As with all liveblog threads, 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…
__________________
11:35 am ET
SEN. DURBIN QUESTIONS (Cont’d.): Durbin asking about her work with Rove — Taylor says that she has worked directly for Rove for a little over two years, that she had multiple contacts with him daily in her job, and that it is fair to say that he was her boss. Then question about the WH committee that oversaw judicial and attorney appointments — Taylor says that she was aware of such a committee, but that she can’t answer any questions about it, including whether she ever attended any of their meetings.
Durbin then moves on to questions regarding the underlying issue in the USAtty firings, as he says — questions of voter fraud and elections. Were you involved in the Bush/Cheney re-election effort in the last election cycle. Says that Griffen worked for the RNC, and that Taylor worked with him in that capacity. Taylor says that she became familiar with the “vote caging” term through press articles and that she can’t discuss “vote caging” very well. Durbin asks if she is familiar with the process of what is done in that regard. Taylor says that’s sort of behavior has occurred in the past — Taylor says that she absolutely has not been involved in this, and says that Griffen has great character, she knows what has been said about him, and she thinks it is horrible to say that he would do anything like that — and people shouldn’t say that about her friend Tim.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE QUESTIONS: Is there anything in yoru employment agreement with the WH that requires you to honor executive privilege after you leave the WH? Taylor says that she doesn’t know, but she takes her oath to serve the Presidentvery seriously. Whitehouse says that he’d like her to research that question and get back to him with an answer — Taylor says she doesn’t recall signing an employment agreement, but maybe she did. (CHS notes: Would someone ask her if she also honors her oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and the laws of the United States?) Did you and Griffen do oppo research? Yes. Did it give you any hesitation that someone who chose that career path would be in any way inhibited to set aside the motivations and be a fully independent USAtty — to be able to set those partisan motivations askide? Taylor says no, that didn’t give her pause at all about Griffen — that his oppo research skills would be useful to him as a prosecutor.
Gets into midterm firings — is that a customary practice of Presidents? Taylor says that she doesn’t recall Reagan or Clinton doing that or, perhaps they did and did it in a way “that was much more artful.” Whitehouse says that the WH has acknowledged giving political briefings to more than a dozen Administrative agencies. The WaPo reported that Taylor gave a briefing at the EPA — tell us about this. Taylor says that she doesn’t recall the briefing, but her general speaking discussion woudl be to thank political appointees for their service; second, would tell them about the President’s upcoming schedule and focus on a particular issue area, and how they would fit into that; and, thirdly, give them an update on the “political landscape of America,” because all those folks were involved in politics in one way or another, and she would share with people what she thought about what was going on with politics. She says that President Clinton’s staff did them as far as she could tell from news accounts. Would these go into Congressional races? Taylor says she would talk about what was going on in the country, so if pople were focused on particular races, she’d talk about those individual Congressional races in terms of giving a broad overview of what was happening and what the impact would be of that in terms of the President’s desire to implement his policies. Taylor says they were meant to be informative for the employees — not to give them political marching orders for their job context. Would that include the specification or targeting of particular candidates? Taylor now hedges on answering. Taylor says that the purpose of those briefings was “to inform people,” not to tell them how to direct their activities based on her opinions. (CHS notes: Hello, splitting hairs much?)
SEN. CARDIN QUESTIONS: Most of the USAttys on the firing list were involved in investigations that were unpopular with the local GOP political establishment. There is concern that political considerations were the motivation for these firings. Would it be wrong to remove a USAtty because of political reasons? Taylor says she thinks so. (CHS notes: she looks tired and not happy to be there at this point.) Did you recieve phone calls or other forms of communication with regard to the USAttys that were fired? Taylor doesn’t recall getting communications about them. Taylor says that she doesn’t recall specific calls about specific USattys — says she got maybe 20 calls a day and maybe 300 e-mails per day complaining about various issues. Cardin doesn’t find her lack of recollection convincing.
Cardin points out that she is selective in her execution of the WH claim of executive privilege, and points out that she’s happy to answer questions that are helpful to the WH, but won’t answer the difficult ones. Taylor says she appreciates that this might be frustrating, but she’s doing the best she can on this. Taylor says that she doesn’t think anyone did anything wrong in these firings. And then cannot answer whether political considerations factored into the firings based on Fielding’s letter. Was your assertion that there was no wrongdoing based on internal deliberations? Taylor says she shouldn’t have answered the question.
20 minute recess.
Jane and emptywheel are now ready to go at the House Judiciary Hearing which will cover Presidential pardon authority. They are going to be liveblogging directly from the committee room in the Rayburn building. We’re going to turn over liveblogging to them at this point, and I’ll continue blogging the Taylor hearing — just behind the scenes. I’ll publish an updated transcript on the Taylor hearing later today so everyone will get a full glimpse of that questioning as well. It’s a full day of oversight today and we’re trying to snag all of it for you all that we can.
ADDED: Please consider donating to our FDL pledge drive. It looks like there are going to be major hearings on Capitol Hill in our future. Help us bring you all the latest live with boots-on-the-ground reporting from Marcy, Jane, Christy, Pach, Jeralyn, and others. You can donate through PayPal or by snail mailing to the address below.
