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…
Related posts:
- Stuart Taylor: Sotomayor Not Just a Student Radical, but an Uppity Minority Female
- Washington Post: Rove More Involved in US Attorney Firings Than He Claims
- Arlen “Scrapple” Specter Backs Up Pelosi: CIA Has a Bad Record When It Comes to Honesty
- Specter Urges Dem Unity on Cloture; Reid: Thanks for Doing My Job
- Ceci Connolly Was the “Play” in the Washington Post’s Pay-to-Play Dinner Scheme





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

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’t recall any specific complaints about USA’s. She’s not interested in answering anything honestly about this issue. Period. haul her out of there.
Kathleen @ 113
Some of the Enron directors. Perhaps that sweetheart, Wendy Graham, but not sure.
*xyz @ 117
a solid point.
caging!
theWalrus @ 113
It’s called setting her up. He doesn’t want to look like the big ol’ meanie here so he talks nice and lays a trap with sweetness.
Apologies, it was a different person viewed as Counsel, there’s a lag on my feed now… may have to reboot IE soon.
These proceedings are a farce, as in, “they pretend to work while we pretend to pay them.” Congress is still not doing the job it was elected to do in 2006. Throw the chick in the slammer. Frog-march the junta to the Hague.
Re: Code Pink
Are they the people wearing the nutty hats in the background behind Taylor? Admittedly, the viewer on Cspan is small and it’s hard to see, but I see some weird-looking headgear…
We should be asking ourselves WHY the WH instructed the Rethugs to not show thereby throwing Sara UNDER THE BUS ???
Sacrificial lamb ??
theWalrus @ 113
Here kitty, here kitty, kitty, kitty……
Regarding her RNC e-mails, and how she has two computers and two blackberry’s and just got “confused” and sometimes used the “wrong computer” – why the hell is she doing RNC work during normal business hours and at the taxpayer’s expense anyway? If she’s got two computers and two blackberry’s at hand, she’s doing RNC work on my dime, right?
I haven’t seen much questioning or analysis of this. Isn’t that a violation of the Hatch Act itself?
I think Taylor is the guinea pig for the boys in the white house in regards to exec. privilege. The wimps want to see how it plays out first with her. Thugs will use their molls.
Durbin has snuck up on Taylor from behind. Questioning her about “vote caging” – practices during the last election. Can’t claim immunity there.
xyz:
They ARE on camera. They clearly positioned themselves to draw attention to themselves.
Durbin asking her about Tim Griffin and voter caging. She then goes into defense of Grffin’s character and how she resents the way he’s been maligned. Blecch!
I think Sara has been a bad girl, especially if that extraordinary character Timmy Griffin is her good friend. She was upset after all, and she is a blonde! I am thinking Tim and her spent a little time, maybe Vote Caging together. Or a little Trial Tampering by replacing prosecutors. Guilty Guilty Guilty.
pseudonymous in nc @ 121
This time the”small fry” have to be dealt with. We learned that lesson with H2O-gate and Iran-Contra. Cheney was once small fry.
She’s going to say that Griffin was not a cager.
I am sick sick sick of all these stonewallers and liars: Gonzales, Sampson, Goodling, Sara Taylor. Congress should do something.
mauimom @ 136
I’m starting to loathe them.
As a former southerner & Texan now living just 100ish miles north of Iowa, I find it interesting that this woman from Iowa has developed such a striking southern drawl / twang.
If Whitehouse places nicey-nice I’m gonna change the channel.
It was this guy the best I could tell was Counsel behind Libby at the Rich hearings.
That’s Freddy’s Nightmare on K Street.
Sara Taylor who worked for years with Karl Rove the master of political thuggery thinks it is so mean what mean, mean people have said about Tim Griffin.
Kathleen @ 96
sh-h-h-h, yeah. oh dang. they found the mike bttn.
BUT Chuckie complimenting her atty w/ one hand, & poking ‘em w/ a sharp stick in the other finally is getting results. Her atty knows Chuckie knows that they know….
Durbin picks up the stick, after lulling her a lil’ bit by pretending to feel sorry for her finding herself, instead of rover, in the cross-hairs.
Hard to concentrate on Durbin with Chuckie twisting in his seat & yukking it up with his own aides. Chuckie smells blood in the water, no doubt.
