Harriet Miers

News Flash! Bush Judge Does the Right Thing!

dlindorff — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:32:30 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

A federal district judge appointed by President George W. Bush to
the bench has done the right thing, ruling definitively this morning
that the President’s claim of absolute immunity for his advisors from
Congressional oversight and subpoena is “entirely unsupported by
existing case law.”

The ruling, by Judge John Bates, is as important as much because of
who issued it as it is for its impact upon Congressional investigations
into presidential wrongdoing.

Certainly the ruling will open the way for Democrats in Congress to
move harder to investigate the abuses of the current administration,
which have been stymied by administration refusal to provide witnesses,
even to come in and plead the Fifth Amendment protection against
self-incrimination.

In the specific case under consideration here, the House Judiciary
Committee had been attempting to force the appearance of Josh Bolton,
the president’s former chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, former White
House legal counsel, to testify about the White House role in the
firing of a number of federal prosecutors around the country who were
reportedly deemed insufficiently political in their unwillingness to
“go after” Democratic elected officials, or to interfere with the
election process.

Bush had asserted that all such aides have blanket immunity from
Congressional inquiry under the concept of “executive privilege.”

But Judge Bates disagreed, saying that the White House had failed
to show a single case in which the courts had held White House aides to
be immune from Congressional subpoenas. In a strongly-worded 93-page
ruling, he not only said that no such blanket immunity existed, and
that aides had to respond to congressional subpoenaes. He also ordered
that the White House must hand over requested documents—something that
the White House for both of the president’s two terms, has been
unwilling to do.

Of course, it is a certainty that the Bush administration will
appeal Judge Bates’ ruling to a higher court, and the process could end
up dragging on beyond the end of Bush’s term of office, which ends on
Jan. 20. But with this ruling, Congress should feel much more confident
about going after those, like Miers, Bolton, Karl Rove (recently cited
for contempt of Congress himself) and others, who refuse orders to
appear and testify. Congress should also be more willing to consider
using its own power of inherent contempt to go after such witnesses by
having their own officers arrest and jail recalcitrants.

The other important thing about Judge Bates’ ruling is that it
suggests, happily, that there are principled Republicans, even among
the slew of so-called conservative “constructionist” judges that Bush
has been larding the federal bench with, from the district level to the
Supreme Court. At least some of these judges, apparently, once
confirmed in their lifetime offices, do take their oaths of office to
uphold the Constitution seriously. Judge Bates (who, though I didn’t
know him personally, attended Wesleyan University in Connecticut at the
same time I did, graduating in 1968) worked as a deputy independent
counsel in the Whitewater Investigation of President Bill Clinton,
which was an obvious political plus in his gaining a federal judgeship
nomination by the Bush White House. In 2006 he was also appointed by
Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court that is supposed to oversee domestic spying
activities of the National Security Agency.

I am assuming the best of Judge Bates, i.e. that he ruled based on
his reading of the Constitution and court precedent. But of course it
could also be that this ruling is a sign that Bush judicial appointees
are reading the political handwriting on the wall: that the Bush era of
seeking to aggrandize absolute executive power is coming to an end.
With the president’s public support dwindling to just 21 percent, and
with all signs pointing to a big Democratic win in upcoming
Congressional elections, not to mention a possible Democratic president
in the White House this November, we may start to see at least some
Bush-appointed judges concluding that supinely acceding to the wishes
of the Bush/Cheney White House may not be the wisest career move for
anyone hoping to move up to a higher court.

Whatever the reasons for this important decision, I commend Judge
Bates for upholding the Constitution, and its all-important
establishment of three separate, co-equal branches of government.

Now if only Democrats in Congress would do the same thing.
______________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). Because of a clerical error and his own inattention to bureaucratic detail, he graduated from Wesleyan University in 1972. His work is available at
www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35170';
digg_title = "News Flash! Bush Judge Does the Right Thing!";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n A federal district judge appointed by President George W. Bush to the bench has done the right thing, ruling definitively this morning that the President’s claim of absolute immunity for his advisors from Congressional oversight and subpoena is “entirely unsupported by existing case law.”\r\n\r\n The ruling, by Judge John Bates, is as important as much because of who issued it as it is for its impact upon Congressional investigations into presidential wrongdoing.\r\n\r\n Certainly the ruling will open the way for Democrats in Congress to move harder to investigate the abuses of the current administration, which have been stymied by administration refusal to provide witnesses, even to come in and plead the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

Did Cheney Support Destruction of CIA Torture Tapes?