Thank you for your support! It means the world to us.
Snail Mail
The Fire Dog Lake Company
8033 Sunset Blvd. #966
Los Angeles, CA 90046
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
- HJC Schedules “Get Democrats to Cave on PATRIOT” Hearing
- Public Option Whip Count: Jerry Nadler Goes “Splunge!”
- Karl Rove: That’s Why They Call It a Limited Hang-Out





Spotlight








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

JANE! MARCY!!
zed?
She seems hostile.
There’s something about the smile in that photo that truly frightens me. Talk about your Stepford political operatives…
Light! Sunshine! Justice!
FDL!!!
Are they in break now?
Bob in WI (temporarily)
Sacanagem @ 4
I’m thinking more along the lines of boiled rabbit.
I hate to be the one.
Does anyone see Reese Witherspoon “Legally Blonde” in that picture.
Truly frightening
Can these people obstruct and commit perjury and run out the legal clock by 01/20/09?
Coleman and Collins crossed over and voted with the D’s on Webb’s amendment.
Pressure!
I’m traveling, and on dialup, so CSPAN is not working well for me. I’m depending on the liveblog!!!
Bob in WI (temporarily)
dumb question time:
Why isn’t a vote to limit debate followed by a vote?
Steve-AR @ 9
That does seem to be their intent.
Fucking Lieberman did it again!!
jayt @ 15
And you are, what, surprised?
oddball @ 7
I bet when she had Rove backing her you wouldn’t want to mess with her. Kind of like the people who liked being “camp guards”.
I hate cspan. They always put the good stuff on cspan3 and the internet options for that suck.
While Senators are voting, could EW pass a note to a staffer about the whole ‘oath to the president’ thing? I think it’d be ideal for Sen. Whitehouse to note that he swore an oath to the constitution as US Atty. and as a Senator.
I also agree with the firepups who’ve noted that Taylor’s selective use of privilege means she’s essentially waiving the right to invoke it, and if she refuses to answer on subjects where the WH looks bad, she’s ripe for a contempt citation.
RevDeb @ 16
“Surprised” wouldn’t be my word of first choice, no.
Can Taylor be cited for contempt of congress, and taken by the seargent at arms directly to a DC jail?
Because, if she can, its time to play hardball with the White House, and tell Taylor that there is absolutely no basis for the extraordinary claim of executive privilege in law or precedent, and she can either answer the questions, or sit in jail until the courts decide whether or conversations not involving the President are privileged.
AP is running clips on Yahoo! News… Taylor looks rough… she seems to have put on weight, and her hair looks windblown…
it’s all “no comment,” or “I don’t recall”
typical stuff… thanks, CHS, for doing this for all of us…
What did Lieberman do?
RevDeb @ 13
But what is the Federal Statute of Limitations? If it is longer than ~2 years, that is a huge club to use on these people. As in fine, lie all you want, you will be referred to the DOJ and indicted in 2009. A “f” you very much for coming today.
live mics on SJC site
p.lukasiak @ 19
I agree, but it’s not going to happen
What did Lieberman do? I was dealing with real life for part of this.
EPU’ed
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, but the damage has been done.
To use her words, this inartful use of Executive Privilege sets her up for a contempt citation. I hope that the Committee will have the stones to issue it.
Millineryman @ 3
Good. Remember “A Few Good Men”? If they can get her angry enough, perhaps she’ll spill a few beans.
GeorgeSimian @ 17
I called my local Comcast and asked them to add CSPAN 3 to the TeeVee and they first said they never heard of it, then they said no one would watch it and then I asked if they knew what kind of programming it was and they said “no”. I think they could find a job in the White House.
spurious @ 24
He was born to start.
GeorgeSimian @ 17
You mean the testimony that is most incriminating to the Administration is censored by the administration by putting it on C-Span3?
Whoda thunk?
LIEberman…NAY of course….the amend failed to receive 60 for cloture..Webb withdrew only got 56 votes
Obama in da house – as is HRC.
Motion Defeated.
Lieberman voted with the R’s against Webb’s amendment which would give the troops a little time off now and again.
And we can’t have that, now can we?
These senators are too afraid to play hardball.
She is a fraud, a liar and actualy a very dangerous person if you listen to what she said about talking to the EPA… that those people are polical appointees and working for the president. Ha? I thought the EPA worked for the people?
This is really scary stuff.
She is dissing the committee with her dismissive and dodgy answers and she should be literally slapped with a contempt and hauled to the brig until she cooperates. But they won’t do that. They are too polite and scared of the bad press they would receive for locking up a little blonde girl who worked so hard for the president and she knows they did nothing wrong. She knows.
So why not answer the questions if there was no wrong doing? What is she hiding?
Webb amendment goes down.
41 senators voted not to support the troops.
The use of Executive Privilege makes them look guilty as hell. The WH would have been better served to allow her to say, yes, we discussed replacing the USAs, the President made the decision, and there was no wrongdoing. Clearly, that is not what went down. This just digs the ditch deeper for them.
