As with all liveblog thread, please keep comments to a minimum where possible, so that the servers can survive the onslaught. That includes holding back on one-liners and such -- please -- so that I don't have to constantly cut liveblogging short to begin new threads. And now, to testimony...
__________________
10:30 am ET
SARA TAYLOR OPENING: Has worked in various political capacities for the Bush Administration. Professional opportunities given to her by the WH have had a profound impact on my life. I am here to testify pursuant to subpoena, as a willing and cooperative citizen.
Received a letter from WH counsel, informing me that the President has directed me NOT to testify regarding internal or external communications, conversations, or other information regarding the firing of USAttys and any and all matters that may pertain thereto. President claims this information is privileged, and she will honor that because she is unable to determine what is or is not covered.
She will answer what she can, and commits to abide by whatever judicial determination may be made in the weighing of the assertion of privilege versus the committee's need to know information.
SEN. LEAHY QUESTIONS: Why did you resign as WH political director? Taylor says that she's 32, and has additional career and personal goals in her life. Considered leaving last year, maybe summer, and informed Rove that she would be leaving in December. Says that the investigations into the USAtty matter was not a factor -- says that she hasn't told anyone that this was a factor. Did anyone at the WH tell you that you would be protected from legal consequences for not testifying -- nor anyone from outside the WH.
Doc. # OAG1814. 2/16/07 e-mail exchange between Taylor and Kyle Sampson. Taylor says that she has seen this document. The gwb43.com domain is controlled by the RNC -- she used this e-mail addy for political matters. Says that she read it regularly -- pretty frequently. Knows from press accounts that she had 66,000 e-mails. This e-mail addy goes back to 2001/2002. The reason for the e-mail account was so that political appointees did not violate the Hatch Act -- as a result of that system, I had two computers, two blackberries...as someone who tried to be efficient with her time, I would sometimes just use the wrong computer.
Leahy asking about violations of the Hatch Act -- whether or not you purposely violated, the law is the law. Have you reviewed all of the e-mails that you had from the RNC? Taylor says that her attorney has looked through the e-mails. Her attorney sent them to the WH for their review. Leahy asks: so you have not determined whether they were responsive to our subpoena? Taylor says yes -- we sifted through the e-mails and determined whether they were responsive to the subpoena, and then those that were responsive were sent to the WH for them to decide whether Congress could have any of the responsive e-mails.
Taylor says as she read Fielding's letter, any conversation which may or may not have occurred is under the President's assertion of executive privilege. (CHS notes: We're getting into the "I'm not going to answer this, because I'm providing the WH some CYA" portion of the testimony.)
SPECTER QUESTIONS: Says that he agrees with Taylor's declining to answer Leahy's questions was correct under Fielding's letter, but says he thinks Fielding's rationale for privilege is wrong, and that Congress ought to challenge it. (CHS notes: Specter, having his cake and eating it to, today.) Going into the Griffen issue in Arkansas. Going through all of the circumstances on the Cummins/Griffen issue. Taylor says that she had heard that Cummins may have said something around 2004 that he was thinking about leaving -- doesn't remember where she read that or when. Specter says that her testimony is contrary to McNulty's testimony -- and asks her to account for the differences.
Specter says that she was closer to Griffen because he was her deputy political director. Fair to say that she knew Griffen better than McNulty. Questions about intervention by Rove and Miers -- what knowledge do you have of that? Says that a lot of people thought very highly of Griffen's character, work ethic and skill. Did Rove or Miers intervene? Taylor says she can't answer that -- says she doesn't specifically know for sure that one or both or either did. What other people are you referring to that approved of Griffen? He worked with a number of people in the WH -- had worked at WH, at DOJ, knew folks in Arkansas -- a lot of people knew him and thought highly of him.
We again go through the Leahy and Specter colloquy on the decided lack of work ethic of the GOP side of the committee, excepting Specter and Grassley who actually showed up to earn their paychecks today. I sense a recurring theme...and Specter seems seriously annoyed by his lax colleagues today.
SEN. KOHL QUESTIONS: Going through the Biskupic question. Taylor says that she doesn't know anything about the Biskupic issue -- says she didn't discuss it that she can ever remember.
SEN. FEINSTEIN QUESTIONS: Who decided which USAttys to fire and how were they selected? Can't really answer. Where did the plan to do this originate? Can't answer. What was the basis to fire these attorneys -- what citeria were used? I don't know. Did you add or remove names yourself? I don't recall doing that. Going over some of Sampson's testimony -- he said the replacement of the USAttys wholesale was a "bad staff plan" -- said that Taylor supported avoiding Senate confirmation for USAtty replacement. Taylor says she was just upset about her pal Griffen and didn't want him to have to go through a bunch of mean questions from the Senate -- mean old Sen. Pryor. Taylor says that Sampson's characterization is not an accurate portrayal of her position -- she was only upset about them "pulling the rug out from under Griffen."
