BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers

Subject: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: SharonA
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 05:20 PM

Bush Orders Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to Defy House Committee's Subpoena

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

President Bush ordered his former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to defy a congressional subpoena and refuse to testify Thursday before a House panel investigating U.S. attorney firings.

"Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the president," White House Counsel Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to Miers' lawyer, George T. Manning.

Manning, in turn, notified committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., that Miers would not show up Thursday to answer questions about the White House role in the firings of eight federal prosecutors over the winter.

Conyers, who had previously said he would consider pursuing criminal contempt citations against anyone who defied his committee' subpoenas, revealed the letters after former White House political director Sara Taylor testified Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Taylor said she knew of no involvement by the president in the firings of the U.S. attorneys.

She irked senators by refusing to answer many questions from a panel investigating whether the firings were politically motivated. She said she was bound by Bush's position that White House conversations were protected by executive privilege.

Conyers said of Miers, Bush's former White House lawyer, "As a former public official and officer of the court, Ms. Miers should be especially aware of the need to respect legal process, and we expect her to appear before the committee tomorrow as scheduled."

Fielding said the Justice Department had advised the White House that Miers had absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony.

"The president has directed her not to appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2007," Fielding wrote.

Across the Capitol a Senate committee spent Wednesday grilling a second reluctant Bush aide about the White House role in the firings.

Unlike Miers, Taylor showed up and haltingly tried to satisfy both the subpoena compelling her testimony and Bush's executive privilege order not to reveal internal White House discussions....

Conyers had previously said he would consider pursuing criminal contempt citations against anyone who defied his committee's subpoenas.

"A refusal to appear before the subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings," Conyers and Sanchez, wrote back to Manning. "The subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Ms. Miers to appear as required by her subpoena."

At the same time, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy held open the possibility of contempt proceedings against Taylor if she does not answer follow-up questions posed during his hearing Wednesday.

"That's a decision yet to be made," Leahy said....

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Full article here: AP story at ABC News site

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 05:38 PM

Subpoena Bush and Cheney. Then see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 06:06 PM

Time for major Contempt of Congress proceedings. However, the question arises as to whether the Supreme Court could block such proceedings on appeal and f so whether the Congress in joint effort could over-ride such blockage. Leave it to Bush to try to break the core machinery.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 06:18 PM

Boy! It just gets better and better, doesn't it!??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: SharonA
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 06:28 PM

Ah, yes, the Supreme Court. Remember when Bush nominated Miers to be a Supreme Court Justice, back in 2005? At least Bush failed in that attempt at political machination, but it was a minor glitch.

What if she had been approved, in some sick twist of fate? Can a Supreme Court Justice be subpoenaed? Can a President invoke executive privilege to order a SC Justice to refuse to appear before the Senate? Eeeek, my head spins at the thought...

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: Azizi
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 08:36 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 09:12 PM

It shouldn't be difficult to obtain a copy of whatever oath she took. The oath taken by military officers is to the Constitution -- the US is the only country in the world (as far as I know) in which the oath is to an ideal and not to an individual. Why should it be different for those in the Executive Branch?

Oath taken by enlisted personnel in the US Armed Forces:

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Oath taken by commissioned officers of the US Armed Forces:

I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Note that the last sentence is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection.)

Oath taken by the President of the United States:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Oath taken by the Vice President of the United States:


Hmm...seems like the Constitution doesn't specify one. The VP has usually taken the same oath as those serving in Congress, which has varied a bit from time to time....

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 09:48 PM

It just occured to me: if Miers doesn't show, she can be held in Contempt of Congress. If Miers does show, can she be held in Contempt of the President?

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 10:01 PM

More importantly, will they be held in Contempt of The People?

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 10:19 PM

Even more interesting is that 3 former Surgeon Generals (Surgeons General?) of the US appeared at a hearing yesterday stating that they were TOLD while in office not to contradict White House policy on various issues...like abortion and stem-cell research. They were flatly prevented from offering medical advice to the country if it differed from Bush's position.


