October 20, 2005

WHAT, NO THIRD HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONSPIRACY?:

Miers Is Asked to Redo Reply to Questions (DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, 10/20/05, NY Times)

One inquiry in the original questionnaire pointedly asked her about reports that in conference calls with conservative supporters the administration and its allies had offered private assurances about her views on abortion and other matters.

The first part of the question asked if she had made any statement to anyone about how she might rule from the bench, and a second part requested information about "all communications by the Bush administration or individuals acting on behalf of the administration to any individuals or interest groups with respect to how you would rule."

Ms. Miers's one-word answer to both was "No."

The senators repeated the inquiry in their new letter. "This would include any and all communications, including those about which there have been recent press reports, in which friends and supporters of yours, among others, were said to have been asked by the White House to assure certain individuals about your views," they wrote. "If you do not have firsthand knowledge of these communications, please endeavor to determine what sorts of communications, if any, took place."


"Still, no."

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 20, 2005 8:18 AM
Comments

God, I hate Leahy. I heard he said Meirs' answer were "insulting." Hey, Pat, I've got a quote from the Vice President for you, but I don't think it would pass this blog's language rules.

Posted by: Governor Breck at October 20, 2005 9:38 AM

An amusing post by Jim Lindgren, October 19, 2005 on The Volokh Conspiracy. It's a critique of Miers's (mis)use of commas and other punctuation irregularities in her writings.

Scroll down. I still haven't learned how to link to a particular spot on a blog.

Posted by: tefta at October 20, 2005 10:02 AM

"If you do not have firsthand knowledge of these communications, please endeavor to determine what sorts of communications, if any, took place."

So what they're asking is "Please do our background investigations for us." Ms. Miers will very nicely tell them to stuff it, I'm sure. If they want to subpoena James Dobson, they're welcome to go right ahead...

Posted by: b at October 20, 2005 11:34 AM

Sounds like some people are scared the Meier's nomination is about to go down in flames, and have started looking for a scapegoat to blame.

Posted by: Anon at October 20, 2005 11:40 AM

Anon:

Who?

Posted by: oj at October 20, 2005 11:45 AM

"Who" as in "are scared" and "who" as in "scapegoat"?

In any case, it would appear Anon is auditioning to be a news source for The New York Times-Democrat

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 20, 2005 11:52 AM

tefta:
To refer to a particular item, you click on the date and time (at least at Volokh) which takes you to the permalink, and you use that in the hyperlink: Trouble with Commas

Posted by: jd watson [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2005 1:38 PM

If Dobson is subpeanoaed, then I want to see Ralph Neas and Nan Aron and the rest of the screamers on the left up there, too - questioned about all those memos they wrote to Kennedy, Leahy, and Biden about Bush's nominees in 2001-2003. Let's blow the lid off that little kerfuffle. It may ruin Orrin Hatch and Bill Frist, but if we're going to burn down the house, let's do it right.

Posted by: jim hamlen at October 20, 2005 4:19 PM

Thanks jd.

Posted by: tefta at October 20, 2005 5:47 PM
« IT'S LIKE "THE PRODUCERS," ONLY THE TIMES IS SERIOUS: | Main | HEY, BIG SPENDER, WHAT HAVE YOU BOUGHT BESIDES A REVOLUTION?: »