Bush tells Miers screw a congressional order and keep quiet!!

[whitesoxfan101]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070711/ap_on_...red_prosecutors

 

Bush orders Miers not to testify By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - President Bush ordered former counsel Harriet Miers to defy a congressional summons, even as a second former aide told a Senate panel Wednesday she knew of no involvement by Bush in the dismissals of eight federal prosecutors.

 

Contempt citations against both women were a possibility.

 

House Democrats threatened to cite Miers if she refused to appear as subpoenaed for a Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday. The White House said she was immune from the subpoena and Bush had directed her not to appear, according to Miers' lawyer. Democrats said her immunity ended when she left her White House job.

 

Across the Capitol, meanwhile, former White House political director Sara Taylor found out what Miers may already have known: It's almost impossible to answer some committee questions but not others without breaching either the subpoena or Bush's claim of executive privilege.

 

After first refusing to answer questions about Bush's possible role in the firings, Taylor later told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she knew of no involvement by the president. Further, she said, she knew of no wrongdoing by administration officials in the controversy that has hobbled the Justice Department and imperiled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

 

The developments whipped across Washington as part of a broader dispute over the boundaries of Bush's executive power and Congress' oversight duty. Democrats, in control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years, are probing whether the White House ordered the prosecutor firings in ways that might help Republicans in elections.

 

The Bush administration acknowledges that the firings were clumsily carried out but insists no wrongdoing occurred. Bush has offered to allow his aides, including counselor Karl Rove, Miers and Taylor, to be interviewed by congressional investigators — but only in private and without a transcript.

 

Democrats on the committees rejected the offer and subpoenaed Miers and Taylor to appear this week, a possible foreshadowing of what's to come for Rove.

 

In letters dated Tuesday, White House Counsel Fred Fielding told Miers' lawyer that Bush had ordered her to stay away from Thursday's hearing.

 

"Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the president," Fielding wrote to Miers' lawyer, George T. Manning. "The president has directed her not to appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2007."

 

Manning, in turn, notified committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., chairwoman of the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.

 

Conyers had previously said he would consider pursuing criminal contempt citations against anyone who defied his committee's subpoenas.

 

"A refusal to appear before the subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings," Conyers and Sanchez, wrote back to Manning. "The subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Ms. Miers to appear as required by her subpoena."

 

At the same time, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy held open the possibility of contempt proceedings against Taylor if she does not answer follow-up questions posed during his hearing Wednesday.

 

"That's a decision yet to be made," Leahy said.

 

Taylor, eager to exhibit a willingness to answer questions but refusing to do so on many of them, revealed some details behind the firings.

 

"I did not speak to the president about removing U.S. attorneys," she said under stern questioning by Leahy, D-Vt. "I did not attend any meetings with the president where that matter was discussed."

 

When asked more broadly whether Bush was involved in any way in the firings, Taylor said, "I don't have any knowledge that he was."

 

She said she did not recall ordering the addition or deletion of names to the list of prosecutors to be fired. Taylor said she had no knowledge that Bush was involved in the planning of whom to fire, an assertion that echoed previous statements by Attorney General Gonzales, his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty.

 

Taylor disputed Sampson's account that she wanted to avoid submitting a new prosecutor, Tim Griffin, through Senate confirmation.

 

"I expected him to go through Senate confirmation," Taylor said under questioning by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

 

Taylor also issued a stiff defense of her colleagues in the Bush administration.

 

"I don't believe there was any wrongdoing by anybody," she said.

 

On almost every question, Taylor hesitated as she considered whether answering would cross Bush's order to not reveal internal White House deliberations.

 

"I'm trying to be consistent and perhaps have not done a great job of that," Taylor said. "I have tried."

 

The committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter, said that may not be enough to protect her from a contempt citation for failing to answer many of the committee's questions.

 

"There's no way you can come out a winner," said Specter, R-Pa. "You might have been on safer legal ground if you'd said absolutely nothing."

 

That, in effect, was Bush's order to Miers — say nothing.

 

Fielding based his advice to Bush on a Justice Department memo this week that quoted former officials — from former Attorney General Janet Reno to the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, writing as an assistant attorney general — as saying the president and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from congressional subpoenas.

 

The Democrats shot back that those documents referred only to White House advisers currently serving. Miers and Taylor left the White House earlier this year.

 

Wow, even for Dubya this is a low.

