# Bush orders ex-counsel to defy congressional subpoena **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2007, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438 "2007-07-12T00:15:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/1 "2007-07-12T00:15:04Z")
The title says it all. [Cite](http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/11/fired.prosecutors.ap/index.html) How completely sad. I’m pretty anti-Bush so I am comfortable saying how predictable. But you know what? Arch conservative or way left liberal, it is humiliating to all Americans that the President would do this. There is no much-vaunted Rule Of Law. Apparently the only Rule Of Law is that which eminates from Kennebunkport, Maine. :mad: Cartooniverse ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/2 "2007-07-12T02:22:16Z")
I’m confused. If she doesn’t work for him anymore, on what authority is Bush ordering her? ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/3 "2007-07-12T03:06:37Z")
There was mention of Executive Privilege in another thread, but how that gets applied to this situation is completely beyond me. I thought it only applied to the President himself, and members of his administration he’s delegated stuff to. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/4 "2007-07-12T13:58:12Z")
Don’t know much about executive privilege, but solicitor-client privilege attaches during the relationship between the client and the lawyer, and survives even if the lawyer is no longer working for that client. It might be something similar here: Bush is claiming privilege for work done by Ms. Meiers while she was working for him, and that privilege doesn’t disappear just because she is no longer working for him. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/5 "2007-07-12T14:11:38Z")
But not every question asked would be covered under privilege, so wouldn’t she be breaking the law by not accepting the subpoena (Or wouldn’t Bush be breaking the law by ordering her to ignore it)? ---
**Author:** ![Flea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d78d45/32.png) [@Flea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flea)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/6 "2007-07-12T14:19:45Z")
Apparently he’s citing a Clinton-era EP document that says that Presidential advisors can’t testify re: matters that fall under executive priviledge since they are not subject to Congressional oversight. The only flaw with that is that administration of the justice system does fall under Congressional oversight. The committee she was asked to testify for is even named “Judiciary”. Another woman (I forget who) testified yesterday and it was a fiasco, so perhaps that’s why they decided to pull the plug on Meiers. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/7 "2007-07-12T14:23:54Z")
“Yes, grandchild, there really was a time…once, long ago…when America was a Nation of Laws…” ---
**Author:** ![Flea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d78d45/32.png) [@Flea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flea)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/8 "2007-07-12T14:24:57Z")
Found out the woman’s name:Sara Taylor. [QUOTE=CBS News] “I did not attend any meetings with the president where that matter was discussed,” Taylor said under stern questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. When asked more broadly whether Mr. Bush was involved in any way in the firings, Taylor said, “I don’t have any knowledge that he was.” Taylor, who left the White House eight weeks ago for reasons she said were unrelated to the firings, was treading a rough line between obeying Mr. Bush’s order not to reveal internal White House deliberations and responding to a congressional subpoena compelling her to do so. Her lawyer, Neil Eggleston, sat at the witness table to advise her. “I’m trying to be consistent and perhaps have not done a great job of that,” Taylor said. “I have tried.” The committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter, said that may not be enough to protect her from a contempt citation for failing to answer many of the committee’s questions. “There’s no way you can come out a winner,” said Specter, R-Pa. “You might have been on safer legal ground if you’d said absolutely nothing.” [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/9 "2007-07-12T15:22:01Z")
[QUOTE=NurseCarmen] (Or wouldn’t Bush be breaking the law by ordering her to ignore it)? [/QUOTE] [Yes.](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015273.php) ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/10 "2007-07-12T16:25:26Z")
Let her refuse to testify and prosecute her for contempt of Congress- but don’t start the prosecution until Jan 21, 2009. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Griffin-Kentzel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_griffin-kentzel/32/14787_2.png) [@Larry\_Griffin-Kentzel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Griffin-Kentzel)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/11 "2007-07-12T22:50:12Z")
This thread is better suited for **Great Debates**. I’ll move it for you. **Cajun Man** for the SDMB ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/12 "2007-07-12T22:58:50Z")
Screw going the normal route on this (which involves referring the matter to the D.C District Attorney, who we know is in Bush’s pocket). Congress needs to dust of their **inherent contempt** power, which does not require any action on the part of a corrupt Executive Branch. Send the Seargent At Arms over to Harriet Miers and frog march her into the chamber. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/13 "2007-07-12T23:31:20Z")
Here’s [Taylor](http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/devastating.html) at probably her lowest point in her testimony. Ouch. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2007, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/14 "2007-07-12T23:46:49Z")
