WASHINGTON (AP) - A House panel cleared the way Thursday for contempt proceedings against former White House counsel Harriet Miers after she obeyed President Bush and skipped a hearing on the firings of federal prosecutors.
Addressing the empty chair where Miers had been subpoenaed to testify, Rep. Linda Sanchez ruled out of order Bush's executive privilege claim that his former advisers are immune from being summoned before Congress.
The House Judiciary subcommittee that Sanchez chairs voted 7-5 to sustain her ruling. If an agreement with the White House is not reached, the full Judiciary Committee could convene hearings and vote on whether to hold Miers, Bush's longtime friend and former Supreme Court nominee, in contempt. Ultimately, the full House would have to vote on any contempt citation.
"Those claims are not legally valid," Sanchez, D-Calif., said of Bush's declaration, made Monday. "Ms. Miers is required pursuant to the subpoena to be here now."
From 3/3/1959 to 6/27/1960 is: 1 year, 3 months, 3 weeks, 3 days
1-333
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Nussle
James Allen "Jim" Nussle (born June 27, 1960, Des Moines, Iowa) is an American politician. Nussle was a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from 1991 to 2007. Nussle was the Republican nominee for the November 2006 election for Governor of Iowa, and was defeated by Chet Culver. On June 19, 2007, President George W. Bush nominated Nussle to succeed Rob Portman as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: Sunday, January 07, 2007
I was 17 years old and struggling to stay alive long enough on what at one point turned into a one-way trip to destroy the comet that was threatening to destroy all life on this planet. At the same time, 30-year-old George W. Bush was terrorizing pedestrians and other motorists on the road. I am not entirely sure, but I have good reason to suspect he is the coward who has been trying to get me killed the past few years. The reason is because I am evidence and he, along with accomplices and co-conspirators, have been trying to steal my identity for their personal gain.
Bush acknowledges 1976 DUI charge
November 2, 2000
WEST ALLIS, Wisconsin -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush acknowledged Thursday that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine.
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: Saturday, January 13, 2007
Good Son, Bad Son
Now isn't this weird. That date, from this article, is 59 days before 11/2/76, where 11/2/76 marked a full year in space for me, according to my theory, which was formed either by real memories trying to resurface or by random thoughts of imagination. I wonder if someone in his family reported him to the police on that date because he was such a disgrace to his family. That article suggests that 9/4/76 was actually his 3rd DUI. It would make sense if the Reagan’s, who my theory suggests are my family, knows his family from back in that time. That is probably true because Reagan selected George H.W. Bush as his V.P. and they were elected in 1980, only four years later. I don't know when Reagan selected George H. W. Bush, but it would have probably been around that time. I wouldn't even be surprised if George H.W. Bush himself called the police on George W. because he was so ashamed of George W. when he compared George W. with what I was doing at the time. And, now that I think about, wasn't George H.W. Bush the director of the CIA around the time of my theoretical space flight in 1976? I couldn't care less what that loser George W. was doing but I have the sense he has been the one trying to get me killed these past few years, to coincide with Bill Gates efforts. As for George W. Bush, his motivations are based on a "good son, bad son" equation where he has always been the screw up that couldn't compare with my positive accomplishments. As for this incident allegedly (I haven't compared it with other sources that I would consider reliable) occuring 59 days before my one-year mark in space, which was 11/2/76, consider that news article I referred to earlier that is dated 11/2/2000. I doubt that is a coincidence. I sense that George W. Bush has always blamed me because he has always been a screw-up and I have not. At some point over the past few years though, I suspect, Karl Rove was pumping George W. up into thinking he was a peer of mine but my objections brought him back to reality and for George W. Bush, reality is failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy
On September 4, 1976, Bush was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his family's summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine. He admitted his guilt, was fined $150, and had his driving license in the state suspended for two years, implying two prior convictions. [The White House had claimed 30 days, the document shows two years.] [5] This incident did not become public knowledge until it was reported in the press in the week before the 2000 election.
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: Sunday, January 07, 2007
I find it curious that news stories about his previous charges for driving while drunk began running on 11/2/2000. It was 11/2/1975 when I launched on my mission to intercept. Then even more curious, as the attached images of his record illustrate, is that he was charged with DUI on a day that was 0.953 year after 11/2/1975. That appears to be some kind of symbolism about opposites. He was charged with reckless disregard for the lives of motorists and pedestrians while I was out in space after destroying that comet.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/
Bush acknowledges 1976 DUI charge
November 2, 2000
Late Thursday evening, following a campaign rally in this tightly contested Midwestern state, Bush--with his wife, Laura, at his side -- told reporters news accounts of the incident were accurate, that he had been drinking in a bar with Australian tennis pro John Newcombe and others.
Bush said the timing of the initial news report, just days before Americans elect a new president, was "interesting." When asked where the story may have originated, he said, "I've got my suspicions."
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdmv1.html
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: 04/19/07 3:18 AM
I'm not sure where that 9/4/76 date comes from. Is that the date he was arrested for the DUI that led to the suspension on 10/15/76?
That date 9/4/76 was 41 days after 7/25/76. The mid-point of my mission seems to be either 7/24/76 or 7/25/76 and that is also the mid-point of George H.W. Bush's time as Director of CIA.
It was also 41 days between 9/4/76 and 10/15/76.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H.W._Bush
George Herbert Walker Bush (born June 12, 1924) was the 41st President of the United States, serving from 1989 to 1993. Before his presidency, Bush was the 43rd Vice President of the United States in the administration of Ronald Reagan. He has also served as the member of the United States House of Representatives for the 7th district of Texas (1967–1971), the United States Ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973), Chairman of the Republican National Committee (1973–1974), Chief of the United States Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China (1974–1976), and Director of Central Intelligence (1976–1977).
Bush served in this role for 355 days, from January 30, 1976 to January 20, 1977
From 1/30/1976 to 1/20/1977 is: 356 days
356 / 2 = 178
From 1/30/1976 to 7/26/1976 is: 178 days
From 7/25/1976 to 9/4/1976 is: 41 days
From 9/4/1976 to 10/15/1976 is: 41 days
From 11/2/1975 to 4/14/1977 is: 529 days
529 / 2 = 264.5
From 11/2/1975 to 7/23/1976 is: 264 days
From 11/2/1975 to 7/24/1976 is: 265 days
The antitrust trial against Microsoft began a few months before I went to work there with my official federal undercover identity, which I currently maintain. From the excerpt below, the date 11/5/1999 was 333 days after 12/7/1998, which was my first day at Microsoft.
From 12/7/1998 to 11/5/1999 is: 333 days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
United States v. Microsoft 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) was a court case filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and twenty U.S. states.
Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to the monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others. Then on April 3, 2000, he issued a two-part ruling: his conclusions of law were that Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and his remedy was that Microsoft must be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components.
On September 26, 2000, after Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact, in order to save time the plaintiffs attempted to send Microsoft's appeal directly to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal and sent the case to a federal appeals court. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization on grounds that he gave embargoed interviews to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges [11]. Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which Jackson was repeatedly and vehemently denounced by the appeals court judges, who accused Jackson of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case[12].
Judge Jackson's response to this was that Microsoft's conduct itself was the cause of any "perceived bias"; Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."
