Conyers Receives the Springarn Award
Submitted by Admin on July 16, 2007 - 10:24pm.
Some of you may not be aware, but Chairman Conyers was the latest recipient of the Springarn Award, the highest award given by the NAACP. There was a story covering this in the Detroit paper.
- Admin's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Pay No Attention To The Kool Aid Maker Behind The Curtain
"It is truly incredible that, at this late date in the Iraq debacle, there are still people who believe that a few well-focus-grouped phrases will change the tragic facts on the ground."
Bill Kristol: On the Train to Delusionville
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/bill-kristol-on-the-tra_b_56394.html
TeamConyersBlog
TeamConyersBlog meets every Saturday at noon Central Time. To join, CLICK HERE and login. Then follow path:
Members (top left) > TeamConyersBlog > Chat > Enter
The Soapbox meeting follows shortly after.
If you are a member of either, you can find and join the other by clicking "Directory" in the left side menu, clicking on the one you want to join and then clicking "join".
Today's meeting I have sent invitations to the members of IraqMoratorium to join us in today's meeting. I hope it will be a lively one.
CONGRESSMAN...
Did you listen?
To the applause?
NOT at Censure.
Not at IMPEACHMENT!
But at WAR CRIMES!!!
WAR CRIMES
I suggest we act now...
The very first paragraph of the article says enough for me.
Act NOW or forever loose our PEACE!
================
I M P E A C H !
PRINCIPLES...
Is the unilateral invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat to the U.S. an American Principle?
Is fraudulently selling that invasion based on KNOWN false evidence, to a Joint Session of Congress (01/28/03) an American Principle?
Is indefinite detention of persons suspected and accused but not charged or tried nor found guilty an American Principle?
Is attempting to withhold Habeas Corpus Rights and Due Process from persons suspected and not charged an American Principle?
Is choosing which Treaties and Conventions to follow based on convenience an American Principle?
Is torture an American Principle?
Is warrentless wiretapping of American citizens an American Principle?
Is the rewriting of National Security Letters so as to cover what was otherwise illegally seized an American Principle?
Is the the politicization of the DoJ an American Principle?
Is signing unconstitutional bills into Law an American Principle?
Is usurping the co-equal Branches of our Government via signing statements an American Principle?
Is being involved in the outing a covert CIA agent an American Principle?
THE - NEW - AMERICAN - PRINCIPLES?
They are when good men do nothing that let worse men institute these new principles, setting the groundwork for unAmerican principles to take up root. Even worse is when good men accommodate the worse men and vote to enshrine these new principles into laws, theories, and other principles of being. Egregiously far worse, is when good men continue to do nothing, thus codifying these new principles inturn validating these worse men as exceptional men for their wisdom and brilliance at undermining what Real American Principles are.
Congress,
It is times like this where facades MUST fall. What are your American Principles and how do you comport them into your Duty? You aren't supporting and defending the Constitution of the U.S.A., when you allow and tolerate the usurpations of the Constitution of the U.S.A. and the Constitutional Laws derived from therein.
End this war!
Impeach and Convict those who have perpetrated these crimes against the people.
If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal, conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.
- Justice Robert Jackson,
Chief Prosecutor for the United States, Nuremberg Tribunals, 1947
Spencer Dow
Seattle, Wa. 98102
================
I M P E A C H !
We can get Louder if you want(<:
Please Visit I M
what's this?The bloody month of August to come...
And yet, our CONgress plans to vacate in August too. Is this the, "Let them eat cake," position our CONgress advocates. As if their Houses are in order? As if they are taking care of 'business'? How accountable can they be while ABSENT from addressing the MOST PRESSING issues of our time?
HOW? WHY?
American soldiers are dying needlessly so that you, CONgressman CONyers, can have the freedom to not care. Great Principles you got going there.
================
I M P E A C H !
Good news, ALL! JC IS meeting with Cindy, et al. today!
NEXT:
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
(shrinking font)
Check this out!
Just came across this diary on KOS -- makes a lotta' sense.
Conyers Played It Perfectly Today, Here's Why:
Worth checking out -- see what you think! This guy might be right. (Of course, it's all at our emotional expense, etc.)
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
A heartfelt message from Cindy Sheehan!
I am amazed by Cindy and her strength -- I don't know how she could write at the end of a heartbreaking and tumultous day, but she did.