Statement for the Congressional Record From
Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., FACS
th
17 Surgeon General of the United States (2002-2006)
Commander of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (2002-2006)
Distinguished Professor of Public Health, The University of Arizona Mel and Enid
Zuckerman College of Public Health
Vice Chairman, Canyon Ranch
CEO, Canyon Ranch Health
President, Canyon Ranch Institute


"During my first year as Surgeon General, I was still quite politically naïve in the ways of
the Beltway. As I witnessed partisanship and political manipulation, I was astounded but
also unsure of what I was witnessing — for I had no reference point. I asked myself
whether this was just happening to me as the new Surgeon General, or whether this was
the norm for all Surgeons General.   

I turned to my fellow Surgeons General, the men and women who came before me and
had made tremendous positive contributions to the science and practice of public health,
who had saved and improved millions of lives through their work and dedication. They
became my mentors. They said that they had all been challenged and had to fight
political battles in order to do their job as "the doctor of the nation." But each agreed that
never had they seen Washington, D.C. so partisan or a new Surgeon General so
politically challenged and marginalized as during my tenure.

They told me that although most Americans believe that their Surgeon General has the
ability to impact the course of public health as "the nation's doctor," the reality is that
nation's doctor has been marginalized and relegated to a position with no independent
budget, and with supervisors who are political appointees with partisan agendas.
Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological, or
political agenda is ignored, marginalized, or simply buried.   

The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is
nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons
driven by changing political winds. The job of Surgeon General is to be "the doctor of
the nation"— not "the doctor of a political party."

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 02:05 PM

a list of other ingnored subpeonas
http://www.democrats.com/subpoenas













If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

James Madison (1751-1836), 4th U.S. President and author of the U.S. Constitution

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carring the cross."

Sinclair Lewis, (It Can't Happen Here, 1935)

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of a private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd US President

"...An empire is a despotism, and an emperor is a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy. For, although the will of an absolute monarch is law, yet his edicts must be registered by parliaments. Even this formality is not necessary in an empire."

John Adams (1735-1826), 2nd American President

"I'm the commander in chief, see, I don't need to explain, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting part about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

George W. Bush, quoted in Bob Woodward's book 'Bush at War'   


It may be partly a consequence of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the perceived rising external threat coming from fanatical Islamists, but it is undeniable that imperialism abroad and fascism at home are on the rise in 21st Century America. This is amazing, because, along with totalitarian communism, these were precisely the two most disastrous political diseases of the 20th Century against which the United States and other democracies fought. They led to two world wars and turned the 20th Century into the most murderous century in the history of mankind. —Such a development is important for the United States, but it is also of paramount importance for all the other democracies, because if the United States, which has one of the best democratic constitutions in the world, falls to a form of benign totalitarianism, what is the fate of democracy elsewhere?

Before we proceed, let us define a few terms. Indeed, what is imperialism? What is fascism? What is totalitarianism? And what is democracy?

Firstly, imperialism is the use of force in international relations outside the realm of international law and the requirements of self-defense, with the purpose of taking control of foreign countries, their populations and their resources, and with the express intention of changing their cultures or systems of government.

—The best book on imperialism is J.A. Hobson's Imperialism: A Study (1902).

Secondly, fascism is a political regime that is characterized by a high degree of concentration of power in the state, in one political party or in one person, accompanied by a messianic and belligerent form of nationalism, by the usurpation of legislative and judicial prerogative by the executive branch of the government, by the suppression of individual freedoms at home, by the worshipping of national symbols such as flags, and by a rise of militarism and the pursuit of military expansions abroad, often so as to avenge some perceived humiliation.

—One of the best books on fascism is Robert O. Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism (2004).

Thirdly, totalitarianism is a broad concept concerning the exercise of power by one party or one person within a country through force, while being unrestrained by laws or by rules.

—Perhaps the best book on totalitarianism is Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1958).

Finally, democracy is a form of government where the citizens' preferences are paramount in adopting public policies and where people elect a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It rests on the rule of law, the decentralization and separation of powers, and the protection of fundamental liberties and individual rights. It is the antithesis of imperialism, fascism and all types of totalitarianism.

— A classic analysis of American-style democracy is Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835).

Now, let us look at a few facts and events that have recently taken place in the United States. When they are placed together to form a whole, they form a powerful political and legal framework that could allow President George W. Bush or any other politician to run the United States by decree rather than by the will of the people.