Now getting into the Cummins "lazy" comment from Taylor -- Taylor says that the comment was unkind and unnecessary, says she had heard that from someone else, and that she feels that it was unfair and apologizes to Cummins. (CHS says: could we have some follow-up as to where she had heard that, please?) Taylor says that she doesn't recall seeing the plan for firings. Who suggested names for the Dec. 7th firings? Taylor says she can't answer that question. Were you aware that USAttys were going to be called and asked to summarily resign? Taylor says she declines to answer, now consulting wih her attorney. (CHS notes: let the flashbulbs pop.) Taylor says that she had heard that some USAttys would be replaced, doesn't recall if that was going to be the date for replacement. Can't answer question on what she did when she heard that USAttys were going to be replaced, either.
SEN. SCHUMER QUESTIONS: Says that the WH has put her in a position to be a tightrope walker in answering questions that you want to answer. In fact, you have answered some questions about views at the WH that you answered for Sen. Specter. This shows that the broad claim of privilege doesn't stand up -- it is a weak claim, and you have a genuine desire to answer questions that you can answer. The claim of privlege is specious. Can't answer a question about external communications coming from outside the WH, according to Fielding's letter. Schumer says that he's asking about things from outside the WH. Again, Taylor says that Fielding directed her not to answer. Taylor says that she would like to answer, but she's following Fielding's guidelines. Schumer again addressing that to her counsel -- because this is dealing with people outside the executive branch. Eggleston says that President has made this assertion, and that they aren't going to analyze whether it is or is not appropriate. (CHS notes: in other words, take it to court, because my client isn't going out on a limb for you.) We have a bit of parsing of the Fielding letter wording, and some more consultation time with counsel.
Taylor now answering the question. She says that she heard complaints about all things all the time from all over the country as the WH political director. How about complaints about USAttys? Taylor says that she suspects there were calls -- but she doesn't recall specific phone calls.
SEN. DURBIN QUESTIONS: Durbin unhappy with the WH obstacles in getting to the truth on this. Was Rove your boss? What contacts did you have with him? Yes, he was her boss and she had contact with him multiple times per day, every day.
Am going to start a fresh thread and get another cuppa coffee...
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Thanks for this, CHS.
SUNLIGHT!
Sara all you are is a sacrificial lamb to the Bush administration. Go ahead tell the truth and let the light shine in.
So what does Chimpy have over Snarlin’ Arlen? It must be pretty toxic.
Christy:
Thanks.
She and Arlen are trying to puff up Tim Griffin’s prosecutor background to justify him having replaced Cummins.
She really is not a good liar.
Isn’t it weird that she’s been working @ the WH since she was 24!!! They sure like to get those young ‘uns & brainwash them early.
Does anyone know what her “credentials” are?
Spector hope there will be no contempt charges. Senator Spector said earlier that he could not “voluntarily give our responsibility of confressional oversight”
Hi Christy. It looks as if this battle is going as scripted but what, may I ask, are the steps to be taken for a charge of Contempt of Congress and what are the consequences for her. Immediate gaol?
Stonewall, stonewall, stonewall
dakine01 @ 6
Sara ..crack open for truth and justice
ST: Bud was fired, but he was planning to leave.
Wikipedia - Sara Taylor
From a long shot it looks like Arlen is the only repig at the table. Almost all the dems are there. Grassley made a short introductory statement and then left.
Arlen won’t be able to dress up this mess all by himself.
Reese Witherspoon will play Sarah when the movie comes out…
Dead ringer…
AS: “Did Rove or Miers intervene in the replacement of Cummins?”
ST: I can’t answer that.
I am creeped out by the prevalence of young blondes at the White House who all look vaguely the same. Of course this one is definitely cultivating a Reese Witherspoon appearance right down to the smile.
Working there must be awful for women–seems like a real pressure to conform in looks as well as behavior. Guess that’s why Harriet Miers didn’t really fit in–maybe all that scary makeup was an attempt to fit in?
Edited to say it is the conformity I am creeped out by, not the blondness…lots of blondes I know and love and am related to and my hair turns blond in the sun!
Objection! The attorney is leading his witness! Arlen is giving her the softball answers.
