"Bush Skips Questions As White House Press Room Unveiling"

Talk about cut and run.

Coward.

Loser.

Geez.

"Biden/Clark 08"

Congress is in jeopardy of becoming our nation's largest joke.

The Truth Hurts @ 1:

Chimpy has already shit all over the law....what's one more turd???

Best comment of the day. :-)

You basically said what I was thinking. GJ

Its time for Congress to approach the obstruction of Justice
--> as a Criminal Investigation.

They cant stop that.
Consult Turley immediately.

And Do Not let it get to the Supreme Court.

I'm from Ireland so I'm not invested either way but jebus christ it doesn't say a lot for humanity that 29% of your country would elect him for a third term if it was possible

Under inherent contempt, congress can try her right there on the floor. Don’t give up on America yet!

First..stop running with the narrative.
Bush did not order this fool to shut up as he has no authority to do that. He asked her to shut up and she said yes. The decision to keep quiet is hers. And she should go down for it. This will be the only shot Democrats get on this matter.

What would of happened if Clinton had done something like this. The confrontation seems at hand. The sooner the better. Let's get it on.

Miers is said to be one of Bush's closest personal friends, and appears given to effusive praise for the President. According to former Bush speechwriter David Frum, Miers has called Bush the most brilliant man she had ever met [13] and says he was the "best Governor ever" (see [5]). She also stated that "serving President Bush and Mrs. Bush is an impossible-to-describe privilege" and noted that Bush's personal qualities "make a brighter future for our nation and people all around the world possible." (see [6]).

How about National Strikes? Anyone??

[Deleted Off topic-Sitemonitor]

[Deleted Off topic-Sitemonitor]

i guess tomorrow we'll see who has the bigger balls, harriet or congress.

Holy Pelosi! The fuhrer has so ordered! Silence!
And, I stand here blinking in astonishment. I can't stop batting my eyes! Whatever shall we do? I know this site doesn't advocate violence, but a severe scolding is in order, I think. To whom shall the democratic leadership direct these harsh words?

isnt this old hag the gal that said shed love to throw bush down on the floor of the oval office and give him the blow job he allways needed?

Will you check out the Sh*t eating smirk on Chimpy in the picture?

He sure loves him them adoring Bush'y females like Harriet!

where does this “absolute immunity” come from? And I’m really asking here — is this true?

No place in the Constitution, that's for sure. Just like the rest of this crap, Cheney and Bush are pulling it out of their backsides, and Alberto is nodding along like a bobble head doll!

But, get ready to hear that phrase Absolute Immunity again, about January 2009, as Bush issues Absolute Immunity Pardons for Cheney, Rove, all the rest of the Bush Crime Family as he exits office....

PNAAC Minister @ 6:

Congress is in jeopardy of becoming our nation's largest joke.

BECOMING the nation's largest joke???? They're already there.

Worthless. Spineless. Toothless. Cowards. At some point, I hope to see a Dem stand up ands show they have a pair.

It's alright, folks. Gawd told him what to do. That's the Big Deciderer to the Little Deciderer here on Earth. Isn't that how it works?

Kinda like the Pope or something.

I mean Republicans would let a Democrat president do the same thing, right? "respect for the office"..."executive privilege"..."national security"..."unitary executive"...

Nothing to worry about. Just keep your heads down and work and shop and drive and watch TV...They've got everything under control...

L.A. Confidential @ 35:

Nicole Belle @ 29:

Please stop the personal attacks and comments on Miers' appearance. This is a serious issue of constitutional proportions.

To turn this into an insult-fest over looks is demeaning to everyone.

Yeah come on we're all going to look like that someday. Or like Rupert Murdoch.

Lets stick with the under "lying" substance.

Or Roger Ailes..icka. PS did you know that Ailes was a media adviser to Nixon?

And what is Pelosi doing about this? Complain? Complain is not going to save this country from W, Madam Speaker?

Uh Oh. Just in the Nick of Time for Bush

They'll make certain this "drowns out" the Miers Scandal. Milk it for everything they can.

Breaking News
Lady Bird Johnson dies at 94
AP - 1 minute ago

AUSTIN, Texas - Lady Bird Johnson, the former first lady who championed conservation and worked tenaciously for the political career of her husband, Lyndon B. Johnson, died Wednesday, a family spokeswoman said. She was 94.

