CNN: Bush orders ex-counsel to defy congressional subpoena

[AsburySkinsFan]

The audacity continues!

Bush orders ex-counsel to defy congressional subpoena

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush ordered his former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to defy a congressional subpoena and refuse to testify Thursday before a House panel investigating U.S. attorney firings.

Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the president," White House Counsel Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to Miers' lawyer, George T. Manning.

Manning, in turn, notified committee chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, that Miers would not show up Thursday to answer questions about the White House role in the firings of eight federal prosecutors over the winter.

Conyers, who had previously said he would consider pursuing criminal contempt citations against anyone who defied his committee' subpoenas, revealed the letters after former White House political director Sara Taylor testified Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Taylor said she knew of no involvement by the president in the firings of the U.S. attorneys.

She irked senators by refusing to answer many questions from a panel investigating whether the firings were politically motivated. She said she was bound by Bush's position that White House conversations were protected by executive privilege.

Conyers said of Miers, Bush's former White House lawyer, "As a former public official and officer of the court, Ms. Miers should be especially aware of the need to respect legal process, and we expect her to appear before the committee tomorrow as scheduled."

Fielding said the Justice Department had advised the White House that Miers had absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony.

"The president has directed her not to appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2007," Fielding wrote.

Across the Capitol a Senate committee spent Wednesday grilling a second reluctant Bush aide about the White House role in the firings.

Unlike Miers, Taylor showed up and haltingly tried to satisfy both the subpoena compelling her testimony and Bush's executive privilege order not to reveal internal White House discussions.

"I did not speak to the president about removing U.S. attorneys," Taylor said under stern questioning by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont., the Senate Judiciary Committee's chairman. "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 quickly found out what Miers might have already known: It's almost impossible to answer some questions but not others without breaching either the subpoena or Bush's executive privilege claim.

"I have not done a great job at that," Taylor said of the predicament at one point. "I have tried."

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said that may not be enough to protect her from a contempt citation.

There's no way you can come out a winner," said Specter, the panel's senior GOP member and also its former chairman. "You might have been on safer legal ground if you'd said absolutely nothing."

As for the prospects of pursuing a criminal citation for contempt of Congress, Leahy said, "That's a decision yet to be made."

[twa]

I would suggest people look into executive privilege and the reasons for the "oversight" role of congress.

However knowing human nature I will simply :munchout:

[Chief skin]

Just another example of bringing honor and integrity back to the White House.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I would suggest people look into executive privilege and the reasons for the "oversight" role of congress.

However knowing human nature I will simply :munchout:

what are you wondering?

or are you saying we should change the role of executive privilege

[AsburySkinsFan]

apparently Executive Privilege covers any evidence that might bring charges against the President and his Administration, its total bunk!

[Tulane Skins Fan]

apparently Executive Privilege covers any evidence that might bring charges against the President and his Administration, its total bunk!

Executive privilege is real. The thing that is BS is that Executive Privilege does not defeat a criminal investigation by the legislature or the courts. The president KNOWS this. He just also knows that it will take too long to get through the court system if he just claims executive privilege now.

[Larry]

Former co-worker swore to me for years that he saw a movie (doesn't remember which one), which had a scene where a kid was playing with a Spin-and-Say toy. (Kid rotates a knob, then pulls a string. The toy then says something which varies depending on which direction the knob was pointing. It may say "The cow says 'moo'." or something similar.)

Supposedly, in this movie, the toy says "The politician says 'I don't recall'."

[Baculus]

I would suggest people look into executive privilege and the reasons for the "oversight" role of congress.

However knowing human nature I will simply :munchout:

Executive Privilege is not a free-for-all coverage for the Executive branch. As in the case of the United States vs. Nixon, the following was said:

"Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisors calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises."—Chief Justice Warren Burger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

Apparently, Bush supporters believe that Executive Privilege simply means unfettered freedom with no responsibilities. It doesn't - the Presidency and the Executive branch is not an absolute privilege.

