Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT: Bush Counsel (Miers) May Be Next in White House Shake-Up

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kskiska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 11:10 PM
Original message
NYT: Bush Counsel (Miers) May Be Next in White House Shake-Up
Edited on Thu Apr-20-06 11:12 PM by kskiska
WASHINGTON, April 20 — Joshua B. Bolten, the new White House chief of staff, has raised the possibility of moving Harriet E. Miers from her job as President Bush's counsel as part of a continuing shake-up of the West Wing, an influential Republican with close ties to Mr. Bolten said Thursday.

(snip)

Mr. Bolten's thinking about Ms. Miers, however tentative, provided an insight into the scale of his ambitions for overhauling the White House staff and, should he proceed, could amount to a test of how far he would be able to go in bringing about change.

Ms. Miers, who was once Mr. Bush's personal lawyer, followed him from Texas to the White House. He nominated her to the Supreme Court last year, and brought her back into his inner circle when she withdrew after a brutal period of scrutiny and criticism.

Mr. Bolten is said by a number of Republicans in Washington to feel that Ms. Miers is indecisive, a weak manager and slow in moving vital paperwork through the system. She came to the White House in January 2001 as the staff secretary and then held one of Mr. Bolten's former jobs, deputy chief of staff for policy, before Mr. Bush appointed her as White House counsel in November 2004.

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/washington/21bush.html?hp&ex=1145678400&en=536b93753ec1b36d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
chookie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh my
How the mediocre have fallen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. He's eliminating Bushie's comfort people.
How very interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. To the broom closet, Harriet
Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Falwell/Robertson don't want a moderate within W's hearing range.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. Noooooooooo........not crazy Harriet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. She was, however, exceptionally qualified to be chief justice of
the supreme court

LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Touché!. . .
exactly my thought on seeing the headline . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Well, well.....
One day, you're Supreme Court material.

the next day, you're out with yesterday's trash.

Just goes to show you - you're friends with Bush, and you pay and pay and pay and pay....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. Yeah! The implications could make one's skin crawl. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, or Cheney.
If Bush wants to impress us, get rid of one of the "heavyweights".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
8. another deck chair rearranged
on the Titanic. she's going down!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PublicWrath Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
10. It might mean bush needs an special attorney to advise on the
Fitz investigation. Maybe moving her out has to do with Plamegate.
Maybe she gave bush bad advice on something.

Is it because she knows something and therefore would not be able to allow bush to give false evidence if he's deposed?

Do we have any attorneys on DU tonight who might be able to speculate on canning Miers in the context of Plamegate?

I'm ready to bark, please direct me to the right tree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. You're right; criminal attys. never ask clients if they're guilty
and they will stop any client who sounds like he's about to privately admit guilt. Because once an attorney KNOWS his/her client is guilty, the atty. cannot put the witness under oath and risk the client perjuring themselves. Why is that? Because should the client lie under oath, then the attorney has an obligation, under the rules of professional licensure, to go to the judge and ask to be removed from the case. The atty., because of the rules of professional confidentiality cannot explicitly say to the judge, my client lied under oath. But the judge knows this is what's going on; the prosecuting/opposing attorney knows this is what's going on. Everyone in the judicial system knows, except the dumb schmucks on the jury, who will not be told.

So it isn't even a matter of whether Harriet will be under investigation for HER actions as WH counsel; it is that she knows what Bush has done, and cannot serve as his atty. (unless she is completely braindead and willing to risk her law license) & allow him to lie under oath. And therefore, as we saw by the Big Oil CEOS before Congress, and Bush/Cheney answering questions from 9/11 Commission and others, the top level GOPers refuse to testify under oath. They are still frightened that they might eventually be revealed to have perjured themselves and end up rooming with Bubba in the Big House, or losing their prime tee times at one of the Club Feds. In olden days, they would have claimed their Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate themselves. But Bush et al have gutted the Constitutional rights of us all so much, that taking the 5th is no longer considered enough protection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-20-06 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
From SCOTUS nominee to out of a job in well under a year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
12. they are ridding themselves of people under INVESTIGATION
this talk of her being 'indecisive, a weak manager and slow' is a smokescreen. these names are going to be forever referred to as 'FORMER white house officials' once the real tale of them being connected to fitzgerald's coming indictment of ROVE and likely CHENEY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
13. I don't think Bush will let her go.
She knows too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. She's such a little suckass,
she's just gonna get a job in the local Hallmark store so that she can get a discount on her "Mr. Pwesident, you are so WONDERFUL!!!!" cards.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rechan Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:49 AM
Response to Original message
14. Shake up?
Whenever you hear "Shake up" read "Change chairs".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blaq Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. Looks like Harriet will be get a stronger vibrator for her birthday
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. She uses it
to decorate cakes for Fuckface and Lady Fuckface.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
15. letting the air out of bush*'s bubble?
Edited on Fri Apr-21-06 02:53 AM by radfringe
--snip---

Moving Ms. Miers would be a strike at the heart of Mr. Bush's emotional bonds in the White House and would eliminate another Texan from the circle he has kept close to him in Washington. Republicans who talk regularly to senior West Wing advisers say the president has been unhappy and on edge about the staff changes that he nonetheless sees as necessary for revitalizing the West Wing.
......

--snip---

Republicans close to the White House said Mr. Bush was the driver of the changes made so far, including the decision to ask Mr. Rove to focus primarily on the midterm elections.



yeah, bush* is in the "driver'seat" but somebody else's hands are on the wheel

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
16. what's next, the maintenance man? the light-bulb changer? c'mon, people!
they're not changing anything. she's a nebbish at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
18. What a fall from grace...from Supreme Ct nominee to WH has-been
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plaid Adder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
19. So...was nominating her for the Supreme Court
really just a way to try to get her out of the WH counsel job without hurting her feelings?

Oy,

The Plaid Adder
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Mar 13th 2025, 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC