link WASHINGTON — 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-Mich., 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 today 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 today 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-Vt., 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-Pa., 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."
He can do this. Part of his executive power and all that. Lucky for him because a lot of people on is staff have a lot of dirt, why else would Libby be pardoned?
Congress hasn't instructed the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest anyone since the 1930's. Since then, the tradition has been to refer the contempt to the US Attorney. Presumably, the US Attorney then has the discretion as to whether the charge should be pursued by the Justice Department. Any guesses what would happen in this case? Given the number of traditions Repubs have broken over the last few years, this seems an appropriate time for the Dems to break one and have the Sergeant-at-Arms earn their pay.
I wonder if this little change of heart was after watching the drubbing Taylor took today. (rumor was that she was going to do what Taylor did today, show up and answer what questions she wanted to answer then pull a Gonzales on everything else - "I don't recall")
calling all lawyers! Is this right? via TPM -- Felony Hmmm. A very knowledgeable emailer says it's a felony ... I can't vouch for the legal interpretation. But it seems like decent prima facie case and the emailer knows his stuff. --Josh Marshall
Miers no longer works for Bush. She resigned from her position as White House Counsel in January. She is a private citizen. Bush cannot order her not to testify. Miers can testify or not, as she wishes, and if she chooses not to, she can face the consequences. D&D. Get Real, Mister Bush. Oh, Pardon me... he's the Stepford President.
And the consequence would be... either a US Atty not filing charges or a Presidential pardon the day she is pronounced guilty of Contempt. I think that's why the Dems need to go old school and get the Sergeant-at-Arms to go get her. She can then be tried before Congress and be in jail until the current Congressional term is up. (It would also have to be done through the House... otherwise, in the Senate, the Repubs could filibuster a vote on conviction and I think Cheney would get to chair the trial .) Otherwise, no consequences. (It's not like Bush has much further to sink in the polls. What does he care anymore?)
I will tell you when you guys on the left side of political slant are wrong (IMHO),...But...This disturbs me...This and the Gonzalez issue...
I honestly believe that a second obstructive pardon or commutation would result in impeachment procedings. I really think that would be enough and also enough that he would be impeached.
Based on what? Presidents are given wide latitude in pardoning anyone they want for any reason they want. It's slimy, but there's nothing illegal about it.
As a certain poster around here is fond of pointing out, impeachment is a political exercise, not a truly legal one. They can impeach him for whatever they want. Andrew Johnson wasn't really impeached for a specific violation of any laws, as far as I know. They just thought that as a southerner he was acting to sympathetically to the South after the Civil War and found some legal pretext. I'm sure they could find some sort of minor law that was violated. For instance, the legal issue that mc mark has pointed out would serve just fine. A second obstruction would from my perspective cross a threshold. It wouldn't be a one-time thing, but a pattern at least that is how I would see it if I were in Congress.
The Constitution, Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. source source
