"Absolute Immunity" is why White House Counsel John Dean never testified before the Watergate Select Committee, the tapes were never subpoenaed, Richard Nixon was never impeached, and the Watergate burglars were pardoned for simply "being in the wrong place at the wrong time."

As the most honored of former presidents, Nixon established the legal principle of "If the president does it, it's not illegal."

("Remember, we're an empire now -- we make our own reality." -- unnamed Bush administration official)

It's very curious to me that the author of the letter really cites no caselaw in support of the USDOJ position. The only citations are to the opinions of other occupants of the the executive branch. The one USSC case cited in a footnote refers to congress and not the executive. This very likely means that there ARE NO cases that support their position. Congress must move forward quickly with contempt citations against the witnesses. I imagine these cases would be expedited on the court dockets. These cases would be decided and reviewed in weeks or months, not years.

One more thing. It's really funny to me that these tough talking Texans running the government, who want us to believe that they are "men's men" and take no truck from "wimpy democrat congressmen", hide behind the short skirts of these attractive blonde women (ie Monica Goodling and Sara Taylor) whom they throw to the wolves at the first sign of trouble!

I feel some ambivalence about the Democratic Party pursuing the matter so aggressively. The administration definitely chose political loyalty over competence in hiring and firing, and their subsequent denials were completely disingenuous.

But in terms of damage to the nation, this doesn't even rank in the Top 10 for the Bush administration. It's emblematic of their imperial delusions, yes, but the Democrats should make their point, and move on.

The DOJ is correct that the Executive Branch enjoys immunity from compelled testimony for discretionary matters related to the execution of its execuitve duties. the DOJ memorandum is also correct that junior executives (e.g. White House Counsel) share this immunity under a derivative theory. However, the is NO IMMUNITY for crimes or fraud commited by an Executive or his/her subs while in office.

And that is the issue - were the firings of the U.S. Attorneys a discretionary matter based upon the Executive's view of their performance in exercising their duties? If so, the issue is disposed of. Or, were the firings part of a plan to fraudulently manipulate ongoing judicial proceedings - an illegal action? If it is the latter, then Miers and others enjoy no immunity whatsoever on this subject.

Thus, the only way to get to the bottom of this is to bring them before the committees to demand answers to questions about crimes but allow the claims of immunity on otherwise legal, discretionary matters.

Separation != freedom from checks and balances.

This is craziness. The founders are rolling in their graves. The idea that the executive is not responsible to the congress is MADNESS. This flies in the face of everything the founders wanted for the executive.

It's emblematic of their imperial delusions, yes...

This is precisely why it's important to stay on this issue. It's easy to grasp for those without a legal education and as such, is a perfect wedge into the armor of lies and misdirection that the Bush administration has used to protect itself from the will of the American people for the past six years.

This is not a partisan issue. These criminals are deliberately ignoring and trampling on the Constitution of the United States of America for their own gain and it's time for every true American, Republican, Democrat and independents alike, to stand up and shout, "ENOUGH!"

I agree with the earlier poster - where is the case law supporting absolute immunity for the president's advisors? That absence sounds like even more of a reason to push Miers to come forward and honor the subpoena.

Chirac dodged criminal fraud and corruption allegations for years going all the way back to his time as Mayor of Paris. But under French law, any indictment of a sitting President, even a meaningful investigation is prohibited. Now here it is more than a decade later at the judiciary doesn't have the interest or the resources to proceed.

I mean what good is power if you can't abuse it?

I would like someone to show me where in the Constitution "Executive Privilege" is provided?

Exactly why these childish people running our nation to dust should be denied the same protections the brave brave alpha male French protections they crave . Go ahead knock that stone ground cracker off my shoulder , Brie side up I'll run 'n tell my mommy , Brie side down I'll just stamp my feet and hold my breathe till you see the truthiness .

Isn't it comforting to know that our natioanl leaders and their staff members never have to worry about prosecution for violating laws and undermining the constitution? It appears that AlQueda has laready won the war on terror in this country; we have been betrayed by the people we elected to protect our rights and guarantee our democracy. What a sham!

Does anyone else see the fact that the claim of immunity as an extension of the so-called President's executive privilege is completely off the subject? Bush and his cronies claim that Bush had absolutely no involvement in the firings of the Attorneys. If this is true, then how could Ms.Miers claim an extension of executive privilege? She supposedly did not interact with the president on this issue in her capacity as former counsel- how could she if Bush had nothing to do with it? The extension of executive privilege would only apply on issues where Ms. Miers had provided DIRECT counsel to the president. And to the people who say that the Democrats should drop the issue as it's only a drop in the bucket during Bush's reign of terror, I say- pursue it! We've let enough of Bush's crimes pass with barely a whisper spoken aloud in Congress. It's about time.