Zed?

Maybe this young woman is trying to redeem herself for having besmirched my family name.

I doubt it, but maybe.

I told the folks downstaris. They’ll be along shortly. At least the ones who aren’t still arguing about Independent Prosecutors being a better tactic than impeachment.

jesus, do they all look like that – the wild and vacant eyes and the long blond hair? Or is it only Goodling and Taylor?

bilzim @ 4

jesus, do they all look like that – the wild and vacant eyes and the long blond hair? Or is it only Goodling and Taylor?

Seems to be a bit of a mold, doesn’t it?

dakine01 @ 2

Maybe this young woman is trying to redeem herself for having besmirched my family name.

I doubt it, but maybe.

One of either Linda Tripp or Paula Jones had a lawyer with my last name. Shudder.

the fact that she *wants* to testify makes me think that she doesn’t plan to say anything injurious to the administration.

Evil twin sisters… on advise of counsel…

Someone removed the caption on the picture:

“Welcome to the Hotel California”

Remember Fawn Hall?

Sooner or later we’ll get an honest one, whose conscience won’t let her continue the cover up.

No offense, but that woman is a moonbat.

Jane Hamsher @ 5

Seems to be a bit of a mold, doesn’t it?

$25 to FDL to help break the mold.

She says that she will “appear” not that she will “testify”- should be interesting.

Jane Hamsher @ 5

bilzim @ 4

jesus, do they all look like that – the wild and vacant eyes and the long blond hair? Or is it only Goodling and Taylor?

Seems to be a bit of a mold, doesn’t it?

I suspect she also attended the same training for stonewalling Congress while pretending to testify as Goodling.

jayt @ 7

the fact that she *wants* to testify makes me think that she doesn’t plan to say anything injurious to the administration.

Or, like Scooter, she has horrendous phobia about jails.

Can’t get our hopes up, she worked for Karl…
unless she has a deathbed conversion

Bay State Librul @ 16

Can’t get our hopes up, she worked for Karl…
unless she has a deathbed conversion

You can lead a horse to water…

P J Evans @ 3

I told the folks downstaris. They’ll be along shortly. At least the ones who aren’t still arguing about Independent Prosecutors being a better tactic than impeachment.

We’re here!

is that a police mugshot or something? That can’t be a naturally posed photo :P

Interesting, especially if Taylor is willing to provide more testimony more than ” I don’t recall remembering who I didn’t talk to about the subject when I forgot ever working at the White House.”

I want to see Bush try and stop her from testifying, What’s he gonna do? Send her to Gitmo for appearing before the United States Congress after being subpoenaed to provide testimony in an investigation?

FYI-

The word should be “flout” as in openly disregard, “flaunt” means to show off conspicuously.

Perhaps the Decider is losing his clout. If Cheney had instructed her not to testify, she would now be in hiding instead of preparing for Wednesday.

Do not arouse the wrath of the Great and Powerful Cheney!

don’t flout yer clout.

I’m betting that she’s willing to testify because she doesn’t really know anything.. or she does and has been offered an immunity deal, but more likely the former I think. “Um.. well, I came into work one day, and all those emails just.. um.. vanished. The cleaning crew must’ve taken them”

She has blue thingys where her eyes should be.

It’s all for you, Damien!

IIRC Sara Taylor was Jack Abramoff’s conduit into Rove and the White House. She is a lot things but repentant I’m guessing is not one of them. Maybe she’ll show up with the dreaded DOJ Syndrome, you know the one that afflicted Sampson, Gonzales, and Goodling with selective bad memory. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

“New enemy” lives among us: Bush
Ottawa Citizen, 9/6/06

courtesy of Columbia Journalism Review

Definitely feels like good time for me to donate again to your continued great work.

Woot !

Still waiting for a John Dean moment:

“tapes? did you say there are TAPES of the president’s conversations?”

After 2008, Bush won’t be having Executive Privilege to invoke and maybe she has that figured out.

I mean, Paul McNulty, who got shut out of the loop on the attorney firings in favor of Goodling and Sampson, and resigned over his supposed ‘revelation’ that his kids had to go to college someday, so he had to quit (even though he had no new job lined up). For *that* hearing, I thought that we’d actually get some real info – but – not at all.

I think that the R’s got to McNulty, and could easily get to Taylor, with a simple – “hey, you want to ever get a good job again? Well, we could help you with that, or…. It’s up to you”.

Getting her sworn in has its benefits, even if she intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. She can’t just do it willy-nilly, there has to be a reason. Clearly she’s not the intellectual equal of the Senate Judiciary Committee (at least the Democrats), and I’m sure they’ll be able to squeeze misstatements and contradictions out of her, maybe even some tangible facts. And it should make for good TV.

Hugh @ 26

IIRC Sara Taylor was Jack Abramoff’s conduit into Rove and the White House.

I think that was Susan Ralston — who also resigned to spend some quality time with her lawyers.

Hugh @ 26

IIRC Sara Taylor was Jack Abramoff’s conduit into Rove and the White House. She is a lot things but repentant I’m guessing is not one of them. Maybe she’ll show up with the dreaded DOJ Syndrome, you know the one that afflicted Sampson, Gonzales, and Goodling with selective bad memory. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I’m not getting my hopes up.
.
.
too much

I did Google Images

http://images.google.com/imgre…..n&sa=G

Sara Marie Taylor (born September 15, 1974) was Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs at the White House, making her one of George W. Bush’s top political aides. She reported directly to Karl Rove. After the House and Senate Judiciary Committees approved subpoenas for her to testify regarding her involvement in the U.S. Attorney Scandal, she resigned from the Bush administration citing a desire to seek employment outside of government. [1] [2] [3]

Another blonde for the GOP psychophants to drool over.

Hmmm. She’s described as a “loyal Bushie”, but testifying in front of Congress when Bush is telling you not to doesn’t sound terribly loyal to me. I’m not sure what’s going down here. She could be willing to fall on her sword for Team Bush. Or she may be trying to expunge “resigned in disgrace” from her resume. It could go either way.

Hugh @ 26

IIRC Sara Taylor was Jack Abramoff’s conduit into Rove and the White House. She is a lot things but repentant I’m guessing is not one of them. Maybe she’ll show up with the dreaded DOJ Syndrome, you know the one that afflicted Sampson, Gonzales, and Goodling with selective bad memory. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Was it Taylor or Ralston?

rwcole @ 29

Still waiting for a John Dean moment:

“tapes? did you say there are TAPES of the president’s conversations?”

“Sorry, pursuant to Executive Privilege, we store them in the White House incinerator.”