Eamon @ 12:

I'm from Ireland so I'm not invested either way but jebus christ it doesn't say a lot for humanity that 29% of your country would elect him for a third term if it was possible

Oh Eamon why are you trying to ruin my day? It's sunshiny (a bit hot though eh Strawberry?) and Bush just tripped into a pile of "oooh gotcha" of a legal nature trying to protect his own ass. And you have to go and say something like that.

Oh and Stawberry that woman that got booed? Wasn't she also a Whit House lawyer, Kathleen something? They barked at her in the Middle East? If it was who I'm thinking of then she is married with 2 (?) boys. She quit as his lawyer to spend time with her kids and then came back as an ambassador of goodwill or some such nonsense.

#42. No, Pelosi is blinking herself into a stooper while Harry Reid whines and belly aches.

This is why the lawless and criminal Bush regime is stacking the courts, right up to the supreme court, with right wing unqualified ideologues who overturn precedent in favor of the criminal executive so its criminal actions are no longer criminal and so congress can do nothing to stop them. The key at this juncture is the courts to make congress less irrelevant.

I cant take this anymore. it's a new lie or scandal every single day with these people.

The dems are wimps, and the reps are scum. We're screwed.

Ruthless People @ 48:

#42. No, Pelosi is blinking herself into a stooper while Harry Reid whines and belly aches.

This is why the lawless and criminal Bush regime is stacking the courts, right up to the supreme court, with right wing unqualified ideologues who overturn precedent in favor of the criminal executive so its criminal actions are no longer criminal and so congress can do nothing to stop them. The key at this juncture is the courts to make congress less irrelevant.

I mean irrelevant

I sent an e mail to the Judiciary Committee link provided. I don't know how much more provocation Congress needs. The Fuhrer in Chief has turned into Dirty Harry---Feeling lucky, punk? Go ahead, make my day.

So Judiciary Committee, make his day---NOW! If you don't, I 'll call every goddam one of you to find out what it takes to get you off your dead ass.

dinkface @ 51:

Digging the hole deeper, eh Georgie? He's gotten away with this sort of shit so many times he probably figures nobody even notices any more. Once this clown packs his trunk and leaves the stage does he get to keep all these "magic powers" that have so far kept him from the gallows? I'm wondering what's going to become of him and his minions once their names come off the doors. Can we go after them when they return to the private sector or are these "magic powers" granted to them open ended?

I guess one of the keys is a Democratic president in 2008 to make sure these criminals don't get presidential pardons.

2 U.S.C. § 194 :

Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, records, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question pertinent to the subject under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee or subcommittee of either House of Congress, and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or when Congress is not in session, a statement of fact constituting such failure is reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it shall be the duty of the said President of the Senate or Speaker of the House, as the case may be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.

Yawn. Yeah yeah. Grand jury. Here we go again:

-Bushie does something wrong. (this time, contempt of congress)
-Investigation (Waxman refers to grand jury)
-Indictment (Miers is in contempt)
-Conviction
-Commutation (Gross miscarriage of justice)
REPEAT.

you can't plead to the logic or humanity of Republicans. you guys should start another civil war - a 'cleansing' of the nation - call it what you will. You'd get rid of the 30% of regressives & insodoing solve global warming, bring house prices down etc etc. You could build a coalition of the willing, the world, say. I hereby pledge Ireland's two war-planes.

Nicole Belle @ 29:

Please stop the personal attacks and comments on Miers' appearance. This is a serious issue of constitutional proportions.

To turn this into an insult-fest over looks is demeaning to everyone.

miss_kitty @ 13:

ren @ 7:

god, she is fucking ugly

God, that's fucking relevant to the issue :roll:

While I understand the point Nicole and MK are trying to make, the sad truth about our society is
Looks DO Matter

i.e., Miss Miers could NEVER get away with the smiling, flirtacious, manner in which Dana Perino lies. Perhaps that was taken into consideration in the decision to not even have Meirs appear.

The beltway buzzword for this is "MEDIA-GENIC."
Perino is, Meirs isn't, and don't think that Karl Rove doesn't realize this and use it to his advantage.

Eamon,

You mean Karen Hughes.

Evil, lying, nasty, Karen Hughes. After she left the White House and Iraq started to fall apart, Bush called on her to be an "ambassador" of good will, to tell the Arab world why they should love all things Bush.