And remember, Clinton lost in Court when he was attempting to block his aides from testifying in the Lewinsky case...How soon we forget.

[DixieFlatline]

And remember, Clinton lost in Court when he was attempting to block his aides from testifying in the Lewinsky case...How soon we forget.

I haven't forgot that, but its probably for the court to decide if they are similar. I believe the court in that case said executive privilege didn't apply because it wasn't relevant to his job. I'm sure it was much more complicated wording than that, but I think that was it basically meant.

[Destino]

The headline is begging the question: Or what, Mr. President?

Since when does the President have the power to tell private citizens what questions they are allowed to answer from congress?

[AsburySkinsFan]

The headline is begging the question: Or what, Mr. President?

Since when does the President have the power to tell private citizens what questions they are allowed to answer from congress?

With this President it doesn't matter if he legally has the power to do it, he just knows that by the time the courts sort through it all he'll be retiring in Texas or fishing in Kennebunkport.

[China]

House panel: Miers wrong to miss hearing

By MATT APUZZO

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A House panel cleared the way Thursday for contempt proceedings against former White House counsel Harriet Miers after she obeyed President Bush and skipped a hearing on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Addressing the empty chair where Miers had been subpoenaed to testify, Rep. Linda Sanchez ruled out of order Bush's executive privilege claim that his former advisers are immune from being summoned before Congress.

The House Judiciary subcommittee that Sanchez chairs voted 7-5 to sustain her ruling. The next step would be for the full Judiciary Committee to issue a finding that Miers, Bush's longtime friend and former Supreme Court nominee, was in contempt. Ultimately, the full House would have to vote on any contempt citation.

"Those claims are not legally valid," Sanchez, D-Calif., said of Bush's declaration, made Monday. "Ms. Miers is required pursuant to the subpoena to be here now."

The White House showed no signs of backing down, pointing out that Bush was willing to make Miers and other administration officials available for interviews, but only behind closed doors and without a transcript. Democrats have rejected the offer.

"If the House Judiciary Committee wants to avoid confrontation, it should withdraw its subpoenas," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "The committee is rejecting accommodation because they prefer just the kind of political spectacle they're engaged in now."

The question grew more pressing when Bush ordered Miers to defy the committee's subpoena, unlike a lower-ranking former White House aide, Sara Taylor, who took a different approach Wednesday.

Acting under her own subpoena, Taylor appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in an attempt to satisfy both Congress and the White House and thereby avoid a contempt citation. It's unclear whether she was successful. She answered some questions while saying she could not answer others under Bush's directive. The Senate committee's ranking Republican advised Taylor that she might have been on safer legal ground had she said nothing.

Saying nothing is the strategy that Miers, on Bush's orders, adopted Thursday.

Like Taylor, Miers participated in the process of deciding which prosecutors to fire, according to e-mails released by the Justice Department. At one point, the documents showed, Miers proposed firing all 93 U.S. attorneys, but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales rejected that suggestion.

Democrats want to ask her under oath about the White House's role in drawing up the firing list. But Bush invoked executive privilege, saying he needed to protect the flow of advice he receives from close advisers. Additionally, he declared Miers immune from subpoenas and ordered her to skip Thursday's hearing.

Democrats were furious, declaring the White House had reached "novel legal conclusions" to justify withholding a former aide's testimony, based only on legal opinions regarding currently serving White House officials and no court rulings.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said the committee must take action on Miers' noncompliance to preserve the panel's authority.

"Are congressional subpoenas to be honored or are they optional?" Conyers asked rhetorically. "Apparently we have to run this out" to set a precedent, he added.

Click on the link for the full article

[twa]

The headline is begging the question: Or what, Mr. President?

Since when does the President have the power to tell private citizens what questions they are allowed to answer from congress?

When they are of counsel to the President obviously

When you take a position in any administration it comes with strings,much like the military which is subject to different rules.

Do any of you think Bush could compel a senator or his staff to testify to internal discussions?

added

Research the role of congressional oversight.