Miers To Invoke Executive Privilege

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 04:56:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

You read that right. Harriet Miers, proving herself unversed in the law, accepts her lawyer's erroneous statements:

Ms. Miers has no choice other than to comply with direction given her by Counsel to the president in his letters mentioned above. This is particularly so because, as the members of the Committee are aware, the assertion of the privilege in this circumstance is supported by the thorough and reasoned opinion of the Solicitor General of the United States...

This is wrong in every respect. Ms. Miers can of course choose to not follow the "direction" of the counsel for the President, who ALSO has no power to invoke executive privilege. Only the President can.

Whether Ms. Miers, her attorney or Fred Fielding think executive privilege applies here, only the President has the power to invoke it. A letter from Fred Fielding does not invoke it. And even if it did, neither the President or Mr. Fielding have the final word on this.

Ms. Miers is clearly in contempt of Congress. The House should immediately begin proceedings to enforce its subpoena.

< The Right Kind of Christian | Pope Declares Catholicism The One True Christian Religion >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Miers To Invoke Executive Privilege | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

That's wrong (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by txpublicdefender on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:37:15 PM EST

Bush did claim Executive Privilege for Miers.

No, he hasn't. Fred Fielding, White House Counsel, has said that they have directed the witnesses not to comply based on Executive Privilege. But, that is not the President claiming Executive Privilege. At any rate, the problem with Miers's lawyer's statement is that he says she "has no choice." That's clearly untrue. Of course she has a choice. She can show up and answer questions. What is the Bush administration going to do? Lock her up in Gitmo? If the President wants to give her "no choice" in the matter, he can go to federal court and get a restraining order. Short of that, she has a choice. She may not like the choice--follow a Congressional subpoena and defy the man she has worshipped and adored for years or defy the Congressional subpoena and risk contempt of Congress--but saying that she has "no choice" is patently false.

And also with Meirs and this has nothing to do with EP because IMO it supersedes EP - she was Counsel to the President, his attorney. So any "legal" advice she gave him is protected, but only legal advice.

That's not so clear. The federal courts have previously ruled that there is no attorney-client privilege between a government lawyer and her "client" in the context of a criminal grand jury investigation. Whether one would apply in the context of a Congressional oversight investigation is still an open question. At any rate, she wasn't providing legal advice in this instance. She was providing political advice, so I doubt there is any attorney-client privilege here.

Here You Go (1.00 / 2) (#9)
by talex on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:12:19 PM EST

Bush cites exec privilege, refuses to let aides testify

Here is another

I can see where people are confused because a couple of sloppily written article I read didn't make it clear that Bush actually asserted EP.

As for her attorney-client privilege this has not reached a "criminal" status yet so I doubt that ruling would apply. But even if it did Miers would still be covered under EP.


: Get better sources (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:46:30 PM EST

OR get a clue what you are talking about.

In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.
A letter from Fred Fielding is NOT the PResident invoking the privilege.
The PRESIDENT has to invoke himself.
Moreover, that is not binding on Ms. Miers.
This is not a matter of opinion Talex. Lave such discussions to the informed please.

Take Ms. Miers down to the basement (none / 0) (#1)
by scribe on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:09:03 PM EST

and leave her there.

I'll get the tar ... (none / 0) (#2)
by chemoelectric on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:53:15 PM EST

... you get the feathers.

: I thought scribe was referencing (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by oculus on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:56:37 PM EST

Judith Miller.

Hw utterly corporate (none / 0) (#4)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:24:55 PM EST

the assertion of the privilege in this circumstance is supported by the thorough and reasoned opinion of the Solicitor General of the United States...

Yippee! We got an ok from our legal department... This means we are good to go, right?

Isn't the Solicitor General's job (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:40:06 PM EST

yo represent the Executive branch in the U.S. Supreme Court? Fielding is White House counsel. Not sure who represents the "Executive."


No (none / 0) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:58:36 PM EST

No.

The Solicitor General is tasked to conduct all litigation on behalf of the United States.

The Executive Department is not the US.

In any event, an opinion of the Solicitor General, however, well reasoned is not law.


: Solicitor General: (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 01:40:59 AM EST

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/

actually, the attorney-client (none / 0) (#11)
by cpinva on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 10:34:12 PM EST

privilege is not restricted solely to criminal cases, work-product is protected in many civil instances as well; taxes come quickly to mind. it all depends on what the legislature decrees, it isn't carved in stone.

that said, for 50k, i can buy all kinds of "legal opinions". would you like to "supersize" yours?

: No one has invoked A/C privilege (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 10:36:18 PM EST

Excuse me (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:03:10 PM EST

Your source is wrong.

President Nush invoked nothing. Fred Fielding did.

Learn how to read a news story.

You have far exceeded your comment limit by the way.

No more from you.

In fact. I am deleting your comments that exceeded the limit.

Amazing... (none / 0) (#16)
by Strick on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 01:09:53 PM EST

You mean the White House Counsel is acting without consulting the President on this matter? He made the decision all by himself with any instructions or general principles that guide his ast to what his client wants? You really believe that?

Or do you mean that that President can't instruct the White House Counsel to communicate his desire to invoke executive priviledge? If the President want's to invoke executive priviledge he has do it in person? He can't delegate telling other people that he has?


: Amazing (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 05:50:45 PM EST

Exactly what I said, the President has to DIRECTLY invoke the privilege, not via anyone else.
Are you this obtuse? What part of it did you not understand? I hate when people who do not have a clue what they are taling about come and pontificate.

Opposing Miers for SCOTUS (none / 0) (#15)
by kovie on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:08:42 AM EST

Was probably the one thing that Repubs got right in their 6 miserable years in charge of congress under Bush. They might have gotten it right for mostly the wrong reasons, but on purely professional grounds she was about as fit to be an associate justice as Bush was to be president.

Oh, wait. Never mind.