC is authorized to act in this matter. It would consider the opinion for its persuasive value, nothing more.

So if the real issue is, as you state, "On what legal basis is the president asserting privilege?", then the Senators' letter is completely irrelevant. Which was my point.

Further affiant sayeth not.

Cowboy wrote on July 20, 2007 5:03 PM:

MLS,

On what legal basis could Clement act as the defacto Attorney General in reference to the OLC?

Yes, he would be within his authority to write advisory opinions down the chain of command to a U.S. Attorney -- that would be consistent with precedent. But on what legal basis could he exercise authority over a parallel office, which traditionally has not been under the Solicitor General's oversight?

Even if you were to say that the Attorney General could delegate this authority, you would have to recognize that this move creates a new precedent that only raises a lot more questions about how this White House operates. The AG's authority to do this would be dubious at best.

The Senators letter may not have spelled this matter out, but this is one of the inferences that could be drawn from an explanation such as "Paul Clement oversaw the writing of this letter". It raises a whole nother set of bizarre questions.

Alternatively, if Alberto Gonzales wrote the OLC's opinion, and Bradbury simply signed off; or if Clement wrote the letter and Bradbury simply signed off, or Fred Fielding wrote the letter, or if Bradbury simply wrote the letter on his own initiative without any prompting and wishes to claim as much under oath, then we have another set of questions to work with. None of these outcomes is particularly reassuring.

The OLC's opinions may have no bearing on how a U.S. Attorney prosecutes a contempt citation; however, it does have bearing as a matter of precedent on how this will play out in the court of public opinion, perhaps even within the courts (there are ways that Congress can litigate matter without the direct intervention of someone like the DC U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor); or during an impeachment hearing.

The bottom line here is that this White House has long ago abandoned the safe harbor of precedent and its explicit Constitutional authorities. It is simply making up justifications and explanations as it goes along now. This can be seen in many areas, but this U.S. Attorneys issue is one area where this is especially blatant.

In reference to "Further affiant sayeth not," I find that especially hilarious. So these days Bush administration officials have resorted to unsworn "affidavits" on blogs under anonymous blog handles?

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that my above is a sworn statement; however, I will state that this is the opinion of one ordinary American who cares a great deal about having leaders who exercise power responsibly, transparently, and with some degree of accountability.

Slippery Slope wrote on July 21, 2007 11:50 AM:

"If a court were ever to review the merits of the executive privilege claim (somewhat unlikely), it would not give any deference to the OLC opinion, regardless of whether the OLC is authorized to act in this matter. It would consider the opinion for its persuasive value, nothing more."
****************************

The WH (as well as DOJ and other departments) seem to be in free-fall. Cowboy’s point that they are “simply making up justifications and explanations as it goes along” is right on.

First, is it Miers position that she, in good faith, relied on the Bradbury opinion in making her decision to ignore the subpoena? In the TPM “Today's Must Read” post by Paul Kiel on July 12, 2007, 9:33 AM regarding this issue Paul states “that Miers and the White House are relying on a new opinion by the Justice Department”. Are there any citations directly from Miers or her counsel stating their reliance on the opinion? If so, I missed it.

Is the fact that a court review “would not give any deference to the OLC opinion” really mute? The canard here is for Miers to be able to represent that she and her counsel relied on the OLC opinion “in good faith”, thus shielding her. This helps the WH in their efforts to further stonewall legitimate oversight but does it provide Miers with legitimate cover? Does Miers’ position of good faith reliance on the OLC opinion strictly hinge on Bradbury's status? Is there precedence regarding one asserting a good faith reliance on such an OLC opinion without first fully vetting the current status of the opinion’s originator? Does the simple fact that there is wrangling over the originator’s legitimacy further help Miers position or hurt her?

Could it be that the legitimacy of the OLC opinion is irrelevant or minimal to a final outcome of Inherent Contempt proceedings but still provide Miers with a defensible position in an unbiased court (assuming there are still some out there) for her no show action?

Did Miers or her counsel have prior knowledge of a pending OLC opinion (legitimate no not)? Did Fielding or anyone in the WH direct / lead / suggest / or otherwise cause or influence Bradbury to write the opinion?

Hmmm. “Sand in the eyes of the umpire” comes to mind. Seems we got a full-blown sandstorm.

Meanwhile, tic toc.

Anonymous wrote on July 21, 2007 4:44 PM:

"recess appointment"-time is BS: The SEnate can refuse to go on recess. "REcess appointments" only possible if the vacancy occurred _during the recess_.

Anonymous wrote on July 21, 2007 4:47 PM:

Congress is par of problem _when_ Congress has options, but refuses to assert power to prevent the abuse of power of the other branch. Congrses could shut down money in response to this, but refuses: ["This appears to be yet another attempt by this Administration to circumvent the confirmation process in order to install a controversial nominee in a key Justice Department post, and now, ironically, that nominee is involved in protecting the Administration’s efforts to circumvent the confirmation process." ]