Harriet Miers rejects subpoena compliance deadline, shakes off 'contempt' threats

[derby378]

Source: Raw Story

Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers has again rejected calls from the House Judiciary Committee to comply with a subpoena for her testimony on the firing of 9 US Attorneys in 2006 and 2007. The Committee had set a deadline of 5 PM for Miers to explain how she would comply with the subpoena.

"In light of the continuing directives to Ms. Miers and as previously indicated to your Committee, I must respectfully inform you that, directed as she has been to honor the Executive privileges and immunities asserted in this matter, Ms. Miers will not appear before the Committee or otherwise produce documents or provide testimony as set forth in the Committee's subpoena," wrote Miers' attorney, George Manning, in a letter delivered Tuesday to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/BREAKING_Miers_rejects_call_to_appear_0717.html

---

Yeeee-HA!! Let the Miers Arrest Clock begin!

http://rog.thoughtbludgeon.com/mp3/tracker2.asp?trackURL=RoG_Hardcore_Produktionz-18_Minutes_of_HARDCORE.mp3

[ozymandius]

1. Orange or Blue?

What would she look better wearing?

edit: :sarcasm:

[saigon68]

21. I'd like to see her sorry ass doing the "FROG MARCH"

[HeeBGBz]

23. Green Stripes n/t

[babylonsister]

2. I wonder how she'll feel when the dim one can no longer protect her. nt

[emilyg]

34. She'll write a book

Don't they all

[loyalkydem]

3. all I got to say is

JAIL HER SORRY ASS

[azmesa207]

24. Jail her

your joking of course the Democrats will fold again as usual

[Prophet 451]

43. Bypass them then

I may be wrong but I was under the impression that any citizen can make an arrest if they observe a crime in progress. If that's accurate, just wait around DC until you spot Miers and execute a citizen's arrest.

Yeah, I'm not sure this would work but it would make a good point and the ACLU, Mike Moore and a bunch of others would pick up your legal fees.

[guitar man]

4. then arrest her

charge her with contempt and haul her ass in in handcuffs!!!

enough of this shit!!! :mad:

[MaineDem]

5. She will make a good test case

No worries, Bush will eventually pardon her but, in the meantime, I want to see the Congress press these contempt charges.

[stressfulreality]

11. if they don't, then they are simply NOT doing their jobs

and like any other employees they should be fired.

:(

[DFW]

6. I agree completely. A contempt citation is needed, and NOW

Obviously they'll stonewall further, but at least make them
look like they're hiding something, and make it obvious to more
than just us. Make it obvious to the country, and bring this up
during the election campaign of 2008---say every 5 minutes or so.

Make all Republican candidates either repudiate their sitting
President in no uncertain terms, or defend what is obviously
a criminal undertaking in public. They can't win. We can. We
should use this, openly and often.

[billyoc]

7. Oh merciful Universe,

*PLEASE* let me see a bush supreme court nominee led away in handcuffs. :)

[firefox_fan]

17. Perhaps one of them called the DC brothel and the number is on the list.

[livvy]

8. Inherent Contempt- sounds good to me...

Here are three pieces that describe the process.

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, against a U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), a former Postmaster, William P. MacCracken, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.

The Postmaster had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935). <1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

Inherent Contempt

by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math

In response to my questions about contempt of Congress proceedings, commenters noted that Congress does have the power, presumably by majority vote of a Committee or a whole Chamber, to declare someone in "inherent contempt" and direct the Congressional Seargant-at-Arms to arrest someone. Presumably political considerations should keep Congress from exercising this power willy-nilly, but it seems to have held up as a constitutional procedure.
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/07/inherent-contem.html

Is inherent contempt pardonable?
by Kagro X
Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:23:58 PM PDT

Here's the situation: Harriet Miers has bugged out on her subpoena and will refuse, at the president's order, to even appear before the House Judiciary Committee as required tomorrow.

The response from Conyers and subcommittee chair Linda Sanchez:

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.