Bob Fertik — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:14:41 -0500

When CIA Director Michael Hayden admitted on 12/7/07 that the CIA destroyed torture tapes in 2005, anonymous sources blamed the head of the CIA’s clandestine service, Jose Rodriguez. But today the New York Times says four top White House lawyers debated the decision: Harriet Miers, John Bellinger, Alberto Gonzales and David Addington. (If you find it hard to keep track of the details, bookmark the outstanding detailed timeline on the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes by Cooperative Research.)

Did these lawyers discuss the issue with their bosses? Miers worked for Karl Rove, Bellinger for Stephen Hadley, Gonzales for Bush, and Addington for Cheney. At least two of these bosses wanted the tapes destroyed.

One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there had been “vigorous sentiment” among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes.

As we know from all previous White House stories, Dick Cheney always takes the hardest line, so it's an excellent bet that he led the charge for destroying the tapes.

And since a federal judge ordered all torture-related documents preserved, this contempt of court and obstruction of justice would be yet more impeachable offenses against Cheney.

Breaking: Rove, Miers to "Interview" with Congressional Committees, But Not Under Oath

Chip — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:56:48 -0400

The White House is offering to allow Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to interview with congressional committees investigating the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys, but will not allow them to go testify under oath.

Bush will speak to the nation this evening at 5:45 EST.

When Bush speaks in code

Ted Kahl — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:42:02 -0400

An SF Chronicle editorial:

WHEN President Bush says of White House counsel Harriet Miers, "I know her heart," those words may not be of much guidance to most Americans trying to assess her fitness to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

But Bush has long had a way of speaking in code to what appears to be the main target of this and many other public comments that seem insufficient or even mystifying to others. Bush has mastered the art of effectively signaling to religious conservatives, his bedrock base of supporters, "Trust me. I'm one of you."

[...]

Most of his religious allusions are far more nuanced -- and his frequent biblical references, refrains from hymns and use of familiar "comfort words" to Christians may slip by most people in an audience. For example, an analysis of Bush's 2004 acceptance speech by a University of Chicago professor of the history of religions showed the extent to which his phrases about "hills to climb" and "the valley below" were aligned with biblical stories. As Professor Bruce Lincoln observed, the president who spoke of freedom as "the Almighty's gift to every man and woman" was casting his presidency "not just as a struggle for freedom, but a religious mission with risks of martyrdom."

In his second debate with John Kerry, Bush made what seemed at the moment, to many Americans, to be an out-of-nowhere reference to the 1857 Dred Scott decision. But the reference was anything but obscure to religious conservatives who have long viewed the 7-2 high court ruling in the Scott case -- which upheld the "right" of slave owners over blacks -- as analogous to the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling on abortion.

As a court nominee, Miers has remained mum about her views on Roe vs. Wade, though, in a 1989 questionnaire for Dallas City Council candidates, she did pledge her support for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion in most cases.

Miers Would Overturn Roe: Will Specter and Schumer Finally Stand Up for Women?

Bob Fertik — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:22:01 -0400

What did James Dobson mean when he famously said he knew things "that I probably shouldn't know" about Miers's judicial philosophy?

Dobson insisted Karl Rove never told him that Miers would overturn Roe. But did Rove supply Dobson with that information through a simple bank shot?

According to rightwinger John Fund, Dobson was on a conference call arranged by Karl Rove the day Miers' nomination was announced. The featured speakers were two judges who know Miers best: her living-in-sin lover, Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.

One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers's close friends--both sitting judges--said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe.

The call began with a

free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.

"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

Who is the "unidentified voice." Karl Rove, of course.

Dobson is claiming amnesia, telling Fund "he did not specifically recall" them.

But will he say that under oath and penalty of perjury?

Two weeks ago, when Dobson promised conservatives Miers was one of them, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) told Bob Schieffer he would haul Dobson before the Senate Judiciary Committee to tell them what he knew about Miers.