Already, Blondie looks exhausted. This fast-shuffling, good cop/bad cop routine tw’ Chuckie & Durbin et al. is gettin’ good.
Neil Eggleston “Mr. Eggleston has extensive experience in all areas of white-collar criminal defense and securities enforcement. He has represented individuals and organizations in numerous high-profile matters in both the private and public sectors. Mr. Eggleston’s government service includes having served in the White House as Associate Counsel to the President (1993-1994) and as Deputy Chief Counsel of the House Iran/Contra Investigation Committee (1987).
Mr. Eggleston also served as an Assistant United States Attorney (1981-1987) and Chief Appellate Attorney for the Southern District of New York (1986-1987). He clerked on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals from 1978 to 1979 and for Chief Justice Warren E. Burger on the Supreme Court from 1979 to 1980.
Mr. Eggleston has tried numerous cases while in private practice. He has represented clients in connection with allegations or potential prosecutions of securities violations and related crimes, government procurement fraud, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, False Claims Act violations, health care fraud, customs fraud, tax fraud and pension fund fraud. He also represented clients in connection with independent counsel investigations and Congressional investigations
http://www.debevoise.com/newse…..0a22762185
Whitehouse just got her! She claimed to take an oath to the President! If she was sworn official of the government she took an oath to the CONSTITUTION!
Not to offend anyone, but can we take the Code Pink debate to gabbly or e-mail? It has nothing to do with the testimony and is OT.
Whitehouse asking if her employment agreement obliged her to honor executive privelege after she leaves employment.
She doesn’t know. Whitehouse: look it up.
dakine01 @ 127
If we were watching a Law and Order episode, that would be the case. This would be a nicely run setup OR an opportunistic situation that the deft DA (Waterston) would use to nail the witness. Unfortunately this is the DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS. They don’t do deft. They don’t do clever. They do blundering, clumsy, and lose opportunities left and right as a matter of course. I want to be surprised, I really really do but I don’t truly believe that they will do much of anything but write “strongly worded” letters of complaint to the WH.
Okay now she’s admitted she’s selectively using the Letter defense….so once she starts ignoring it doesn’t she now forgo any use of it..kind of like invoking the 5th? Yes//No????
if her atty didn’t check out the issue of employment agreements/laws with her then they did not thoroughly prepare for this. just sayin.’
If I were the CIA or Rove and Co., I’d pay Code Pink. Their presence makes a mockery of their opponents in a way they could never do.
Whitehouse, you sweetheart, leading her down the path of admitting what “opposition research” is, as she tries to avoid it.
Sara apparently thinks she took an oath “to the president” — there is just so much wrong with this picture it’s hard to know where to start. This woman could not grasp the most basic concepts explicated in the Federalist Papers. She may not even now what they are.
Sara Taylor may win the “I don’t recall” prize. She certainly won the “uh eh eh uh” prize!
dakine01 @ 148
Uhm…no. This is a RETHUGLICAN. They DO believe in oaths to persons and oaths to PARTIES, but NOT the Constitution.
ST: Clinton did it!
She’s telling Whitehouse how “our government’s set-up” Oh no she di’int
In a word, code pink is obnoxious.
AJ @ 159
Maybe she DID take an oath to the president…. Just sayin’
More whacking away at the notion of executive privilege. Nothing in writing, no stated limits. It gets to the fact that the White House and Sara Taylor invoke it in a completely capricious fashion.
Taylor re Griffin again: His being an oppo researcher would help him as a US attorney. WTF? He would try to smear the judge?
Mojo @ 131
They didn’t show because they don’t want to embarrass the Republicans anymore in this mess, but they can’t be seen actually supporting this embarrassment, either. Best to just step away.
Artful?
Wow, she’s awful.
She believes that Reagan and Clinton although she doesn’t recall, probably fired US attorneys in a way that was much more “artful”
*xyz @ 117
well then, we disagree.
and, for my part, i think it is very important not to trangulate people who are more “out there” than me. if they do something i think is immoral or unethical – then i’m fine with condemning their actions. but i object to condemning them for the style or color of their clothes.
Hello Sara Clinton and Reagan did not do thisanne @ 160
but he did not
Heh. Totally missed this thread, was stuck in the old one!