Good to see inherent contempt being contemplated. To this point, it has been a mystery whether the relevant authorities at the committees have been aware of that option. We've always assumed they were at least aware, but they've played their cards close enough to the vest that nobody was ever 100% sure.

Well, now we know. And we probably owe a debt of gratitude for it to Congressman Brad Miller, for passing on to Rep. Sanchez his discoveries about and knowledge of the precedents for inherent contempt back in March, after encountering his own difficulties with "administration" stonewalling of his investigative subcommittee of the Science and Technology panel.

>more
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/11/202837/564

[Igel]

27. No, it doesn't.

Habeas corpus is important and when the executive takes somebody and imprisons them without recourse to the federal judiciary it's the ultimate evil. We must restore habeas corpus.

Except when it's Congress.

Vitters deserves to resign because he's a hypocrite, saying something is important and then ignoring what he says. It doesn't take an ad executive to see how 'inherent contempt' would be spun.

Prediction, should it come to it: The 1934 decision would be overturned within a month.

[kestrel91316]

9. Her contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law and utter lack of

respect for the people amazes me. Is anyone else REALLY relieved that she didn't make into the SC??

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

10. Allow me to play the cynic's advocate here.

NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THE DEMS WILL CAVE.

AGAIN.

:shrug:

[superconnected]

12. Considering it can be backed by empirical evidence, I don't think

your opinion can pass for raw cynicism. :)

[pokercat999]

16. I fear you are correct. nt

[nookiemonster]

13. Call me a wet blanket,

but I'm in total agreement witcha on this one.

Obviously, cynicism is running kinda high on my end. It just seems like we can do alot more. Yeah, yeah, I know we don't have a strong majority in the Senate, but can't we just start bustin' these fuckers chops? Or at least, try.....

Screw the right wing shills, they'll attack us for anything anyway. Might as well make it worth it.

[kurth]

28. She knows damn well there will be NO penalty to pay

There is a stack of pardon forms on Bush's desk, ready to be filled in. No problemo.

[anitar1]

42. Some asses should be addressed with a wet horse whip.

And I can think of quite a few who might benefit from that remedy.They, themselves endorse that sort of treatment.

[Auntie Bush]

49. Doesn't that mean Cheney would try her and IF (but he wouldn't

he found her guilty the Robert's, Alito, Scalia, SC would rescind the conviction or refuse to take the case so Georgie boy would pardon her. That lady will never end up in jail...so why bother wasting valuable time trying her...and building up sympathy for that sleazy woman. The house has more important things to do.

It doesn't mean the Dems caved again! I wish people would stop saying that. We feed out own rumor mill. No wonder Congress gets such low marks.

[progressoid]

14. Good god. She was SC material?

[superconnected]

19. Excellent point!

[Cha]

77. That would be the best freakin'

SOUNDBYTE/BITE for ol' harriet! And bush wanted this woman for the supreme court..who can't even adhere to THE RULE OF LAW?

Yeah, you, you squirelly little bush cheerleader.

[bamacrat]

15. Imagine what the world would be like if we were all under the veil of the dark side.

If we all had the protection of BushCo. we could do anything we wanted, and then flick off the police when they come to arrest us.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. what would happen if she was wrapped in a blanket and stolen

only kidding! just calm down guys!

Conyers "has to find other vays of making her talk"

[Vidar]

20. Next step: our fearless leaders will bravely taunt her.

[saigon68]

22. Yes leave it up to Ram Emanul and the DLC to embarass her.

[still_one]

25. OK Congress you do NOT have a choice now. Miers is a private citizen

either Congress exists or it doesn't

The ball is in your court, I am waiting...

[derby378]

29. I heartily agree. Why the HELL isn't she in handcuffs yet?

Just turned on C-SPAN, and all I hear is laughter on the House floor.