[StrangeSox]

IF you listended to Taylor's testimony yesterday, she was all over the place on when she claimed executive privilege. In one instance, she claimed it for one question and then two hours later answered the same exact question without pause.

[Gregory Pratt]

I believe that Harriet Miers has set women back fifty years.

 

I say that with my tongue in my cheek, but there's truth to it. I don't believe a woman will be nominated to the Supreme Court for quite awhile. Whether or not it's right to pin that on her or Bush is up to others to decide, but Miers is an idiot.

[kapkomet]

All indications are that she had NOTHING to do with any of this crap, yet, she has to go run to Congress to testify. Oh boy. They want to get Bush so bad, they're willing to tesify the world, I think.

 

Hell, even the GOP left the executive priveledge clause alone in the 1990s. Now they won't, after this, but you get the point.

[EvilMonkey]

It would be nice if this congress actually did something other than hold hearings to try and find ways to nail BushCo on something. Whatever happened to the grand 100 days plan? Even if they were to start impeachment hearing today, it would be 18 months before anything got accomplished, and by then, he would be out of office anyway. The Dems are doing this country a disservice by focusing on Bush instead of legislating like they were elected to do. I would argue that this is a new low for the BDS Dems in power.

[kapkomet]

The last time BushCo used executive priveledge? 2001... for documents related to the Clinton White House. It was right then, and it's right now. I do remember that Congress was pissed off at the time, and Bush was right.

 

You have to protect this area of executive power, whether you like it or not. Plus, all this has been is a grandstanding of public events to serve two things: 1- they are going after BushCo, and 2- piss away any efforts at getting something real done.

[BigSqwert]

If she knows nothing then why not let her appear? Sounds like there's something to hide.

[kapkomet]

If she knows nothing then why not let her appear? Sounds like there's something to hide.

Because it's the principle of it, something Democrats just don't seem to understand.

[BigSqwert]

Because it's the principle of it, something Democrats just don't seem to understand.

It's just another example of how secretive this administration is. This is by far the shadiest administration in my lifetime. If there is nothing to hide I would think they would try to look cooperative for once.

[kapkomet]

The current Congress has made it clear that they want to "take down" the administration any way they can. I wouldn't cooperate, either.

[BigSqwert]

The current Congress has made it clear that they want to "take down" the administration any way they can. I wouldn't cooperate, either.

Please provide me a link that states your claim. And don't give me one of your "I don't have time right now but I'm sure I read it somewhere" excuses.

[EvilMonkey]

It's just another example of how secretive this administration is. This is by far the shadiest administration in my lifetime. If there is nothing to hide I would think they would try to look cooperative for once.

And I am sure you would let the police just search your car whenever you are pulled over, because after all, you have nothign to hide. And why don't they just stop by and visit with you at home once a week, just to check things out. After all, you have nothing to hide.

 

This is just one of hundreds of fishing expeditions by a group of Dems in power who suffer from BDS and want to trip up anyone they can related to Bush in any way they can. if it means hauling everyone who even looked at Bush into yet another congressional hearing, and asking them the same questions over and over each time until you get a slightly different answer one of the times for a purgery conviction, then so be it.

[kapkomet]

Please provide me a link that states your claim. And don't give me one of your "I don't have time right now but I'm sure I read it somewhere" excuses.

GMAFB. The current Democrat controlled Congress is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO innocent.

 

Fine. You want links? I'll give you a whole f***ing slew of them over the weekend of the idiocy spouted off by these assbags if I choose to go get them. They hate this guy, and it's pretty obvious.

[FlaSoxxJim]

All indications are that she had NOTHING to do with any of this crap. . .

 

That is a wholly inaccurate statement, Kap. In March the White House disclosed that Miers proposed firing all 93 USAs after the the 2004 election and it was Kyle Sampson who pointed out to her the practical and political reasons that couldn't be done. Instead, Sampson sent Miers a chart in 2005 laying out a formula for deciding which USAs should get fired. The communications between Sampson and Miers indicate close coorcination between White House officials and DOJ in deciding who got canned, how, and why.

 

How exactly do you come to the conclusion that Miers "had NOTHING to do with any of this crap"?

[Soxy]

That is a wholly inaccurate statement, Kap. In March the White House disclosed that Miers proposed firing all 93 USAs after the the 2004 election and it was Kyle Sampson who pointed out to her the practical and political reasons that couldn't be done. Instead, Sampson sent Miers a chart in 2005 laying out a formula for deciding which USAs should get fired. The communications between Sampson and Miers indicate close coorcination between White House officials and DOJ in deciding who got canned, how, and why.