If there is something which bears upon a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that's a matter that ought to be known by the Judiciary Committee and the American people. I want to know what all the facts are... I'm very fact-oriented, and if Dr. Dobson knows something that he shouldn’t know or something that I ought to know, I'm going to find out.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) promised the same:

That is no way to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. For that nominee to refuse to answer questions to the American public, and then have someone supporting her do all this whispering saying 'She's okay, here is what she believes,' is unfair. So as a result, I believe that we ought to call James Dobson as a witness at the Senate Judiciary hearing and find out what kind of assurances he has received. If those assurances are good enough for James Dobson, then all of America ought to hear them. … I believe my Democratic colleagues will go along and we will have James Dobson as a witness. Additionally, I think Karl Rove ought to let the public know what kind of assurances he gave James Dobson. This is not a game of wink and whisper. This is serious business.

Now they have a whole bunch more witnesses to grill: Hecht, Kinkeade, and the 14 other participants in the call:

The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister.

#14, of course, is the "unidentified voice" - Karl Rove.

Witness #1 should be John Fund, whose notes should be subpoenaed and shared with the nation. (If that offends the First Amendment, we can make do with Fund's article.)

How damning is this conference call? It is utterly and completely damning.

First, the most prominent participants on the call are all lying about it. Dobson is claiming amnesia on the Roe v. Wade assurance; the notes and other witnesses prove otherwise. Hecht also claims amnesia; again, the notes and other witnesses prove otherwise. Kinkeade has simply clammed up.

Second, the other participants are peeing in their pants.

Some participants in the Oct. 3 conference call fear that they will be called to testify at Ms. Miers's hearings. "If the call is as you describe it, an effort will be made to subpoena everyone on it," a Judiciary Committee staffer told me. It is possible that a tape or notes of the call are already in the hands of committee staffers. "Some people were on speaker phones allowing other people to listen in, and others could have been on extensions," one participant told me.

Arlen & Chuck, this is your chance to expose the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to turn women into slaves of the State. At long last, will you stand up for women? Or will you pathetically wimp out as you have done every time before?

We'll be watching very closely, Arlen & Chuck...

Granny Bee - Dang Proud!

Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:07:39 -0400

Listen to your granny!

Granny Bee

10/16/05 - Dang Proud! (1:10)

Real .mp3

More Granny Bee

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Scotty Dodges Miersgate Question

Bob Fertik — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:03:26 -0400

Thanks to Holden's Obsession with the Gaggle we learn that Scotty McClellan did a Texas two-step to dodge a couple of questions about Miersgate - the no-bid contract given to Ben Barnes' client by Harriet Miers to keep Barnes from revealing that Bush lied about the stringpulling that got him out of Vietnam and into the Texas Air National Guard ahead of 500 applicants. The question came from Les Kinsolving, a maverick conservative talk show host.

Q Scott, Worldnet Daily reported in 1995 Ben Barnes, Texas former lieutenant governor, secured a contract for a company called GTECH to run the Texas Lottery. And my first question: Did Harriet Miers continue the Texas Lottery's contract to GTECH without bid, so that Barnes received a $23 million payoff as part of the deal, authorized by Miers?

MR. McCLELLAN: I would encourage you to go back and look at news reports at the time, because the governor's office at the time denied any connection that you may be asserting within your question. That's an issue that's already been discussed, and I think that Ben Barnes has said the same.

Q In 1999, a former executive director of the Texas Lottery, named Lawrence Littwin, filed a lawsuit alleging he lost his job as a result of political influence wielded by Barnes. And my question, since this Littwin suit was settled out of court for $300,000, what is the White House response?

MR. McCLELLAN: The allegations have been disputed previously by both the governor's office and -- by the governor's office at the time, and by Mr. Barnes. I would encourage you to go back and look at the comments that were made at the time. I'd be glad to provide those to you if you would like.

Will the rest of the White House press corps jump on this scandal? Stay tuned...

Miers is Bush's "Get Out of Jail Free" Card

Bob Fertik — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:12:17 -0400

Plamegate sleuths think 3 top Busheviks could be indicted for conspiring to out Valerie Plame: Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Stephen Hadley.

But Dick Cheney and Karl Rove may also have conspired against Plame. And Harvey Wasserman says that could put them in Deep Voodoo:

the labyrinthian complications of the Plame case multiply the odds overshadowing any simple case against any single individual from the White House. But conspiracy would be a different story. It would seem patently obvious that outing Plame had to have been discussed in some form by the very top of the Bush junta.