The Bush administration operates above the law and below hell.

Jane Can’t wait for your live blogging and thank you for all you do FDL crew.

Bustednuckles @ 39

Was it Taylor or Ralston?

Ralston Purina comes to mind.

Blue thingy says no.

rwcole @ 29

Still waiting for a John Dean moment:

“tapes? did you say there are TAPES of the president’s conversations?”

What’s really needed are tapes of Cheney’s conversations. Bush only talks about topics like “what time he wants his bike ready”, “what he wants to have for lunch”, “what movie he wants to see next”, or “when he can go on vacation again”.

putting a check in the mail for work beyond well done.

As for Tracey Flick, I think if she shows, she’ll plead the 5th or play the Gonzo rag, over and over. What was the record for him – “I don’t recall” X 78?

rwcole @ 13

She says that she will “appear” not that she will “testify”- should be interesting.

If she asserts her Fifth amendment privileges, wouldn’t it be the first executive branch employee to assert it during congressional hearings?

OT but what could turn into the first major typhoon in the Western Pacific is developing east of the Philippines. Up to this time there was what I think was a pressure trough east and south of Japan that was preventing a good rotation to start. This has moved further north and the Coriolis effect is kicking in. Anyway the current picture is here:

http://www.goes.noaa.gov/FULLDISK/MTIR.JPG

Enjoy.

Blub @ 19

is that a police mugshot or something? That can’t be a naturally posed photo :P

It was probably after the first sip of Monica Goodling’s new batch of kool-aid.

Jane Hamsher @ 5

bilzim @ 4

jesus, do they all look like that – the wild and vacant eyes and the long blond hair? Or is it only Goodling and Taylor?

Seems to be a bit of a mold, doesn’t it?

You mean, like ergot?

Jane Hamsher @ 5

bilzim @ 4

jesus, do they all look like that – the wild and vacant eyes and the long blond hair? Or is it only Goodling and Taylor?

Seems to be a bit of a mold, doesn’t it?

Yes, this is ‘the look’ of your true Kool-Aid guzzlin’ ‘conservative’ who supports Bush to the bitter end…and bitter is what it will be.

We need to be ready to fight the inevitable ’stabbed-in-the-back’ meme with a strong one about America’s Greatest Conservative President and what he meant to our nation. What the policies, that policies not personality, he tried to implement meant to the poor, the disadvantaged, the middle-class everyone except the uber-rich. His true ‘base’.

-ck- @ 33

Hugh @ 26

IIRC Sara Taylor was Jack Abramoff’s conduit into Rove and the White House.

I think that was Susan Ralston — who also resigned to spend some quality time with her lawyers.

Thanks, must remember to look things up before going public with my ignorance. *g*

Hugh @ 46

OT but what could turn into the first major typhoon in the Western Pacific is developing east of the Philippines. Up to this time there was what I think was a pressure trough east and south of Japan that was preventing a good rotation to start. This has moved further north and the Coriolis effect is kicking in. Anyway the current picture is here:

http://www.goes.noaa.gov/FULLDISK/MTIR.JPG

Enjoy.

There’s nothing quite like looking at a Bucky Fuller layout of the earth.

james @ 37

Another blonde for the GOP psychophants to drool over.

Big difference here, is the drooling psychophants are mostly on the HJC and this is the SJC. Even most of the Rs on the SJC seem to be somewhat embarrassed by all the idiots in the DoJ and WH. I think that’s why only Dems showed up for the hearings with Todd Graves and AL-VINNN!.

egregious @48 –

ergot, maybe. what’s that black mold that makes homes unliveable?

I think if I were questioning Ms. Taylor, I would establish her abilities which got her to the level of being in the WH. One of those line to establish would be the quality of her memory and her ability with names and faces, her personal skills which translate in the political arena.

Considering what we’ve seen to date, that tactic may have to be used on a regular basis to immunize the Committee from having to hear ridiculous Libbyesque dissembling.

Hugh @ 46

OT but what could turn into the first major typhoon in the Western Pacific is developing east of the Philippines. Up to this time there was what I think was a pressure trough east and south of Japan that was preventing a good rotation to start. This has moved further north and the Coriolis effect is kicking in. Anyway the current picture is here:

http://www.goes.noaa.gov/FULLDISK/MTIR.JPG

Enjoy.

that looks huge

egregious @ 48

Jane Hamsher @ 5

Seems to be a bit of a mold, doesn’t it?

You mean, like ergot?

hehehe

Calling Mr. Owlsley

Jane Hamsher @ 5

bilzim @ 4

jesus, do they all look like that – the wild and vacant eyes and the long blond hair? Or is it only Goodling and Taylor?

Seems to be a bit of a mold, doesn’t it?

Looks like a mugshot the wide eyed scared expression I think she is testifying because she just realized that she is not Scooter.

snowyegret @ 53

egregious @48 –

ergot, maybe. what’s that black mold that makes homes unliveable?

Ergot consumption can cause hallucinations. It might be what’s in the koolaid.

dakine01 @ 52

james @ 37

Another blonde for the GOP psychophants to drool over.

Big difference here, is the drooling psychophants are mostly on the HJC and this is the SJC. Even most of the Rs on the SJC seem to be somewhat embarrassed by all the idiots in the DoJ and WH. I think that’s why only Dems showed up for the hearings with Todd Graves and AL-VINNN!.

Ya think she’ll have an Olive Oyl voice???

snowyegret @ 53

egregious @48 –

ergot, maybe. what’s that black mold that makes homes unliveable?

Stachybotrys (? sp)

What exactly is it that Tony Snow provides, anyway? It’s really silly.

Likely testimony:

Committee: “Ms Taylor, were you employed as Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs in the White House?”

“I have no recollection”

Committee: “Have you ever met or spoken with Mr Karl Rove?”

“No”

Committee: “Cheney?”

“Who?”

Can some both assert executive privilege and the 5th amend. at the same time?

rwcole @ 36

Sara Marie Taylor (born September 15, 1974) was Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs at the White House, making her one of George W. Bush’s top political aides. She reported directly to Karl Rove. After the House and Senate Judiciary Committees approved subpoenas for her to testify regarding her involvement in the U.S. Attorney Scandal, she resigned from the Bush administration citing a desire to seek employment outside of government. [1] [2] [3]

Hello K Street?

snowyegret @ 53

egregious @48 –

ergot, maybe. what’s that black mold that makes homes unliveable?

Cheney?

I think she has to appear, at very least, to show compliance with the subpoena, and then assert a privilege. At very least, that gives Leahy and the Senate Dems ample time to express just how much bullshit they think the privilege is.

