Do ya think that Bush is afraid for his former White House counsel, Harriet Miers-now a private citizen to appear Thursday before a House panel investigating U.S. attorney firings?

Sara Taylor, 34 year old [or so] former White House political director for President George W. Bush from 2003 to 2007 did apper before that same subcommittee today. So why is Miers so set to defy a congressional subpoena to appear before that committee?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Here's some comments from a Dailykos diary about Mier's being ordered by Bush not to appear before that subcommittee:

"You want highlights? [of Sara Taylor's testimony before that subcommittee]

Taylor admitted to giving presentations at agencies citing specific political races that the White House wanted to win in violation of the Hatch Act.

Taylor proclaimed her oath to the President which Leahy later called her on explaining that her oath was to the Constitution and not to the president.

Taylor said that the President had nothing to do with the US Attorney firings thereby completely undermining the assertion of executive privilege.

Leahy explained to Taylor that it looked as if that she was using the executive privilege claim in order to protect herself - a claim that she can't make for herself being that she is not the executive -and that the White House was cooperating in continuing the "cover up" by allowing her to do so.

Taylor may end up be held in contempt of Congress as a result of her testimony today.

Durbin said that Rove should have spared Taylor the trouble; and that if the White House had done nothing wrong then this would all have been over by now.

With Miers refusing to even appear, I think things are going to heat up pretty quickly. Conyers and Leahy are going to be really pissed off."

by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 01:01:27 PM PDT

-snip-

"I like the fact that Sen Whitehouse
1. made her admit that she didn't know if her talking point about Clinton doing the same thing only more artfully was true and

2. insists that she responds back to apprise the committee if her employment contract had a clause that she could be basically gagged after her employment.

He's going after her credability and if she actually must listen to the presidents directive or if she is choosing too and basically covering up as she already proved she spouts the talking points."

by astoundedstill on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 01:05:54 PM PDT

-snip-

"Yes - the point about her terms of employment
and whether there was any extension of executive privilege beyond the time of her tenure was a clever line of questioning. Because there is no such extension as far as I know.

Furthermore, the fact that she had a hard time grasping the fact that her oath of office was to uphold the laws and Constitution and was not some weirdo Skull and Crossbones secret squirrel oath to The Decider was I believe an important revelation today.

Of course, when questioned on what her oath was she said that she didn't recall, but that she took it very seriously."

by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 01:12:26 PM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/11/15343/4452

Breaking: Miers "ORDERED" Not to Testify (Update 4)
by DanK Is Back ; Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:37:34 PM PDT