'It's Up to Us'
"Tuesday, July 24th, 2007
...by Cindy Sheehan
I am lying in my hotel bed at the end of a very busy, productive, yet sad day.
About 300 people gathered today and marched the 3 1/2 miles from the entrance of Arlington Cemetery to Congressman John Conyers' office to demand impeachment and accountability from one of the leading figures in American politics for the last four decades.
We were so thrilled with the turn-out and the energy of the group. There was great media coverage and about one dozen freepers on the opposite corner with signs like: "Traitors go to Hell" and "Cindy Sheehan go to Hell." Nice. I have learned that hell can be on earth and if there is anything worse than burying a child, I don't want to know about it.
At the end of the march, Reverend Lennox Yearwood, President of the Hip Hop Caucus, Ray McGovern (retired CIA analyst) and I met with Congressman John Conyers to implore him to institute impeachment proceedings against the pretenders to the White House who are destroying our democracy, making a mockery out of our rule of law and who are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
This was my third meeting with Congressman Conyers about . . . ."
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Not going so well
Live blog of the event
Live blog
I'm having a very disappointed moment right now
I did get through to Pelosi's office, though.
So, what next?...
Well, at least maybe there's the possibility of contempt
Hopefully Inherent.
Harriet Miers and Bush Chief of Staff to face contempt charges
Chipping away at the crimes of the administration a piece at a time, I suppose...
I guess he was just teasing us!
O.K., folks, this was a picture of JC in California the other day, pointing his hands at a sign of Impeachment -- remember? Max1 posted it.
(Making an impact in San Diego...
Submitted by Max 1 on July 21, 2007 - 3:42am.
PDA invite Conyers to San Diego.
Give 'em hell John. We're with you!
As Blogged by kpete at D.U.
Photos HERE)
But if you go back to Max1's post, you can still see it!
Or, try this:
Photos
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Congratulations Congressman
"We have to make sure that before we try to import democracy, that we have democracy at home," he [Conyers] said. "So our challenge here tonight is so great."
Q U E S T I O N:
How can we, America, once the beacon of hope for Liberty and Justice, remain a beacon for those whom we've extinguished that hope for Liberty and Justice through unamerican measures like attempting to withhold Habeas Corpus Rights, or the unilateral invasion of sovereign nations that posed no imminent threat to us, or torture, or warrantless wiretapping Americans, etc?
WHAT IS THE FOURTH OF JULY TO THOSE WHOM WE'VE OPPRESSED?
Isn't it about time for America to become that beacon of hope for Liberty and Justice... FOR ALL?
====================================
America was founded on Principles...
Patriots stood and fought for these Principles...
They did not shrink away from the cause...
... like others we have now!
Are you sure they said Congressman and not Councilwoman Conyers?
Councilwoman Conyers led the move to pass a resolution in the Detroit City Council calling for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney.
I understand she's married to some US Congressman from Michigan.
Congressman,
I give you the Joe Biden finger.
And I ask...
Name ONE, ONE PERSON whom you've held accountable. JUST ONE! ONE... NAME ONE!
You aren't supporting and defending the Constitution of the USA
Because you've allowed the usurpations of the Constitutional laws of the USA.
Please
stop castigating Rep. Conyers for his failure to do the right thing. I KNOW he wants to, but under the Rules of the House, he can't, until Nancy changes her mind (if she has one). What is needed is to get on the backs of the *(&&^^%&$ Blue Dogs, and get them to co-sponsor 333. When a sufficient number of cosponsors is reached, the impeachment MUST go forward, by those same House Rules, REGARDLESS of what the Speaker "Wants." (My personal opinion is that Nancy WANTS Cheney impeached and removed, but her hands are tied by the money powers that support the Party - even though such support carries with it a command to stay away from plain Constitutional duties.)
If your own Representative is a Blue Dog, Get on his case and DEMAND that he do his plain Constitutional Duty! As False Flag Libertarians, which they are, they say they are pretty big on Constitutional Principle. CALL them on it!
Call, write and email your Congressman today!!!
Demand their support for H.Res. 333, and then tell 5 people who feel the same way to do the same.
I sent this to Congressman Gordon today:
Congressman Gordon,
I voted for you in 2006 because I believed that if the Democrats won control of the House and Senate they would restore accountability, oversight and the rule of law. I did not vote against the war. I voted against the torture of unarmed prisoners, the use of warrantless wiretaps and ongoing violations of the Geneva Conventions.