One interesting aspect of the whole ‘thirtysomething Bushies’ thing is that you end up with a bunch of young people who probably don’t want their asses thrown in jail, and aren’t necessarily guaranteed the kind of soft landing offered to Scooter.

Careful talking about mold and fungus

I was communicating with someon about an aspergillis lawsuit and researching various sites having to do with mycotoxins and my computer started acting weird.

I was getting pinged by Dod and DoE probes.

Mycotoxins are biowarfare agents also.

egregious @ 64

snowyegret @ 53

egregious @48 –

ergot, maybe. what’s that black mold that makes homes unliveable?

Cheney?

imo, he’s a slime mold.

She won’t aanswer anything, I’m sure of it. Just looking at her you know she took the pledge. Everyone who works for Bush signs the pledge.

Gosh. I’m sounding so negatively lately….

argosfalcon @ 63

Can some both assert executive privilege and the 5th amend. at the same time?

I thought only the WH can assert privilege?.. I think all she can do is not show up, and argue that her absence was to comply with a WH directive and the terms of her former employment there, or, alternatively, she can show up and either testify or take the fifth. I may be wrong, but I don’t think that SHE can show up and say “I refuse to answer your questions because I assert Executive Privilege”

argosfalcon @ 63

Can some both assert executive privilege and the 5th amend. at the same time?

I believe the rule is executive privilege for odd numbered questions and the 5th for even numbered ones. Not remembering can be used for variety or if you lose count.

Elliott @ 60

snowyegret @ 53

egregious @48 –

ergot, maybe. what’s that black mold that makes homes unliveable?

Stachybotrys (? sp)

Yeah, that stuff. Although egregious’ answer is good, too! Cheney … what would be the medical, i.e. Latin designation?

ccmask @ 70

Gosh. I’m sounding so negatively lately….

Wonder if they have to perform it in the crypt like the Skull and Bones folks.

The one for North Korean leaders, and those like them?

the pledge I mean, or the brand of cool aid

her…eye-like…things…are creeping me out.
I’m afraid she’ll start babbling about Cthulu and sprout giant tentacles and drag Leahy off to some nether-world during the hearings.

And Tony Snow will deny it ever happened.

snowyegret @ 73

Elliott @ 60

Stachybotrys (? sp)

Yeah, that stuff. Although egregious’ answer is good, too! Cheney … what would be the medical, i.e. Latin designation?

Cheneybotrys

I have heard the word “impeachment” at least 10 times today so far on MSM news. Also, all day today, there has been nothing but talk about getting out of Iraq. Seachange. Is Gates throwing Cheney under the bus???

snowyegret @ 73

Elliott @ 60

Stachybotrys (? sp)

Yeah, that stuff. Although egregious’ answer is good, too! Cheney … what would be the medical, i.e. Latin designation?

Malus whackoensis?

The following excerpts from Sara Taylor’s attorney give us a glimpse of what her testimony will be like:

Until six weeks ago, Ms. Taylor was Director of the Office of Political Affairs in the White House. She began working on the Bush Presidential Campaign in 1999, at age 24. After the President’s election, she accepted a position at the White House. She is now 32 years old, having worked most of her adult life for President Bush. She is unquestionably loyal to the President and his agenda. At the same time, she recognizes the burden on any citizen to respect the Senate’s processes and to be responsive to its subpoenas.

[snip]

In our view, it is unfair to Ms. Taylor that this constitutional struggle might be played out with her as the object of an unseemly tug of war. She faces two untenable choices. She can follow the President’s direction, and face the possibility of a contempt sanction by the Senate, with enforcement through the criminal courts, an action that regardless of outcome, will follow her for life. Or, she can attempt to work out an accommodation with the Senate, which will put her at odds with the President, a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years.

Koolaid fersure.

I for one am looking forward to the glorious praises to Sara sung by the all male GOP chorus. Should be entertaining.

“My dread dark master forbids me to testify! Gaze into my dead zombie eyes, O senators, and know depair!!!”

So if she shows up but doesn’t answer any questions can she still be held in contempt?

noen @ 82

I for one am looking forward to the glorious praises to Sara sung by the all male GOP chorus. Should be entertaining.

I forgot about that half of the production (groan)

Will she be asked about the Rove Abramhoff connection? Will she pretend she can’t remeber? If another Republican goes up to testify saying they can’t remeber we should ask them are all Regency University, Federalist Society, Loyal Bushies hired for their loyalty first ahead of their competency (which should include memory) to do the job. This will force the MSM TV pundits to talk about “mean Democrat questions” which makes us look strong even if we don’t get answers. I like setting things up for the next move. Also we raise the question of the honesty of all future testimony from these 3 groups in the public mind unless they come clean.

puppethead @ 32

Getting her sworn in has its benefits, even if she intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. She can’t just do it willy-nilly, there has to be a reason. Clearly she’s not the intellectual equal of the Senate Judiciary Committee (at least the Democrats), and I’m sure they’ll be able to squeeze misstatements and contradictions out of her, maybe even some tangible facts. And it should make for good TV.

I suspect that she’s enough of a real operator that, unlike Monica, she doesn’t need to have it explained to her that the Fifth Amendment isn’t a note excusing her from class, but I hope they do it anyway. Our Dems need to understand that making an administration stooge repeat “I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me” or even “I invoke my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination” helps to get the concept of “incriminating” into the public mind.

And isn’t it ironic that one of the reasons we have the Fifth Amendment is to remove the incentive for torture? That is, if you can’t be forced to testify against yourself in open court, there’s much less motivation to coerce a confession behind closed doors.

“Fool of a senator! You cannot cite me for contempt! None of your feeble mortal prisons can contain my undead visage! My dread master will feed on your liberal entrails!”

I was disappointed to learn that Ms. Taylor is a graduate of Drake University, my Alma Mater.

I sam hoping that she will live up to Drake’s motto of: Veritas.

OT:

The following site has received the DC Madam’s first lists.

http://www.legitgov.org/

anangryoldbroad @ 84

So if she shows up but doesn’t answer any questions can she still be held in contempt?

I think the only way for her to both show up and not answer any questions is if she personally takes the fifth.. in which case, the committee will have to decide whether or not to immunize her.. it becomes Goodling all over again, I think

OT but apparently Michael Moore was just on CNN and he reamed a new one for Wolf Blitzer and the lazy, complacent media. Went on for 10 minutes shaming him and the MSM for their poor reporting on Iraq, health care et al. It’s about time that the MSM have it thrown in their faces on what shills and sycophants they are. The 4th Estate indeed! This is the 4th Estate!