Synopsis:
DiFi’s strategy: Force ST to say “I don’t recall” or hide behind the Fielding letter, either of which makes ST look like a lying twit.
Schumer’s strategy: Mock and destroy the claim of broad EP in the Fielding letter by pointing to the inconsistent way she’s answered Qs (she answers Qs from Specter, but not similar ones from any Dem) as proof of the unsustainability of the EP claim. (I think he actually had her attorney break out in hives on this.)
Durbin’s strategy: Deflects the “mean Dems picking on Nice Widdle Blonde White Girl” meme the rightards will pimp by calling out RoveBushCheney for not being men enough to answer these Qs themselves.
Former USA Sheldon the Great’s strategy: Platinum stilleto in a velvet cloak. Amazing.
Someone should stop praising her and call her out.
“I find it difficult to believe that you had a White House job and were on taxpayer’s dime to be so forgetful and refused to back up anything you discussed your entire time in the Executive staff.”
You’re sure you remember everything else you’ve asserted as being legal behaviour to be accurate since anything bordering questionable activity is forgotten entirely?
Is there a legal term for someone to be so specifically forgetful to one side’s benefit?
FWIW – Sara Taylor appears very scared and untrustworthy parroting Clenis© Did It Too talking points…
Prefaces everything with I DONT RECALL
Ohh, the famous “Clinton did it” defense!!!
Talking about her presentation to the EPA: “All of these people work for the president”
That is the root fallacy. They work for the American People. Or at least that’s who they are supposed to work.
So ANGRY about ST’s comment that she swore an oath to the PRESIDENT.
Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution says:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
The same applies to political appointees as “commissioned officers”, as she labeled them. The oath she swore should have been to the UNITED STATES and the CONSTITUTION, not that dry-drunk in the White House. Grrr…even as political director she is supposed to serve US, the people. So tempted to write a letter to her attorney for delivery to her.
She’s fillerbusting on Sheldon’s time. He must have a whopper up his sleeve to let her do this.
GeorgeSimian @ 164
“All of these people work for the president”.
The hell they do- they work for us!!
You would ’share with people your thoughts’ and cannot now?
Thanks for letting us know how generous you were with others…
What races did you talk about?
Clarify what you mean by races.
Is this on races in Congress or races as to ethnic voters being caged?
Helen @ 179
He better – because this is shameless babbling on her part.
He’s going after her for Hatch Act violations.
“all these people work for the president” (Wrong!!)
“I would let them know (what the president wants) and how they fit into that picture”(Illegal!!)
“Would give a picture of the overall political landscape”. Inform them as to particular races about which we’re concerned”
That’s three sworn confessions to violations of the Hatch Act.
Thank you, ma’am.
Her lawyer just told her to let Whitehouse finish his question!!!
Mojo @ 131
Durbin did just that, calling out BushCo for being cads (and neatly turning the “you’re picking on that Nice Widdle White Girl!” meme against the Republicans in a nice judo move).
Back to ST: Tries to deflect Sheldon Whitehouse’s Qs with “But Clinton did it tooooo!” But Sheldon’s having none of it.
Between DiFi, Sheldon the Great, Leahy and Schumer, it’s been like watching a seminar in How To Be One Hell Of A District Attorney.
I thought it was hilarious that she told Sheldon that being an oppo researcher is excellent background for becoming US Attorney!
Got her.
She said ‘political’ and that’s a big no-no for her position.
‘Intelligenstia’
I believe we have a phrase applicable to FISA.
Wow, she’s trying to avoid perjuring herself while avoiding an admission of a Hatch Act violation. That’s quite a tightrope.
She also thinks way too highly of herself.
DanberryLane @ 164
and don’t forget those nasty bloggers when they use bad words.
jeeze.
Heh…she would share her view of the government and the political landscape…
That means the Pat Robertson view of the government and political landscape.
She’s giving Whitehouse lip. He’s this close to laughing at her cuz he knows he’s 10 times smarter thans he is.
This is a joke.
She is in contempt of Congress. Just issue the citation.
If the Dems don’t hold her accountable for this testilying, then these hearings are doing more harm than good.
This girl is outrageous and they are acting like her sh*t don’t stink.
Whitehouse just quietly killed her.
Now she’s freaking – I bet she’s trying to replay what she’s just said.
