Firing-gate

[Sonic Youth]

Case closed.

[OscarGuy]

Not that this isn't entirely motivated by election year politics, but I say it's about damned time.

Pelosi wants Bush aides investigated By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked the Justice Department on Thursday to open a grand jury investigation into whether President Bush's chief of staff and former counsel should be prosecuted for contempt of Congress.

ADVERTISEMENT

Pelosi, D-Calif., demanded that the department pursue misdemeanor charges against former White House counsel Harriet Miers for refusing to testify to Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors in 2006 and against chief of staff Josh Bolten for failing to turn over White House documents related to the dismissals.

She gave Attorney General Michael Mukasey one week to respond and said refusal to take the matter to a grand jury will result in the House's filing a civil lawsuit against the Bush administration.

Neither the department nor White House had an immediate comment.

The Democratic-controlled House voted two weeks ago to hold Bolten and Miers in contempt for failing to cooperate with committee investigations.

"There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a president unilaterally instructs them to do so," Pelosi wrote Attorney General Michael Mukasey. She noted that Congress subpoenaed Miers to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the firings.

"Surely, your department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury," Pelosi wrote.

She added: "Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a president to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents."

Pelosi sent an additional letter to U.S. Attorney Jeff Taylor, the chief federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia, whose office would oversee the grand jury.

The letters point to sections of federal law that require the Justice Department to bring the House contempt citations before a grand jury to investigate.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, said he hoped Pelosi's demand would spur the department to "put the partisan manipulation of our system of justice behind it" and take the issue to a grand jury. "To do otherwise would turn on its head the notion that we are all equally accountable under the law," said Conyers, D-Mich.

The department long has resisted directing its prosecutors to enforce congressional subpoenas against White House officials.

The letter was the latest chapter in a yearlong saga that began with the firings of nine federal prosecutors and led to Alberto Gonzales' resignation as attorney last August.

The House voted 223-32 this month to hold Miers and Bolten in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether the prosecutors' firings were politically motivated. Angry Republicans boycotted the vote and staged a walkout in an unusually bitter scene even for the fractious House.

At the time, the Bush administration was no less harsh, saying the information sought by the House was off-limits under executive privilege and that Bolten and Miers were immune from prosecution. The White House said the department would not ask the U.S. attorney to pursue the House contempt charges.

It was the first time in 25 years that a full chamber of Congress voted on a contempt of Congress citation. The White House pointed out that it was the first time that such action had been taken against top White House officials who had been instructed by the president to remain silent to preserve executive privilege.

"This action is unprecedented, and it is outrageous," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said after the Feb. 14 vote.

[OscarGuy]

You beat me to it, Sonic...The title of the article should be The Death of an Administration...not rats from a sinking ship but Bush trying to leave himself a legacy that isn't tainted...too late, but

GOOD RIDDANCE!!

[Sonic Youth]

Attorney General Gonzales to Resign

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Embattled U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned, senior administration officials told CNN Monday.

President Bush will likely nominate Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to the position, senior administration officials said. Clay Johnson, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, would replace Chertoff, the officials said.

Many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have long called for his ouster after the firing of several U.S. attorneys in 2006. Bush had long stood by Gonzales.

Gonzales will announce his resignation at a news conference at the Justice Department at 10:30 a.m. ET.

One of Gonzales' chief critics, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, hailed the move by Gonzales.

"Well I think that clearly this was the right thing to do," the New York Democrat told CNN. "It took a long time but there is no question about it that the Justice Department is virtually non-functional."

Schumer added that, "no one thought Alberto Gonzales was up to the job" saying that "we need someone who will put rule of law first."

Gonzales' move comes after Bush's chief political strategist Karl Rove announced his resignation earlier this month. Senior administration officials said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten had told senior aides that if they intended to stay after Labor Day, plan to remain for the rest of Bush's term through January 2009.

Other White House officials who have left in the wake of the 2006 election include White House counselor Dan Bartlett, budget director Rob Portman, chief White House attorney Harriet Miers, political director Sara Taylor, deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

[Damien]

Just get a grand jury to watch the video of the testimony the other day, and that's all you need. Indictment in one day.

I've been following politics ever since the mid-1960s, and I've never ever seen anything like that. It was astonishing -- kind of like a not-too-bright 6th grader in the principal's office trying to wiggle out of getting in trouble but just digging a bigger hole for himself with his ridiculous responses. Utterly fascinating.