Is this going to be like the last production number out of Blazing Saddles ?

I thought this was too important not to pass along from TP:

TAYLOR WAS DEEPLY INVOLVED IN FIRINGS: Taylor, who stepped down from her position at the White House in May, is reported to have been intimately involved in the firing process, especially the replacement of former Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins with former Rove-protege Tim Griffin. According to Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Taylor put “pressure” on the Department of Justice to bypass the Senate and install Griffin as the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. Additionally, Taylor had a direct role in misleading the Senate about White House’s actions when she signed off on a January 2007 letter to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) claiming that “that ‘not once’ had the Bush ‘administration sought to avoid the Senate confirmation process’ by exploiting the Patriot Act.” After Cummins suggested publicly that the White House orchestrated his ouster, rather than the Justice Department, Taylor led the charge behind the scenes to attack and discredit him. In a February 2007 e-mail to Sampson, Taylor wrote that though she doesn’t “like attacking” her friends, they should “tell the deal” on Cummins. In another e-mail, Taylor called Cummins “lazy,” implying that he had been fired for performance-related issues — the charge that first led the ousted U.S. attorneys to speak publicly about their dismissals.

Hey, gang, guess what?

The first batch of the DC Madam’s phone records have been released!

Shall we organize a research team in the manner of TPM?

I think she intends to answer, otherwise Fielding would not have felt the need to threaten her with a direct order from Bush.

BTW the Huffpo is getting snarky.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

There is an article on male sexual harassment half way down the page on the right. Look at the photo accompanying the article. I think Jane would appreciate this.

When is one of these zombies that served in the administration going to break?? How is it possible that they cover him and nobody ever rolls? I have tried looking for that pleadge they must siugn and I know it really exists because a “friend” of mine had to sign it (and go for 2 interviews) in order to work at the convention in NY.

puppethead @32
Getting her sworn in has its benefits, even if she intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. She can’t just do it willy-nilly, there has to be a reason.

Oh, I think if we’ve learned anything, lo these past six years, it’s that they can, in fact, do things just willy-nilly.

james @ 67

Careful talking about mold and fungus

I was communicating with someon about an aspergillis lawsuit and researching various sites having to do with mycotoxins and my computer started acting weird.

I was getting pinged by Dod and DoE probes.

Mycotoxins are biowarfare agents also.

Holy crap!
umm.. how did you find that out in the first place?

And, it was volunteer work at the convention.

I think she intends to answer, otherwise Fielding would not have felt the need to threaten her with a direct order from Bush.Phoenix Woman @ 95

Hey, gang, guess what?

The first batch of the DC Madam’s phone records have been released!

Shall we organize a research team in the manner of TPM?

How do you search such phone records? Do you use reverse directory or something?

IrishJim @ 89

I was disappointed to learn that Ms. Taylor is a graduate of Drake University, my Alma Mater.

I sam hoping that she will live up to Drake’s motto of: Veritas.

Do we know what law school she completed and when?

Gosh, you all are really looking for something…
is it wild or vacant?
The comments here are leaving a bitter taste…
She’s blonde and young, therefore…what?
I’m disappointed, not surprised, but disappointed.
I thought people here were a little more sophisticated, a little more far-sighted, but, I’ve been wrong before.

IrishJim @ 89

I am hoping that she will live up to Drake’s motto of: Veritas.

Is that short for In vino veritas?

Don’t ask me why comment 102 got so screwed up…sorry. The first part refers to Taylor, not the DC Madam…JFYI :0

Redshift @ 87

I suspect that she’s enough of a real operator that, unlike Monica, she doesn’t need to have it explained to her that the Fifth Amendment isn’t a note excusing her from class, but I hope they do it anyway.

Except Monica Goodling is a lawyer *koff*koff*, Sara Taylor has no such background. Goodling’s dumb blonde act was all schtick, she’s really a crocodile. Since Taylor is a political operative I expect her to be like a marketing person—not very bright, easily breakable.

Blub @ 91

anangryoldbroad @ 84

So if she shows up but doesn’t answer any questions can she still be held in contempt?

I think the only way for her to both show up and not answer any questions is if she personally takes the fifth.. in which case, the committee will have to decide whether or not to immunize her.. it becomes Goodling all over again, I think

To forestall that they should send her a list of questions they intend to ask her. Like what they are doing for Gonzo. It would at least prevent any “I can’t remember” crap.

Taylor looks kinda like Reese Witherspoon.

Balrog @ 12

Jane Hamsher @ 5

Seems to be a bit of a mold, doesn’t it?

$25 to FDL to help break the mold.

I’m in too!

Bay State Librul @ 65

rwcole @ 36

Sara Marie Taylor (born September 15, 1974) was Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs at the White House, making her one of George W. Bush’s top political aides. She reported directly to Karl Rove. After the House and Senate Judiciary Committees approved subpoenas for her to testify regarding her involvement in the U.S. Attorney Scandal, she resigned from the Bush administration citing a desire to seek employment outside of government. [1] [2] [3]

Hello K Street?

What if we tell her Congress is considering a new law that prohibts lobbying or being employed by lobbyists or firms that have lobbyists. If Congress finds her testimony to be less than truthful. Either Bush then starts giving everyone Clemency if we carry out the threat. Or she can take her chances or come clean regardless we need lobbying reform. Government service now should not be subverted by the promise of a lobbying job later. Just look at how that ProChoice group subverted pure innocent “Law and Order ” Fred and forced him to take their money.

noen @ 99

james @ 67

Careful talking about mold and fungus

I was communicating with someon about an aspergillis lawsuit and researching various sites having to do with mycotoxins and my computer started acting weird.

I was getting pinged by Dod and DoE probes.

Mycotoxins are biowarfare agents also.

Holy crap!
umm.. how did you find that out inthe first place?

Ain’t that a B*tch!!! No real surprise, yet, highly disconcerting!!!

Here’s a thought: presumably, privilege doesn’t exist on documents already in the public record, so at very least, the SJC can ask Taylor to verify the content of her emails released as part of the DOJ doc-dumps. That creates a preliminary record, and it’s possible to work with that.

James @ 3:10 -

Now that’s totally creepy. How does one know they’re being “pinged”?
If it’s just b/c the ‘puter starts acting “weird”, you have slammed me up the head w/a major case of paranoia.

demi @ 104

Gosh, you all are really looking for something…
is it wild or vacant?
The comments here are leaving a bitter taste…
She’s blonde and young, therefore…what?
I’m disappointed, not surprised, but disappointed.
I thought people here were a little more sophisticated, a little more far-sighted, but, I’ve been wrong before.