Can you imagine howdumb the Ds are if Taylor is representative of the opposition? If the Ds can’t even beat people like her, they truly deserve the Darwin Award of the year.
Mr.Murder @ 170
I like the set up to your question. As for your last question, IANAL but I believe the appropriate legal term is: liar.
Whitehouse: Did the names of candidates come up?
Taylor: Er uh, not sure what you’re asking.
Whitehouse: reasks question
We talk about landscape. I’m sure I mentioned candidates names all the time. But it was nothing personal. Just landscape.
Taylor: I give opinions, not directions.
They need to keep hammering her on Hatch Act violations – she’ll keep stonewalling on the USAs – but they can nail her for Hatch. Then maybe she’ll begin to crumble.
Cardin setting her up by asking her opinion if it would be wrong to remove an USA for pursuing a case against a same party politico.
She agrees that would be wrong.
Well, Durbin and Whitehouse were GREAT.
And STFU about Code Pink!
Citizen Jane @ 17
I’ve noticed that myself. It must fit their profile of the true (Stepford wife-like) “American Working Woman”. Probably get their rocks off fantasizing about the babes greeting them at the door draped in nothing but the American flag with a martini in hand ready to listen in awe as he talks about how he saved the world from commie left-wingers.
That arch ‘do you have a question?’ sounded straight out of GOPper Charm School. Not the right audience to use that tone with.
Get what you can, and cite her. No effing sympathy whatsoever.
Cardin getting specific about stuff she says she has little recollection of.
“I don’t recall”
Anyone counting?
The longer this continues the more punch drunk she’s becoming…they’re hitting with a hell of a lot of jabs. How wobbly will her legs get? Slipping and sliding through her answers.
eCAHNomics @ 193
I’m ashamed that she is doing this type of damage to my family name.
EllenG @ 193
Thank you.
Taylor is a A wolf in sheeps clothing
ST to Sheldon: “I- ah– I’m not sure what you’re talking about..”
The classic line spoken by all guilty parties who’ve just been nailed.
Cardin [D-MD]: In your letter to this committee, you said you participated in no wrongdoing. In your opinion, would it be wrongdoing to participating in certain behavior…?
ST: Yes.
Ooooh! He’s beating her over the head with her answers to Schumer! She’s scurrying back into “I don’t recall” mode, looking guilty as sin.
‘artful’
surely that’s a rovian concept!
Wow – this committee has its phasers set on MAIM.
She can’t remember what she had for breakfast last week.
Oh My.
Sara: Nope. don’t recall any complaints about US attorneys. I get so many calls a day. Hard to remember. I can’t remember what I had for breakfast last week.
Helen @ 175
Mmm Hmmm … and Whitehouse has that look on his face … will there be more of this after lunch ?
She received communications from political persons around the country.
“Yes.”
Methinks they got her on the phone logs.
She’s in deep and the questioning is unfolding along her lines of discovery.
Talking of self in 3rd person. Tell us about her, please, Sara.
“Don’t remeber what I had for breakfast”
“What you had for breakfast in not the subject of a congressional inquiry”
“I hope not”
Mojo @ 39
You have to remember .. once .. a very long time ago .. he was a Democrat .. and he switched parties .. and he was also DA of Philly at one time
She claims she doesn’t remember what she had for breakfast, so she cannot recall ANY phonecalls whatsoever about fired attorneys!?
They aren’t asking her specifics about the calls, only if they happened. Yes. Yes they DID occur and you DO remember this LIAR.
Actually, Sara is runnng a a lot of “I do not recall”s. Can anybody keep count?
(she’s gonna blow…)
If you can’t recall something, why don’t you go back and look at your records.
She doesn’t believe that anyone in the WH did any wrongdoing???? Ack!
Cardin: I’m not asking you what you had for breakfast this morning!
My God – her contempt is stunning.
Ooh. That was a low blow. Cardin is basically asking her whether she’s prepared to put her ass on the block for her oath-sworn lord and master.
I don’t see where anybody is getting Hatch Act violations. Her position (White House Political Director) is clearly a policymaking position that is exempt from Hatch Act requirements, regardless of where her salary comes from. In general,, all more senior White House employees are exempt from the Hatch Act.