[Sonic Youth]

Just get a grand jury to watch the video of the testimony the other day, and that's all you need. Indictment in one day.

Democrats Urge Special Counsel of Gonzales

Jul 26, 11:58 AM (ET)
By LAURIE KELLMAN


WASHINGTON (AP) - A group of Senate Democrats called Wednesday for a special counsel to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales perjured himself regarding the firings of U.S. attorneys and administration dissent over President Bush's domestic surveillance program.

"We ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress," four Democratic senators wrote in a letter Wednesday, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press.

"It has become apparent that the Attorney General has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements" to the Judiciary Committee, they added.

"We do not make this request lightly." wrote Sens. Charles E. Schumer of New York, Dianne Feinstein of California, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he supports the request.

They said that Gonzales' testimony last year that there had been no internal dissent over the president's warrantless wiretapping program conflicted with testimony by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey and with Gonzales' own statements this week before the Judiciary Committee.

They also said Gonzales falsely told the panel that he had not talked about the firings with other Justice Department officials. His former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, told the House Judiciary Committee under a grant of immunity that she had an "uncomfortable" conversation with Gonzales in which he outlined his recollection of what happened and asked her for her reaction.

"The attorney general should be held to the highest ethical standards," the senators wrote.

Clement would decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor because Gonzales and outgoing Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty have recused themselves from the investigation that involves them. The Justice Department's No. 3, Associate Attorney General William Mercer, is serving only in an acting capacity and therefore does not have the authority to do so.

At issue is what was discussed at a March 10, 2004, congressional briefing. A letter from then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte said the briefing concerned the administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration.

But Gonzales, at Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving prior court approval.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe. He said the meeting prompted him to go to the bedside of ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft to recertify the surveillance program, but he denied pressuring Ashcroft to do so. Ashcroft, recovering from gall bladder surgery, refused.

White House press secretary Tony Snow defended Gonzales on Thursday but would not talk about the subject of the 2004 briefing.

"Unfortunately we get into areas that you cannot discuss openly," Snow said. "It's a very complex issue. But the attorney general was speaking consistently. The president supports him. I think at some point this is going to be something where members are going to have to go behind closed doors and have a fuller discussion of the issues. But I can't go any further than that."

Two former Republican chairmen joined Democrats in recent days in suggesting that the questions surrounding Gonzales be resolved by those outside the process.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and former chairman, on Tuesday told Gonzales during his appearance before the panel that a special prosecutor might be needed.

"I do not find your testimony credible, candidly," Specter told Gonzales.

Specter's counterpart on the House side, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., suggested that the House file a civil suit against the administration's executive privilege claim.

And Specter brought his concerns directly to Bush aboard Air Force One Thursday morning.

The senator, accompanying Bush on a trip to Philadelphia, said the president was sticking by Gonzales out of personal loyalty despite the attorney general's deteriorating support on Capitol Hill.

"The hearing two days ago was devastating (for Gonzales). But so was the hearing before that and so was the hearing before that," Specter said.

[flipp525]

bump



Edited By flipp525 on 1185423143

[criddic3]

OPENING ARGUMENT
Are The Democrats Serious?
By Stuart Taylor Jr., National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Monday, July 23, 2007

So far, at least, both sides deserve to lose the brewing battle over congressional Democrats' subpoenas for information about White House deliberations on the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

Legal merits aside, congressional Democrats face an uphill battle in seeking to defeat the executive privilege claim.

The administration deserves to lose because the contradictory, misleading, and sometimes false congressional testimonies of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other officials about the firings (among other matters) have the smell of cover-up about them. Their evasions have given a tincture of plausibility to what initially seemed to be far-fetched suspicions that the firings were driven by an administration scheme to abuse its prosecutorial powers to hurt Democratic candidates. This is not the best time for the compulsively secretive George W. Bush to hide behind the same executive privilege that the Watergate cover-up made famous, while implausibly claiming to be doing it for the benefit of future presidents.

"Presidents who really care about executive privilege and secrecy don't make the claims about confidentiality and evading legal rules wantonly and libidinously," asserts Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law professor who served in the Clinton Justice Department and later criticized President Bill Clinton for misusing executive privilege to shield himself.

The congressional Democrats deserve to lose because they have so far made no serious proposal to pass new legislation or to do anything else -- besides beat their chests in righteous rage -- that shows a genuine need for whatever information they might obtain about the firings by demanding White House documents and the testimony of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and political aide Sara Taylor.

But the Democrats could change this equation by showing that their subpoenas have a legislative goal that transcends embarrassing President Bush.