Imagine; Bush is so completely blind to political and cultural realities, and so incredibly arrogant and sure of his inherent right as the ruler of America to do whatever the hell he pleaes, that he sent a white, non-arabic speaking, Christian Fundementalist, neo-con right-winger with no relevant education or training, to go to the Arab world and tell them why they should like us.

It didn't last long, but I bet it cost millions.

Eamon, I think I heart you. Keep the planes gassed up, we may need them. :)

Silence Dogood @ 63:

pissed off patricia @ 61:

Where is it written that a president, any president can claim executive privilege?

Good point. This is just a result of activist judges, eh Bush?

In fact, where's that nut, Scalia, when we need him? Let's strictly construct the Constitution, just this once.

I_N_Cognito @ 50:

I cant take this anymore. it's a new lie or scandal every single day with these people.

The dems are wimps, and the reps are scum. We're screwed.

We we're screwed in Nov 2000

Arrest, indict, impeach them all.

Strawberry @ 57:

L.A. Confidential @ 45:

Turn up the NOISE!

AP - 15 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The government has concluded that al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since the summer of 2001, The Associated Press has learned.

LA Confidential, sooooo....I'm confused...the Iraq War iiiis keeping us safer? But Al Queda is getting stronger, Squidward Chertoff has a gut feeling we're going to be attacked...and The White House says we're winning the war?...I think I need a nap.

Rather then the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love, I think we can expect the first official Summer of Terror AT THIS RATE.

All I can do is TRY!

Come on people unify and get together on a late July stay at home strike. Think about it! Pick a day and keep safe at home while the nation grinds to a stop. No business is conducted and everyone places themselves under house arrest.

Marchers and protesters would need to take a day off any way and have to spend money on food n fuel.

pissed off patricia @ 71:

I'm serious, what is the history of executive privilege? Have all presidents claimed it at one time or another? Where did it start and based on what?

Ok...you asked for it. This is from In re Sealed Case
121 F.3d 729:

Since the beginnings of our nation, executive officials have claimed a variety of privileges to resist disclosure of information the confidentiality of which they felt was crucial to fulfillment of the unique role and responsibilities of the executive branch of our government. Courts ruled early that the executive had a right to withhold documents that might reveal military or state secrets. See United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 6-8, 73 S.Ct. 528, 531-32, 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953); Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111, 68 S.Ct. 431, 436, 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948); Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 106-07, 23 L.Ed. 605 (1875). The courts have also granted the executive a right to withhold the *737 **284 identity of government informers in some circumstances, see Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59-61, 77 S.Ct. 623, 627-28, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), and a qualified right to withhold information related to pending investigations. See Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1341-43 (D.C.Cir.1984). Other privileges sanctioned by the Supreme Court include the grant of absolute immunity to the President from civil liability for official acts, see Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 2701, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) ( Fitzgerald), and from judicial compulsion to perform a discretionary act. See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 802-03, 112 S.Ct. 2767, 2776-77, 120 L.Ed.2d 636 (1992) (plurality opinion); Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973, 977-78 (D.C.Cir.1996).FN3

FN3. For a listing of the different forms of executive privilege sanctioned by courts, see Gerald Wetlaufer, Justifying Secrecy: An Objection to the General Deliberative Privilege, 65 Ind. L.J. 845, 845 n.3 (1990); see generally Murl A. Larkin, Federal Testimonial Privileges §§ 5 to 7 (1996); 3 Weinstein's Federal Evidence §§ 509-10 (Joseph M. McLaughlin, ed., 2d ed.1997).

