mierscheer_0.jpgWe wait with bated breath for the answer:  will she or won’t she put out today? 

Since we’re all sitting here a’tingle, I thought a bit of snark from ages past might be an amusing way to pass the time.  Huge thanks to reader Terry for the original find on this from The New Yorker:

October 27, 2005
Hi! Just a quick note to say that you looked heavyish last time I saw you, which, come to think of it, was this morning, in the Oval Office, when you accepted my withdrawal (which you had secretly demanded) and ruined my life and dreams and spirit. I hope we can stay friends. And, again, I am sorry for vomiting on your desk. Best to your wife (Laurel??).
Harriet Miers, NOT a Supreme Court nominee

October 27, later on
It dawns on me that I may not have mentioned that you ruined my life. Or did I? Also, do you ever wonder where you’d be if it wasn’t for your father, who, when you think about it, was a really amazing person, who did SOOO much in his life, especially compared with you who have done so little? I read that you were a cheerleader once. Girls do that a lot. Eucalyptus is good for absorbing bad smells (like human vomit). That was a lot of vomit. But then I had a tough few weeks, in which I was humiliated in the national media, and you and your staff (some of whom may be indicted soon??) were not one scintilla of help. Friends forever!…

Oh yeah. Good times.  I keep thinking back to this bit from John Dean:

In short, all those who have wanted to see Karl Rove in jail may get their wish, for he will not cave in, either — and may well be prosecuted for contempt, as Gorsuch was not. Bush’s greatest problem here, however, is Harriett Miers. It is dubious he can exert any privilege over a former White House Counsel; I doubt she is ready to go to prison for him; and all who know her say if she is under oath, she will not lie. That could be a problem.

I am wondering if Harriet will turn out to be the weak link after all.  Why exactly is the Bush Administration so afraid of Harriet showing up and talking to Congress under oath?  What, exactly, are they hiding behind her little Bushie cheerleader rah rah skirt? 

Alex Koppelman has an interesting piece of the puzzle up at Salon.  In an interview with Bud Cummins, which occurred following Sara Taylor’s testimony yesterday, Cummins tells Alex the following:

As Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., mentioned during the hearing, this contradicted previous testimony by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. McNulty has said that Cummins was removed specifically to make room for his eventual replacment, Tim Griffin, who is, like Taylor, a former aide to Karl Rove.

When read the above portion of Taylor’s testimony over the phone, Cummins told Salon, “I think her characterization [of his intentions] is almost true, but not quite true.”

According to Cummins, Griffin had been contacting him regularly beginning in 2003 or 2004 to see if Cummins was interested in leaving his post as U.S. attorney.

Hmmm…beginning in 2003 or 2004, Griffin began pestering Cummins about him leaving his job. Is it me, or does that sound like a “man with a plan” that had been going on for quite a while?  And who would have been in on such a plan from a self-styled mover and shaker political operative like Griffin?  Well, Sara Taylor sure seemed like a BFF of his to me.  And there’s still all those lingering questions about the involvement of Rove and Miers and others in the White House political shop, and how they did the math…which we can’t get answered without someone from the inside talking.

Which brings us back to dear Harriet. 

There is a reason that the White House doesn’t want her to show up for testimony.  And I think these nuggets from a couple of TPM’s readers may be the answer — that the White House Counsel does not enjoy the same attorney/client privilege as a regular counsel/client relationship by virtue of the public interest questions involved.  And, in this case, there’s a hefty dose of precedent from the Clinton years to open that door awfully wide.  (Dang it, it’s that pesky rule of law again.)

So, will she or won’t she?

Related posts:

  1. Washington Post: Rove More Involved in US Attorney Firings Than He Claims
  2. Learning From Alberto
  3. Connecting The Eyeliner Dots On the Rove Role In DOJ Firings?
  4. Early Morning Swim: Special Rachel Takes Down GOP Attacks on Sotomayor Edition
  5. “They’re all alike”