Oh sh*t she’s getting PO’d and argumentative.
ooo independent judgments!!!
that’s one sweaty lawyer sitting next to her
I believe that she believes there was no wrongdoing. She believes that she did NOT violate her oath to the President. I have no doubt that, on THAT basis, there was nothing done improperly. She obeyed and followed the oath to her fuhrer…err…PRESIDENT to the letter.
Sarik @ 201
durbin, whitehouse and the other dems are doing great! yeah team!
… and i speak up for my political allies when they are condemned for acting – something far too few citizens are doing.
Put the hammer down ..enough of this bull crap
Taylor in response to Cardin: (temper, temper, temper) I don’t believe there was any wrong doing in WH. (raises voice a little)
She is probably a henchman with that temper.
GeorgeSimian @ 165
Wow.. If true then that is great news..
If they acted in concert to abandon defense of a Busie at the SJC hearing that could only mean one thing..
That Mitch and company are getting ready to the the “Rayburn Walk” down Pennsylvania ave..
mauimom @ 121
The costuming and constant presence is to draw attention to their issue, which is the war. They are appearing at as many congressional hearings as possible to be a constant reminder that we out here want the war ended.
Yes, it’s a distraction from the subject of this hearing, but not a serious one, and it’s not a distraction from the issue they’re working on. They’re attracting attention to their cause, not to themselves. And I don’t think much of any argument that something shouldn’t be done because it’ll give the Republicans something else to focus on, because they’ll do that no matter what we do.
I objected to the one member at the Plame hearing who didn’t know how to behave and was a camera hog, but simply being present as part of the audience is fine. As for their effectiveness, from what I’ve heard, many members of Congress may not like them, but they think they’re anything but a joke and they get the message.
another one who claims to “serve at the pleasure of the president”…
and who believes that working hard for a political campaign should be rewarded.
Little Miss Argumentative, isn’t she?
rosalind @ 220
Yeah – her petulance is increasing exponentially….
Kathleen @ 204
Oh, they ARE getting her. They’re showing how her own answers even from TODAY are contradicting each other.
AJ @ 158
I’m so sick of all these highly placed shills feigning ignorance as a defense. Guilty or Incompetent. Choose one and be done with it already!
Cardin: are you of the opinion that wrongdoing is wrongdoing? ST: uh..uh..uh..
Cardin: Let me give you another chance.
ST: good god,… i don’t even remember what i have for breakfast [even on my best days].
Cardin: [Do you have any idea what the word “wrongdoing” means???!]
ST: I appreciate your frustration.
heckofajob sara!?!
ouch.
“No wrong doing.” Don’t think she would recognize it if she blew her nose in it.
Twenty phone calls a day – and she was overwhelmed and can’t recall a thing. Maybe using another phrase other than “Do you recall”. She is contemptuous of this hearing.
Selective.
Exzactly!
carolyn urban @ 207
Yup. They played out the line, let her make some answers they knew were bogus, and are now beating her over the head with them.
She actually believe that no one in the White House did anything wrong in regard to this issue. Slam her she is a willing player in this crime.
You can remember whether you had breakfast at all?
We’re not asking for specifics, just calls about attorneys.
Why is that soo difficult a reach to determine?
BINGO. She just scwered herself!
Normally I hate to see people squirm, but today I am really enjoying it.
Taylor: Making a big deal about the distinction between her opinion and what she knows.
She believes that no one in the WH did anything wrong.
My question: Do you have a factual basis for that opinion?
cc in nc @ 224
good. makes it easier for the committee to cite her for comtempt.
Mojo @ 229
nah. they’ve been no shows at most of these hearings since the dems took over. It’s their way of showing contempt for the democratic process.
20 minute recess for roll call vote.
recess
recess – time to walk the dog!
QuakerGirl @ 238
how about “uh uh uh eh eh eh uh”
Just what was her oath? Was it to the President or to the laws of the U. S.?
anne @ 231
Damn! Recess just as she was letting the Poor Widdle Nice White Girl mask slip.
I could watch this all day.
Cardin: How do you know there was no wrong doing? What do you base that on?
Sara: You’re asking me to talk about what I know or don’t know. Internal Deliberations. Fielding letter. I’m doing my best to respect both Congress and the Preznit (who I most ardently admire and respect, the preznit that is). So I am not sure how to answer that question.
