This way Bush sets the stage for Rice's non-appearance. There are many people whose testimony can sink Bush, and Rice is one.

So far, none-too-bright gwb has managed to out-maneuver and stymie the Democrats.

convicted on multiple counts of obstruction of justice and a number of other charges. She will meet her old WH workmates there and they will talk about the good old days-when Congress was controlled by the Republicans.

Way to go Harriet - self rightous Judiciary pricks can kiss my butt.

recall that Bush nominated her in 2005 to replace Sandra Day O'Conner. Recall also that Miers withdrew herself from consideration when it became apparent that the Senate Judiciary Committee intended to put some questions that she did not want to answer.
Disreputable Harriet Miers.

The double standards are noteworthy. Legal counsel appears to have enjoyed a different standard the public does not enjoy. What kind of protection racket is the legal community creating? Not clear why the White House counsel's office is gleeful:

[ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015273.php ]

Would think the letters to Miers and Taylor would support some sort of legal review of WH Counsel. DC Disciplinary Board involved, or is the weather unfavorable today? Heard may assertions of "belief" which do not add up:

A. Double Standards on Witness Impeachment

Counsel [Taylor] "believed" that they could selectively invoke privilege. However, inconsistent witness statements could impeach a witness; and that rule of evidence could get raised during an attorney disbarment investigation. Not impressed that legal counsel appear immune to this standard; yet the public if they attempt to seeks advise of counsel are denied access to that counsel.

B. Reasonableness of Counsel In Light of Duty

Counsel [WH in re FISA, rendition] "believed" that their conduct was lawful, despite the court ruling that the activities could not be reasonably viewed as lawful [FISA, Judge Vaughn]

C. Evidence Destruction Belies Asserted Belief

WH Counsel "believed" the information was privileged, yet the destruction of that e-mail suggests the belief was not real; but the opposite was true: Someone did not believe the information was privileged, and communicated from counsel the conclusion that the RNC e-mail could not be protected.

Been some talk in the wake of Miers' refusal to appear that she could be cited for contempt, and possibly prosecuted, but the US Atty may not prosecute for contempt or that there would be delays. One idea behind impeachment is to have a timely enforcement of the law when the President and US Attys refuse or are not responsive, as is the case.

Yet, the US government does not appear serious about enforcing the law. This is official misconduct; not a private litigation. Curious with the Patriot Act, the public has been denied rights to a fair trial; but WH Counsel can delay, and use the delaying tactics to protect the President.

What about that Oath, 5 USC 3331 to ensure there is an enforcement mechanism; and the Constitution is preserved? It's great to talk about new legislation, but we have an issue on the table: Illegal activity, evidence destruction, and inaction. Would like to see some visible discussion of whether the oath of office mans much when the enforcement of that oath appears meaningless.

Congress and the US Atty appear ready refuse to timely enforce the law through prosecutions or impeachment at the Federal level. Would like to see something to justify confidence in the judicial system: The State AG's positions are in prosecuting Miers/Taylor oustide Congress, outside impeachment.