There are a lot of things to criticize her for besides her appearance. I know it’s difficult when the men salivate over her, but I’d rather read some scathing comments on her (un)professional actions.

Well there has be work on drugs that suppress certain memories, could this just be a field test. One might say the working for this admin. is an unpleasant or dangerous memory to have.

TJ @ 114

demi @ 104

Gosh, you all are really looking for something…
is it wild or vacant?
The comments here are leaving a bitter taste…
She’s blonde and young, therefore…what?
I’m disappointed, not surprised, but disappointed.
I thought people here were a little more sophisticated, a little more far-sighted, but, I’ve been wrong before.

There are a lot of things to criticize her for besides her appearance. I know it’s difficult when the men salivate over her, but I’d rather read some scathing comments on her (un)professional actions.

How come most of the comments are about her appearance, then?

cleter @ 98

puppethead @32
Getting her sworn in has its benefits, even if she intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. She can’t just do it willy-nilly, there has to be a reason.

Oh, I think if we’ve learned anything, lo these past six years, it’s that they can, in fact, do things just willy-nilly.

Leahy is wise to their ways, he’ll most certainly make Miss Sara invoke to each and every question!!! ;-)

I dare anyone to predict a public ‘backlash’ against impeachment of Dick Cheney.

Cheney’s approval rating just hit a record-low of 13%.

demi @ 104

Gosh, you all are really looking for something…
is it wild or vacant?
The comments here are leaving a bitter taste…
She’s blonde and young, therefore…what?
I’m disappointed, not surprised, but disappointed.
I thought people here were a little more sophisticated, a little more far-sighted, but, I’ve been wrong before.

You make a good point demi. People (left or right) do tend to resort to crass comments about others they don’t like. Of course, other posts have been more about her being a loyal Bushie and having drunk the KoolAid. There is a mix of both here today.

“Will Taylor invoke executive privilege? And if so, will the Senate hold her in contempt and cart her off to jail?”

FROGMARCH!

FROGMARCH!

FROGMARCH!

FROGMARCH!

demi @ 117

How come most of the comments are about her appearance, then?

I don’t think there’s much to be drawn from it, save that all the male thirtysomething Bushies seem to be mini-Roves, and all the female ones look like they’re from Faux News central casting. And the over-riding theme is of a clone army of sycophant functionaries.

TJ @ 114

There are a lot of things to criticize her for besides her appearance. I know it’s difficult when the men salivate over her, but I’d rather read some scathing comments on her (un)professional actions.

I think having worked for Karl Rove says it all. I mean how can you work for him and not be corrupt and up to your neck in dirty deeds?

Hugh @ 97

BTW the Huffpo is getting snarky.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

There is an article on male sexual harassment half way down the page on the right. Look at the photo accompanying the article. I think Jane would appreciate this.

If you’re claiming I ever grabbed your ass, Hugh, I…um…invoke executive privilege.

demi @ 117

TJ @ 114

There are a lot of things to criticize her for besides her appearance. I know it’s difficult when the men salivate over her, but I’d rather read some scathing comments on her (un)professional actions.

How come most of the comments are about her appearance, then?

I was agreeing with you, demi.

LS @ 102

I think she intends to answer, otherwise Fielding would not have felt the need to threaten her with a direct order from Bush.Phoenix Woman @ 95

Hey, gang, guess what?

The first batch of the DC Madam’s phone records have been released!

Shall we organize a research team in the manner of TPM?

How do you search such phone records? Do you use reverse directory or something?

I found two names already but I don’t want to get involved with it. Go to google and type in the 7 digit phone #. Search those results using the name of the town. Bingo

Jane Hamsher @ 124

Hugh @ 97

BTW the Huffpo is getting snarky.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

There is an article on male sexual harassment half way down the page on the right. Look at the photo accompanying the article. I think Jane would appreciate this.

If you’re claiming I ever grabbed your ass, Hugh, I…um…invoke executive privilege.

Hmm

*xyz @ 119

I dare anyone to predict a public ‘backlash’ against impeachment of Dick Cheney.

Cheney’s approval rating just hit a record-low of 13%.

Beautiful.

Has her tetimony been coached by anyone from the White House? Or by any lawyers or friends anyone at all with the intent to protect her and the White House? Who paid for these lawyers. Does protecting the White House mean slanting the truth and avoiding certain questions if she can if so what were those questions. Why were those questions considered dangerous or to be avoided.

*xyz @ 119

I dare anyone to predict a public ‘backlash’ against impeachment of Dick Cheney.

Cheney’s approval rating just hit a record-low of 13%.

So.. tell me again… What is the political downside of impeaching Cheney ??

things come undone @ 57

Jane Hamsher @ 5

Seems to be a bit of a mold, doesn’t it?

Looks like a mugshot the wide eyed scared expression I think she is testifying because she just realized that she is not Scooter.

She looks like morning after, you ask me.

Eureka Springs @ 128

*xyz @ 119

I dare anyone to predict a public ‘backlash’ against impeachment of Dick Cheney.

Cheney’s approval rating just hit a record-low of 13%.

Beautiful.

yes a beautiful thing

Mojo @ 130

*xyz @ 119

I dare anyone to predict a public ‘backlash’ against impeachment of Dick Cheney.

Cheney’s approval rating just hit a record-low of 13%.

So.. tell me again… What is the political downside of impeaching Cheney ??

At this point, you’d have to be a fool not to impeach.

Jane Hamsher @ 124

Hugh @ 97

BTW the Huffpo is getting snarky.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

There is an article on male sexual harassment half way down the page on the right. Look at the photo accompanying the article. I think Jane would appreciate this.

If you’re claiming I ever grabbed your ass, Hugh, I…um…invoke executive privilege.

No Kissing and Telling, Jane??? Boohoo…!!!

pseudonymous in nc @ 122

demi @ 117

How come most of the comments are about her appearance, then?

I don’t think there’s much to be drawn from it, save that all the male thirtysomething Bushies seem to be mini-Roves, and all the female ones look like they’re from Faux News central casting. And the over-riding theme is of a clone army of sycophant functionaries.

I’m still feeling like there is an overwhelming tendancy to judge on shallow factors. She looks more like a Girl Scout than anything else.
Pity. It’s always a Certain Group that says Looks Don’t Matter, from my experience anyway.