The Dems can't unillaterally pull US troops out of Iraq without Republican support and Presidential approval.
What they can do is investigate and indict the Administration for the crimes they have already confessed to committing.
Once they have been removed from office, the Dems can work with the new leadership of the Administration to end the war.
First, save the Constitution, then save the troops. Support H.Res. 333.
Your right...
I should stop castigating the man whom has been castrated by Ms. Nancy.
My House Rep is cosponsor #10 to H.R. 333. I'm stepping up the ladder, not jumping off of it. Nancy and Conyers ARE the next rung. I'm on it, why aren't they?
And yes, this IS about Constitutional Principles.
I don't know many a story about how the Founders sat on their keysters while the Brittish invaded. How deep are those legacy's?
Pardon the intrusion, but please call and ask to
Thank you!
(shrinking font)
Congratulations
Congratulations on winning this most prestigious award. I think it a fine thing for a fine man.
Keep on keeping on.
Display it Proudly!!!
Put it up on a big stack of "George W. Bush Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying", so that everyone can see it.
I find they also make excellent drink coasters.
Congratulataions, Chairman!
And thank you for keeping up the pressure despite the disrespect this administration has shown your committee and the country throughout your investigations.
I hope you do follow through with actions demanding accountability for the withholding of witnesses and documents. The disregard of laws by the executive branch and the "justice" department sets a very dangerous precedent if allowed to go without serious intervention by Congress.
Please, take the accountability as far as it really needs to go. Please, use all of your tools and powers. Like you basically said, Democracy starts at home. Don't let our children inherit a "Hypocracy".
INHERENT CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS.
IMPEACHMENT.
Today is the day to call to
Yes, Alma!
Please everyone, please call your Congressional Representative now and ask him to sign H.R. 333.
Call Pelosi's office, too, (202) 225-0100, and demand that Impeachment be put BACK on the table.
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
(shrinking font)
Yeesh, how many times did you folks copy this thing? :)
Lots and lots
Special impeachment day kind of thing! Looks like we lost again.
Congratulations Congressman Conyers you certainly
deserve it and much more!
I guess you have your hands full
Miers rejects call to appear before Judiciary Committee again
Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers has again rejected calls from the House Judiciary Committee to comply with a subpoena for her testimony on the firing of 9 US Attorneys in 2006 and 2007.
Miers rejects call
Who's confused? Is it Manning or is it me?
Here is George T. Manning's letter to Chairman Conyers basically saying, "Go to hell, she's not coming to the party."
IMO, the problem Manning has is that, he is confusing Constitutional power with case law. I don't care how many cases of law this ~eh whole~ recites, it does not usurp Congress' Article 1 Section 8 powers of the Constitution. Here it is, just in case he hasn't read it lately.
Well, it looks to me like Congress has the power to make the rules and all other powers vested by the Constitution that is not expressly forbidden.
Lets see what the Constitution says about the "power" of Executive Privilege. I have included Article II in it's entirety for convenience.
What? How can it be executive privlege was not mentioned? That's a power right? Sorry, that power is not specifically written into the Constitution. Therefore, if Congress deems it is necessary and proper for Harriet Miers (an officer of the Executive department) to show her mug before them, then by God, (and Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution), they have the power to compel that.
I must be confused, too!
Manning is saying that his client isn't responsible for refusing to appear before the committee because Bush ordered her not to, based on Fielding's rather creative version of "executive privilege".
I have a couple of specific problems, with both Manning's and Fielding's "logic".
In this previous July 9th letter from Manning he states per Fielding that Miers is not to provide documents or testamony related to the possible dismissal or appointment of United States Attorneys.
No where in that letter did it say she was ordered not to show up. That isn't mentioned until the letter sent after she didn't show up. The committee made the distinction, but seems that Manning doesn't see it.
But, the issue that is really confusing me is Fielding's repeated assertions that the President has the exclusive power to appoint and dismiss attorney's - despite Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution which states "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" twice, and states that the Congress may by law vest appointments as they think proper.
Vacancies filled by the President during Senate recess expire at the end of their next session.
So...unless I'm really confused, Fielding and Bush really should sit down and read that goshdarned piece of paper, because there's this whole other branch of government called Congress that has powers.