She strikes me as very pragmatic, tempermental, and scrappy. I would not want to work “for” her, but she probably did her job well.
Hugh: I’d recommend calling a Senator’s office and making just those points.
Cardin’s laying the groundwork. I think it’s time for Leahy or someone else to float the words ‘obstruction of justice’.
valletta @ 28
That’s a waste of a dime. They don’t listen to that stuff. They still think they’re a monopoly. And they are, mostly.
Will someone please tie her hair back?
p.lukasiak @ 22
Ding!
OT: Hans Blix just started on wnyc.org. You can listen to the webcast.
Hugh @ 26
Betweeen Schumer and Cardin (and my god, Schumer’s ability to think on his feet is frightening — he just zeroed in on her answers to Specter and showed how they blew her EP claim all to hell), the EP stonewall is in rubble now.
And yes, they’re setting up for a contempt citation. And yes, the GOP/Media Complex will whine about What Eeeevil Meanies They Are.
LS @ 36
I love how angry she gets. Indignation is a clear sign of criminalilty.
jayt @ 34
Sh*t.
For several minutes at the beginning of the I thought she could be a “sacrificial lamb” as the hearing went on it became crystal clear that she is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
How could anyone in their right mind possibly say that she does not believe that anyone in the White House did anything wrong in the firing of these Republican prosecutors.
This has never happenned before (my understanding) where so many prosecutors who were appointed by the present administration were fired mid stream for doing their jobs by rising above party politics in administering the rule of law.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/…..attorneys/
p.lukasiak @ 19
Can they do this?
jayt @ 32
Wisconsin National Guard just back from what was supposed to be a six month deployment.
They left in 2005.
So much for supporting the troops, J-LIE.
Back from recess.
Whiny Joe LIE up on Span-2.
Time to turn it off.
They’re back
GeorgeSimian @ 37
That is rather odd..put it on the most watched c-span spot
we’re back
I watched a bit of the clip on Yahoo – with the better quality video, you can really see how scared she is. She’s not used to being out there on her own without Rove’s authority behind her.
About executive privilege – looks like she is using a definition that means that anything ever said in the white house by anyone to anyone is covered. Also anything any white house folks ever say to anyone outside the white house. Doesn’t leave much.
Took an oath to the Constitution!
Leahy gets her.
Leahy: You took an oath to the constitution?
Yes
And to the President?
Oh no oath there
Leahy is looking like god again (if there is a god)
Kathleen @ 51
CSPAN is committed to broadcasting the House and the Senate when in session
Leahy asked if she really took an oath to the president. Did you mean to the Constitution?
Sara: uh, yeah, i shoulda said that…
Hugh @ 26…exactly.
She’s even admitted today that during her earlier answers regarding Biskupic and Griffin she should have invoked the “letter” defense and not answered the questions. So once she fails to use the letter defense for all issues concerning the USA’s doesn’t she lose and forgo her ability to use the “letter” defense and therefore has to answer all the questions from now on. I think Cardin also made this point with his questioning.
oooh, Leahy smackdown about the nature of her oath. (to the Constitution, not GWB)
Government by the people and for the people? Who knew?
Leahy up again. Taylor’s oath was to the Constitution not the President.
Taylor: Oh right. She then says it means to uphold the President.
Leahy reminds her the President is not the Constitution.
Taylor: I’m trying to . . .
Leahy: I know what you are trying to do.
Leahy has to give her a basic lesson in civics. Taylor doesn’t seem convinceed that her duty is to the constiution, the American people and NOT the preznit.
What difference does it really make if she uses EP or “I don’t recall”? Either way, it’s bull, right?
Whoa! Leahy obviously told her lawyer that she was going to jail unless she started answering questions…
Two things strike me in Sara Taylor’s testimony so far:
1) The questions to which she responds ‘can’t answer that’. One assumes that if she can’t answer something, that such discussions were held in the WH. Which means she’s basically confirming the WH’s involvement in the US Attorneys firings, because you can’t invoke privilege to protect nothing.
2) Sara Taylor really is an obnoxious, unpleasan, argumentative, disrespectful asshole. That may be a necessary set of qualities in a political director, but one should be able to turn it of when responding to the people of the United States and their representatives.
Also, I don’t think she’s very bright.
If she looked like a toad and was a guy, they would definitely throw her in jail. I doubt they will do it with her, unless she blows up and gets really rude with them. She almost did, but she kept it together. I’ll bet she really talked back to her parents when she was a teenager. If they push that button, she might pull out her broomstick and really let it fly…teeanage girls can really go off on authority…it would be a great popcorn moment.
p.lukasiak @ 64
A-Bout Time!
There’s something very ancien regime about the loyalty of thirtysomething Bushies.
The picture I would like to see of Taylor on the front pages is when Leahy explains to her that her oath was to the “constitution” not to the President. She looked absolutely dumb founded and humiliated.
Leahy missed the next question which should have been…
“So if the President violated the law, where do your obligations lie, with the President or with the law?”