One small step in this direction would be for the Democrats to propose a law making it a crime to do in the future what they suggest the administration may have done in the past: to bring or solicit the bringing (or the timing) of a criminal prosecution for the purpose of partisan advantage. An inquiry into whether such a law is needed might justify forcing full disclosure of all evidence bearing on whether any U.S. attorneys were fired for resisting political pressure to prosecute Democrats.

(It would be a stretch to call such conduct a crime under current law, unless the politically motivated prosecutions were aimed at demonstrably innocent defendants.)

Such a legislative proposal would also show that the Democrats were willing to risk enshrining in the criminal law a neutral principle that could come back to haunt the next Democratic administration if it plays political games with its prosecutorial power.

A more dramatic way for House Democrats to show seriousness would be to push their innuendoes that Gonzales has lied to Congress to the logical conclusion of initiating a formal inquiry into whether he has committed impeachable offenses. Such an inquiry would show a need to obtain all relevant evidence by overriding executive privilege.

I am not accusing Gonzales of impeachable offenses. Have his multiple misleading and sometimes false statements to Congress been deliberate lies? Or mere manifestations of the cloddish inability to play big-league ball that has long been Gonzales's trademark? Darned if I know. That's why I argued in my May 5 column not for impeaching Gonzales but for censuring him. To be sure, that column predated exposure of the misleading nature of Gonzales's April 27, 2005, statement to Congress that "there has not been one verified case of civil-liberties abuse" under the USA PATRIOT Act. Still, he seems less a Nixonian villain than a nice man in the wrong job.

But if congressional Democrats really think that Gonzales has given deliberately false testimony -- which would be both a crime and an impeachable offense -- they should say so, and act accordingly.

A formal impeachment inquiry would also carry a risk for congressional Democrats: If they fell short of proving Gonzales a liar, they would be punished at the polls, especially by Hispanic voters. Democrats may, however, have little chance of persuading the courts to take their side unless they can show that theirs is a serious legislative inquiry, not mere political grandstanding.

(After this column went to press, the White House predictably announced that Bush would likely block any efforts by congressional Democrats to have the Justice Department pursue a criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. Critics of Bush attacked this as a "dangerous new theory of executive privilege," as The New York Times predictably editorialized. The Times and other critics did not mention the fact that the Bush position was consistent Justice Department legal opinions under President Clinton as well as President Ronald Reagan. Nor did they mention that Congress has other options for enforcing its subpoenas, including a civil lawsuit against the subpoenaed officials and ex-officials.)

The sparse judicial precedents on executive privilege would provide the courts with reasonable grounds for upholding, rejecting, or punting on the Bush privilege claim. Given the range of choices, some judges would no doubt be guided by their personal views on the scope of executive power, or even by partisan political leanings. But an open-minded judge would likely be unimpressed by subpoenas intended solely to embarrass Bush.

"The doctrine of executive privilege remains a constitutional wilderness, and courts have done little to sort out the problem," Cass Sunstein, a prominent University of Chicago law professor with links to congressional Democrats, wrote in a July 12 Boston Globe op-ed. "Because the law is so wide open, both President Bush and the congressional Democrats have made plausible arguments."

The definitive Supreme Court decision, United States v. Nixon in 1974, held that the Constitution implicitly protects the president from compelled disclosure of his communications with close advisers lest they be fearful of speaking frankly. But the justices also ruled that executive privilege is not absolute, except perhaps when military, diplomatic, or national security secrets are involved, and could be overridden by "weighty and legitimate competing interests," in the words of the Nixon decision. The justices ruled against President Richard Nixon because the evidence sought was "demonstrably relevant" to a pending criminal trial. The Court has never refereed a presidential fight with Congress over executive privilege.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has extended executive privilege to tussles with Congress. It also has said that the privilege provides some protection for White House and other executive branch communications that do not include the president personally. But there are no clear rules on how much force executive privilege retains as the communications become more distant from the president, or on how weighty the congressional need must be to prevail.

In the current fight, these are the best Bush arguments:

There is no criminal investigation into the firings, no serious allegation (yet) of criminal or impeachable conduct, and no very strong legislative purpose behind the subpoenas. So the House and Senate Judiciary committees have so far failed to show that the information sought is "critical" to their functions, as required by a leading Appeals Court decision.

Decisions to fire political appointees (including U.S. attorneys) are an exclusive presidential prerogative and inherently political.