*Farce, farce, farce*
The common thread that runs through these hearings is the contempt of the witnesses for this process. Taylor and Lurita Doan especially. They interrupt the questioners; their body language is overly casual; I remember Lurita Doan addressing the committee as “you guys.” They’re afraid, of course, but they’re really inappropriate. I wonder if it’s intentional.
Kathleen @ 239
It’s weird. Part of me thinks she genuinely thinks that no one did anything wrong – even though she did. But then she answers “I don’t recall”, etc. and then it looks pretty clear that she did do something wrong. She obviously violated the Hatch Act, but I guess she’s been told by the WH that it isn’t that big of a deal.
Specter lagging behind. I guess he doesn’t want to go vote.
Every one of the Dems has got her to tie herself in knots. Cardin was especially good in pointing out that she drops the privilege shield to make the WH look good, and raises it where it would look bad. And he’s also dropped a very big hint that loyalty doesn’t save your ass from contempt or perjury or Hatch Act violations.
During the roll call, could someone get to a Senator’s office and make the point about the oath being to the Constitution, not the President? Whitehouse’s office, I think, might be a good place to start, not least because he swore an oath to the Constitution as US Attorney, and as Senator.
RevDeb @ 245
I don’t agree. They just have nothing to gain by showing up, and a lot to lose.
re: Durbin saying *Rove* should be in that chair.
So, Mr. Durbin, why hasn’t that happened?
This woman is a brainwashed idiot who sees whitehouse as a battlestation to wage war on the opponents of the president.
These people see this as a war between bush people and everyone else.
There is no place for politics in the white house. Once a president is elected he works for ALL the people and party matters.. politcs should be done completely outside of and detached from the executive branch.
When did the polical shop find a home in the white house?
charge her under hatch & flip her for the rest!
Ah, they’re recessing to vote on the Webb Amendment. Which I hope passes, but too many Rethugs oppose it.
RevDeb @ 180
Not sure you can do anything to someone no longer in the government for Hatch Act issues. I thought the most you could do is fire them.
Redshift @ 228
I complained to Code Pink about that person and was told, in a very nice way, that it was none of my business. She/he was exercising his/her right to free speech.
IIRC it was January, 2000
RevDeb @ 245
Orrin Hatch has showed up to defend Timmy Griffin, his old charge. Funny how he inspires such defenders, isn’t it?
I am very very sure Sara Taylor based on her testimony–with that temper and contempt– is a great henchperson. A good employee of Karl Rove.
SanderO @ 260
I believe that would be around January, 2001.
GeorgeSimian @ 258
I’ll go with that. But the idea that they are getting ready to make the Rayburn walk is misplaced—at least at this time.
Phoenix Woman @ 254
no kidding, me too!!
but at noon, the house judiciary committee hearing begins. can’t record (or probably watch) both at the same time. what to do?
i love it when congress is doing it’s oversight thing.
Re-post during the recess..What is the statute of limitations on perjury, contempt of congress and obstruction of a congressional investigation? Can these people “run out the clock”?
crap. I was downstairs.
My impression is that she is holding up and is not stupid and is making the men look like they’re chasing their tails. I would like to see the panel just question her relentlessly, not let her bloviate and then cite her. All business-like. She’s a total bitch and contemptuous to boot. Unbelievable!
2000, 2001, It’s all a nightmare.
A procedural question, if Congress does think the Hatch Act was violated, what is the next step? Do they have to refer the case to Gonzales for possible prosecution? Can he just decline to prosecute?
where is this streaming live? thanks! ac
so this is a cloture vote?
When is Reid gonna make these R’s actually follow through with a f*****g filibuster?
So she says: No one in the WH has done anything wrong or been involved in ANY wrongdoing.
But she won’t explain why. This is the Bush credo: we say and do what we want, when we want, wherever we want and we don’t have to explain or be held accountable to what we do or say. After all, we’re the all-knowing, all-powerful Executive Branch. We answer to noone.
How much more dangerous can things be?
ac @ 275
CSpan-3
Phoenix Woman @ 249
Why is she following Alvin’s The Petulant Prick gameplan … did that work for him ?!!
I’m watching the Webb amendment vote now
There has got to be something Congress can do. This contempt, lying and BS needs to be penalized. Sara Taylor, Sampson, Monica Goodling and Gonzales. It’s too much. Congress needs to show it is a coequal part of government. By letting these minions stonewall and lie, Congress just looks weak.