[2] [3] [4] [5] The most frequent form of executive privilege raised in the judicial arena is the deliberative process privilege; it allows the government to withhold documents and other materials that would reveal “advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss, Jena, 40 F.R.D. 318, 324 (D.D.C.1966), aff'd, 384 F.2d 979 (D.C.Cir.1967); accord NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 151-53, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 1516-18, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975); EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 86-93, 93 S.Ct. 827, 835-39, 35 L.Ed.2d 119 (1973). Although this privilege is most commonly encountered in Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) litigation, it originated as a common law privilege. See Wolfe v. Department of Health and Human Services, 839 F.2d 768, 773 (D.C.Cir.1988) (en banc); Jordan v. Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 772 (D.C.Cir.1978) (en banc).FN4 Two requirements are essential to the deliberative process privilege: the material must be predecisional and it must be deliberative. See Army Times Publ'g Co. v. Department of the Air Force, 998 F.2d 1067, 1070 (D.C.Cir.1993); Wolfe, 839 F.2d at 774. Both requirements stem from the privilege's “ultimate purpose[, which] ... is to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions” by allowing government officials freedom to debate alternative approaches in private. Sears, 421 U.S. at 151, 95 S.Ct. at 1516-17. The deliberative process privilege does not shield documents that simply state or explain a decision the government has already made or protect material that is purely factual, unless the material is so inextricably intertwined with the deliberative sections of documents that its disclosure would inevitably reveal the government's deliberations. See id. at 150-54, 95 S.Ct. at 1516-18; Mink, 410 U.S. at 87-91, 93 S.Ct. at 836-38; Wolfe, 839 F.2d at 774; see generally Russell L. Weaver & James T.R. Jones, The Deliberative Process Privilege, 54 Mo. L.Rev. 279, 290-98 (1989).

FN4. Some aspects of the privilege, for example the protection accorded the mental processes of agency officials, see United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 421-22, 61 S.Ct. 999, 1004-05, 85 L.Ed. 1429 (1941), have roots in the constitutional separation of powers. See 3 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 509.21[3] at 509-16.

[6] [7] [8] [9] The deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege and can be overcome by a sufficient showing of need.FN5 This need determination is to be made flexibly on a case-by-case, ad hoc basis. “[E]ach time [the deliberative process privilege] is asserted the district court must undertake a fresh balancing of the competing interests,” taking into account factors such as “the relevance of the *738 **285 evidence,” “the availability of other evidence,” “the seriousness of the litigation,” “the role of the government,” and the “possibility of future timidity by government employees.” In re Subpoena Served Upon the Comptroller of the Currency, 967 F.2d 630, 634 (D.C.Cir.1992) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting In re Franklin Nat'l Bank Securities Litig., 478 F.Supp. 577, 583 (E.D.N.Y.1979)); see also Tuite v. Henry, 98 F.3d 1411, 1417 (D.C.Cir.1996) (describing need in the context of the law enforcement investigatory privilege, which involves balancing similar factors, as “an elastic concept”); Developments in the Law-Privileged Communications, 98 Harv. L.Rev.. 1450, 1621 (1985) (“courts simply engage in an ad hoc balancing of the evidentiary need against the harm that may result from disclosure”); Larkin, supra, § 5.03 at 5-89 to 5-92 (“need for [privileged materials] may vary considerably, depending on the circumstances”). For example, where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, “the privilege is routinely denied,” on the grounds that shielding internal government deliberations in this context does not serve “the public's interest in honest, effective government.” Texaco Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs, 60 F.3d 867, 885 (1st Cir.1995); see also In re Comptroller of the Currency, 967 F.2d at 634 (“the privilege may be overridden where necessary ... to ‘shed light on alleged government malfeasance’ ”) (quoting Franklin Nat'l Bank, 478 F.Supp. at 582); Wetlaufer, supra, at 852 n. 25, 855 (listing cases).

FN5. This characteristic of the deliberative process privilege is not an issue in FOIA cases because the courts have held that the particular purpose for which a FOIA plaintiff seeks information is not relevant in determining whether FOIA requires disclosure. See Sears, 421 U.S. at 149 n. 16, 95 S.Ct. at 1516 n. 16; Mink, 410 U.S. at 86, 93 S.Ct. at 835; see also Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 771-72, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 1480-81, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989) (determination of whether disclosure of information constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy under FOIA's exemption 7(c) turns on nature of document and what document reveals about operation of government and not on identity or purpose of requestor).