Israeli democracy
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7093.shtml

Jane Hamsher @ 124

Hugh @ 97

BTW the Huffpo is getting snarky.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

There is an article on male sexual harassment half way down the page on the right. Look at the photo accompanying the article. I think Jane would appreciate this.

If you’re claiming I ever grabbed your ass, Hugh, I…um…invoke executive privilege.

LOL. The long arm of the blogs strikes again!

Waccamaw @ 115

James @ 3:10 -

Now that’s totally creepy. How does one know they’re being “pinged”?
If it’s just b/c the ‘puter starts acting “weird”, you have slammed me up the head w/a major case of paranoia.

If you have a good firewall/anti-virus you should be ok. I have a fair understanding but I’m not sure I know how to find out if I’m being pinged or probed. That’s more time and energy than I really want to spend on that.

I use Kaspersky anti-virus, no headaches, I love it.

It’s shallow of me to criticize her appearance, but Jebus, she reminds me of the kid who sang “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” in Cabaret.

For the record, I also find Scooter Libby to be terribly creepy looking.

Bah, the male criminals of the Bush government get derided for their physical traits as well, like Bradley Schlozman with his munchkin stature and squeeky voice. I appreciate the history of women being denigrated in society, but it’s not accurate to accuse FDLers of such a pactice.

demi @ 117

How come most of the comments are about her appearance, then?

They are? Did you do a count?

Then again, that’s a singularly unflattering photo of her.

By the way: Can’t vouch for other FDL writers or commenters, but I’ve been known to pick on the appearance of certain male candidates, such as Rudy “Skeletor” Giuliani and Fred “Missing Link” Thompson, not to mention Mitch “Looks Like My Grandma” McConnell. So neener neener boo-boo, you big ol’ poopyhead! (In the spirit of keeping thing adult and all that.)

TJ @ 125

demi @ 117

How come most of the comments are about her appearance, then?

I was agreeing with you, demi.

TJ @ 125

demi @ 117

How come most of the comments are about her appearance, then?

I was agreeing with you, demi.

Thanks, TJ, I know. Sorry if I was still perturbed.

Never have so few, done so much to damage this country, so badly, as has been done in the last 6 plus years. By suce complete loons (apology to the species of birds).

Hugh @ 105

IrishJim @ 89

I am hoping that she will live up to Drake’s motto of: Veritas.

Is that short for In vino veritas?

My experience at Drake was more along the lines of In herba veritas ;-) As long as she speaks “the truth” I will be happy.

Demi said: She looks more like a Girl Scout than anything else.

Only without the cookies.

Eureka Springs @ 128

Beautiful.

I have to wonder what their approval ratings are here in Cali. I think shrub was running 10% lower here than he did nationally back in ‘04. If that margin is maintained, then it’s possible that he has a sub 20% approval rating here, and Cheney is in the single digits. Maybe it’s time for the state legislature to revisit that impeachment resolution….

Just caught the tail-end of Lou Dobbs talking with Jeffrey Toobin. Apparently the standoff between congress and White House over ececutive privilege is ‘much ado about nothing, keeping congress from doing the important work’. Toobin agreed. Gag me with a spoon.

cleter @ 139

It’s shallow of me to criticize her appearance, but Jebus, she reminds me of the kid who sang “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” in Cabaret.

It’s a truly awful photo technically. It is taken straight on and wide eyed. It would make anyone look like they were doing meth.

Hugh @ 136

Jane Hamsher @ 124

If you’re claiming I ever grabbed your ass, Hugh, I…um…invoke executive privilege.

LOL. The long arm of the blogs strikes again!

Are you saying that Jane’s ‘long(cyber)arm’ reached out and goosed ya???

Perhaps, like Scooter and Dick Cheney, they are leading the dems investigating by the nose down a primrose path, only to ‘cancel’ her scheduled appearance at the last minute.

I smell a Rat, a NEOCON rate…Karl, is that you? Nice try on the Iraq troop withdrawl lead too, but we aint buyin’ it anymore.

Got Impeachment?

OT – The was a big issue when I was in Costa Rica in the late ’80’s.

LINK

Workers Say Pesticides Made Them Sterile

NOAKI SCHWARTZ | July 9, 2007 04:46 AM EST |

LOS ANGELES — The pesticide was designed to kill worms infesting the roots of banana trees on Latin American plantations. But at least 5,000 agricultural workers from Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama have filed five lawsuits in this country claiming they were left sterile after being exposed in the 1970s to the pesticide known as DBCP.

…

I remember one comment made by an banana company executive from Texas, “Well they need some birth control down there anyway.”

puppethead @ 138

Bah, the male criminals of the Bush government get derided for their physical traits as well, like Bradley Schlozman with his munchkin stature and squeeky voice.

Dang it, Puppethead! How dare you come in here with, y’know, facts and all that?

puppethead @ 138

Bah, the male criminals of the Bush government get derided for their physical traits as well, like Bradley Schlozman with his munchkin stature and squeeky voice. I appreciate the history of women being denigrated in society, but it’s not accurate to accuse FDLers of such a pactice.

It wasn’t right to do it to him either. There is so much of substance to slam, I wish we’d stay there. (OK, it’s a little hard to find substance in, “I can’t remember,” but his comments on ACORN are a good example.)

As to pinging and forensics there are tools the ones I know of run off linux cd base systems but there are many others.

Mojo @ 130

*xyz @ 119

I dare anyone to predict a public ‘backlash’ against impeachment of Dick Cheney.

Cheney’s approval rating just hit a record-low of 13%.

So.. tell me again… What is the political downside of impeaching Cheney ??

Maybe this has been gone over before and if so I apologize but.. can Cheney be impeached? I thought impeachment was only for the prez? Is there really a procedure for removing a sitting VP besides impeachment? Or is Cheney in a category all to himself?

James? James! Jaaaaaaames…….

Oh, lor’! Do we need to send out a search party? Did the brown shirts come for him?

Mojo @ 130

*xyz @ 119

I dare anyone to predict a public ‘backlash’ against impeachment of Dick Cheney.

Cheney’s approval rating just hit a record-low of 13%.

So.. tell me again… What is the political downside of impeaching Cheney ??

Today Feinstein wrote to one of the FDL’ers (Mary M) that impeachment would only further divide the nation. She was referring to Bush, but still … huh?!?

CTuttle @ 148

Hugh @ 136

LOL. The long arm of the blogs strikes again!

Are you saying that Jane’s ‘long(cyber)arm’ reached out and goosed ya???

But in a good way.

Phoenix Woman @140;
Not to mention all the Karl Rove clones at DOJ.

