DiFI: Who fired the attorneys
Sara: Internal deliberations

Internal deliberations: aka senior staff, a great black hole, where noone takes responsibility

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)?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062507J.shtml

radiofreewill @ 40

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.

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.

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.

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?

looks like they were doing it every friday in 2005.

here’s a list of past actions. i honor their patriotism.

Bravo…

She was heard saying..

Damn I wish they wouldn’t have reamed me out like that !!!

Sara and her sore ass…

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.

So do I. Amen to that.

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.

not unless the committee lets her. wonder what they will do – press on or retreat?