Bush Says He Won't Release Miers Records

[UpInArms]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1244698

WASHINGTON Oct 24, 2005 — President Bush said Monday that he will not release any records of his conversations with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers that could threaten the confidentiality of the advice that presidents get from their lawyers.

"That would breech very important confidentiality, and it's a red line I'm not willing to cross," Bush said.

Both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are demanding more documents on Harriet Miers, including from her work at Bush's counsel.

...more...

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

1. Ever notice how all bullies actually end up being cowards?

El Dictator being a casebook study in classic cowardice. To release those files would be to expose himself along with her. Can't have his 'face' taken off in public.

[YDogg]

8. Yes. Coward is the word of the day.

:bounce:

[electropop]

2. She's toast.

No way will even the Pukes support a pig in a poke.

[GreenArrow]

12. they did with Roberts

[progressivebydesign]

15. Ya, no kidding. I'm still wondering how Roberts just slid by like that.

Were the Democrats distracted or what? The CHIEF of the Supreme Court and it was treated with about as much concern as picking a dog catcher. I hope it won't go the same way for Meiers..

[mom cat]

18. A deal must have been cut. We have to look hard at the roll over and beg

democrat lapdogs. With Bush's low ratings, the dems should easily take gharge...using the fillibuster on a daily basis if necessary...forcing the congress to reflect the will of the people, The people would be amazed and follow gratefully....But, no, we get the "just be patient crap" instead. This is the time for bold leadership. But too many dems are beholden to the big money people and not the people. That is why Roberts got in. And that is why we are looking at more drastic cuts for people programs. We have to convince leaders that do not lead to take up auto mechanics or pluming.

[GreenArrow]

21. it would have been real simple:

Congress was entitled to the papers. It was entitled to expect that Roberts would answer the questions put to him. It recieved niether papers nor answers. That alone was enough to disqualify him, and if the decision had been made a Congress with any sense of honor, that is exactly what would have happened.

[mom cat]

24. I think you put your finger right on it: a lack of honor.

When people have sold out to the system either financially or politically or request of power or just to be invited to the A-list parties, they have no honor left. We must start demanding more of our elected representatives and senators. The Roberts rollover was totally disgusting.

[Ignacio Upton]

20. But now both parties actively oppose Miers

Roberts was met with a united conservative base and little hostility, except for whining from one or two groups. With Miers conservatives are openly protesting against Bush and revolting against his dimwitted choice for a Supreme Court Nominee.

[GreenArrow]

30. I'm just sayin'

They didn't get Roberts' papers either, and it wasn't a problem for them then, so why should it be a problem for them now? Oh yeah, I forgot, they're stinking hypocrites.

Not getting the requested papers should be enough to disqualify both nominees. Roberts was up for Chief Justice, for Pete's sakes; the issue should have been even more important with him.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

29. Roberts had more of a track record.

Less is known about Miers. Plus I think Miers not answering all questions put to her may miff many otherwise supportive pukes.

[Anywho6]

19. Agreed. He can just kiss this one goodbye. n/t

[Webster Green]

3. Boy, this fascist dictator stuff is hard to get used to...

How the fuck did we fall so far, so fast? :shrug:

[napi21]

4. I'm sure they're worried about precident!

If he released them this time, why not the next!

Did they forget about redaction? Just redact the sensitive parts...or would that mean releasing a bunch of white papers with ALL black lines across every line???

[tabasco]

5. Then he and his moronic choice for USSC ...

can go cheney themselves.

[BikeWriter]

6. Good, he's alienating more republicans, too.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. It will provide the excuse to withdraw before she flunks the Committee.

[kostya]

37. You got that right! Bush is trying to "save face" by looking resolute

again, instead of pig-headed, which he really is (in all senses of that metaphor). The senators that have met her and talked to her realize what a total disaster she'd be on television, so they're trying to "gracefully" pull the plug before that.

:eyes:

[gratuitous]

9. Well, the Senate didn't demand Roberts' records

So any demand for Miss Miers' records can be stonewalled, and probably pretty effectively unless the Republicans on the committee decide that they've had enough of these shell game shenanigans.

[maxsolomon]

10. krauthammer wants to use this as Mier's out

executive branch won't release records, senate can't confirm without records, miers bows out. neocon death cult pundit is happy.

but since that would be tantamount to "admitting a mistake", and little boots can't ever ever do that cuz mommy told him he didnt have to if he doesnt want to, he won't back down.

eventually, for the good of the party, the GOP senators will fall into line & she'll be confirmed. after all, clarence thomas is a supreme court judge. competence & experience have not been the benchmarks prior to this nomination.

[IndianaGreen]

11. I read that piece by Krauthammer

I am glad Bush is his usual stubborn self. Krauthammer was hoping that not turning documents would lead to a carefully choreographed charade in which Miers would drop herself from the nomination on the principle of executive privilege.

I am looking forward to the hearings, and I wish the Democrats will ask Miers some tough questions about her role in covering up Bush's AWOL in TANG, and in running the Texas lottery.