Should the United States begin withdrawing troops from Iraq?
Yes 89%

Vote on Lou Dobbs tonight.

New thread.

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..l/#respond

noen @ 155

Or is Cheney in a category all to himself?

Noen,

It’s pretty unambiguous:

“Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The only way Cheney could argue that he can’t be impeached legally would require him to submit that he is not, in fact, the Vice President. I’m sure he WILL make that argument :)

FYI, new thread

TJ @ 152

It wasn’t right to do it to him either. There is so much of substance to slam, I wish we’d stay there. (OK, it’s a little hard to find substance in, “I can’t remember,” but his comments on ACORN are a good example.)

Oh how I disagree. Mocking and deriding those in power is one of the tools the common folk have always had, all throughout history. It’s a way of tearing away at the power they wield, and is quite a natural human response. Turning those who control our lives into caricatures is an important way to tip the balance back in our favor.

(Gotta live up to my nickname, now don’t I?)

“I respectfully request that you inform Ms. Taylor that the president has directed her not to provide this testimony,” Fielding wrote in a letter Monday to Neil Eggleston, her lawyer. Eggleston did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Can he do that?

Theoretically, isn’t that a form of ‘prior restraint’?

I know he doesn’t respect the law and I’m thinking that’s probably because UT wouldn’t accept him in its law school … so he has a grudge against all law

snowbird42 @ 160

Should the United States begin withdrawing troops from Iraq?
Yes 89%

Vote on Lou Dobbs tonight.

Could we please vote Lou Dobbs off the air, instead?

CTuttle @ 148

Hugh @ 136

LOL. The long arm of the blogs strikes again!

Are you saying that Jane’s ‘long(cyber)arm’ reached out and goosed ya???

It’s called a “finger“

Congress should up the pressure and markedly increase the number of subpoenas to the “little people.” The middle management enablers, the enforcers, and petty thugs that carry out the orders. Being brought into the legal process is a pain in the ass and is also stressful and expensive. Target the weak links..they will crack.

A*P*C still pushing hard for a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

Shit! We’re too busy this week for me to take time off.

per

bilzim @ 4
jesus, do they all look like that – the wild and vacant eyes and the long blond hair? Or is it only Goodling and Taylor?

Looks like a mugshot the wide eyed scared expression I think she is testifying because she just realized that she is not Scooter.

Look: per TNH poster, it’s the feral child– you know, the one raised by wolves (i.e. rove and crew)

TJ @ 152

puppethead @ 138

Bah, the male criminals of the Bush government get derided for their physical traits as well, like Bradley Schlozman with his munchkin stature and squeeky voice. I appreciate the history of women being denigrated in society, but it’s not accurate to accuse FDLers of such a pactice.

It wasn’t right to do it to him either. There is so much of substance to slam, I wish we’d stay there. (OK, it’s a little hard to find substance in, “I can’t remember,” but his comments on ACORN are a good example.)

A person’s appearance says volumes about them, for good or ill. Up to around age 30 the effects of one’s life haven’t started to show up on our faces (unless we’ve REALLY been hitting the booze/drugs/etc.), but after that it gets harder to hide how our life conduct appears on our flesh.

Think of the appearance of all the people you know to be evil or at least malignant. Now think of the people you know to have lived good lives. You can’t tell me that their life choices didn’t wind up on their faces eventually.

james @ 67

Careful talking about mold and fungus

I was communicating with someon about an aspergillis lawsuit and researching various sites having to do with mycotoxins and my computer started acting weird.

I was getting pinged by Dod and DoE probes.

Mycotoxins are biowarfare agents also.

And now you’ve munged up the FDL servers by using those keywords without * or other characters to break up the search?

Wonder how many interesting domains will show up in SiteMeter because of that.

It shouldn’t be a big surprise that no one in the Bush regime has cracked yet. Remember these people are true believers. Not that dissimilar from members of the Nazi party that were with their leader right to the bitter end. They didn’t crack and the Republicans won’t crack, until a noose is put around their necks or they hear the clang of the prison door closing.

yellowdogD @ 147

Just caught the tail-end of Lou Dobbs talking with Jeffrey Toobin. Apparently the standoff between congress and White House over ececutive privilege is ‘much ado about nothing, keeping congress from doing the important work’. Toobin agreed. Gag me with a spoon.

And what the hell is Jeffrey Toobin doing on the rabid Dobbs racist, propagandist broadcast in the first place. Is Toobin under some kind of contract with CNN? I would hope The New Yorker would enlighten Toobin he need not whore himself – uhhhh – make that insist – demagogues like Dobbs and O’Reilly, etc al are off limits. ;~)

newspaperbrat–

Can The New Yorker really do that?

Has anyone asked this question?

How can SHE claim executive privelege?

A person’s appearance says volumes about them, for good or ill. Up to around age 30 the effects of one’s life haven’t started to show up on our faces (unless we’ve REALLY been hitting the booze/drugs/etc.), but after that it gets harder to hide how our life conduct appears on our flesh.

Think of the appearance of all the people you know to be evil or at least malignant. Now think of the people you know to have lived good lives. You can’t tell me that their life choices didn’t wind up on their faces eventually.

The best examples I can think of right now:

Chet Baker and George W. Bush.

Both men were actually good-looking by Western standards as young men. Baker, in fact, was considered to be the Adonis of jazz. But their life choices and their inner selves started to show up in their faces. Drastically, in Baker’s case — then again, he had farther to fall.

egregious @ 48

Jane Hamsher @ 5

Seems to be a bit of a mold, doesn’t it?

You mean, like ergot?

She looks older than 32 in this pic. I guess all the cognitive dissonance catches up with you eventually.

NOT Taylor.

Taylor is an unknown in the eyes of the general public, and tossing her in jail for contempt of congress is going to play into Rethugnican hands. She’ll be seen in a sympathetic light as “a poor (blonde, of course she’s blonde!) girl who is being persecuted by those nasty liberals in Congress for doing her job.”

No, if you want to toss someone in jail (and God knows I do), make it Scooter. Haul Libby before the Intel Committee, immunize his sorry ass for his testimony, then ask pointed questions about BushCo and exactly who his trained forgettery was covering for.

If he answers, fine — impeach Dick Cheney. If he refuses, or can’t remember, toss HIS sorry ass in jail for contempt of congress. Most of the country thinks Scoots needs some cell time, and Democrats won’t play into the “Nasty Lib’ruls” meme. As a special bonus, Scoots gets some time in an orange jumpsuit. And best of all, there ain’t a damned thing Bushie can do about it.