Egregious are you here? She is taking your name in vain. The caging allegations against Griffin are egregious.
When she said Griffins is a fine upstanding individual, and didn’t believe he would be involved in anything untoward, she lost all credibility in my eyes.
GeorgeSimian @ 63
Yes, it is bull. The difference is that for one you can be held in contempt.
sara: egregious claim against timmy griffin re:vote caging.
I cry foul. taking the name of egregious in vain!
Wait a minute. Was the Webb Amendment defeated, or did they just lose the cloture vote? If the former, who are the Dems who don’t support the troops? If the latter, why doesn’t Harry just let them filibuster? Seriously, how long do you thing the Republicans are going to want to hold the floor to make sure that our troops can’t have any time off?
Amb.Wilson statement for Committee is officially released,
HuffPo and No Quarter have it.
Prairie Sunshine @ 46
Why don’t his consituents just recall him? He continues to do the opposite of what he told them he’d be doing. If someone flipped me off like that, I would want him out of office so I could get someone who would actually represent me.
She really hesitates before she answers Leahy: whether or not she believes there was a vote-caging scheme (targeting largley African-American voters.)
Pound pound Taylor
Jennings email discussed. And why hasn’t Scott Jennings been hauled up in front of a committee yet? He had his fingers in the attorney firings and the political briefings.
she said she wasn’t aware of any presidential meeting w/regard to US Attorney replacement.
So how can she, in any good conscience, claim that executive privilege is proper?
Document
OAG1622
Feb 28 2007 e-mail from Scott Jennings to Rover copy to ST
NM USA Urgent issue
p.lukasiak @ 67
That will explain why the laywer is sitting there rocking in his chair and looking grim.
Hugh @ 60
Here it is. This is the tipping point. That was huge.
Documents. Yes! Emails.
I hate it when Taylor et al claim “they read it in the press” especially when it was probably sitting on their desks.
Heh. I was wondering when Leahy would ding her for “swearing an oath to the president” as opposed to the Constitution.
Leahy now on vote caging in Florida and elsewhere. ST “believes” it didn’t happen. Leahy asks her how she can be sure of this; she flounders and keeps repeating “I am not aware”.
Leahy then hits with the 2/27/07 e-mail “NM US Attorney Urgent Issue”. And Rove’s private e-mail address.p.lukasiak @ 65
Yupper. :-)
Leahy: It would make life easier if you take the time to answer my questions.
“I’ll simply die if I don’t get that recipe!”
Isn’t she confirming that the Iglesias firing was a WH determination (& not DoJ) just by claiming it is a WH determination?
EllenG @ 70
If it is to the President can they walk her out in cuffs after the hearing?
did leahy mumble ’she won’t answer it’?
Leahy; Where’d you hear about the packet of info that went from Rove to Sampson re: voter fraud in Wisconsin
Sara: That happened? Was it in the press? Go figure!!
Well, she stepped in the shit on that one, since Leahy’s basically walking her up to the point where she declares privilege and essentially acknowledges White House deliberations.
RevDeb @ 34
Is Reid gonna hold press conferences every day and hammer it home? That 41 Senators refuse to support the troops.
“Don’t answer”(lawyer
“I’m not sure I recall…”
Someone from Wisconsin flipped. They’ll torch this liar quick. Sen.Leahy wouldn’t have asked otherwise, he doesn’t play cards blind.
cleter @ 84
TRY HARDER
Unfortunately, you can’t recall a Senator. Sad, but true.
Specter: Was Rove involved in Cummins replacement by Griffin?
Sara: Applying EP to Rove
No she did not
She absolutely just said that answering the question about Iglesias would require her to discuss WH deliberations. Bingo.
now she’s saying that she can’t talk about Rove’s determinations and actions.
(cough)bullshit(cough)
Dee @ 75
Beyond the fact that CT does not have a recall provision in their state constitution, HoJo is considered a “Federal Officer” and there’s no recall for them (includes Senate and House).
Taylor: “It’s fair to assume…”
No, goddamit, it is not. The purpose of these hearings is to determine *facts*, not reinforce assumptions.
We’ve had enough of that from the administration in the past 6 years.
Oh. She stepped in it with comments about Griffin’s service in Iraq.
Hope somebody for our team brings up the disparity between Griffin and Iglesias, where Iglesias’ service was used against him.
The ‘oath to the president’ thing basically set Taylor up as someone obstructing justice, not just in contempt.
And I now suspect that the shit is going to come down on her at the end of this hearing.
pseudonymous in nc @ 107
And after her, do we get Rove?
Oooooh!
Is Leahy tracking FDL?
Did you take an oath to the USofA, or to the Pn’t?
Here. Let me clarify for you in a short lecture.
ST: …uh..uh..
Oh goodie, she’s not refreshed by the break in action atall atall. Now trying to try to be respectful, & totally failing at that simple task.
Go Leahy! Caging!
ST: deafdumb&blind to everything that ever happened with anyone about anything about caging.