[QUOTE=Count Blucher] “Yes, grandchild, there really was a time…once, long ago…when America was a Nation of Laws…” [/QUOTE] In the context of this discussion, and considering that George Washington invoked Executive Privilege, I have to wonder what exactly you’re remembering or how old you are. It was my understanding that EP could extend to anyone who is a direct adviser to the president, but not to lower level staffers. Seems like HM would qualify. Maybe an actual discussion of the privilege might be more useful than throwing out silly little cliches. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/15 "2007-07-13T00:51:18Z")
The seminal case here is U.S. vs. Nixon. I think there are some big problems with applying it here though. First of all, Burger assumed in the decision that secrecy for the evidence needed would be guaranteed by in camera review in the course of a criminal investigation by a special prosecutor. Clinton’s advisors initially testified in confidence as well in the course of the Whitewater investigation. Here, though, witnesses are asked to testify in public by Congress, where secrecy is not assured. What is more, this decision explicitly recognizes an executive privilege right, though a constrained one: > [@](#): > > The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondence, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and, added to those values, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution. 17 In Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 487 F.2d 700 (1973), the Court of Appeals held that such Presidential communications are “presumptively privileged,” id., at 75, 487 F.2d, at 717, and this position is accepted by both parties in the present litigation. We agree with Mr. Chief Justice Marshall’s observation, therefore, that “\*n no case of this kind would a court be required to proceed against the president as against an ordinary individual.” So there is an executive privilege, and it takes some suing to lift it. Furthermore, it seems clear that it would certainly apply to Harriet Miers. Outide of the White House things are far simpler, since all of the Cabinet departments and all Federal agencies were explicitly created by Congress, and thus Congress has power of subpoena, etc. there. That is why Congress can drag Alberto Gonzalez and all of his staff over the coals all it wishes. But since the president derives his authority from the Constitution, and separation of powers is an explicit doctrine, privilege does apply to at least some extent. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/16 "2007-07-13T00:54:22Z")
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse] The title says it all. [Cite](http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/11/fired.prosecutors.ap/index.html) How completely sad. I’m pretty anti-Bush so I am comfortable saying how predictable. But you know what? Arch conservative or way left liberal, it is humiliating to all Americans that the President would do this. There is no much-vaunted Rule Of Law. Apparently the only Rule Of Law is that which eminates from Kennebunkport, Maine. :mad: Cartooniverse [/QUOTE] Echoing **John Mace** ’s comment, I’m not sure I understand the OP’s claim that the President’s directive is unambiguously illegal. The Supreme Court, in US v. Nixon, confirmed that the privilege does exist (although they cautioned that it is not absolute, and they laid out some framework for determining its reach). Cartooniverse, what specific parts of the Court’s guidance do you believe President Bush’s order violates? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/17 "2007-07-13T02:06:19Z")
[_Nixon v. United States:_](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=418&invol=683) > [@](#): > > Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e. g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211 . Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of [418 U.S. 683, 685] Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution. No military or diplomatic secrets are alleged to be involved here, and I see no plausible argument by which Congress’ need for subpoenaed documents or testimony in exercise of its oversight function is any less compelling than the courts’ need for evidence in criminal trials. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/18 "2007-07-13T02:10:16Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Echoing **John Mace** ’s comment, I’m not sure I understand the OP’s claim that the President’s directive is unambiguously illegal. [/QUOTE] I’m wondering, just how can the President “direct” Harriet Miers on this matter when she’s no longer a White House employee? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/19 "2007-07-13T02:16:44Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Echoing **John Mace** ’s comment, I’m not sure I understand the OP’s claim that the President’s directive is unambiguously illegal. [/QUOTE] Isn’t it rather astonishing that Bush claims Harriet Miers _doesn’t even have to show up_? As you’re probably aware, even if someone does have a legitimate claim (like pleading the Fifth), they still are bound to show up and claim it in response to specific questions. Doesn’t this strike you as the act of an _activist executive_ run amuck? Or is legal activism ok when its the Unitary Executive doing it? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/20 "2007-07-13T02:18:42Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [_Nixon v. United States:_](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=418&invol=683) No military or diplomatic secrets are alleged to be involved here, and I see no plausible argument by which Congress’ need for subpoenaed documents or testimony in exercise of its oversight function is any less compelling than the courts’ need for evidence in criminal trials. [/QUOTE] That’s talking about a generalized privilege in a criminal trial. Not clear that that is operable in this case. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438.md?page=2)