[still_one]

32. This is not a game. I have let my Congress person and Senators know

they should NOT take US for granted, and assume that their will not be consequences if they do not do their job

[brentspeak]

37. You can quit the drama.

:eyes:

[still_one]

47. Maybe you aren't upset enough

You see I believe refusing to testify before Congress is not drama

I believe that the Constitution is not drama

I believe in checks and balances, and I have NEVER taken voting for granted

However, from Viet Nam, civil rights, and Iraq, too many people thought it was just drama, I lost friends in Nam

will it be just drama when a woman's right to choose is gone?

Why even bother responding to my post, trying to tell me whether I should or should not be upset

What a inane response

[rocktivity]

50. DING DING DING! Still_One, you're our grand prize winner!

Miers is a private citizen...Congress(,)...(t)he ball is in your court...

Gasp, THAT'S RIGHT! Miers is no longer in the employ of the federal government. So does Bush's protection have any real authority at all? That is, wouldn't even he have to go through the courts to stop her prosecution?

rocknation
:wow:

[depakid]

26. Why shouldn't she?

I wouldn't be afraid of this gang either.

Ask yourself: what have they ever done to hold anyone accountable (other than whimper and whine to the corporate media, who I'm sure is oh so very sympathetic).

[L. Coyote]

30. In jail, make her wear pink!

[libodem]

31. She acts like someone with something to hide

and they all act like the want her to hide something. If you have nothing to hide why worry about any kind of privacy?

[burrowowl]

33. Send the Sargent at Arms

Already!

[MrMickeysMom]

46. Pleeeeeeeeze!!!!!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. How old is this woman anyway?

Why would someone her age risk jail to protect that pig, Cheney?

[DavidDvorkin]

38. 62

Not ancient, but you're right, that's old enough to find jail physically pretty distressing.

[lovuian]

36. Why did we have to have this done two times? She is in contempt

now the duty of the Congress is to tell the Justice Department to arrest her

[Sarah Ibarruri]

39. That's what I'm wondering.

How many times must a person be in contempt under this administration, to get thrown in the slammer?

[Lint Head]

40. Arrest the bitch!!!!

:dem:

[Magleetis]

41. The bush admin is beyond reproach

and the Dems are spineless and powerless. So what else is new?

[Maestro]

44. I just don't see how she can tell them to f-off oh so nicely.

I mean really. This isn't breaking the law? Hell, the next time I get a jury summons, I will just politely say no and see what happens. :eyes:

[MrMickeysMom]

45. My question... WILL THIS WOMAN BE BROUGHT UNDER HOUSE ARREST?

And, I use the word, woman with some hesitation. These people tend to act like second citizen monkeys...

[The Doctor.]

48. I highly suspect George Manning's fingertips and eybrows are a bit singed right now.

He must know he's in deep right now.

[spotbird]

51. Miers not swayed by threats

Source: Star Telegram

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Former White House aide and Dallas lawyer Harriet Miers will continue to refuse to appear before a House committee, her lawyer said Tuesday, despite Democrats' threats to hold her in contempt of Congress.

.....

What's next

Any contempt proceedings would be considered first by the committee and later by the full House. If a majority of the House approves a contempt order, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., would refer the matter to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeff Taylor. Taylor would decide whether to seek an indictment.

Read more: Miers not swayed by threats

[C_U_L8R]

52. Didn't Bush make dowsing legal again??

[DavidDvorkin]

53. Taylor would decide ...

Well, so much for that.

[Kagemusha]

58. That's not really what the law says, but the courts may argue that

even though the law says he has a "duty" to file, that's an unconstitutional imposition.

In which case you get back to inherent contempt because the supreme court has strongly upheld that power, for the simple reason that without it, the executive branch can break the whole system.

Which is kinda what they're trying to do here, obviously.

But frankly, either Taylor does his duty or he is ordered not to. I doubt that Taylor would decide. The original writer's simply assuming too much.

[meegbear]

54. With Jeff Taylor being the person who would decide for an indictment ...

I wouldn't be swayed either.

[LiberalFighter]

55. Just threaten to take her high heel shoes away

She looks like the type that cries if she can't wear them.