That Bush himself knew Plame was a CIA agent has long since been established. That Libby, Rove and Cheney knew is also beyond doubt. So how the knowledge of Plame's status somehow leapt to the ears of columnist Robert Novak and the likes of Judith Miller may be more important than the outing itself. If Bush, Cheney, Rove and Libby did discuss such a retaliation, and then found a way to make it happen, we are suddenly out of the playoffs and into the World Series.

In Watergate, the coverup became the crime of importance. In Iran-Contra, it was who knew what when. In the Plame case, it could well be who discussed what with whom when. Whatever the call, this case is certain to end at the US Supreme Court. And here we may or may not find Harriet Miers...

if ever there were a Supreme Court nominee who is a sure bet to put personal and partisan loyalty above the law, it is Harriet Miers. If ever George W. Bush comes in front of her with a case concerning conspiracy or some other violation of the law, we all know how she will vote.

That's why Bush chose her. That's why the Senate must reject her.

Tell your Senator: Reject Harriet Miers.

Miersgate: Harriet Played Key Role in Texas Lottery Scandal

Bob Fertik — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:01:56 -0400

Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers is widely seen - on both the left and the right - as an act of crude cronyism, a payback to an utterly loyal aide.

But is that all there is to the story? Or is the nomination a reward for crimes Miers committed on Bush's behalf? Worse yet, did Miers actually force Bush to nominate her through blackmail?

These are the shocking implications of this shocking report by tas at Loaded Mouth, which is based on the reporting of Greg Palast.

The heart of the question is Miers' role in a no-bid contract bribe to silence former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes. Barnes is the man who got Bush into the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) in 1968 ahead of a waiting list of 500 other applicants, many of whom had far superior qualifications for a coveted pilot's slot.

(Barnes admitted his role on 60 Minutes on 9/8/04 - the same show which featured the infamous "Killian memos" that were most likely forged by Karl Rove's dirty trickster Roger Stone. Because of the Rove-manufactured blogstorm over the "Killian memos," Barnes' explosive revelation received virtually no coverage.)

When Bush ran for Texas Governor in 1994 against incumbent Ann Richards, everyone wondered how Bush dodged Vietnam and got into TANG. They assumed, naturally, that Bush's powerful family pulled strings. During a TV debate, journalist Jim Moore asked Bush whether his father had used influence. But Bush adamantly insisted that he got in on his merits alone, and no strings were pulled for him.

But Ben Barnes knew the truth, and decided to cash in on their little secret by blackmailing Bush.

After several decades in Texas politics, Barnes had become the lobbyist for the company that managed the Texas Lottery - a Rhode Island lottery company called GTech. GTech was corrupt and was overcharging Texas for its services, and many Texans wanted the contract rebid. Bush supported rebidding during the 1994 campaign.

But thanks to Barnes' lobbying/blackmail, Bush ended up renewing GTech's no-bid contract in 1996. And to thank Barnes for his priceless service, GTech paid Barnes $23 million in 1997 as they eased him out the door amidst a GTech scandal in New Jersey.

And who was Bush's appointed Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission from 1995 through 2000? Harriet Miers.

Miers' role was revealed in an anonymous whistleblower letter to the Justice Department that Greg Palast received and reported on in 1999.

Several months ago many of us felt that the Lottery Commission should rebid the GTech contract when it came up for renewal. Leaders of the Republican Party strongly supported rebidding and I believe the Chair of the Commission also wanted to rebid. It is now time to disclose at least one reason why it was not rebid. Governor Bush thru Reggie Bashur made a deal with Ben Barnes not to rebid because Barnes could confirm that Bush had lied during the 94 campaign.

Bashur was sent to talk to Barnes who agreed never to confirm the story and the Governor talked to the Chair of the Lottery two days later and she then agreed to support letting GTech keep the contract without a bid.