May have been brought up but never forget that Arlen Spector is the man who came up with the “magic Bullet” theory in the JFK nurder He’s a career gatekeeper.
Talk about leading the witness Arlen…stop it.
Question, Sara. What “other people” thought Griffin was a logical choice?!?
She’s like a not very bright G. Gordon Liddy. And he wasn’t all that bright. Why Specter is helping this WH slime himself and the committee?
theWalrus @ 17
There it is. Lock her up.
my too sense @ 21
That’s the Republicans job at all of these hearings: to lead and rehabilitate.
mauimom @ 7
Bush and Rove weren’t looking for experience and competence but true believers. Taylor is a true believer. She was a willing cog in Rove’s political machine. She is a criminal and like Rove she will lie, lie, lie because that is what they do.
Specter is a wanker. I wonder if Taylor knows what game she is playing…not being in the locker room conversations when her fate is decided or will she remain on bended knees for the prez and his men.
Leahy is noting the lack of repig. participation.
“They could be here if they wanted to be here.”
Leahy “Republicans could be here if they wanted to be here”
She can’t answer whether or not she had any conversations with the President about the AG firings? Of course we all know that she had no conversations therefore executive privilege cannot apply to conversations that never happened. Perhaps in this Orwellian world, executive privilege covers events that never took place.
Taylor is another “Stepford” employee in an administration that clearly believes it is above the law. She should be cited for contempt and taken away.
Kohl: How did Biskupic get on the list, Sara? Was it Karl Rove? Huh?
Sara: I dunnoknow.
IANAL but it seems to me the goose is already cooked.
Flat out said they went around WH protocol to avoid obvious Hatch act violations.
Bet money WH has incriminating emails they won’t cough up.
Did you or Karl Rove ever request the removal of Biskupic?
“I don’t know.”
hand wringing - wow she’s nervous
What a bad liar
Get to Whitehouse already.
And it’s important that the SJC work with the stuff that’s already on the record, as well as making the point that the privilege assertion over RNCmails is as dodgy as fuck.
“I don’t know”? WTF?
RevDeb @ 4
My personal nickname for Arlen has been Bark Bark, Woof Woof. He makes a lot of noise, but when the chips are down, he rolls over and pisses on his belly.
citizen Jane,
Remember Fawn Hall??? It seems to run in the republican party.
Hayduke @ 19
This should answer the previous question regarding Arlen’s duplicity..
DiFi:
Who decided which attorney’s to fire?
Privileged
Where did the plan to remove and replace several attorneys originate?
Privilege
What was the basis to determine who to fire?
I don’t know.
Did you add or remove names?
Not that I know of.
goddammit - somebody press her why she’s invoking presidential privilege!!
DiFi asking all the questions one at a time. She’s refusing to answer. Setting her up for contempt?
This is a serious question: What recourse does the White House have if Taylor ignores the assertion of executive privilege and testifies fully?
Aside from declaring her an illegal enemy combatant and shipped off to Gitmo, that is.
U umm uh umm uh umm I don’t recall. Why is Feinstein doing her declining for her?
Ah, Feinstein: who put names on the Magic List? Process questions about the Magic List. Taylor doesn’t remember adding or removing names.
And still we have a Magic List with no-one admitting to adding or removing names.
DiFI: what was criteria for removal? How did idea originate? Do you remember conversations regarding?
Sara: Idunno,Idunno, Idunno. ad nauseum
RevDeb @ 43
i hope so.
Sara was very upset one day because she saw a collegue of hers, Griffin, who had become the interim-USA in Arkansas, and the AG had let Sen. Pryor know that he wasn’t going to support the nomination of Griffin.
DiFi: did you support idea of avoiding confirmation? Sampson said you were upset.
Sara: I was upset, but because he was a friend and I thought he was going to not be nominated.
The Taylor-Griffin dynamic is… interesting.
Sara Taylor seems to be an all knowing and willing sacrificial lamb commiting perjury.
Oh, sheesh, I see some of the Code Pink crazies behind Sara. Are we going to be subject to their distraction and making this less serious than it should be?
She’s blinking a lot.
She’s now contradicting Sampsons testimony. This is like a black hole. Everyone’s lying and contradicting themselves.
Sara Taylor is trying to parse her answers between what is public record and the gag letter.
She’s is out of her league.
She’s now apologizing to Bud Cummins for having called him lazy.
Isn’t the fact that she’s invoking privilege in response to DF incredibly damning? I mean, it’s pretty much admitting that yes, the WH was behind all of it.
Sara’s good buddy Griffin. Urrrghhh
DiFi asking Sara why she declared Cummins to be lazy.