Although executive privilege in general is no stranger to the courtroom, one form of the executive privilege is invoked only rarely and that is the privilege to preserve the confidentiality of presidential communications. Hints of a presidential communications privilege made an early appearance in Marbury v. Madison where Chief Justice Marshall suggested that for a court to intrude “into the secrets of the cabinet” would give the appearance of “intermeddl[ing] with the prerogatives of the executive.” 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). Four years later, in 1807, Marshall again addressed the presidential privilege during the trial of Aaron Burr on charges of treason. President Jefferson asserted the privilege in an effort to avoid producing a letter that he had received from General Wilkinson, one of Burr's main accusers. Marshall, sitting on circuit, issued a subpoena for the letter, ruling that “[i]f [the letter] does contain any matter which it would be imprudent to disclose, which it is not the wish of the executive to disclose, such matter, if it be not immediately and essentially applicable to the point, will, of course, be suppressed.” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 37 (C.C.Va.1807) (No. 14,692d). Although Burr was acquitted in his treason trial before there were further proceedings on his subpoena, he was immediately put on trial again on misdemeanor charges and as a result sought production of another letter Wilkinson had sent to Jefferson. See Paul A. Freund, The Supreme Court, 1973 Term-Foreword: On Presidential Privilege, 88 Harv. L. Rev.. 13, 22-31 (1974).

In neither instance, however, was Marshall forced to definitively decide whether such a presidential privilege existed and if so, in what form. In Marbury, Marshall found that the question of whether a commission as justice of the peace had been issued was a matter of legal and public record, not a confidential cabinet matter, setting the stage for the Court's pronouncement there that “[i]t is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is.” 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 177.FN6 In the Burr misdemeanor trial, Jefferson responded to the subpoena by sending Wilkinson's letter to George Hay, the U.S. Attorney prosecuting Burr, with instructions that the U.S. Attorney should determine what portions should *739 **286 be withheld. This delegation induced Marshall to order that the letter be provided to Burr in its entirety, because “[t]he propriety of withholding [the letter] must be decided by [the President] himself.” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192 (C.C.Va.1807) (No. 14,694). FN7

FN6. Marshall's conclusion was presaged by the argument before the Court, where then-Attorney General and former Secretary of State Levi Lincoln had resisted testifying about the whereabouts of Marbury's commission on the grounds that such information was an official secret he had learned in his position as Secretary of State. The Court had responded that “[t]here was nothing confidential to be disclosed. If there had been he was not obliged to answer it ... but that the fact whether such commissions had been in the office or not, could not be a confidential fact.” Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 144.

FN7. Jefferson then proceeded to transmit a copy of the letter identifying portions he believed should be deleted to Hay. But since Burr was again acquitted, he did not seek production of the letter until a third set of proceedings, these on the issue of whether he should be committed to custody for trial in Ohio on other charges. Ruling from the bench, Marshall denied Burr's request for the letter, stating “[a]fter such a certificate from the president of the United States as has been received, I cannot direct the production of those parts of the letter, without sufficient evidence of their being relevant to the present prosecution.” Freund, supra, at 29. Marshall instead held that the deleted portions could be inferred to support Burr. Id., 25 F.Cas. 30. Although Marshall never definitively ruled on the President's claims of privilege, his decision to issue the subpoena against President Jefferson has had lasting significance in establishing that “the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances.” Clinton v. Jones, 520U.S. 681, ---- & n. 38, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 1649 & n. 38, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997).

The presidential communications privilege did not resurface in court for over a hundred and fifty years.FN8 Presidential claims of a right to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents figured more prominently in executive-congressional relations, but these claims too were most often essentially assertions of the deliberative process privilege.FN9 Moreover, given the restrictions on congressional standing and the courts' reluctance to interfere in political battles, few executive-congressional disputes over access to information have ended up in the courts.FN10 As a result, it was not until the 1970s and Watergate-related lawsuits seeking access to President Nixon's tapes as well as other materials that the existence of the presidential privilege was definitively established as a necessary derivation from the President's *740 **287 constitutional status in a separation of powers regime.

FN8. Two cases, Mink and Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067 (D.C.Cir.1971), involved reports that were prepared pursuant to a presidential request and reviewed by the President, but in both cases the courts viewed the privilege claim at issue as being simply an assertion of the general deliberative process privilege, embodied in exemption five of the Freedom of Information Act, rather than a distinct privilege for presidential communications. See Mink, 410 U.S. at 91-93, 93 S.Ct. at 837-39; Soucie, 448 F.2d at 1071-72, 1075-78.