 

How exactly do you come to the conclusion that Miers "had NOTHING to do with any of this crap"?

he had a gut feeling?

[NorthSideSox72]

People here seem to be in one of two camps: the hearings are good/necessary, or Congress hasn't done anything good since about their 2nd month.

 

Can I take option C - all of the above?

 

he had a gut feeling?

[southsideirish71]

Please provide me a link that states your claim. And don't give me one of your "I don't have time right now but I'm sure I read it somewhere" excuses.

 

Well you must of forgot the part where Conyers was holding "mock" impeachment hearings. When you go through the effort of having a dry run at impeachment, what is your intent.

 

Its make believe time children.

 

 

 

36 US House Reps want Bush Impeachment

 

 

 

 

H. Res 635

[NorthSideSox72]

For the record, while I think Bush has been a horrible President, I don't believe I have seen cause for impeachment. He has skirted the line, but I simply don't see any per se illegal acts for a foundation of said case.

[kapkomet]

For the record, while I think Bush has been a horrible President, I don't believe I have seen cause for impeachment. He has skirted the line, but I simply don't see any per se illegal acts for a foundation of said case.

I can (mostly) respect that. I know your thoughts on Iraq - but it's something again that he can't explain his way out of a wet paper sack where this issue is concerned. It's sort of like the little snippets I have seen today from his press conference. He's so freaking lame when it comes to explaining why we're there and what we need to accomplish. That's 98% of the problem.

 

 

he had a gut feeling?

Nice.

 

Because she didn't fire them. She also honestly was right in the first place - if you're going to do it, poop can the whole bunch.

 

And beyond that, again, these people work at the will of the president. I guess that's illegal now.

[NorthSideSox72]

Because she didn't fire them. She also honestly was right in the first place - if you're going to do it, poop can the whole bunch.

 

And beyond that, again, these people work at the will of the president. I guess that's illegal now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression was, she did NOT do what you say. She chose to fire (or worked on firing) only the politically select few. You may feel that's OK, but its not like she was being all honorable or anything - it was a purely political action.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 08:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's just another example of how secretive this administration is. This is by far the shadiest administration in my lifetime. If there is nothing to hide I would think they would try to look cooperative for once.

I hate this logic.

 

Were you one of the same liberals who said George W Bush violated the bill of rights when he spied on people which actually ccaught some of the terrorists? I vividly recall the right wing here responding with "If you have nothing to hide, why are you worried?"

 

 

 

Minors had the same logic when there was a discussion of Sheriff Joe wanted to set up illegal road blocks to check cars for drugs.

[kapkomet]

Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression was, she did NOT do what you say. She chose to fire (or worked on firing) only the politically select few. You may feel that's OK, but its not like she was being all honorable or anything - it was a purely political action.

My point has been and will continue to be, NONE of them are honorable. I just choose to defend the Bushies because they continue to get villified over every single breath they take. Some of it is deserved (you've seen me say that a lot) but most of it is not.

[StrangeSox]

All of these investigations and subpeonas are just backlash for Congress letting Bush do whatever he wanted for 6 years without any oversight or possible reprocussions.

 

If you swing the pendulum hard one way, it'll swing back just as hard the other.

[kapkomet]

All of these investigations and subpeonas are just backlash for Congress letting Bush do whatever he wanted for 6 years without any oversight or possible reprocussions.

 

If you swing the pendulum hard one way, it'll swing back just as hard the other.

If that were true, we would have social security reform, new immigration laws, and I could go on and on... put the bulls*** rhetoric away.

[NorthSideSox72]

Consider the following:

 

--Bush's anger at this Congress, and even the last one as well, at their inability to act, and tendency to overspend

 

--The simple nature of some of the fixes that might get the wheels moving again in Congress, such as having financial regs with real teeth, getting rid of x's (or replacing with a better system), etc.

 

--The fact that Bush is seen as such a negative factor for the GOP

 

--The fact that the GOP has an element now clamoring for some fiscal discipline

 

And there seems to be a great opportunity here for BushCo to really accomplish something. Why not use the power of executive order to accomoplish some of these things? If Congress is unable to mobilize pass anything anyway, they won't be able to override them easily. The wording would need to be careful as to not step outside the bounds of the executive as well. But SOME things could be accomplished, in regards to these areas.