White House staffers' communications rank fairly high on the executive privilege scale (though not as high as communications with the president).

The administration has already provided thousands of documents and dozens of hours of testimony from Gonzales and other Justice Department officials, while offering to allow informal, unsworn, untranscribed interviews of Bolten, Miers and Taylor about matters other than internal White House discussions.

The courts are well aware that whenever Congress is controlled by political adversaries of the president, it will be tempted to abuse its "oversight" powers to make political hay and -- in the process -- distract the subpoenaed officials from doing their jobs, even to the point of paralysis.

And these are the congressional Democrats' best retorts -- so far:

The circumstances suggest a White House effort to cover up evidence of conduct that was sleazy, or worse. And any such cover-up will escape full exposure if the privilege claim succeeds.

The Nixon decision does Bush little good because his aides have said they did not advise the president at all on the firings and that he played no role.

This executive privilege claim has nothing to do with sensitive diplomatic or national security matters. (In this respect, Bush will be on somewhat stronger ground if and when he challenges congressional subpoenas about his now-suspended warrantless electronic surveillance program.)

The Bush claim is especially weak insofar as it extends to White House communications with outsiders, including members of Congress.

Legal merits aside, congressional Democrats face an uphill battle in seeking to defeat the executive privilege claim. The House and/or Senate could cite Bolten, Miers and Taylor for contempt of Congress. But the Gonzales Justice Department would clearly refuse to bring a contempt prosecution. Congress could also file a civil lawsuit asking the courts to require testimony and disclosure of documents. But the appeals, which would go to the Supreme Court, might not be resolved before Bush leaves office, especially if (as in past cases) the courts punt the case back to the political branches while saying, in effect, "Don't bother us again until you have tried harder to compromise."

Given all this, unless congressional Democrats show more seriousness they seem unlikely to accomplish anything more than embarrassing an administration that already (at least in the case of Gonzales) seems beyond embarrassment.


-- Stuart Taylor Jr. is a senior writer and columnist for National Journal magazine, where "Opening Argument" appears.

[Damien]

Dream on, Greg. If Senator Joe. Lieberman can suggest bombing Iran, your scenario is unlikely to occur. I

Yes, St. Joe, the Mahatma Gandhi of the 21st Century. Such a man of peace.

[criddic3]

Not to say I don't worry about what imbecilic things the Bush-Cheney will try between now and January '09

There is one thing Dubya might do that will lead to impeachment. He can bomb Iran. The easiest way for Iran to retaliate is to cross the Iran/Iraq border and attack the troops. Then, the U.S. will be faced with the choice of get all the troops out of Iraq post-haste or reinstate the draft. We'll end up seeing Pelosi take the oath of office about a week later.

Dream on, Greg. If Senator Joe. Lieberman can suggest bombing Iran, your scenario is unlikely to occur. I seriously doubt that taking the action by decision of the Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush would lead to impeachment if they can back it up with solid reasoning and evidence. Iran is already manipulating events in Iraq, so I don't see the logic in blaming Bush if they pushed harder in retaliation for stopping them from having nuclear weapons capabilities.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1279750368

[flipp525]

I love the artist's rendering that recently appeared on the cover of the Village Voice of Bush cradling a dying Lady Liberty in his arms, having just sucked blood from her neck (as evidenced by two fang-like holes), and with blood dripping down his mouth. It really just says everything you want it to say. I made it the wallpaper on my computer.



Edited By flipp525 on 1184941280

[OscarGuy]

What's really sad is that had they been up front and honest about the thing from the beginning, there would be no reason to assume they were guilty of the most partisan and unethical destruction of the judicial branch in the history of the united states.

[Sonic Youth]

G.W. Nixon.

If there is no crime or ethical wrongdoing, then there shouldn't have to be a cover-up. Duh.

Bush claims broad new executive privilege powers
The White House won't allow Justice prosecutors to pursue contempt charges by Congress in the U.S. attorney-firings probe.
By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
The Washington Post


Washington - Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority Thursday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued Thursday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Mark Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided Thursday that it was time to highlight it.

Thursday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view.

A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment. But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege. The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

"I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department," he said.

[Sonic Youth]

First Step Toward Contempt Charge For Meirs
House Panel Rejects Bush Privilege Claim

Jul 12, 5:33 PM (ET)

By LAURIE KELLMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats on Thursday took the first step toward holding former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress after she defied a subpoena - at President Bush's order - and skipped a hearing on the firing of U.S. attorneys.