FN9. See, e.g., Robert Kramer & Herman Marcuse, Executive Privilege-A Study of the Period 1953-1960: Part I, 29 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. , 682-87, 692-93 (1961) (describing President Eisenhower's refusal to allow any executive branch officers to reveal to Congress internal deliberations on official matters). Although scholars dispute how often Presidents have actually refused to provide Congress with information on grounds of executive privilege, debate over the President's ability to withhold confidential information from Congress has occurred since the early years of our nation, when President George Washington discussed with his cabinet in 1792 how to respond to a congressional inquiry into the military misfortunes that beset General St. Clair's expedition. See Archibald Cox, Executive Privilege, 122 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1383, 1395-1405 (1974); see generally Raoul Berger, Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth (1974); Adam C. Breckenridge, The Executive Privilege: Presidential Control Over Information (1974); Daniel N. Hoffman, Governmental Secrecy and the Founding Fathers: A Study in Constitutional Controls (1981); Mark J. Rozell , Executive Privilege: The Dilemma of Secrecy and Democratic Accountability (1994). Interestingly, it appears that Congress has at times accepted executive officers' refusal to testify about conversations they had with the President, even as it was insisting on access to other executive branch documents and materials. See, e.g., Rozell, supra, at 44; Robert Kramer & Herman Marcuse, Executive Privilege-A Study of the Period 1953-1960: Part II, 29 Geo. Wash. L. Rev.. 827, 872-73 (1961). A very early instance of such a refusal by an executive officer came in the course of the House's investigation into why Alexander Hamilton had deposited into the Bank of the United States certain funds intended to pay off foreign debt. The House sought to know Hamilton's authority for this act, to which Hamilton replied that he would not provide any instructions President Washington had given him, because “[t]hat question must, then, be a matter purely between the President and the agent, not examinable by the Legislature.” Hoffman, supra, at 122. However, the House rejected the claim of privilege, and Hamilton eventually provided the material sought. Id. at 118-24.

FN10. It appears that the courts have been drawn into executive-congressional disputes over access to information on only three recent occasions. These were: United States v. AT&T, 551 F.2d 384 (D.C.Cir.1976), appeal after remand, 567 F.2d 121 (D.C.Cir.1977); Senate Select Comm'ee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon ( Senate Committee ), 498 F.2d 725 (D.C.Cir.1974); United States v. House of Representatives, 556 F.Supp. 150 (D.D.C.1983).

How much more of this shit can the American public take ? Please give Dumbya a pretzel and some alone time.

Faux is Fiction @ 80:

How much more of this shit can the American public take ? Please give Dumbya a pretzel and some alone time.

A lot apparently

The wife was listening to a Stevie Wonder CD and looked up these lyrics:

You Haven't Done Nothin'

We are amazed but not amused
By all the things you say that youll do
Though much concerned but not involved
With decisions that are made by you

But we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
cause if you really want to hear our views
You havent done nothing!

Its not too cool to be ridiculed
But you brought this upon yourself
The world is tired of pacifiers
We want the truth and nothing else

And we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
cause if you really want to hear our views
You havent done nothing!

We would not care to wake up to the nightmare
Thats becoming real life
But when mislead who knows a persons mind
Can turn as cold as ice un hum

Why do you keep on making us hear your song
Telling us how you are changing right from wrong
cause if you really want to hear our views
You havent done nothing!

All she could think of was this presidency....

What a freakin joke.

chimpy can break the law, obstruct justice, start wars, steal, lie, kill, torture, kill the shit out of values and truth and get away with it ?

How many chances do the repugs get? ...until the last two repugs are the only two nuts earth? How many fuck ups are they entitled?

How many ways can chimpy fuck up before people react? he's taken our children and sacrificed them to his gods.

I've been trying to get people, for years, behind no-shopping Sundays.
Can anyone do that?
If you can, how about 2 days/week?

I'll bet it's too hard.

Let's face it people that this is a circular depression fest.

It is time to get together and meet up in a soothing National Strike followed by some sweet marches then some fine protests. It is TIME the economy will soon collapse.

[Deleted. Let's not denigrate on the basis of looks on this thread. M'Kay? Sitemonitor]

[Deleted. Let's not denigrate on the basis of looks on this thread. M'Kay? Sitemonitor]

Flashbacks of Nixon...

aaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ! ! ! Monsters !

Good thing this harlot Harriet did not get confirmed for SCOTUS. She'd do whatever Bushking wanted.

Biggus Diggus @ 100:

Good thing this harlot Harriet did not get confirmed for SCOTUS. She'd do whatever Bushking wanted.