Leahy bores in. Her purty lil hairdo is sagging to match her shoulders. OMG, she just sounded close to tears as he called her attn to a real live document, copy there-of right before her very person. She admits to seeing it.
this. is. going. to. be. a. long. afternoon.
for the little, -uh.. missy.
oops, now she’s back to snippy, wringing hands, shifting in her seat.
Helpful Leahy points out it’d be an awful lot easier if she’d just answer simple questions…
she looks like a bratty little 10-yr-old in the principal’s office for ripping up little Suzie’s pom-poms right before the big game…
ST: asking if an info-tidbit had been in the press, while she stalls otherwise – cute. telling.
[transl: can i get away with lying about this one, or is it already public knowledge?]
Specter up: doing her no favors, by pumping up her credentials, thus making her poor-lil-dumbell routine fly out the window…
Uh..oh…Cunningham investigation…uh…uh…I read about it in the press..what just happened to her nose?? She could have said no.
re: Carol Lam “Don’t know Shit”
I wanna see the Carol Lam case put at the very front of this whole process.
Hmmm. Joe Wilson all but calls Scooter a traitor.
Where and who do you think that Rove is watching this hearing from and with? Haides? In the bunker with Cheney?
ST: Even things I have no knowledge of falls under Exec Priv
Objection, hearsay.
And I’d like the SJC to bring up the Chiara case, not least because her email exchange with DOJ officials (McNulty, yes?) is pretty fascinating.
Kathleen @ 110
Lurking on FDL?
Dee @ 77
Because Senators are not subject to recall elections. If you want that to be available, I believe it would take an amendment to the Constitution. Now do you really think the Senate will vote that one in?
So it is true. Nobody in the WH knows anything, does anything or thinks. I sort of suspected that but it is nice for it to be confirmed
Hey princess! Fieldings letter is not the Holy Grail.
While granting that the executive deliberations privilege that Taylor invokes may have some gray area (being abused by the WH), how in *hell* can Fielding and Taylor refuse to testify on *EXTERANAL* communications?
By defeintion, they’re already outside the WH.
Specter just said he thinks her testimony has been helpful
He just lost some points with me
Anyone know how long this hearing will last?
You know, once a privilege has been waived, it’s gone. She has waived several times. She’s wide open to be questioned about anything and everything, and should be held in contempt if she refuses. A witness cannot pick and choose whether or not she claims privilege, based upon the nature of a particular question.
She’s waived it – Pounce!
When Sara says that she read about something in the press, they should ask her if she also read about it in any other documents.
Her references to the seeing things in the press are clear efforts to avoid having to talk about the documents she has seen.
Remember, she can see things in the press and also have seen them in internal documents. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I think she looks like a young Gloria Steinam. Just to bad she does not have Gloria’s brains or integrity
Specter: I’ll take this stonewalling bullshit in lieu of actual testimony any day.
Snarlin’s head is so far up the canal of Chimpy and Rover that it may never be seen again.
Bush won’t listen to you Mr. Specter, the
enabler…
Bush is an arrogant tight arse and he needs
to go
Frank Probst @ 74
I thot I heard Webb withdraw the amendment right after the vote.
OT..but Sara Taylor was national co-chair the the College Republicans…The GOOPER equivalent of the “Hitler Jungen”. I bet her only truthful answer was about swearing an oath to Bush. I wonder if she practiced in front of a cardboard cut-out like in “Jesus Camp”?
Taylor swore to uphold prez, not Constitution.
Taylor can’t recall what she had for breakfast, tee hee.
The supreme imperiousness of this bunch is apparent when compelled to answer questions in public.
Too many americans only see selected clips on the “news”. They don’t see these hearings & this wh gang revealing their arrogance & contempt for principles & morals, not unless they actively search.
I’m also frustrated that so many important hearings are not live on cspan 1 & 2. Of course, there should be much more coverage on msm but they won’t.
Americans aren’t dumb. Most pick up on bs quickly & we would be a lot further along in regaining what we have lost if only more americans had more info.
I too think this testimony is helpful but in a different way. Love it. Let her talk – she self-reveals.
I know I’m hopelessly out of touch, but if Taylor has agreed to do this lousy job of testifying, will Miss Harriet do the same? I doubt it because her knight in shining armor asked her not to, but I just wondered if she has refused publicly.
This chick is apologising a lot for being rude to the Senators, perhaps a proxy for being a PIA.
Added this above, but wanted to be sure everyone saw this:
EW will begin her live liveblogging momentarily. And I’ll keep going on Taylor’s hearing and will post updates throughout the day as well so you’ll get the full transcript as far as I can get it for you, too.
Oh please!! Is she going to claim that she knew nothing about what her deputy was doing?
This claim of privilege is garbage. Why don’t they arrest her under the inherent contempt power:
Wikipedia
Schumer, please ask her how idle internal gossip about a USA’s performance or their popularity is used as a criteria for termination.
Please.
Schumer is now honing in – getting into the specifics .. going for the kill?
I think Taylor might outdo Gonzo in the “I don’t recall” department.
Quite an accomplishment.