Over the strenuous objections of Republicans, a subcommittee cleared the way for contempt proceedings by voting 7-5 to reject Bush's claim of executive privilege. He says his top advisers, whether current or former, cannot be summoned by Congress.

"Those claims are not legally valid," Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., said of Bush's declaration. "Ms. Miers is required pursuant to the subpoena to be here now."

Republicans complained that Democrats were choosing showy, televised proceedings and the threat of court action to force the testimony rather than agree to Bush's offer for private, off-the-record interviews.

In the absence of an agreement with the administration, House leaders and committee members were likely to pursue contempt proceedings against Miers but were still talking about when, according to some Democratic officials.

"We would not be discharging our responsibility today if we were to simply drop this," Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said during the hearing.

The White House showed no sign of giving in.

"If the House Judiciary Committee wants to avoid confrontation, it should withdraw its subpoenas," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "The committee is rejecting accommodation because they prefer just the kind of political spectacle they're engaged in now."

Miers' testimony emerged as the battleground for a broader scuffle between the White House and Congress over the limits of executive privilege. Presidents since the nation's founding have sought to protect from the prying eyes of Congress the advice given them by advisers, while Congress has argued that it is charged by the Constitution with conducting oversight of the executive branch.

Bush's invocation of executive privilege comes during the Democrats' probe of whether the firings were really an effort by the White House to fire and replace federal prosecutors in ways that might help Republican candidates. Democrats say testimony by numerous aides that Bush was not involved in deciding whom to fire undercuts his privilege claim.

Administration officials acknowledge that the firings were botched in their execution, but they insist there was no improper motive for them. They point out that U.S. attorneys are political appointees and that the president can fire them for almost any reason.

The probe has prompted calls by Democrats and a few Republicans for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. With Bush's support behind him, Gonzales shows no sign of stepping down.

The dispute extended to Congress' request for information on other matters, including the FBI's abuses of civil liberties under the USA Patriot Act and Bush's secretive wiretapping program.

But it is a pair of congressional subpoenas for two women who once were Bush's top aides that has moved the disagreement to the brink of legal sanctions and perhaps a court battle.

Former White House political director Sara Taylor appeared Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee and in a tentative performance sought to answer some lawmakers' questions and remain mum on others, citing Bush's claim of privilege. Senators didn't seem eager to cite her with contempt, but Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he had not yet made that decision.

Miers, in contrast, chose to skip the House hearing Thursday, citing White House Counsel Fred Fielding's letter to her lawyer conveying Bush's order not to show up. In letters sent the night before to Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Sanchez, Bush and Fielding cited several legal opinions that they said indicated that the president's immediate advisers had absolute immunity from congressional subpoenas.

Incensed, Democrats held the hearing anyway. Addressing an empty chair at the witness table with a nameplate reading "Ms. Miers," Sanchez and Conyers left little doubt that contempt proceedings by the full Judiciary Committee - and later the full House - would be the next step unless Miers and the administration change their positions.

"If we do not enforce this subpoena, no one will ever have to come before the Judiciary Committee again," Conyers, D-Mich., said.

"What we've got here is an empty chair. I mean, that is as contemptuous as anybody can be of the government," said Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn. "I resent the fact that this lady is not here."

Republicans accused Democrats of proceeding in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing by Miers or any White House officials.

Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah, the ranking Republican on Sanchez' subcommittee on commercial and administrative law, warned Democrats that a contempt citation would fail evidentiary standards in court.

"You can't go to the courts essentially and say, 'We don't know what we don't know, therefore give us a subpoena so we can find out,'" Cannon said.

"There is no proof whatsoever that Harriet Miers likely holds some smoking gun with respect to the U.S. attorney situation," added Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla.

The citation would first be debated and voted upon by the full Judiciary Committee. If approved, it then would go to the full House where it would be debated and require a majority for approval.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., would then refer the matter to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action," according to the law. The man who holds that job is Jeff Taylor, a Bush appointee.

Legal scholars said the issue of Miers' immunity is far from clear-cut. No president has gone as far as mounting a court fight to keep his aides from testifying on Capitol Hill.

[Greg]

Not to say I don't worry about what imbecilic things the Bush-Cheney will try between now and January '09

There is one thing Dubya might do that will lead to impeachment. He can bomb Iran. The easiest way for Iran to retaliate is to cross the Iran/Iraq border and attack the troops. Then, the U.S. will be faced with the choice of get all the troops out of Iraq post-haste or reinstate the draft. We'll end up seeing Pelosi take the oath of office about a week later.