And Manning and Miers should really take another look at the letters from the committee, as well as the precedent cited, to take note of the fact that refusal to appear before Congress is not exempted by precedent, law, or even make-it-up-as-you-go-along "executive privilege" claims.
And, yes, executive privilege isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
But congressional power to constitute courts is there. As well as appropriate funds. Oh, there's that thing called "impeachment" in there, too.
That's how I'm reading it, anyway.
If I'm confused about any of this, please, someone help me.
If I'm not confused about any of this, please, someone help me.
It appears that "executive privilege" is somewhat unclear,
but I have picked out a couple of points of the University of Chicago's "primer," which may be of interest on the subject -- it is rather long, so I won't post the entire article, but highly recommend it be read:
"1. The President has a generalized privilege against disclosure of his own discussions with his close advisers. US v. Nixon (1974).
2. This privilege is not absolute. The “generalized interest in confidentiality” can be overcome by the need for evidence that “is demonstrably relevant” to a criminal trial, if that evidence is “specific and central to the fair adjudication in a particular criminal case.” Id.
3. The privilege might be absolute if the case involved “a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets.” Id. (Note: points 2 and 3 apply in either a grand jury proceeding or a criminal trial.) . . . .
8. . . . The privilege is limited to “communications authored or solicited and received by members of an immediate White House adviser’s staff who have broad and significant responsibility for investigating and formulating the advice to be given to the President on the particular matter to which the communications relate.” Id. See also Judicial Watch (2004), underlining the lesson and saying that the privilege does not extend to “internal Justice Department documents that never make their way to the Office of the President,” even if those “documents were created for the sole purpose of advising the President.” (It is not at all clear the Supreme Court would agree with this view.)
9. Direct decisionmaking by the President is required. If the President himself is not directly involved, there is no privilege. . . .
18. Questions without clear answers therefore include a) how far down the line the privilege extends, b) the relationship of US v. Nixon to conflicts between Congress and the President, c) whether the latter conflicts might present a political question, d) the nature, basis, and scope of the deliberative process privilege, and e) the precise showing that must be made to overcome the privilege. With respect to e), a generalized interest in possible wrongdoing is far less likely to overcome the privilege than a specific need to answer the question whether specifically described wrongdoing has occurred.
~~~~~~~~~~~
also see:
"What is Executive Privilege and Where Does it Come From?
The Constitution nowhere expressly mentions executive privilege. Presidents have long claimed, however, that the constitutional principle of separation of powers implies that the Executive Branch has a privilege to resist certain encroachments by Congress and the judiciary, including some requests for information. . . . "
~~~~~~~~~~~
and Bush Invokes Executive Privilege to Deny Congress Testimony From Former White House Aides
. . . ."You may be assured that the president's assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented," the letter said.
Retorted House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers: "Contrary what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally," the Michigan Democrat said in a statement. . . .
. . . . Bush's counsel cloaked his tough rejoinder to the Democratic committee chairmen in gentlemanly language, but his message was unequivocal: The White House won't back down and believes the congressional legal argument to be far weaker than its own and its attitude less appealing. . . . "
~~~~~~~~
So, while it appears there may be some "iffys" involved, based on Bush's direct decision-making involvement (or lack thereof, which in and of itself would be revealing), the political aspect, etc., it seems dubious Bush can legally assert executive privilege over Taylor or Miers.
(emphasis mine)
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Maybe we're not confused, but baffled
Legal expert 'baffled' why White House would invoke executive privilege in Tillman case
Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley speaking with Olberman:
"The most straightforward act of contempt is not showing up," he said of Miers. "I'm not too sure why the White House did that. It was, in my view, a rather silly thing and dangerous thing to do. She could have shown up and still invoked privilege, but instead she didn't show up, and there are plenty of questions that might have been asked of her which did not involve privilege."
"Usually presidents will cooperate," Turley said in dismay. "The Tillman case is a great example of that. It's unbelievably weak as an assertion, but the White House seems to be invoking executive privilege if anyone is within a 25 mile radius of the building. It's as clever and as elegant as a meat cleaver...
"This is really coming out of Vice President Cheney's shop," Turley concluded. "Past presidents have issued conditional waivers. They've said, 'Look, we're invoking executive privilege but we're going to waive it in this circumstance because we think the public has a right to know.' ... What occurred to Tillman truly shocks the conscience. ... Why anyone in the White House would stand on executive privilege ... it baffles the mind."