Adie @ 125
Well so much for the BS about Republicans running away from Bush.
Marcy and I are in Conyers hearing, which just started.
Wireless card only works in my Mac, not her PC, so she’s bravely taking the Mac challenge in order to liveblog.
Her self sacrifice is admirable.
Kathleen @ 121
Yes, Taylor’s attractive and photographs well. Oddly, she doesn’t film well. Taylor’s sullenness, disrespect, and fractiousness are revealed in her gestures, vocal manner, all the little things that get captured in voice and motion, and show a deep ugliness at her core.
Schumer please ask her about issuing loyalty oaths.
pseudonymous in nc @ 123
Finally have to drive over to AFI & do some actual work, but may I just express my neverending disgust w/Arlen Specter. And lest we forget- he was Ira Einhorn’s defense atty. back in the day, & argued successfully for Einhorn to be released on bail because he wasn’t much of a flight risk…
Be reading you all later :-)
zennurse @ 129
At least we’ll get a chance to see her in action. What kind of a lawyer she is will become obvious.
Schumer is thanking Taylor for refusing to answer questions?
Rove must be high-fiving with his buddies right now.
Schumer got her ready to roll on some comments re:Cummings.
jane hamsher @ 137
I’m surprised they didn’t block wireless altogether.
Welcome to the mac world Marcy!
Thanks for the fabulous liveblogging, Christy. You’re just awesome.
jane — tell Marcy we greatly appreciate her sacrifice on our behalf.
Oh, the horrors, working on Mac…
jane hamsher @ 137
Thanks to you BOTH for letting FDL into Conyer’s hearings..
Especially since I don’t get CSPAN3 !1
Happy Blogging
So, if she doesn’t recall any criticisms about any of the USAs other than Cummins, it kind of blows the “poor performance” justification out of the water. She would have known. That must have been concocted after the fact.
jane hamsher @ 137
Gee maybe you’ll be able to bring her over from the dark side and into the light.
Sara sure has some issues around Tim Griffin. She’s so “into him.”
dakine01 @ 149
Is there a link?
All this sympathy for Iraq vet Griffin, and none for Iglesias, ST? Oh, do hammer her ass on this, Schumer!
Taylor’s ‘ire’ over Griffin’s treatment after returning from Iraq seems sadly misplaced given the White House’s and DoJ’s treatment of Iglesias after his service in the armed forces.
LS go here
and follow the “View live webcast” link
Taylor: “I feel badly.”
Did no one in the Bush White House study grammar?
Taylor said that Cummins was lazy but then gives no factual basis for the claim, backs off it, but why did Taylor say it in the first place? Is she given to making statements that she has no idea why she is making them?
Whitehouse up. Reads email.
She was furious about her good friend Tim not being nominated? Ooh she just said Cummins had been “let go” by the administration. All those shenanigans to fire Cummins and Griffin not nominated.
WH: who said Cummins was lazy? Where does that come from.
Sara: That’s internal WH deliberations.
WH: we have an email, not protected by exec privilege. And you can’t discuss it.
RevDeb — I sense Missy Taylor is “into” Griffin because he’s a loose cannon and he knows where all the bodies are buried.
And I think she’s clearly worried about Cummins or she wouldn’t be slapping on the kneepads every time his name comes up. He either knows something, or she knows that there is something very damaging about the way he was handled that puts her and possibly others at personal risk (defamation of character, perhaps?).
I’m going to try and follow the livecast and keep this thread going too…
thanks CHS!
Whitehouse pointing out the absurdity of EP claim: Taylor can’t answer about an email of hers that the committee already has.
Is the Conyers hearing on Cspan, if not where?
conyers hearing isn’t on cspan – prob on later tonight – just now seeing sara t on cspan 3
RevDeb @ 150
God, I hope she didn’t have an affair with him. I can just see the WH pulling that out, then blaming any wrongdoing with respect to Griffin on an overzealous and love-blinded aide.
EllenG @ 70
That is a fantastic question that should be asked of the hostile Ms. Taylor.
Bluetoe @ 161
http://judiciary.house.gov/
click on live webcast
Bluetoe @ 161
See me at 154
ST just said that teh president was not involved in the firings, so there is no privilege, right?
Wilson on the stream…
have Leahy ask her if she can ever verify a time that Bush did not take part in the firings.
Trick question.
If she verifies that it was a conversation she’s in contempt.
Her failure to verify of course would be in cintempt of her supposed dedication to bush that is part of her tewstimony and the motivation for Privlege.
taylor says she has no knowledge of the POTUS being involved in any discussions or decisions on this matter? how can there be executive priviledge…. i’m so confused.
conyers hearing
http://judiciary.house.gov/schedule.aspx
Wow, she has no knowledge that the President was involved in the decision to remove the USAs. There we go.
The firings and the interims are not serving at the pleasure of the president. Therefore, none of it is legitimate, unless it was done by Gonzo under the Patriot Act provision. If it wasn’t Gonzo, then the whole thing is illegitimate. Am I right about this?
Leahy on to WD MO and AL-VINNN.