First, there is the September 2002 Neocon imperialist doctrine adopted by the Bush-Cheney administration that was used to launch the March 2003 illegal military invasion of Iraq. This was done according to the imperialistic "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive wars1., of international unilateralism, and of American assertive military supremacy around the world. —According to this hubristic foreign policy doctrine, the United States could invade any country, especially in the Middle East, in order to impose a local democratic government friendly to the United States and its allies. The occupied country would then become a model to other countries which would adopt the same type of political regime and the same policies. —We all know how this new imperialistic doctrine has fared in Iraq and what have been its disastrous consequences.

The 2002 'Bush Doctrine', in asserting the right for the U.S. to invade other nations for vague reasons of social engineering, nation building or regime change, represents a repudiation of the Nuremberg Principles and the United Nations Charter's ban on wars of aggression, both strongly supported by American leaders sixty years ago. For example, the Nuremberg Charter stipulates that "To initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime." As for the U.N. Charter, its Preamble says that it has been established "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."

Second, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of the regime of Adolf Hitler suspending the right of habeas corpus in Germany on February 28, 1933, the Bush-Cheney regime also suspended the right of habeas corpus in the United States. Indeed, on October 17, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law S.3930, the Military Commissions Act, a law that cancels the right of habeas corpus for foreigners accused of terrorism and for both Americans and foreigners who have been designated as "enemy combatants" by the Executive branch. Under this law, any individual, citizen or non-citizen, can be deprived of the protection of due process at the whim of the Executive branch, and be imprisoned indefinitely without legal recourse. —The United States is probably the only country in the world where the right of habeas corpus has been suspended and yet is still being called a 'democratic' country.

Third, the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 (H.R. 1815), passed by Congress on September 30 2006, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006, empowers the president to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order". The resort to martial law could come, for example, as a response to a terrorist attack, but it is not excluded that it could be imposed if some antiwar protests were to get unruly or after any major political disturbance. Since the current Bush-Cheney administration got away with declaring a war abroad on a pretext, what would prevent them from imposing martial law at home also on a pretext?

Fourth, let us consider that when Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807, the purpose was to severely restrict the president's ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. Indeed, its Section 1385 .(Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus), as later amended, states that "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both".

These protections are all gone now. —Indeed, the adoption of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122) changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." —While the U.S. Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy", the new law allows the president not only to declare martial law and rule by decree, but it also gives the president the power to take charge of United States National Guard troops without the states' governors' authorization. The law also expands the list of such permissible cases for martial law to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition"—and such "condition" is not defined or limited in scope. All the safeguards against the use of the military at home have been removed in favor of new powers being given to the president to do so nearly at his whim.

Fifth, the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed by President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, an event that was generally not covered by U.S. mainstream media or discussed by the U.S. Congress, goes even further and declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the president can become what is best described as a de facto dictator: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

Sixth, on March 15, 2004, the National Security Agency's wire-tapping and domestic spying program, without proper judicial supervision, was authorized by the Bush-Cheney White House, without Justice Department approval and over the objections of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. This was an illegal program of domestic spying, because it violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established a panel of judges to hear wiretap requests in secret. When a government begins to violate the law, there is no way of knowing in advance where this will lead and how far it will go. It is an open field.

And seventh, there is the practice of submitting detainees to torture and to other degrading treatments despite the clear obligation not to do so under international law and under U.S. law. It is truly amazing that the Bush-Cheney White House had to be reminded by the Supreme Court, in June 2006, that it had to abide by the Geneva Conventions. —It seems they could not figure that out by themselves.

These are seven ominous developments among the most serious, some having gone nearly unnoticed within the United States, but which would have the Fathers of the U.S. Constitution turning in their graves, if they could see what has been done to their work. Technically, there is still a fair amount of personal liberty and freedom in the United States for the average person, but this could change at the drop of a hat, or more likely, at the stroke of a pen. Over the last six years, the Bush-Cheney administration has been unmistakably shifting the USA toward imperialism and toward fascism.   