Sara apologizes.
radiofreewill @ 40
Re “privileged” responses: Doesn’t this absolutely indicate the White House? Didn’t she say she would invoke privilege if responses involved the WH? Seems to me her non-answers are giving the SJC all the answers they need.
How did Taylor know that Cummins was lazy? Shorter Taylor: I lied.
mauimom @ 53
i, for one, am very glad of the presence of the code pink people.
DiFi: Did you see the firing plan?
Privilege
Yes or No?
No.
debit @ 57
Yes, that’s why I think DF is doing that.
she doesn’t need any help from the privilege issue - she lies quite nicely on her own.
Can anyone tell me why/how the POLITICAL director can assert executive privilege–they should not be involved in the DOJ!!!
Uncle-Fockers!
Okay this is a charade and I’m not certain why they are playing this game out any longer…she’s already stonewalled and exerted a claim of the “letter” defense several times. So end it now. shut her off…she’s not interested in answering any question and those that are important in solving the mystery she invokes the “letter” defense. She’s a loyal browshirt Bushie through and through and is doesn’t give a eff about truth telling or answering honestly any questions. I don’t recall, I don’t remember. Get her out of here I’m sick of her already.
mauimom @ 54
I do question some of Code Pinks strategies, although they have done amazing work keeping this illegal war under the spotlight
selise @ 63
So they can make a joke and a spectacle out of these important proceedings?
I say again, that if this claim of Executive Privilege is upheld, we will have come under an “Official Secrets Act” without it having been codified in law or the constitution.
Sara is struggling to answer DiFi whether she knows or not about the firing of the Attorneys.
This is a waste of time. Spectre is going to protect her and the dems are wimps.
DiFI: Who fired the attorneys
Sara: Internal deliberations
Internal deliberations: aka senior staff, a great black hole, where noone takes responsibility
Neil says “I would answer it.” Not very effective covering of the microphone — but don’t let him know.
Shu is up!
She’s smart and she wants to come across as a good guy and she’s verbal, so my prediction is she will say something incriminating
She’s not answering any questions that involve “protected internal deliberations”.
(Did Schumer just say “gen-you-WINE’?)
grayslady @ 60
Not all the answers they need but yes, it does indicate that the White House was heavily involved, in fact, was directing the US attorney firings.
Schumer being the good Chuck in order to later set the shiv.
Somebody get a phone booth so Sheldon can change into costume and let Superman do his job!
*xyz @ 68
Thanks, xyz. That’s just how I feel. However serious Code Pink may be on some issues, the way they deal with this is counterproductive.
chuck: executive privilege. Specious claim.
Schumer: attempting to rehabilitate taylor for herself and us! brilliant!
Hugh @ 76
Hugh, is that something they have denied so far?
anne @ 35
Kathleen @ 37
-uh…uh..um..uh…u.h.u.u.u..uh
i’m tr..tr…tryi.. ta… u.u.u……
finally minimal progress: a faux-apology for a cheap shot at a slammed atty. fired fer nuttin’
Gee guys! Y’re a perceptive lot!
Who’s keeping track of “tells”?
This would be funny if it weren’t so serious.
The thot of her in a high position!?! *blergh*
OH GOODIE! she can be heard even when her babysitteratty covers her mike & tells her how to avoid answering. is that usable as an admission under oath? huh? huh?
Schumer demolishing the executive privilege claim. Taylor selectively answers what she wants to answer. Taylor can’t discuss some of this some of the time.
She’s not answering any questions that involve “external communications”.
A question - Sara says the courts will have to decide if she can claim presidential privleege. So what is the progression of events for that to get to the courts? And will it involve the DC USA? Is he in there do to a Patriot Act placement? Does he have to leave at a certain time due to the new law being passed? And are some events (charging contempt of congress) stalled until he leaves???
In other words- if this is going to go via the courts, what are they waiting for?
Senate should say screw Fielding’s letter. Internal External. You shouldda worked that out before sweetheart.
Schumer just cranked up the heat. Exec. privilege outside the WH? Unh. Unh.
my too sense @ 65
I disagree. She’s not just a bad liar; she’s a bad stonewaller, and she crumbles a little when talked to sternly (or even sweetly) by her elders and betters. It also helps that there’s no GOPpers to defend her in the obsequious way that Orrin Hatch has done in previous hearings.
I would, however, like someone to say ‘oh, fuck the letter.’ Though, y’know, more flies with honey than vinegar.
It’s also important to establish how broad the bullshit privilege assertions are going. Now, she’s saying that she feels obliged to treat communications with GOPpers outside the executive branch count as privileged.