:popcorn:

[DrGrishka]

14. I disagree on one point

Thomas was qualified. Was he the "best" out of all the judges out there at the time (even considering conservatives only)? Answer: no. There were Posner, Easterbrook, Kozinski, Manion, Jones, Luttig, Wilkinson just to name a few. (I am purposefully naming conservatives only because that is who 41 would have nominated). Nonetheless, Thomas was qualified. He was a Court of Appeals judge, prior to that he ran a large federal agency, was a lawyer for private large corporation, was Assistant AG in Missouri, went to Yale and Holy Cross college graduating the latter with distinction. So agree or disagree with his philosophy, he cleared the threshold.

Miers on the other hand has no qualifications whatever. She went to subpar college and law school, and though that is in and of itself no big deal (people go to different schools for different reasons) there is no indication that she graduated with any particular honors. She has never argued a case in either TX or US Supreme Courts, never authored a brief to SCOTUS, never wrote any notewrothy law review articles, never served as a judge or in a position of responsibility in government (WH counsel is certainly a position of responsibility, but I was talking about running a department or an agency or the like). In short, her resume is notewirthy only for the fact that she was activly and succesfully involved in the ABA. That is hardly a SCOTUS qualification.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

17. "Eventually, for the good of the party, the GOP senators will fall into..

..line."
Or maybe not.

I think this nomination will be derailed before a hearing. Those GOP senators do not like the squeeze play
Bush has foolishly blundered them into. (imho)

But I do have my popcorn ready.

[cshldoc]

13. Breech? WTF

I hate to be a usage Nazi, but this is a national-level news article with a blatant misusage of the word 'breech'. According to my oft-consulted dictionary, breech is defined as such:

breech |br? ch | noun 1 the part of a cannon behind the bore. • the back part of a rifle or gun barrel. 2 archaic a person's buttocks. verb archaic put (a boy) into breeches after being in petticoats since birth. ORIGIN Old English br?c (plural of br?c, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch broek), interpreted as a singular form. The original sense was (compare with breeches ), hence ( sense 2 , mid 16th cent.), later of anything (late 16th cent.).

Now, I'm all behind buttocks jokes and references being hurled at 43, but in this case I am sure Nedra Pickler just didn't know any better.

[fshrink]

31. Breach, bleach, bitch... It's all one big nucular blur. nt

[merwin]

16. The president has NO confidentiality with his appointed council.

He can't hide behind that.

[Toots]

26. Who do you think will call him on it?

When Clinton tried to claim that privilege there was no shortage of right wingers screaming at the top of their lungs that he couldn't do it and they won. Hear any Democrats yowling yet? :shrug: You are right of course but I'm just saying.....

[savemefromdumbya]

22. Bush - stop hiding everything!

it will catch up with you one day

[Rebel_with_a_cause]

23. Yeah, as in, what records has he EVER released?

We're just the tax-paying plebeians. We don't deserve to see any records, according to bourgeoisie Bushy logic.

[cascadiance]

25. Senate should just say "she doesn't have a sufficient public record!"

to be acceptable as a nomination. Then say to Bush that the only way to change this equation is to make more of her record "public" by turning over these documents. It was BUSH that selected her as a "stealth" candidate. If he didn't want to have to reveal private communications with a certain nominee, then he should have picked someone with more of a history that the Senate could look at.

[Arkana]

27. Ho ho ho...

"That would breech very important confidentiality, and it's a red line I'm not willing to cross," Bush said.

Ain't that what Mr. "I Am Not A Crook, Dammit" said when they told him to turn over the Watergate tapes?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

35. "very important confidentiality"

another gem from the Leader of the Free World

[MetaTrope]

28. Anyone hear Cokie Roberts whining on National Propaganda Radio this morn?

Apparently some senators are feeling "threatened" because newspaper editorial columnists are saying voting for Miers will have political repercussions come the next election.

Awwwww, poor widdle senators thweatened by the big bad journalists...don't worry, Cokie will kiss it and make it alllll better...

[antonialee839]

32. I won't! (stamp) I won't! (stamp) I won't! (stamp)

[ErisFiveFingers]

33. Legal Memo 187: Eyes only, on recent Abu Ghirab torture.

"For POTUS, From Harriet Miers"

"Sir, in reference to the upcoming legal issues that may affect our international diplomacy vis a vis troop conduct in Iraq, I think it's best to err on the side of precedent, but I know that whatever you do, regardless of precedent, will be absolutely wonderful because you're the bestest president ever! I love you my snugggle bunny boo boo!"

-Harriet

[struggle4progress]

34. "I won't! I won't! I won't! I won't! I won't!" ... What a boor ... eom

[PassingFair]

36. "That would breech very important confidentiality, and it's a red line I'm

not willing to cross," Bush said.

And that's why you shouldn't nominate your OWN *UCKING PERSONAL LAWYER, you geek.

[Demeter]

38. It Doesn't Matter, George

Harriet's not getting in, and you are being booted out, right after all the props have been pulled out from under you; to wit: Cheney, Rove, Greenspan, Rehnquist, DeLay, Frist, Libby, etc., etc.

And I wouldn't be the least surprised if you didn't end up in divorce court, too.