BC

snowyegret @ 175

newspaperbrat–

Can The New Yorker really do that?

It depends on their contracts with their regular contributors I would guess – but I really have no idea – though I could never imagine any other of their regular contributors, i.e. Seymour Hersh or Ken Auletta or John Updike risking their prestige by appearing on Lou Dobbs.

Apropos of something:

CHARLIE RANGEL SMACKS TUCKER CARLSON: “WAR IS OVER”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aot4OYNhMEs

Charlie:
“What makes you think that Al-Quaeda will follow us back here”( I’m paraphrasing)

“this has to be the most immoral blunder that our great nation has ever involved itself in”

“republicans have told the president that their re-election is more important than this war”

“you don’t know what Al-Quaeda looks like”

Tucker tries out all the talking points. Charlie ain’t having it.
MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson weasles away like business is usual and Congressman Charles Rangel of New York actually has the audacity to call him out on his
tired, tired talking points.

She has crazy eyes which means she could have interesting testimony. That’s what is worrisome to the White House.

Yeah- Looks madder than a hatter.

@ 177

Has anyone asked this question?

How can SHE claim executive privelege?

Taylor can’t claim executive privilege. The privilege is not hers to invoke. The privilege attaches to Bush/Cheney.

argosfalcon @ 63

Can some both assert executive privilege and the 5th amend. at the same time?

So, she says, “I have been ordered by my lawyer to assert my 5th amendment right to protect myself against self-incrimination because of all the things I could tell you about the crimes we committed when I worked with all those crooks over at the White House — the ones who ordered my lawyer to not let me testify because of Executive Privilege to cover up the Bush lies and criminal activities.”

She’s probably as capable as Goodling, which is to say she thinks she’ll be great, but will still give away a lot when she opens her mouth.

Maybe they should begin with a series of “easy” questions she has to have the answers to. Establishing she can recall things and then switching over to “tough” questions would make it plain to any and all that she’s covering up if she doesn’t answer.

Mojo @ 130

*xyz @ 119

I dare anyone to predict a public ‘backlash’ against impeachment of Dick Cheney.

Cheney’s approval rating just hit a record-low of 13%.

So.. tell me again… What is the political downside of impeaching Cheney ??

None if you can make it stick in the Senate.

I wonder how many Republican Senators would protect him? Sen. Reid oughta have a head-count done on that issue.

John Tully @ 182

Apropos of something:

CHARLIE RANGEL SMACKS TUCKER CARLSON: “WAR IS OVER”

Charlie:
…

“this has to be the most immoral blunder that our great nation has ever involved itself in”

“republicans have told the president that their re-election is more important than this war”

…

Tucker tries out all the talking points. Charlie ain’t having it.
…

I usually love to hear the smart Dems like Rangel or Barney Frank or Pat Leahy just ripping up idiots like Carlson. But, I really don’t like hearing Rangel shilling for the Clinton/Obama ticket.

Bargain Countertenor @ 180

NOT Taylor.

Taylor is an unknown in the eyes of the general public, and tossing her in jail for contempt of congress is going to play into Rethugnican hands. She’ll be seen in a sympathetic light as “a poor (blonde, of course she’s blonde!) girl who is being persecuted by those nasty liberals in Congress for doing her job.”
BC

I almost agree with you, there’s an “underdog” quality to Taylor that would get her some sympathy, and I expect she’ll probably come off as not knowing anything.

Still, it’s not fair to say you don’t have to testify to Congress if you’re a woman and held a position above your level of competence. It is Congress’s job to get to the bottom of this. She can do this the easy way and testify, or do it the hard way and maybe spend some time in prison. Let’s hope she takes the easy way. Otherwise, it really isn’t Congress’s fault, it’s the fault of whoever is telling her she doesn’t have to obey the law because she’s blonde.

MarkH @ 187

Mojo @ 130

So.. tell me again… What is the political downside of impeaching Cheney ??

None if you can make it stick in the Senate.

I wonder how many Republican Senators would protect him? Sen. Reid oughta have a head-count done on that issue.

Judging by recent votes, a handy majority of Democrats would stand up for Cheney. Remember that 80% of Democratic Senators voted for the Iraq supplemental appropriation in May. I don’t see any sign that the Democrats are ready for impeachment just yet, even for such an obvious candidate as Gonzales.

Ms. Taylor, what was your position at the White House?

Sara Taylor, “I worked at the White House? When?”

Thanks for playing, When Bushie’s Testify!!

CTuttle @ 94

I thought this was too important not to pass along from TP:

TAYLOR WAS DEEPLY INVOLVED IN FIRINGS: Taylor, who stepped down from her position at the White House in May, is reported to have been intimately involved in the firing process, especially the replacement of former Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins with former Rove-protege Tim Griffin. According to Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Taylor put “pressure” on the Department of Justice to bypass the Senate and install Griffin as the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. Additionally, Taylor had a direct role in misleading the Senate about White House’s actions when she signed off on a January 2007 letter to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) claiming that “that ‘not once’ had the Bush ‘administration sought to avoid the Senate confirmation process’ by exploiting the Patriot Act.” After Cummins suggested publicly that the White House orchestrated his ouster, rather than the Justice Department, Taylor led the charge behind the scenes to attack and discredit him. In a February 2007 e-mail to Sampson, Taylor wrote that though she doesn’t “like attacking” her friends, they should “tell the deal” on Cummins. In another e-mail, Taylor called Cummins “lazy,” implying that he had been fired for performance-related issues — the charge that first led the ousted U.S. attorneys to speak publicly about their dismissals.

emptywheel’s take on those Feb emails

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c…..r_sen.html Look at the descriptions of those email documents not turned over.

DrenchedOtter @ 189

I almost agree with you, there’s an “underdog” quality to Taylor that would get her some sympathy, and I expect she’ll probably come off as not knowing anything.

Still, it’s not fair to say you don’t have to testify to Congress if you’re a woman and held a position above your level of competence. It is Congress’s job to get to the bottom of this. She can do this the easy way and testify, or do it the hard way and maybe spend some time in prison. Let’s hope she takes the easy way. Otherwise, it really isn’t Congress’s fault, it’s the fault of whoever is telling her she doesn’t have to obey the law because she’s blonde.

I wasn’t saying that she shouldn’t be hauled before Congress, I’m saying that Josh Marshall’s wrong about tossing her in the slam if refuses to testify. Bring her before the committee, and if she refuses to testify by citing Bushie’s Executive Privilege, fight it out in the courts. But don’t jail her for contempt of Congress. She’s too sympathetic (and for the general public) too far down the food chain.

BC