(There's more with video at the link to Rawstory above.)
IT'S AS CLEVER AND AS ELEGANT AS A MEAT CLEAVER...
I think that's a good way to describe it. So, now the question is, how is the House going to respond?
Nothing, but nothing surprises me!
Of interest:
"A BRIEF HISTORY OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON THROUGH DICK CHENEY
In a letter dated January 30, 2002, Comptroller General David Walker, the head of the non-partisan Government Accounting Office, announced that he would sue Vice President Cheney, in order to obtain information about the National Energy Policy Development Group that Cheney chaired last year. The unprecedented lawsuit was made necessary, Walker's statement argued, by Cheney's refusal to cooperate voluntarily. . . ."
I recall that Nixon, too, was also sued for refusing to cooperate and produce documents and that was what turned the tide.
Using the executive privilege "loosely" is, IMO, just more of the legal (mostly inapplicable) manipulations that have been and are being used to stall any and all efforts to arrive at anything solid whatsoever.
Time to move on and commence Impeachment proceedings period.
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
In case Congress is confused...
IMPEACH!
Congratulations Chairman Conyers
Kudos to you for being the honored recipient of the Springarn Award.
Taking Off The Kid Gloves
Congressman Conyers,
You of all people can cite the far too numerous examples of the Bush administration flaunting their totalitarian regime in an "in your face" posture to Democrats in Congress when the Rethuglicans held sway before November '04 so it is therefore very painful to watch the posturing and the positioning and the quid pro quoing that is currently the modus operandi of your committee. When, sir, are you going to take the kid gloves off and haul Harriet Meiers, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, et al before your committee, swear them in and get to the bottom of their skull dugery? Parliamentary procedure be damned. The Republic is at stake and Cheney, Rove and Meiers are using these procedures the same way a Colombian drug lord would use and abuse the laws of this country to get away with murder. Stop the foot dragging and start kicking a** and taking names PLEASE!!!!!!
Conyers Threatens Contempt Proceedings against RNC Chair
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003711.php
Stop threatening
The shot heard 'round the blog.
IMPEACH!
And so begins a new American Revolution: the Orange Revolution!
Executive priv. for the RNC?
WTF?
WTF is right, Alma!
Maybe, the DNC should respond to the RNC. That has to be one of the most audacious efforts yet. Unbelievable!!!!
Doncha' think its time to stop all this fooling around and start Impeachment proceedings? All of this thit just keeps going round and round in endless, meaningless circles!
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Maybe they fall under the Cheney branch
Seems like they are telling congress to go Cheney themselves.
Way past time to start impeachment.
Thanks for that update, Alma
Apparently King George can dub anyone "executive" that he chuses.
And Emperor Dick can...well, when King George says "god" tells him what to do, maybe it's really Cheney in his magic invisible bath robe.
This whole charade is way past ridiculous in monumentally sad proportions. People are losing the lives of their loved ones to these games the administration is playing, while we continue to lose our liberties that we're supposedly so morally shoving down everyone's throats in the world.
It's disgusting.
I wish that Congress would start really using their powers, and soon.
Just made two phone calls to Pelosi's office --
left a long one on the "comment" line about putting Impeachment back on the table and how you (Ms. Pelosi) have placed this nation in greater jeopardy by removing Impeachment from the table, etc. and then called back again and just told the staffer to tell Ms. Pelosi to PUT IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE TABLE. The staffer said she would do so.
I plan on calling several times a week. Hope others will do the same. Here's the number: 202-225-0100.
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Thanks Tahoe
Saves me looking the number up. ;)
U B welcome!
;)
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
I dont get it.
52-47.
To cut off debate.
Need sixty votes to do that. So debate was not cut off.
But the filibuster was.
Why?
Did the Democrats want to fail?
Spectacularly?
Again?
Here is the way it was supposed to work. The rebels were supposed to talk themselves blue in the face while the entire Country waited impatiently for them to finally give up and shut up. Then we would send a bill to the President which would come right back, togeather with the his objections to same: to wit, that he didn't want to leave Iraq. The Congress would then proceed to reconsider, at a pace ensuring no view go unconsidered. And then send the President the same bill. With return postage already affixed.