This was not the end of Miers' efforts to silence Barnes. In 1998, when Bush was running for re-election as Texas Governor, Karen Hughes was laying the groundwork for a 2000 Presidential campaign. To make sure there were no skeletons in Bush's closet, Hughes hired Miers to "scrub" any potential problems. Miers sent Bush's top fundraiser, Don Evans, to see Barnes to make sure the $23 million bribe was still in effect. As Newsweek's Michael Isikoff wrote on 7/20/2000:

The Bushies' concern began while he was running for a second term as governor. A hard-nosed Dallas lawyer named Harriet Miers was retained to investigate the issue; state records show Miers was paid $19,000 by the Bush gubernatorial campaign. She and other aides quickly identified a problem--rumors that Bush had help from his father in getting into the National Guard back in 1968. Ben Barnes, a prominent Texas Democrat and a former speaker of the House in the state legislature, told friends he used his influence to get George W a guard slot after receiving a request from Houston oilman Sid Adger. Barnes said Adger told him he was calling on behalf of the elder George Bush, then a Texas congressman. Both Bushes deny seeking any help from Barnes or Adger, who has since passed away. Concerned that Barnes might go public with his allegations, the Bush campaign sent Don Evans, a friend of W's, to hear Barnes's story. Barnes acknowledged that he hadn't actually spoken directly to Bush Sr. and had no documents to back up his story. As the Bush campaign saw it, that let both Bushes off the hook. And the National Guard question seemed under control.

Will "Miersgate" destroy Harriet's chances of getting on the Supreme Court? That depends on how aggressively Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee investigate this scandal - and the many other Bush scandals in which Miers has played a key role.

What they need is a credible witness - and they have one. His name is Lawrence Littwin, and he is the former director of the Texas Lottery Commission. He was hired in Feburary, 1997, and fired in October, 1997 - both while Miers was Chair. Best of all, Littwin is just waiting to be subpoenaed.

Bush's Guard service may affect Miers nomination
A former Texas Lottery official said he wants to talk to senators about the Supreme Court nominee's role in covering up his Bush's record

By Ken Herman
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN WASHINGTON BUREAU
Tuesday, October 4, 2005

A former Texas lottery official, who claimed that then-Gov. George W. Bush's desire to cover up his National Guard record helped steer decisions about a key lottery contract, said he wants to talk to senators about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' possible role in that effort.

"If I were to be subpoenaed to come to the thing, I would come," said Lawrence Littwin, who filed a lawsuit after he was fired as the lottery's executive director in 1997. "I would say the committee, I think, would be interested."

Miersgate is a mirror-image of Bush's Funeralgate scandal, which Democrats.com first exposed in an article by Roses Prichard on February 8, 2001. Littwin, like Funeralgate's Eliza May, was fired for investigating crimes by Bush's cronies. Littwin, like May, filed a lawsuit for unlawful firing. Littwin, like May, received a 6-figure settlement. Littwin, like May, got the money on condition of permanent silence. But Littwin is willing to testify - as long as he is responding to a subpoena.

Under terms of the settlement, Littwin would have to forfeit $50,000 if he violates the confidentiality agreement. He said Monday that his lawyer told him he could testify if subpoenaed by the Senate.

In the coming hours, we will organize a campaign to lobby the Senate to subpoena Lawrence Littwin and investigate Miersgate - so stay tuned...

Update: Texas journalist Jim Moore knows more about this story than anyone, and tells the tale in the Huffington Post.

Making Sense of the Miers Nomination

Ted Kahl — Sat, 08 Oct 2005 05:59:38 -0400

Robert Parry writes:

The most common theory is that Bush was looking for a stealth candidate who wouldn’t provoke strong Democratic opposition but would get solid Republican backing – after some wink-wink assurances that she would vote the right way on abortion and other core conservative issues.

That indeed may be the answer. Bush may have just miscalculated how disappointed his conservative base would be and how offended other Americans would be at his straight-faced assertion that his White House counsel was “the best person I could find.”

But there is another theory that would fit the facts. It may be that Bush is less concerned about constitutional issues than he is about criminal and political disputes that might reach the court if the troubles surging around his administration get worse.

What if, for instance, a senior Bush aide is facing prosecution in connection with an untested law prohibiting unmasking covert CIA officers? It might be handy for Bush to have a trusted friend on the court of last resort to rule on some technical legal questions that could torpedo the whole case.

Or what if it turns out that Bush himself participated in the criminal act? Wouldn’t it be advantageous if the lawyer who helped him out of previous legal scrapes was sitting among the judges who would make a ruling on this one? (And there really is no reason to think that a Bush appointee would step aside because of some fretting over conflicts of interest.