Miers’s second subpoena rejection: she's a no-show again

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/17/mierss-second-subpoena-rejection/

Miers’s second subpoena rejection.

In a letter sent to House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI), George Manning, the attorney for former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, said that because of President Bush’s claim of executive privilege, “Ms. Miers will not appear before the Committee or otherwise produce documents or provide testimony as set forth in the Committee’s subpoena.” The Committee has previously warned that if Miers does not comply with the subpoena, she may face contempt of Congress.

I think ^^;

let this thing come to a head. Then the Supremes can show themselves for who they are...

At least that's my prediction. I don't see them changing 70 years of precedent and going back to using inherent contempt without first trying the statutory approach which involves directing the US Attorney to take the matter to a grand jury. If the US Attorney refuses or delays, then you might see inherent contempt being considered, but not until the other process is tried.

has no problem with doing so. They even flaunt it.

and causing this sort of confrontation.And for seventy years, both repub and Democratic congress' have chosen to go the route of statutory contempt rather than inherent contempt. Why? Because Congreess is not particularly well suited to resolve criminal matters. Holding trials is not something they do in the House and what will seem most inherent about the process is that its a political criminal trial -- a kangaroo court to some.

Consider the following -- what if there had been an option of trying Scooter Libby in the House rather than having him indicted and tried, as it turns out, before a repub appointed judge. The one thing that the repubs don't have the ability to argue is that Libby trial -- handled by a repub prosecutor and a repub judge -- was a political show trial. But a trial conducted by the House of Representatives and decided, possibly, along party lines -- it will not be viewed as a valid process by a lot of people.

So you go the other route...first. And you see what happens. In the end, these things usually end up with both sides blinking. Some amount of disclosure, under some conditions. But when they get pushed to the limit, its typically the executive branch that caves or loses in court.

Miers ignored a Congressional subpeona, and therefore should be held in Contempt of Congress.

I don't know why you want to look the other way by talking about a criminal court case ie: Libby. That case has NOTHING to do with Miers not respecting a Congressional subpeona.

punches and allow the normal contempt process to be derailed at any number of junctures?

I know the pros of inherent contempt...just haven't heard the cons yet.

so the repukes can't come back at them with some bullshit about not doing what they are suppose to do. I dunno. Inherent Contempt is there for a REASON. Right? I've not read that Inherent Contempt can be used ONLY after all other avenues have been exhausted.

Is that the only reason not to choose inherent contempt? It hasn't been used in 70 years? Isn't the current state of DOJ and the WH exactly why inherent contempt is needed? It will be months before we get to the point you talk about, where it becomes clear the DOJ will not impanel a grand jury. And if he makes motion to impanel, it would be months more until it might be clear there's a case against her. And even then we don't get her testimony...we just get a slim chance at punishment for contempt.

And your point of being in a stronger position after DOJ drags its feet: How much more foot-dragging and politicization of DOJ do we need to see before we just act as thought they won't be cooperative? We have PLENTY of examples to choose from already!

After all, we dont necessarily want Miers in jail...we want her testimony. Inherent contempt is used to compel testimony. So again...why would we discard from our toolbox the correct tool (inherent contempt) -- the one created to do the best job for the task at hand? Please don't say because it's dusty.

with the same drunken belligerent buffoonery he uses to confront everything else. I think there's a good chance Bush will immediately order the US Attorney not to prosecute the case. Bush will probably beat his chest on TV when gives the order.

<~~Not a lawyer but... I'm reading a book which cites cases where it was held the US Attorney can't be compelled to enforce a Congressional contempt finding. So, if Bush refuses, the Democrats can just say there is nothing they can do about it, which brings them to the next I to dot and T to cross.

it's not clear that inherent contempt can be used against the executive branch.

the indictment inquirey begins.

That's the unwritten political law I heard somewhere...:)

have to do with impeachment?

Or do you just like stalking me? I disagree with you on a political subject. That's no reason to take it personally or act like a stalker.

if it came off like that.

I was reading the OP and the respones. It seemed to intersect. There is a lot of things the Repos can do apparantly that the Dems can't, and there is a lot of laws the executive can break that the Dem controlled congress can't, even if it's not clear.

For instance, who would have thought bush could do secret warrent-less wire tapping, but the Judiciary committe might not be able to use inherant contempt against a former member of the executive branch, since it's mot clear that they can?

Anyway, I hope you accept my apology.

:popcorn:

Do it now!

as to why she didn't show up for the first one. Think back to how old our laws are. If a person was called 100 years ago there are any number of reasons why they might not have shown up on time. So they are given a few days to explain, but they still have to show. If she did not present herself to explain why she was late (hit a bump in the stage coach and broke her arm on the way there as was being treated by Dr, Mudd just outside the Capital). If he has a good excuse they just go on with the proceedings. As it is they have not choice but to lock her up.

HAS THIS GOT TO BECOME BLOODY.

EMAIL THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT SLIME THEY ARE....
GUESS WHO IS PRESIDENT OF THEM...... TED OLSEN

Yet another big mistake by the Bushler admin! :)