Bush has claimed he had nothing to do with this. The bottom line then is that the USAs are not serving at the pleasure of the President. They are clearly serving at someone else’s pleasure. That would make the interims illegally in their positions, wouldn’t it?
DrenchedOtter @ 272
I believe it’s the job of the Office of Special Counsel, who investigated Lurita Doan. Of course, Bush hasn’t done a thing about her, either.
Redshift:
Now, c’mon. I have absolutely NO problem with any group drawing attention to “their issue,” but how, pray tell, does anyone who SEES them on tv associate their presence with “their issue”?
The signs they carry aren’t directed to “their issue.” They wear crazy, attention-getting clothes not because they can’t afford something else, but because they want attention. Do you honestly think that people “at home” see them on camera and say, “oh, it’s the Code Pink people who oppose the war. I need to go out & write a letter to my Congresscritter, or a LTE on that issue right now. Thanks, Code Pink, for reminding me.”
They are media whores, and they cheapen the debate and provide “cover” to those who want to discount opponents to the war. Have they spent any time @ Walter Reed?
If she took and oath to the president… and not to the office of the president.. that is to the government than she is simply a someone who has sworn to work for BUSH.. a sworn loyalist under an oath.
This is an outrageous statemnent and practice if it actually is what is going on.
WHAT WAS HER OAT?
In answering and admitting her answer to Senator Cardin regarding her opinion on whether wrongdoing was done in the firing of US Attys encroached on the privilege she is asserting by proxy,(it’s not her privilege after all), she waived the privilege and should be compelled to answer all questions at this point. In order to hold someone in contempt, by the by, you must establish on the record that they have the information being sought in the question, but refuse to give the information for one reason or another. I think the Senators did a pretty good job of establishing her knowledge of the information and that her refusal to answer the questions is not because there is no information to give, but because she believes she does not have to answer the question. It’sw a shame this is before Congress and not a judge because whether or not the privilege applies would be decided before she testified and she would either be allowed to hide, singing like a bird or sitting in a jail thinking about it. I like the last one the best.
DrenchedOtter @ 273
The Hatch Act only has administrative penalties; not criminal. You can loose your job. BFD
Tithonia @ 255
It’s all part of the hubris and arrogance that pervades the Bush administrations. They see themselves as do-gooders and above the law. It’s disgusting, frightening and un-American.
GTG reboot, will try to make it bac k, IE is freezing up and will not refresh or open functions off mouse clicks…
The Webb amendment is very important. It establishes official paper trails for those who serve to oppose wrong policy by way of the logistics employed in this deployment.
Mr.Murder @ 172
It’s called Republicanism.
cc in nc @ 222
actually, isn’t that a good thing?
she’s desperately trying to play “dumb”, and that defense totally falling apart.
i say if she puts her claws out? they smack her with all the dandy stuff they’ve been putting checkmarks beside on their lists.
hey. anyone else notice how hard it is for her to st-t-t-tammer out the simple word “wrong”?
I love watching this comedy act with you folks. You brought me lots of laughs with your comments. Can’t wait until the next session. Without you I think I’d be driven to drink.
I’ll give Sara this, the recruiter made a perfect fit. She has all the right qualifications for her job.
New thread
Her answers are obstructionist. WHat a load of crap. 20 phone calls a day? Doesn’t seem like a lot for someone with that job description.
She is a lying SOB.
SanderO @ 283
The Bushies may actually be requiring that sort of an oath.
mauimom @ 282
I think they protest outside of Walter Reed quite a bit. I have a Marine Coprs, Purple Heart, Khe Sahn Vet buddy who stands with them.
QuakerGirl @ 290
Glad that you found us QG. We’ve had lots of practice live blogging various events. FDL is the best place to be for the action, the snark, and the quality legal opinions all running together.
imho sheldon white house (once again) put his finger on the meat of the matter by asking as his first question, whether taylor was still bound by her contract w/ the president, (to follow his order citing executive priveledge) AFTER she resigned.
“i dont remember if i signed a contract” – rofl
mauimom @ 286
some of them have more courage in their pinky than i’ve ever dreamed of having. including bringing hundreds of thousands of dollars of aid to iraqi refugees after the sacking of falluja in nov 2004.
the attendance at congressional hearings is a relatively new action, and only one small part of what they have been doing for years.
