(Jabberwocky: Congress takes on BushCo with its vorpal sword)
This week, just prior to brillig, two frumious bandersnatches whiffled before the Judiciary Committee to testify chortle regarding their knowledge of or participation in the firings by the Bush administration of several US Attorneys.
Well, one did. Taylor, less shockingly than any revolutionary Colonial US citizen should tolerate, cheerfully burbled Wednesday that she took an oath to President Bush instead of the Constitution- and takes that oath seriously, don't you know. Miers, compelled to appear Thursday by Congressional subpoena but forbidden to do so by the Jabberwock's President's claim of executive privilege, simply refused to appear at all. I think I saw her gyre and gimble in the wabe on my way to work, though... and it was just as cauterizing a sight as you likely imagine it to be.
There's more if you'll just follow me down this rabbit hole here...
There's something to be said about loyalty oaths to persons- usually, nothing good. Many of us are already well aware of the loyalty oaths demanded by the RNC at Bush/Cheney campaign events. But when someone such as Sara Taylor lets slip to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she thinks she took an oath to the President and not the Constitution, or when a former Supreme Court nominee flatly refuses to honor a Congressional subpoena on the orders of the sitting US President, we should consider ourselves well and truly down the rabbit hole.
Would that it were true, that (dialup warning: YouTube video diary comment link) Taylor's inexplicable "misunderstanding" of where, precisely, her loyalties should lie were an isolated case. Thursday, former Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers failed to appear in front of that same committee, apparently because her cult leader President asserts executive privilege over her testimony (and, is it just me, or is that a look of pure adoration?).
The truly brazen part is, she didn't even deign to appear in front of the committee to assert as much. In other words, she showed them all contempt.
When one imagines themselves attempting a similar action if subpoenaed to appear in court, one imagines themselves behind bars. Over at TPM, Josh Marshall notes something interesting along those lines pointed out by one of his readers.
Perhaps occam's hatchet has it correct in his diary regarding Pelosi's motives in taking impeachment off the table. I certainly hope so. Otherwise, I'm apt to eat "eat me" and drink "drink me", and to hell with the consequences.
Rabbit hole, indeed.
One quick note, for clarification: I'm intentionally leaving out other issues here in Wonderland, mainly because Wonderland is so huge and, well, wondrous. It only proves reality can oft be far stranger than any drug-addled high (think Lovecraft, Poe, Carroll, etc).
UPDATE: John Dean has written an interesting analysis of the situation over at findlaw.