Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- Honesty and Civility..A Good Place To Start
- Shall We Dance?
- I Haven’t Deserted You
- Can You Relate?
- Tis Better To Give Than To Receive
Recent Comments
- ~J~ on Honesty and Civility..A Good Place To Start
- Sue on I Haven’t Deserted You
- ~J~ on Can You Relate?
- ~J~ on Happy Thanksgiving
- Piano Girl on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- David M. on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- David M. on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- ~J~ on Bar-B-Que
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
Now this is what you call Contest of wills.
Written by GussPresident 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.




~J~ Says:
July 12th, 2007 at 12:10 amVisit ~J~
Let’s wait and see what the courts have to say, and it will go to the SCOTUS. It’s a legal question and not a pissing contest.
Guss Says:
July 12th, 2007 at 6:21 amVisit Guss
No, it’s a pissing contest.
~J~ Says:
July 12th, 2007 at 6:38 amVisit ~J~
I repeated the word in my previous comment, but I would much prefer to say it’s a contest of wills or a spitting contest or anything else other than the word we both used on this site.
It’s a legal argument that will either be settled by a compromise between the two sides or by the courts.
Remember Bush offered to let them testify but not under oath to what they knew and the chairmen refused. This is so they can probe more deeply into things that aren’t related to it.
Congress and the White House have often had to have the third branch of government intervene when each thinks it has authority to do something. It’s called balance of powers. If the WH believes they are right they should refuse to allow anyone to testify. If Congress believes it is right they should pursue it and file contempt of Congress charges against these people. In the end the courts will decide whether this information is protected by Executive Privilege and after SCOTUS makes its decision both sides will have to abide by it.
That’s the beauty of our form of government.
Guss Says:
July 12th, 2007 at 7:31 amVisit Guss
Contest of wills or a spitting contest will be used from now on.
david Says:
July 12th, 2007 at 10:05 amVisit david
The SCOTUS has carefully not settled this issue. The uncertain legal position of both sides should lead to a compromise–with emphasis on SHOULD. This issue first arose with George Washington and there has never been a Court decision that made anything close to a blanket rule. Harriet Miers acts, IF done as White House counsel, should be protected by the atty-client privilege. However-the role she was assuming at the time (atty vs. advisor) is uncertain to me. I do believe it’s a legal issue and I believe the Court will again make no broad ruling–nor should they. I’m off for a week’s vacation. Behave yourselves.