Saturday, August 30, 2008

HUGE Legal question: Judge Denies Stay; Miers Must Appear to Answer HJC's Subpoena

Forward from Ralph Lopez:

This is indeed big news about Meirs.  I'd like to know more about how the "twofer" Holtzman referred to would work.  Would Pelosi be President?  In that case the short time period we are faced with before the administration's term is over suddenly works to our advantage, if Pelosi is president, which Republicans hate, it is only for a couple on months in the heat of the election, which is nothing.  Can someone point me to the hearing video where Holtzman says "twofer"?

Also I have come across the answer to the "it will jeopardize the election of Obama" question.  It is exactly the opposite.  We need to get this article to every Democrat in congress and on all the democrat websites.  Hint: It's the Blue Dogs, it has been all along.  By Rob Kall at , he blew it away!

Rob's article:

Impeachment: Key to Dems' Win in November

Kos Diary on this:

--- On Tue, 8/26/08, Victoria 2-DC <> wrote:
From: Victoria 2-DC <>
Subject: [NIN] I want everyone to read this... please!
To: "Diane Lawrence" <>
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 11:04 PM

For those in Denver and for those who don't know:

This is a MAJOR SLAP DOWN for the Bush administration and a HUGE win for the House Judiciary Committee!!!  Yes!

Judge Denies Stay; Miers Must Appear to Answer HJC's Subpoena

By Kate Klonick - August 26, 2008, 2:22PM

A district court judge denied Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten's request for a stay on their Congressional testimony pending the appeal of the recent decision in HJC v. Harriet Miers et al. The decision means that Miers will have to appear in response to the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena for testimony.

From the ruling

"Accordingly, the Court will deny the Executive's request for a stay. Hence, the Executive should respond to the document aspect of the subpoenas by producing non-privileged material and identifying more specifically the materials it is withholding on a claim of executive privilege."

But it is on Ms. Miers's appearance that the dispute principally focuses. This decision should not, however, foreclose the parties' continuing attempts to reach a negotiated solution. Both sides indicated that discussions regarding an accommodation have resumed.

The judge, the Honorable John Bates, has mentioned before that he would really appreciate it if these two parties tried to keep every little squabble out of the court room, and that seemed to be the gist of his ruling:

"Had the litigants indicated that a negotiated solution was foreseeable in the near future, the Court may have stayed its hand in the hope that further intervention in this dispute by the Article III branch would not be necessary.

As it stands, however, the Court must decide the questions presented to it. But there is still ample time for the parties to reach an accommodation. The Court's July 31, 2008 Order does not compel Ms. Miers to appear at any particular date."


What does this mean to impeachment activists and to the work of the HJC?   This is exactly the moment we've needed to encourage Mr. Conyers to direct his hot staff of DC's best legal minds to draft the "article of impeachment"  that Elizabeth Holtzman was talking about in the 7/25/08 hearing.  In other words, the Chairman calls an impeachment inquiry after the article is drafted that says in my non-legal terminology, "Deliver Miers, Bolton and the documents that the HJC has requested by X date.  Not to do so will cause those who are being impeached under this article of impeachment to be removed from office.

Clean.  Fast. Effective and as Ms. Holtzman mentioned in the 7/25/08 hearing, "... you can do a twofer and bye bye Bush/Cheney forever." 

I urge you to focus in on this.  If you don't understand it, please go to c-span and watch the specific items mentioned in this text:

Hour 4:56:06  Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman
(snip)  Subverting the Constitution here is when the president, for no reason, not even a colorable claim, refuses to give Congress the information it needs to do its job and obstructs the work of Congress - that can be an impeachable offense.  If you translate it in an impeachment inquiry, in other words if you were to commence an impeachment inquiry and then you were to ask the president to provide the information again, the obstruction of an impeachment inquiry, the failure to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry, the failure to provide the information is itself an impeachable offense, as we established in the Nixon proceedings, in the Nixon


This opening from Judge Bates means that Congressman Conyers can now sieze the moment and declare that he is opening a real live impeachment hearing!


Please, please watch this and read it over and over until you really understand it because it will give you great confidence to talk about it to others.  If people tell you it's too late, ask them to go spend 6 hours in front of their computers listening carefully to Elizabeth Holtzman and Bruce Fein. 


Blessings and cheers to all!


NIN mailing list

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planning for N.E. Impeachment Coalition" group.
To post to this group, send email to  DISCUSSIONS FOR THIS SITE IS LIMITED TO GROUP PLANNING, REPORTING AND IMPLEMENTATION.  General discussions, including political opinions, outside the realm of group plans, are welcome on the companion site North East Impeachment Summit.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at