Yeah, as compared to those scholars of impartial jurisprudence, Roberts and Alito! (SNARK!)

Dogs

You gotta be crazy, you gotta have a real need.
You gotta sleep on your toes, and when you're on the street,
you gotta be able to pick out the easy meat with your eyes closed.
And then moving in silently, down wind and out of sight,
you gotta strike when the moment is right, without thinking.

And after a while you can work on points for style,
like the club tie and the firm handshake,
a certain look in the eye and an easy smile.
You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to,
so that when they turn their backs on you,
you'll get the chance to put the knife in.

You gotta keep one eye looking over your shoulder.
You know it's going to get harder, and harder and harder as you get older.
And in the end you'll pack up and fly down south,
hide your head in the sand,
just another sad old man,
all alone and dying of cancer.

And when you loose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown.
And as the fear grows, the bad blood slows and turns to stone.
And it's too late to loose the weight you used to need to throw around.
So have a good drown as you go down, alone,
dragged down by the stone.

I gotta admit that I'm a little bit confused.
Sometimes it seems to me as if I'm just being used.
Gotta stay awake, gotta try and shake off this creeping malaise.
If I don't stand my own ground, how can I find my own way out of this maze?

Deaf, dumb and blind, you just keep on pretending
that everyone's expendable and no-one has a real friend.
And it seems to you the thing to do would be to isolate the winner.
And everything's done under the sun,
and you believe a heart, everyone's a killer.

Who was born in a house full of pain,
who was trained not to spit in the fan,
who was told what to do by the man,
who was broken by trained personnel,
Who was fitted with collar and chain,
who was given a seat in the stand,
who was breaking away from the pack,
who was only a stranger at home,
who was ground down in the end,
who was found dead on the phone, (we can hope...)
who was dragged down by the stone.

CHENEY'S SONG

Pigs (3 different ones)

Big man, pig man, ha ha charade you are.
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha charade you are.
And when your hand is on your heart,
you're nearly a good laugh, almost a joker,
with your head down in the pig bin,
saying, " Keep on digging", pig stain on your fat chin.
What do you hope to find, when you're down in the pig mine?
You're nearly a laugh, you're nearly a laugh,
but you're really a cry.
Bus stop rat bag, ha ha charade you are.
You ****ed up old hag, ha ha charade you are.
You radiate cold shafts of broken glass.
You're nearly a good laugh, almost worth a quick grin.
You like the feel of steel, you're hot stuff with a hat pin,
and good fun with a hand gun.
You're nearly a laugh, you're nearly a laugh,
but you're really a cry.

Hey you, Whitehouse, ha ha charade you are.
You house proud town mouse, ha ha charade you are.
You're trying to keep our feelings off the street,
you're nearly a real treat, all tight lips and cold feet,
and do you feel abused?

You gotta stem the evil tide,
and keep it all on the inside.
Mary, you're nearly a treat, Mary, you're nearly a treat,
but you're really a cry.

Pink Floyd. A band before their time...

Shine on you crazy diamond Syd...

Biggus Diggus @ 100:

Good thing this harlot Harriet did not get confirmed for SCOTUS. She'd do whatever Bushking wanted.

And Alito won't?

two little words with a lot of weight.....

inherent contempt....

let's see what happens!...

abarts @ 107:

Dubya, Cheney, Pelosi, Reid...they all need to go.

Of for goodness sakes, Nancy has her flaws, but Dick Cheney is the fricking Anti-Christ? Literally pure nihilistic evil in maxi-concentrated form, one drop poisons miles of virgin earth!

Putting Pelosi in the same list with Cheney is just absurd....

I am linking to this comment on Talking Points Memo, because it says that what Bush has done, telling a person not to show up in response to a subpoena, is a federal felony: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015273.php

Hey, I might have got my law degree from Sam Waterston U. (ie watching Law and Order on TV), but even I know that there is one well-known exception to the attorney-client privilege. The privilege is broken when communications with the client are in furtherance of an ongoing crime. Neither the lawyer nor the client can hide behind a wall of silence in that case.

