Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

On Bush's Order, Miers Defies Subpeona

Posted by Philip Barron at 2:10 PM on July 11, 2007.


Philip Barron: The former aide still takes orders from the boss of bosses.
miersbush
Harriet Miers and George Bush

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Philip Barron in your
mailbox!

 

If George Bush could order anyone to defy a Congressional subpeona regarding the U.S. attorney firings, it would of course be Harriet Miers, whose unabashed idolatry of the president is well-established. Even given that, the defiance of Miers - who isn't even on the Bush payroll anymore - is still quite remarkable. I always shake my head when I hear people use the term "Bush Crime Family," but it certainly seems to apply here. I haven't seen a better example of the code of omerta outside of a Scorsese gangster movie.

The committee is practically obligated to respond harshly. One hopes her attorney has uttered the phrase "contempt of Congress" to Miers once or twice.

Indeed, the response to Miers' mouthpiece from Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez:

A refusal to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. § 194 and under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.
We are prepared at the hearing tomorrow to consider and rule on any specific assertions of privilege in response to specific questions. We strongly urge you to reconsider, and to advise your client to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow pursuant to her legal obligations. The Subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Ms. Miers to appear as required by her subpoena.
What Miers needs is a good mob lawyer.

Digg!

Philip Barron is a St. Louis writer and author of the blog Waveflux.


Media: War in Iraq a "Lifestyle Issue," Not News
Incremental coverage of the war in Iraq downplays the seriousness of the war and does the public a disservice.
June 11, 2008.
What Should John Edwards Do Next?
Edwards' chief role in the 2008 presidential race had been that of progressive conscience/gadfly to the two frontrunners.
January 30, 2008.
Soldier Mysteriously Killed in Afghanistan, Family Kept in the Dark, Sound Familiar?
Philip Barron: Hopefully Ciara Durkin's family will get a swifter response from the military than LaVena Johnson's has.
October 3, 2007.
Father of Mysteriously Murdered US Soldier in Iraq: "Why Cover Up A Crime Like This?" [VIDEO]
At the national convention of Veterans for Peace, the father of PFC LaVena Johnson speaks about her death.
August 20, 2007.
The Dirty Little Secret About Matt Drudge
Philip Barron: How one newspaper enlists its readers in a bid for attention from Matt Drudge.
August 8, 2007.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
REMEMBER THE BILL CLINTON IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 11, 2007 2:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't recall hearing about 'executive privilege' back then. So Harriet is off the hook? Is there anyone who has to answer to us? Guess not. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Respond Harshly??
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive on Jul 11, 2007 11:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's like watching a Sylvester the Cat cartoon with Senator Foghorn pontificating...

This congress, I tell you, this congress is NOT going to take this any longer. We are going to RESPOND HARSHLY if you keep this avoidance up. I thay, suffering sucatash, I thay again...HARSHLY!

A great shudder could be felt coming from the Whitehouse followed by great bursts of uncontrolled laughter!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» **Laughing** Posted by: ~Fiona~
EXECUTIVE PRIVALEGE,, MY ASS!! .. THIS IS NOTHING SHORT OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE DIRECTLY FROM...
Posted by: wmGreybeard on Jul 12, 2007 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the WHITE HOUSE.....

Is there any reference to executive privalege in our constitution?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe it's time
Posted by: bettyn on Jul 12, 2007 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to start throwing W's flunkies in jail for contempt of Congress. The arrogance of this administration is just AMAZING. I've just finished listened to Dear Leader drone on with another chest-pounding defense of his Iraq policy. He's one stubborn ASS, that's for sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From Talking Points
Posted by: surfreality on Jul 12, 2007 12:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I got this off Talking Points:
Invoking a privilege is one thing, but telling a person not to show up in response to a subpoena -- if only to actually invoke the privilege -- is quite another. It's not just worse, it's a felony under federal criminal law. See for yourself.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : ... Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress ... [s]hall be fined under this title, [or] imprisoned not more than 5 years ... or both.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(b): As used in section 1505, the term "corruptly" means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including ... withholding, [or] concealing ... information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]