The last exchange went badly for Taylor. Cardin went to the point I wanted. Taylor states an opinion. When asked for the basis for that opinion she is suddenly confronted with giving a factual answer and that puts her in conflict with her use of Executive Privilege.
There is an inherent contradiction here. If she answers any questions and she has, she is in some way not following the blanket assertion of privilege made by this Administration. The Senators have shown this over and over again.
But if she is not using executive privilege all the time, then she can not use it just part of the time or when she feels like it. She can not pick and choose. Oh here I will invoke EP but there I won’t.
Having bailed on Executive Privilege at any time means she can no longer use it at any other time.
That is the importance of what happened at the end. She crossed the line and Cardin showed that. She can not scurry back and say Oh that admission was a mistake.
My impressions of Sara Taylor: She strikes me as the kind of person who’s really competitive. Probably athletics. She likes to watch the “game” on tv with the guys. She was hired partly for her “team spirit” and competitveness. She would be good at a marketing job, but unfortunately her boss was Karl Rove.
So she has no written eemployment agreement.
She claims to have taken an Oath.
What was the oath?
Who administrered it?
new thread
Just compare the committee appearances and testimonies of Taylor and Plame. Plame was composed, well groomed, polite, forthcoming, respectful, well-mannered. In contrast, Taylor is sloppy, slouchy, ill-mannered, defensive, impolite, unprofessional and disrespectful. Just what you would expect from Bush and Rove. I am infuriated that I paid this creature’s salary and health-care benefits. And may still be doing.
RevDeb @ 298
amen. and i couldn’t watch/listen alone without risking putting my fist through the screen.
What is the agenda for today’s ST testimony – anyone know? After the vote on the Webb amendment, how much more time will the panel question Sara? What is, or what *should be* the goal for today?
What’s the talking point going to be?
Uh oh. The Amendment was just withdrawn.
Hugh @ 300
not unless the committee lets her. wonder what they will do – press on or retreat?
Lawyer Smith @ 285
So do I. Amen to that.
Here is Sara walking away from the SJC hearing..
She was heard saying..
Damn I wish they wouldn’t have reamed me out like that !!!
Sara and her sore ass…
Leahy smashes her on “Oath to the President” answer as soon as he gets back from the break. He’s looking to hammer her now, and it gets to the heart of this matter.
Bravo…
Why are the repugs boycotting this?
mauimom @ 286
looks like they were doing it every friday in 2005.
here’s a list of past actions. i honor their patriotism.
Probably well into EPU-land, but I’ve read through all the comments here before deciding to post. So this “young lady” was paid with our money, OUR MONEY, to aid and abet the process of corrupting OUR government, and she now has the gall to sit there and say she doesn’t remember doing anything wrong, or doesn’t remember anything. So OUR MONEY goes to pay contemptuous high-level government employees who are either brain-damaged or liars. I can see the set-up being put in place by the questioning, and I hope it pays off, in providing a clear shot at the Oval Office. And I hope she goes to jail. Throw her in jail. She is a vile, disgusting, criminal, partisan completely corrupted pos. She deserves to be stripped of her citizenship.
grayslady @ 58
And this explains why the committee is smart to allow her to give this ludicrous testimony in this session. They get a great deal of information, and she is now set up for possible charges of both contempt and perjury. The committee can bring her back any time and make those stick.
Knowing that, her attorney should (if he has no conflict of interest!) negotiate an agreement for her to testify. To do otherwise would be to betray his client’s evident interests and open himself up to a malpractice suit at a minimum.
for info on how taylor came to find out Cummins was “lazy” Cummins said it came from Griffin
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062507J.shtml
mui @ 71
I thought by law only the president could fire them, but then there was the memo which showed Gonzales authorized Goodling & Sancho Panza or somebody.
Anyway, so she doesn’t want to talk about advise and discussion with the president or within the Executive Branch — does that means their final actions are also protected?
If so and so advises for the firing of somebody USA that should be protected. But, if somebody fire Mr. USA, then shouldn’t we be allowed to know who did the firing, the actual governmental action?
How can the Executive branch operate in complete secrecy and the Congress still be able to perform it’s oversight responsibility (not prerogative…responsibility)?