—This is not to deny that we live in dangerous and taxing times, but Americans should pray that no major catastrophic event occur under George W. Bush's watch, because all the necessary apparatus has been set into place to suspend liberties and freedoms and impose a fascist-like regime upon the American people when the pretext presents itself. This is a sobering thought.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] -Bush's March 20, 2003 Iraq War was a preventive war, not a pre-emptive war, since there was no imminent military threat coming from Iraq. However, the Bush administration, in its September 19, 2002, so-called "Bush Doctrine" document, asserted that they were ready to "act preemptively", "to forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries." Also, when they raised the issue of the "mushroom cloud", they justified (wrongly, I agree) their coming war as a pre-emptive one, not as a preventive one. So, in its official political vocabulary, the Bush-Cheney regime has affirmed that the Iraq War was a pre-emptive one, even if legally it was not.

Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at [e-mail]

Visit his blog site at: www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.

Author's Website: www.thenewamericanempire.com/

Check Dr. Tremblay's coming book "The Code for Global Ethics" at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 04:18 PM

"Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress's constitutionally-based power to investigate."

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 05:42 PM

The USA is in the midst of a BIG constitutional crisis.

The House Judiciary Committee voted to give Harriet Miers five days to rethink her failure to adhere to its subpoena for her appearance before that Committee today.

After that? We will see.

Here's a link to a Dailykos front page story on this crisis:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/12/15426/7096
Contempt; by Hunter; Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:49:28 PM PDT

And here are several comments from that story:

"If Harriet can ignore the subpoena then
the entire "justice" system is toast.

Baked.

Cooked.

Fried.

Done.

History."

by foxklub on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:54:11 PM PDT

**

"As a local judge here is
fond of saying . . . "a subpoena is not an invitation to which an RSVP is required" "

by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Jul 12, 2007

**

"Well, you can, of course, go through legal channels to argue, before a judge, as to why you should not have to respond to a subpoena under certain criteria. So subpoenas can be quashed; but, obviously, they cannot simply be ignored."

by Ray Radlein on Thu Jul 12, 2007

**

The Democrats MUST ACT
" 'Despite what others may say, this isn't a high stakes game. It isn't a "game" at all. The power of Congress to subpoena witnesses and have them appear is an absolute Constitutional power, and not one that can be ignored. It's high time for the White House legal team to understand where the boundaries of law are'.

I agree, I do not think this is a risky move by the majority. Hell, if they do nothing then they are simply telling Bush he is the Dictator and they will not challenge any ridiculous claim of privilege he makes!"

01-20-09: THE END OF AN ERROR "

by kimoconnor on Thu Jul 12, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 06:33 PM

Guess the BuShites really are conservatives after all- they're using the Tricky Dick Nixon playbook from thirty years ago.

It was bullshit then and its bullshit now.

I wish the incumbent the same success with it that Dick had.
(or is that Dick head?)

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Jul 07 - 06:07 AM

"The United States is probably the only country in the world where the right of habeas corpus has been suspended"

Well, Little Fascist Johnny has got it working here in Australia now too - person held for many days without charge on 'suspicion of terrorism' - the federal police admit they have no evidence of any kind, but they 'need to keep extending the period of detention' (original one in leglislation was 48 hours) apparently in the hope that they can find something (or even make something up!)...

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 13 Jul 07 - 10:18 AM

Help me out here, and I'll warn in advance that I'm playing devil's advocate...

If Miers was White House counsel, doesn't that make her Bush's lawyer? If so, wouldn't any communication between them fall under lawyer-client privilege? Whereas executive privilege is a nebulous concept with no clear definition, lawyer-client privilege is a clearly defined legal concept: a lawyer cannot be compelled to testify about anything that has transpired between her and her client. So why all the executive privilege rigamarole when a better case for her not having to testify could be made based upon lawyer-client privilege? She could be compelled to appear, but she couldn't be forced to testify about anything she did on Bush's behalf. Or am I missing something?

Subject: RE: BS: The latest in executive privilege: Miers
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Jul 07 - 10:41 AM

Bush is not the White House, she is counsel to this administration not to Bush personnally or on a personnal level & he is not her client, though I hope the day soon comes that he'll be in need of a laywer.

Barry