Has anyone asked her, “WHY are you not cooperating? Why exactly?”
OMFG! She’s trying to claim that the letter blocks her from responding to questions on whether political officials outside the WH called her about USAs (read Domenici/Wilson/RNC).
Chuck acting confused and asking her attorney to explain to him
What is the Statute of Limitations for perjury or the obstruction of a Congressional investigation?
*xyz @ 68
how are they making a joke out of this hearing? are they disrupting the questions or testimony? no. if they do, i’ll be right there with you complaining about their actions.
We can hear her
C’mon, this is just a game. Cite her for comtempt and move on. She won’t answer “internal” or “external” communications/deliberations. End of hearing.
Look at Sara and her lawyer. Oh my. Heads together, patting arm.
Isn’t this great: to have only competent Democrats doing the questioning, no blowhard Republicans to muddy the waters.
somebody might wanna let Ms. Taylot know that the mic is still on while she laughs with her lawyer
shorter Taylor’s attorney: We’re not in the business of thinking for ourselves. We just take directions.
mauimom @ 98
i like it. *g*
jayt @101? Uh, no. Let’s not.
ifthethunderdontgetya @ 84
Those in the White House have not been talking and those in the DOJ claim they don’t know how the list of firings happened.
selise @ 94
My animosity is based on what they did at the last hearing they were at. Just wait until the end of this one.
Shumer: “Hi, I’m really nice and I appreciate the box this letter puts you in, I do I do.”
“Now: Mr. Chairman, how on earth do external communications get covered by this letter?”
Obstruction of justice primer 101.
Contempt of Congress primer 101.
Lessons, lessons….
What I really don’t understand is why one of these senators doesn’t simply inform her that she is not the President, and can’t invoke executive privilege on Bush’s behalf. It’s like everybody is playing an elaborate kabuki.
If Bush wants to invoke executive privilege, it’s his affirmative duty to attempt to quash the subpoena. If she is there testifying, I can’t think of a single legal reason they should be allowing her to avoid answering questions.
mauimom @ 102
ok. so, we agree that they haven’t made a joke out of this hearing?
A witness to the Marc Rich Committee on his pardon has Dubya’s lawyer as his counsel…
Robert Fink, Rich’s attorney witness has the current WH Counsel as his lawyer in the hearing…
“If I were engaged in an argument I’d only make defensible arguments.”
-Scooter Libby, in the Marc Rich hearings before one of the House counsels.
So, he avoided testifying on his own behalf in the Plame trial? What would it tell you in light of the above statement, was this evidence reflected in the Commutation of sentence?
Shorter lawyer: take it up with the courts.
And Schumer seems set to call her bluff.
Taylor’s already dropped her guard, because she’s a bad liar and a bad stonewaller. I think she’s going to clam up now, because she realises that she’s already fucked things up.
Sara and her lawyer! Jeebus!
As with previous administration officials, Taylor need to be charged with: violations of the Hatch Act, obstruction of justice, perjury.
Why isn’t that happening? Even Schumer seems to be coddling her a bit.
Eggleston is sweating bullets who else has he represented
these images of frantic conversations w/ her atty are gonna be on the news.
Sara “I suspect but I can not recall”
selise @ 109
If they’re on camera at all (I’m not watching) then they’re a distraction from the proceedings and they are giving Republicans an opportunity to change the subject from the wrongdoings of the DOJ and the Bush administration to the visible presence of Code Pink.
Code Pink is largely counterproductive.
Come on Sara throw Rove over the side..
Durbin: the understanding Dad. You coulda been a democrat. Karl Rove should be sitting here, not Sara Taylor.
theWalrus @ 111
She’s small fry. Admittedly, the thirtysomething cultists seem to have done the dirty work while Abu G wandered around knowing nothing, but honey/vinegar.
Sara: I suspect there were complaints to me about US attorneys. But I don’t recall specifics.
*what* a farce!
Taylor has answered the question of how many political calls did she get about USA’s, because she is thinking about all of those WH calls.
No, we don’t agree. Have you taken a look at their attire? Do you think it contributes to the seriousness of this hearing, or tends more towards making a joke of it? Do you think such costuming contributes to focusing on the subject at hand or attempts to draw attention to themselves. [I’m watching now as they chatter among themselves while she’s testifying in response to Durbin.]
“I’ve worked for Karl Rover a little over two years…directly.”
and indirectly?
Shorter Taylor in response to Shumer: Okay, so I’ll answer this question but don’t get used to it…so I yes I heard complaints from all over outside the office but….now that I answered it, I don