L: When did you learn that Todd Graves was being asked to resign
ST: Only from paper.
L: When learn that AL-VINNN was the replacement
L: We’re used to you conferring with atty, that’s why we allowed him to sit there. You still have to answer question
ST: I don’t reacll when
L:Not the question When did you learn he was being considered?
ST: I don’t recall
Rayne @ 159
Sounds good to me. Can we go with that?
Joe Wilson testifying in Conyers Jud. Committee
http://judiciary.house.gov/
Someone please throw this bitch in jail.
Ask if there’s is any knowledge of Bush NOT being involved.
She cannot assert that unless she was party to talks.
Saying the opposite puts her in arguable contempt of her motivation.
JGabriel at 163, It’s seems quite likely she did. I don’t see no ring on that finger!
Bluetoe @ 174
We should have someone taping, for those who are watching one or the other. I don’t want to miss Miss Sara, but I do also want to see Wilson.
Go Joe Wilson make our day! Thank you Thank you and Valerie for all you have done and continue to do to bring any shred of integrity that our country is hanging onto back to the American people.
Sen Leahy: I think you are doing your best not to answer any legit questions, and using the letter to help
Burn!
Wow
He said OATH and her eyes cocked up instantaneously…
She has lied, is lying, and appears to be coming apart at the seams…
Yikes-
Shorter Taylor testimony (overall):
I can tell you about and confirm or deny anything I read in the newspaper, but I can’t tell you about anything I did in my public service job.
ooh that mean old Sen. Leahy’s gonna make lil’ blondie cry if this keeps on.
Is ST another sterling product of Regent U?
fyi – i’ve been making a list of the week’s hearings each monday (click on my name for the link). the lists includes links to each hearing’s webpage (and webcast).
service provided to firepups at scarecrow’s request.
here’s this week’s list.
Leahy has her stammering and trying to deny what croc-a-Kyle said about her signing off things. She’s trying to use the EP claim and Leahy is calling Bull Sh*t on her big time. Especially since the informaiton has already been covered in open session.
Leahy: Ms Taylor, I think you’re trying to use the letter to avoid discussing your acitons. It ain’t working. How did you determine to sign off on the plan?
ST: I can’t answer the question due to letter.
She is toast. Leahy is priming for charges to be brought. Rightfully so.
JGabriel @ 182
Is her job to read the newspapers?
Thanx (eyes uplifted). Praise to Leahy
Leahy: Miss Taylor I think you are doing your best not to answer questions that are relevant. (in other words, Fielding is BS). And the WH is helping you with this coverup.
Her speaking over the Senators is sure going over well. /snark
And Leahy continues to state, “Your oat to the President” and she takes it in stride. No correction. Guess her oat to the President is unquestionable.
Sampson’s testimony:
So Sampson didn’t say explicitly that Taylor had sign-off, and you now have to wonder if that was deliberate.
Leahy flat out said that Taylor is deliberately avoiding answering any legitimate question and that she is doing so to further a WH coverup.
nope. the pride of Drake University.
Is it just me, or does she look like Willem Dafoe?
IrishJim @ 187
Let’s hope so. I am so sick of this contempt for Congress from these criminals.
-bill @ 184
Drake in Iowa.
TexB @ 188
Somebody in the WH has to once in a while since Chimpy doesn’t.
And I do think Leahy is gearing up for a contempt citation.
Fielding’s letter says she can’t discuss information she gave to reporters?
This is revolting.
Oh man, Senator Leahy is way under her skin-
Olbermann is going to go NUTZ
Shades of Oliver North.
JGabriel @ 200
Can we impeach Fielding?
She’s starting to sweat. Face getting shiny.
Oh, I can answer that Q….I don’t recall.
Notice how every time the senators burn her she confers with lawyer, and then says oops I made a mistake on exec privelege.
Ask her if she can state that there is any time she is aware of Bush NOT being involved in the attorney firing talks.
It would negatively assert her party to hatch violation.
If she says “NO” then it goes right back to what she says is her loyalty to Bush and cling to privilege and her other testimony is then conflicted.
She just admitted there are questions she doesn’t want to answer!!!!
“I’ve got a letter from my daddy’s lawyer and it says I don’t have to talk to you- nyah, nyah nyah thllbsss!”
On top of that she is a very poor liar. She responded “I don’t recall,” in some cases, almost before the questions were completely posed. Just another sock puppet.
Now, Specter’s trying to head off a contempt citation. What a fucking water-carrier he is.
The clouds are getting heavy with Taylors wet horseshit? When will we hear Leahy’s thunder?
Specter cutting in saying that he senses that they may be pursuing a contempt citation. He’s running interference for her.
*Specter* comes out with the ‘contempt citation’ threat?
Interesting…
Uh oh…
Specter just said contempt concerns
Uh..oh…here comes the contempt citation threat..Specter just said he thinks there will be an effort to cite her for contempt.
She says she is trying to be consistent. Pathetic! Yes, a contempt violation.
“there may be an effort to cite a contempt charge” Ruh-Roh!
Leahy! Tell her new house is the Big House. Puhleeze. For the love and respect of the American people.