One other thing. The mere invocation of privilege in this case confirms what many have believed all along. That is, that the denials of one after another official in the DoJ of making up the list of attorneys to be terminated did not originate with them. The logical conclusion has always been that they must therefore have originated in the White House, with many believing KKKarl Rove to have been involved. Thanks for letting the cat out of the bag, Harriet. Not only have you handed Senate investigators the loose thread to unravel this mess, you have implicated the WH in interfering with the functioning of another branch of government, in breach of the principal of separation of powers.

My e-mail to the House Judiciary Committee:

My family supports your attempt to learn the truth concerning the firings of the U. S. Attorneys. I find it inconceivable that members of the Bush Administration, who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, can so blatantly defy Congress and trample the legal principles they swore to defend. Do not permit this Administration to demote the Legislative branch of government to a subservient status. This may be the defining moment.

Off with her head! yelled the Red Queen...

As I recall, while Clinton was President, the Supreme Court ruled that it was possible to sue a sitting President and that anything the President said to White House counsel (at least in respect to matters relevant to the lawsuit) was not subject to solicitor-client privilege (which means the White House counsel could be compelled to testify about what the President said).

Is this still the law?

isnt this old hag the gal that said shed love to throw bush down on the floor of the oval office and give him the blow job he allways needed?

Kneel before Zod!

That's it, now take it out, heh! Now show yur presuhdint some love Harriet, heh!

Another blue dress, shot to hell.

Bush has no right to tell Senator Palpatine what he can or cannot say.

Good God Democrats, throw that ugly bitches ass in jail.

Sam Ervin wouldn't have stood for this bullshit. Come on Leahy, start putting some bite in your bark.

Maybe bush should pardon this christian skank right now, for crimes she may have commited?
This non-elected administration will leave office in ashes, bush a paranoid, withered shell of a man.
But hey, he wouldn't have it any other way, now would he?

This is it, isn't it, the Constitutional line in the sand.

Bush has probably broken the law six different ways, but generally under the (admittedly shaky) cover of the war powers granted him by Congress.

This is different. He's forbidding a former employee, now a private citizen with no affiliation with the government, from obeying a congressional subpoena. There is no precedent for this, rather it appears to violate federal law.

This is like October 20, 1973, the night Nixon tried to force his Attorney General to fire the special prosecutor who had subpoenaed Nixon's tapes. Nixon fired the AG, then the replacement AG, before finally finding someone in the Justice Dept (Robert Bork) who would get rid of Archibald Cox.

Nixon couldn't get away with his effort to subvert a legal subpoena to enforce executive privelege - just as Bush can't get away with it.

Smells like a constitutional crisis to me.

How can your former boss "ORDER" you not to testify? Screw him.

Can't anything be done against this administration? Shouldn't Congress, or at least a few of them really go ballistic and follow through on something? Even if they try impeachment then History will show that something happened to fight an administration which is destined bring us all down. We will pay, in many ways, for decades.

And this woman would have been sitting on the SCOTUS - if not for the fact that her inadequacies were too horribly visible even for the righties. On the otherhand, two equally manipulative, fascistic, criminal minds did get a seat on SCOTUS. After all, they are the appropriate types for theocratic rule - WHITE, FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTAIN AND MALE.

Bob Roberts @ 120:

As I recall, while Clinton was President, the Supreme Court ruled that it was possible to sue a sitting President and that anything the President said to White House counsel (at least in respect to matters relevant to the lawsuit) was not subject to solicitor-client privilege (which means the White House counsel could be compelled to testify about what the President said).

Is this still the law?

Is this still the law????? Only for Democrats apparently.

Was I the only one who saw Sara Taylor get set up like the LAPD

The Truth Hurts @ 36:

PNAAC Minister @ 6:

Congress is in jeopardy of becoming our nation's largest joke.

BECOMING the nation's largest joke???? They're already there.

Worthless. Spineless. Toothless. Cowards. At some point, I hope to see a Dem stand up ands show they have a pair.

this is NOT about bush, NOT about harriet miers, the republican crime ring has drawn a line in the sand. they have been pushing the envelope with absolutely no consequences, and now they are defying authority once again. this IS about how the dems and the liberals will respond. are they going to issue a hollow protest and then roll over and play dead again. bush and his ilk are laughing once again with the sure knowledge that they have won again. they really can't believe how dumb and gutless the dems are.

Thanks for the link to the judiciary committee.
I really hope that the 146 people that posted here before me took advantage of your efforts to make their opinions known as well.

That picture is absolutely Hideous . . .