Sooner or later, in one way or another...this is called determination. It is nearly the opposite of just kinda wishing. And exactly the opposite of putting on a show. Which is the impression.
The democratic party seems to have the unshakable habit of defeating itself. This makes it rough on us Cubs fans. The current fixation seems to be the idea of running against the war in Iraq again in the 2008 races. It appears the party views preserving that war untill then as "a no brainer". And I am pleased to occasionally have something to agree with them about. Overlooked is, we have already covered that political ground. Covering it again is at very least a waste of two years of three hundred million peoples time.
Overlooked too, are the geopolitical aspects.
Iran has a defence treaty with Russia. Russia had a treaty with NATO. It kept Russian formations far from NATO and allowed NATO to inspect them. Now, there are Russin forces moving forward to positions adjacent to our ally, Poland. Interstingly, Our forces are in Iraq. Adjacent to Russias' ally, Iran.
There is another differance to note. Poland is as flat as a tabletop. Tanks can roll accross that at fifty miles an hour. Iran has deserts and mountians three hundred miles thick, before you get to anything remotely like tank country. This implies an ambush three hundred miles long, with the same antitank missiles that smacked the Merkava down in Lebanon. Additionally, we may recall that Russia has just provided Iran with One Billion Dollars Worth of antiaircraft capability, including the Tor-1m mobile missile system, deployable anywhere, capable of shooting down Ballistic Missiles - two at a time...
Upshot: Because the force needed to keep Russian tanks out of, say, Lisbon, is the same force needed to attack Iran, it's presence in Iraq where it threatens Russian ally Iran provides motive and opportunaty for a Russian advance across northern Europe. Because the Russians have withdrawn from the treaty and advanced on NATO, the interests of the United States and Her Allies dictate the forces needed to potentially respond be made available. This means they are withdrawn from Iraq. This removes the motive and the opportunaty for a Russian advance. In this way another European war fails to matirialize.
It is not fun to see the dems give up so easily when all they need do is wait for the opposition to say as much as they want, and when the stakes are war and peace.
I'm just glad I don't have to tell the dead and wounded what we did with the time we saved.
Frosted Flake
In re : MIERS & the Mannining letter of July 17th.
It is all very interesting, but just now...the issue at hand is mere appearance...an unequivicol matter of being there or not. These other matters, while fastinating, are not ripe. Need not be addressed. If she wants to assert the fifth, that will be fine, but she must be present to do so. Failing to be present equates to fleeing, in that it requires a chase and a capture before the assertion of the privilege against self incrimination.
Don't like the way I said that?
If you do not react to Miers as you would a criminal, she will not be viewed as one. Though you might be. It might help to think of the Gordian knot as you slice thru the public consciousness with Occams' Razor : If Harriet is not a criminal, why is she running? The question is easy to rephrase : If Harriet is a criminal, why isn't she being chased?
Alexander was presented the knot which could be untied only by the boss. He recognized it existed to keep folks from being boss - by diverting them, and not to make 'em boss. Alexander cut the knot, rather than try untie it. Mr. Fielding hands you a knot. Cut it. Mr. Fielding is not out to make you boss - he is out to make the president into a king.
First : make Miers show. Then take step two.
In re : The Photo in the paper, ouch. That is a lot of blond hair. I though it was Don King for a second. But congratulations, You deserve the accolade.
To IMPEACH or Not to IMPEACH
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.
(FDR: message to Congress proposing the monopoly investigation, 1938)
I just finished a totally boring, but educational project.
I READ the Constitution of the United States of America, and all the Amendments thereto from cover to cover - - - twice. I was looking for two words. "Executive Privilege." Do you know, I could not find them anywhere? I also did not find any language authorizing "Signing Statements," indicating that the pRe$ident could ignore the law of the land at will, nor did I find ANY permission for ANY Executive to seize supreme power at any time of his choosing.
Now, it is in the purview of the Courts to repeal a law by declaring it "Unconstitutional." Since this pRe$ident is manifestly "Unconstitutional," could we possibly take him to Court and declare him to be "Null and Void" because of that "Unconstitutionality?"
Oh - that process has a name - it's called "Impeachment," the House is the Grand Jury and the Senate is the decider. Too bad - that's impossible with the current "leadership."
Well, then - how about a simple challenge on the fact that "Executive Privilege" has NO Constitutional Authority, hence does not exist, hence cannot be used as an excuse for violating the law?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm?