Login HereWhile we are awaiting the resumption of the HJC hearing, I thought folks who hadn't been able to follow the webcast would appreciate a snippet from today's testimony. The above YouTube is the full testimony given by Amb. Wilson. From the opening statement given by Amb. Joseph Wilson to the House Judiciary Committee, this is a good synopsis:
Ultimately this concerted effort to discredit me, ruining my wife’s career along the way has had a larger objective. This matter has always been about this administration’s case for war and its willingness to mislead the American people to justify it.
Thanks to the Speaker's Gavel blog for getting the video stream excerpt up so quickly. We'll link up the full transcript when and if it becomes available.
Share This 
Spotlight
Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
ZED!
I knew blowing off my grading to follow the live blogging would pay off.
JOE! and JANE! and CHRISTY! and MARCY!
Hello, fellow-pups
four: not bad, but not zed
Oh wow. i just woke up. What did i miss? Did she sing?
The House Jud hearing is going to continue? I don’t know if I can take the excitement. Have to take whatever Conyers is taking. Sleeeeeep
hmmmm. my f went away. go figure.
I have a question wrt Issa. If he is lying about Plame perjering herself, can he be sued for slander, or is he protected bc his speech was a congressional action that is protected?
breaking msnbc: harriet miers will not appear at hearing.
Big Mitch @ 8
you have to log in again
Christy,
while we wait impatiently, is it too much to ask if you have any thoughts on Taylor’s testimony?
ah so.
Bush orders Miers not to testify
More popcorn, please!
I’ve been out for a while. Do I really see Lieberman sponsoring an amendment - and that Levin is supporting it?
Jesus H. Christ. If Harry Reid lets the D’s for a Lieberman-sponsored bill, I’m gettin’ medieval on his ass.
Metaphorically, of course.
Is “contempt” a pardonable/commutable offense? I mean, does the president have his own version of habeas, where he can demand her release. If so, these contempt threats sound mighty weak. Contempt would only be effective if she would have to sit in some scary jail cell long enough that she might decide to spill the beans. If that’s not a possibility, this looks like a lot of grandstanding.
Impeach, Impeach, Impeach!!!!!!!!
I can’t stand it anymore.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
IMPEACH CHENEY July 23, 2007 10am march Arlington Cemetery to John Conyers’ Come or call Conyers at 202-225-5126
This banner is at the top of ADS. Not many Congresspersons attend or sponsor a march against the war or FOR IMPEACHMENT.
Please let as many people as possible know.
The least we owe Congressman Conyers is to try to get as many people as possible to show up for the IMPEACH CHENEY MARCH.
neokneme @ 14
I love the smell of contempt citations in the morning!
At least I hope to.
twolf1 @ 10
What a shock. But how could she testify against the neatest guy in class? Now there’s a woman who has only the most distant contact with reality…
BlueStateRedHead @ 12
A much better hearing than this but still a travesty. Taylor invoked Executive privilege almost randomly, answered a few questions, and forgot everything else. What little she did say seemed only to undermine her claim to Executive Privilege even further. She sought to distance Bush from the process, but if Bush wasn’t part of the process, it raises the question how EP can be invoked. Many of these, sorry I can’t answer because of EP were unintentionally enlightening because she would not have invoked it if there wasn’t something to invoke it for. So she further cemented the notion that the WH was calling the shots in the US attorney firings.
She may also be looking at a contempt citation but that will not be decided until she has had time to complete her answers in writing.
BigMitch @ 13
uh-oh, not quite. When I click through, I get my news feed page. So try this, it’s clipped from Monday’s Won’t You Be My Neighbor thread:
Sergeant-at-Arms: You are hereby directed to go and arrest Harriet Meiers.
at the very end of the rude pundit’s latest extremely fine essay is this simple truth:
“If this was a real democracy, we’d be out in the streets shutting the nation down until Bush resigned, taking Cheney with him. The unions would call for general strikes, as would immigrant rights groups, poverty groups, families of soldiers. All seventy percent of us. Clogging the cities and towns, demanding that we take back the country from the people who want to harm us.
“But this is not a real democracy. It is a group of geographically tied together people with pretense to democracy, fearful of actual power because it means actual responsibility for themselves, for each other.”
when life gives you Meyer lemons, make lemonade.
when aide Meirs tells you to go suck lemons, give her life.
without parole.
anyone watching the senate floor on c-span2? siun just let us know (in previous thread) that lieberman was submitting a bill on iran. apparently lieberman’s staff is still working on the language… but after assuring carl levin that it doesn’t include an authorization for use of force, levin asked to be listed as a co-sponsor without reading the damn thing.
lindsey graham: iran is hitler, they are persuing a nuclear weapon and i believe they will use it, or give it to someone who will.
durbin also caved on iran accusations - saying we all know they are supplying weapons to the insurgency in iraq.
and i think i just heard that as soon as lieberman’s staff finishes with the amendment language, the whole senate will vote (in like 5 minutes) on it without reading it.
hope i heard wrong… but after what happened on h.con.r.21 i do not have a good feeling about this.
twolf1 @ 10
Impeach.
BigMitch @ 23
When is that going to happen? If it were me or you and not some bud of Bush’s we’d be in jail already.
I am just tired of the complete disregard for the rule of law by these criminals. I can’t wait 18 more months for them to be gone.
twolf1 @ 10
Wanna bet she watched Taylor and the shit she got herself into and Miers said “Um, no thank you”
Wilson:
“The obstruction of justice is ongoing”
and here is a direct feed
to the youtube of victor a.
rita’s lawyer’s opening
statement. . . the direct to
youtube is now available!
had to link to my site until
it became available — now it is.
enjoy the cheney libby b-roll
and 3:15 edited to essentials. . .
dmg @ 24
Progressives have put too much faith in Congress making things right again when Congress is part of the overall problem. In any other western democracy the people would be in the streets but in the U.S. the populace is content with the mere illusion of democracy. The 4th Reich is here and it is us.
Since the hearing hasn’t started yet, I’m gonna risk an o/t:
UPI cuts staff (including WH correspondent)
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp.....1003610526
When those who work the beat can pick up the WH talking points the night before and not sit thru the BS, seems an appropriate savings in time and salary. ;-(
selise @ 12:54 -
WTF? Are these people totally insane?
BigMitch @ 23
Having grown up in the era of McCarthy and HUAC, the thought of Congress bypassing the Grand Jury and putting people under arrest is not something that I want to see.
Helen @ 29
DING DING DING!
exactly.
i think the president’s executive
privilege claim is toast, as i wrote
in (almost) real-time, this morning. . .
They will give another blank AUMF to W, and they will bomb Iran and probably Syria too - all with more language W will take advantage of..
The troops will be caught in the middle..
Treason, Impeach, Please for the love of God and our country…
neokneme @ 14
They saw Sara’s train-wreck and they KNOW Harriet’s not up for any kinda questioning. (I’m quite sure that’s the real reason Lil Boots pulled her SCOTUS nom.) All morning, I kept envisioning KKKarl as a baseball manager, watching his pitcher losing serious ground, figuring how to shuffle the line-up.
Heh. Heh heh heh.
nolo @ 35
That presumes that the Dems in Congress will actually do something. Highly doubtful. All bark and no bite.
*xyz @ 27
Considering how poorly Conyers and the dems have been doing with their hearings we will probably get better coverage over her NOT showing up than if she did.
Waccamaw @ 33
i think so.
10 minutes of debate and then the senate is going vote on the lieberman amendment - without having read it.
i’d like to read it too…
selise @ 40
It’s just an Iranian War authorization, why read it.
Bluetoe @ 32
i don’t know about that. i DO know that the next logical step — when the congress won’t take the actions we seek — is, yes, take to the streets. a moratorium, a one day nationwide work stoppage, with teachins, and civics classes — the whole schmear. why has there been non action along these lines?
nolo @ 35
I don’t agree. Harriet would have had to go before Conyers and you can see how well they have been kicking *ss. Not.
punaise @ 25
You could take that Myer’s and add some coke
LS @ 36
oh god, i hope not. please, it can’t be that bad.
i haven’t read the amendment, so i don’t know how bad it is. but it’s from lieberman, and i heard the rhetoric. i don’t know WTF they are thinking…. couldn’t they read it first?
Steve-AR @ 34
Arrest by the sergeant-at-arms is and always has been the correct procedure in cases of contempt of Congress.
Ambassador Wilson showed considerable restraint today. He should have answered Issa by saying “sir, I have never beat my wife, and you’re trying to get me to say whether or not I’ve stopped.”
Steve-AR @ 41
lieberman promised it wasn’t… but no one’s read the damn thing…. so who knows how close it comes to giving bush a rational to attack?
selise @ 48
How much is his promise worth?
RevDeb @ 43
I don’t agree. Harriet would have had to go before Conyers and you can see how well they have been kicking *ss. Not.
Oh, yeah. Different committee, different ballgame. Never mind me @ 37, wrt Harriet & HJC.
In the way of background:
Ms. Meiers has no right to resist a subpoena that is regular on its face. If the White House wants to invoke a privilege, it must go to the District Court in Washington, D.C. and move to quash the subpoena.
My personal view is that there is no applicable executive privilege. It must be recalled that the executive privilege is very limited, and we are talking about conversations to which the President denies being a party. The other side of the argument MAY have to do with the idea of a Unitary Executive, meaning that the President is the embodiment of the entire executive branch, but anything that the President can do (or any privilege that he can invoke) can be done by his “executive branch.” One of the main proponents of this bizarre, radical theory is a fella named Sam. Sam Alito, that is.
With regard to the attorney-client privilege, my recollection on this is that the White House counsel’s client is not the President, but rather the people of the United States. I predict that the Unitary Executive theory will be called into the discussion of this, too.
Atrios had a link to Conyers’ response to Meiers. He said she had no basis for refusal, and that at the hearing tomorrow, he would consider contempt charges against her.
Sounds good, anyway…
In regards to Iran. We can wait for the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
-JoeDick LieberBush
I think I’m in a time warp…
Saw Taylor’s testimony and from what I could
gather Leahy will let her review her testimony, provide other info and then order
Contempt Citation Is that right? Maybe it will
take 10 days, seems like 10 years…
When will our nightmare end, and can we
have a party of parties?
dmg @ 24
Amen. The rude pundit is remarkable.
tommy yum @ 47
I thought it was a very effective statement.
As for Issa, I’m hoping his name’s on the list for FBI raids this summer.
BTW, one of the leading cases on Contempt of Congress is named Nixon. (v. District Court, maybe.) Interestingly, it is not about RMN, but rather a judge whose misfortune was to share the same name as the second Worst. President. Ever.
JF @ 49
exactly.
i’d love to be wrong about this… but it looks like any dem who votes for this bill is a freaking idiot.
How can you justify voting for something you haven’t even read?
IIRC,Specter got punked that way and now we don’t have habeus.
Madness Madness Madness.
BigMitch @ 56
a friend in tucson says he saw a bumper sticker last year: “I Never Thought I’d Miss Nixon.”
Bustednuckles @ 59
We all got punked that way with the Patriot Act.
john amato just posted levin/lieberman clip at c&l.
vote is supposed to be any minute - cspan2.
Bustednuckles @ 59
I can’t. Lots of Congressmen and Senators did it cheerfully when they voted for the @#!!*&% Patriot Act.
Have e-mailed Boxer, Feinstein and Reid, urging them to vote no on Lieberman’s amendment (I’m at work, callin is out):
Conyers calling committee back to order.
EvilDrPuma @ 46
From Wiki..? accurate..
Inherent contempt
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)
Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its “inherent contempt” authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, against the Postmaster-General. After a one-week trial in the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), the Postmaster-General was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.
The Postmaster General had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1945).
I think the “usual” procedure is for the contempt citation to be referred to the House or Senate for a full vote and if passed sent to the DC USA. The USA is required by law to refer to a Grand Jury. Of course “required by law” doesn’t mean shit to these people.
selise -
They can’t pass Webb’s amendment and they’re gonna vote on something this piece of sh*t comes up with at the eleventh hour?
Where’s a barf bag when ya need one?
JF -
Liar’s promises = roughly the same product one would find in the aforementioned b-bag.
HJC re-convening - Debbie Wasserman-Schultz…
HJC hearing back from recess.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz up.
Wake up everyone.
Elliott @ 57
Don’t tease me please.
If Miers doesn’t show up, the HJC Goopers are going to pull every procedural trick in the book to prevent a contempt citation being issued.
I have to say that I’m less than confident of Conyers’ ability to deal with the full-court press from Kotex, Lungren, Issa, Burton, Cannon et al.
Ed*ard Teller @ 68
what channel please??
I called conyers office re: Miers and Conyers’ latest sternly worded letter.
I have just about had it: I am sick and tired of sternly worded letters with zero consequences, and told them so. If there aren’t going to be consequences for ignoring congress, then congress should just go home and stop wasting taxpayers time and money of a public farce.
I mean, honestly: these people are telling bald-faced lies to the Democrats and the Dems are doing nothing of substance. I am tired of it. Sick to death. Why the fuck should a nobody like me fight, if the people with actual power refuse to?
Fuck it, maybe I’ll run for congress next year. I’ve got more balls than any of these do-nothing fuckheads, and besides, I could use the health insurance.
“Skwire for Senate: WTF, You Could Do Worse.”
Debbie Wasserman rocks!
She is hopefully an example of a new breed of politicians.
I have called her office after every hearing to thank her for her intelligent and insightful questioning, and I will be again, if her opening question is a signal to what is to come from her.
lieberman press release on his iran amendment to the defense appropriations bill.
don’t know when we’re going to get a chance to read the actual bill… hopefully soon… but looks like it will be after the vote.
The link isn’t working from The Gavel.
Please - what’s the other one?
Woodhall Hollow @ 75
Woodhall - u got links?
oops sorry, here’s the link to lieberman’s press release.
To everyone who asked go here for the hearing
could some explain why this urgency with the lieberman amendment?
i mean, what’s behind it? what’s the rationale?
if there isn’t anything compelling, why would anyone vote for it without reading it?
Link to RealPlayer stream from HJC
tommy yum @ 47
Flat out, Issa is a prick! So it’s now about the Wilsons again rather than about Libby.
Hi, and welcome to “Simple Answers to Simple Questions. Today, Bluetoe asks,
dmg @ 42
From Josh Marshall:
“TPM Reader AB thinks the White House needs to keep Miers from even showing up …
I just read about the order to Miers not to attend the hearing. Bush may not order her to stay away but he can protect the attorney-client privileged information she may have, if any. She must at least show up and assert the privilege. Were she to divulge any of the client’s secrets, she could lose her law license. But she cannot just skip the hearing.
I suspect that the White House fears that a lot of what she knows is not protected by the privilege. For example, if a third person is present, communications between a client and her attorney are not privileged. Just as Taylor today testified about some matters not covered by the White House’s claim of executive privilege, so would Miers have to testify about non-privileged information she had, presumably a lot more that Taylor had.
At a certain point it just becomes plain old obstruction.”
selise @ 80
I
Issa - Too much politics related here. The nation should move on. Oh, and Valerie lied.
Lieberman has a war authorization statement written in lemon juice on this latest bill.
They sign it, he breaks out a lighter and holds it to the paper and the words ‘I hereby authorize G.W. Dipshit to bomb Iran’.
Do not trust Lieberweasel.
-GSD
dmg @ 81
i. don’t. know.
EvilDrPuma @ 86
*ahem* Sorry about that. As I was about to say before I so rudely interrupted myself: in any attack on Iran, Lieberman should lead the charge. Literally.
newtonusr @ 78
Links to my phone calls? No, I didn’t record them. But if you have watched the house judiciary hearings, you would see what I am talking about.
And holy shit! Joe Wilson is giving them the Saddam with a noose around his neck treatment! And finally Conyers is standing up to the rethugs. Shut them up, Conyers!
It’s getting hot in there. Wilson is talking about how Issa is smearing his and his wife’s name. A repug tried to stop him and Conyers shut the repug up.
new thread
How refreshing…someone who actually looks forward to answering questions…wonders never cease to amaze, I think I like this guy.
shorter HJC: Sentence commuted because Scoots is a turkey.
What Rude Pundit said!
IF the UAW can lead a group of service industry workers (English and non-English speaking I might add) to file with the NLRB against egregious abuses by a sovereign-though-interstate-commercing nation;
IF Michael Moore can champion a group of ‘designated lepers’ against abuses by an ill-appointed-middleman & profits-by-cancer-and-accidents industry;
Why are we wasting time when we already have the WITNESS of hundreds of thousands of disabled vets, military families, targets of domestic terrorism, Katrina survivors, relocation and other communities and individuals torn asunder by this regime’s MALADMINISTRATION?
The only EVIDENCE we’re lacking is that of the MASSES,
willing to drop everything to get our government back.
USE DEMOCRACY TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY!
Jeebus. All they needed was a dress and a
bunch of poseurs and pretenders.
WTF are we waiting for?????
IMPEACH!!!
See ya in Worcester!
RevDeb @ 43
i guess my point was — and we shall see, for
she may yet be compelled to testify — that
sara taylor has largely shredded, with her
waivers, the specious executive privilege claims
of the president.
what’s more, ms. taylor indicated that bush was
uninvolved. one cannot claim privilege over the
LACK of any involvement or
deliberations or conversations. . .
all of these matters — and now judging from chair-
man conyers very well-crafted response of last night,
lead me to conclude that harriet miers would
have had a tough time befor the h.j.c.
but to each his, or her, own. i’ve enjoyed
reading your comments here at FDL, rev. deb. . .
p e a c e