[geomon666]

56. Why does it take so much effort to enforce the law?

Jesus Christ everywhere you look there are Bush cronies waiting to pass the rubber stamp for any violation.

[Kagemusha]

60. Because respect for the rule of law is expected and inherent in the system.

And because administrations have, in the past, avoided DIRECT confrontations so that the courts cannot make a defining ruling that makes future administrations unable to play the games that the Bush administration is trying today. So Clinton, Carter, FDR, all of them and not just Republicans, worked hard to ensure that a future George W. Bush would be able to defy Congress in this manner if he deems the reason sufficiently dear to his heart to require it, without a pre-emptive ruling saying it's illegal. Bush is spending the constitutional capital bequeathed to him by his predecessors, and perhaps all for nothing. The machinery may be slow - it has NEVER been fast - but it is not constitutional to resist it.

[guitar man]

57. would she be swayed by handcuffs then?

let's try them on her and find out!! :mad:

[peace13]

59. I'd like to talk more about this but I have to run down to the

County Treasures Office to pay my taxes so they don't take my property and throw me in jail. The center of my brain vibrates as I rush to comply with the laws as these people in Washington prove that there is no law above their own. I feel weak and stupid for complying.

[0007]

66. As most Americans feel weaken and destroyed, in spirit

and health, I know the feeling your talking about.

Isn't it worth it to know you're being protected from terrorist and have freedom in God's country ?? :sarcasm:

[peace13]

68. I would rather feel bad than feel nothing,

but there are some days when there is just not enough beer in the world! Peace to you, Kim

[indepat]

61. Me thinks Miers would gladly go to jail to protect the man she obviously idolizes

[Frustratedlady]

71. She would do it for the attention.

She gets a big charge out of the cameras following her around. Just watch her. Besides, The Kid will probably give her a hug when this is all WON.

[Massachusetts]

62. "I'm melting, I'm melting...".

[aquart]

63. That's the AP headline? Makes her sound like a hero.

How about...Miers places herself about the law, or Miers continues in contempt of Congress?

[thecrow]

64. or .....Meirs Not Swayed by LAWS?

stupid old AP

[aquart]

70. Also good. Pithy and to the point.

[thecrow]

65. We can't read more without a link to the story

just sayin'

[Bandit]

67. There is another way, it is called "Inherent Contempt"

Congress can do their own police work and does not need to bother the Dept of Just Us. They can send their Sgt of Arms out to arrest Miers and bring her in front of Congress. Congress can then penalize her and send her to jail for the length of time Congress has left which is about six months.

[Lochloosa]

69. Link?

[Mz Pip]

72. Miers doesn't need to be concerned

Nothing will happen to her. THe White House will stonewall, she'll ignore all requests, demands and no one will do a damn thing about it except whine about how the Bushies are not respecting the rule of law.

Whining won't get answers. Neither will threats. THere has to be some teeth behind the threats and there won't be. Not. One. Bit.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[radfringe]

73. of course not... if she's above the law, what good are threats of enforcing the law?

[libnnc]

74. Would someone please put that raccoon eyed moron

in the pokey already??

[Javaman]

75. nothing to see here folks, moron's* friends all get a free ride. nt

[Roy]

76. That's only because the Moran gets a free ride.....

Now, if the moran was tied up in impeachment proceedings trying to save his own ass and the ass of his string puller, he wouldn't have free time for commuting, pardoning and insuring those under him that they can disregard the rule of law.

Impeachment proceedings and the daily evidence that would be released in corroboration would have every one of these idiots singing and running for the hills simultaneously, including the MSM.

I wish my mother had told me that spankings and grounding was off the table. Shit!!! I missed half my childhood.

[classysassy]

78. The outlaws

I refuse to pay my tax,what are you going to do about that?I am a member of the Bush gang.

[classysassy]

79. My bunker buddy

says for you guys and gals,GFYS.

[Imagevision]

80. You know Rove is laughing his ass off at the Dems, justifiably so.

[Jack Rabbit]

81. !!

Adena