“you maybe would have been better off” not answering any questions! -specter
Sargent at Arms!!!
And remember she’s the one who issued loyalty oaths in New Mexico. She’s not some innocent.
Specter complimenting Taylor on her evasions, obfuscations, and outright lies.
No f’ing wonder Chertoff has a feeling in his ‘gut’ about Al Queda coming this summer. You can bet your sweet ass things are getting hot in the WH kitchen!
I know Specter is a scumbag but I really just cannot believe what he is doing right now. It’s positively disgraceful and disgusting.
This goes far beyond rehabilitating a witness.
Yep, Arlen is leading her into a get-out clause. That’s pretty disgraceful, but typical of him.
Snarlin is really running interference for her. Helping to build her stone wall.
I’d like to see the Code Pink gang haul her off :)
What loyalty oaths?
I’m beginning to get real pissed that Feingold hasn’t bothered to participate in the activities of this Committee for quite a while now.
Specter – let’s make a deal!
I call Specter’s behavior, ex-Specter-ation..Whenever I hear him, I want to spit.
shorter taylor: I’m willing to come back and say I don’t recall.
Specter could throw it. Claim cintempt for something technically not sao, to cover the outright contempt.
Thus she could later clear one charge on a technicality and then the spin of equivolence would enact.
Specter is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube! Unbelievable!!
-bill @ 184
No. Unfortunatly, she is a graduate of my Alma Mater, Drake University.
TexB @ 203
I don’t know. Perhaps one of the lawyers or constitutional experts here can let us know. I’d be interested in knowing the answer to that as well.
I suspect not, but have no basis for that.
pseudonymous in nc — I think Specter is an ass, don’t get me wrong.
But I think he’s doing good cop-bad cop, and he’s trying to be her good cop. I smell a chance to get her to flip (her attorney must really be worried and they know it).
Nice parsing and prevaricating, Specter, by the way.
Arlen, STFUP
jayt @ 229
Is he on the committee? Is he there?
She sure can answer “Correct, correct correct” when she thinks she maybe going to jail.
Leahy: ‘Is counsel leading the witness?’
Specter: Yep.
Between “Iraq and a hard place”
“no way you can come out a winnner” -specter
Yes, she can come out a winner. Tell the truth and come out in the sunshine.
“big cloud, big smear over your head” goaw, he’s begging!!!
QuakerGirl @ 244
But she is a Bushy! Impossible.
Leahy: Spector is trying to protect you from a contempt citation.
TexB @ 239
Yes.
and No.
Sorry, no more deals, no more benefit of the doubt. When she’s answered, it’s been more don’t-recalls. And until people’s asses are on the block, this is going to be time-wasted till 2009.
TexB @ 239
yep. 10 dems on the committee (kennedy is not there either). here’s the list.
And as frustrating for us listening to this. And her attorney will answer the questions they send her.
C’mon! Issue a friggin’ contempt citation! These are Bushie Loyalists[tm]. It’s their job to lie. It’s your job to uphold the law, Senator!
Leahy telling her that she can correct the record to avoid contempt. That means there won’t be any Sgt. at Arms action today. Darn.
Why are these criminals allowed to review their statements and correct them. Is this privilige given to common criminals?
pseudonymous in nc @ 223
That Specter would go so far as to address the concern in the hearing, means that Leahy, et. al., must have already started discussing it and are seriously considering it. I doubt Specter would inject the issue and his defense of Taylor into the hearing itself unless there was a strong consideration of it occuring.
Pat, she is showing nothing but contempt. Give her a citation.
Leahy: you said Bush was not involved (so has everyone), so that undercuts his Ex Priv
Rayne @ 238
I think you’re correct Rayne. Spector can be and often is an a** but I think he and the rest of the rethugs on the committee are seriously burned by the WH on all this. That’s why I think most of the Rs are not showing in order to keep from having to carry the WH water in an area they do not agree with the WH.
“executive privilege” doesn’t apply if she’s been telling the truth….she’s screwed
Why are OUR senators missing from this? Where the F are they?
If no contempt citation is issued this hearing will have been a waste of time.
And that’s it. Off to the House.
Contemptible.
Can I trade you a Carl Levin for a Patrick Leahy? I’ll throw in a Stabenow for free.
Leahy: Unsound legal advice from the WH doesn’t protect you Sara.
It’s clear as crystal that ROVE was the person behind EVERYTHING. And that Bush really thinks of ROVE as his brain so in his mind Executive Privilege extends to him. Startling logic but it is Bush’s logic. Or lack thereof.
Leahy: Contempt citation still to be decided upon.
Now Leahy brings up the incongruity of asserting EP at the same time that Taylor is testifying that the President was not involved.
And it doesn’t protect Taylor from the contempt citation. So if the such a braos claim of EP is being made, why? Unless of course the WH is up to its eyes in this matter of the firings.
Now what? (You know, besides all of us running over tothe commutation hearing) Really – what can we expect now? Miers is tomorrow right?
anne @ 259
Did you see her gulp when he pointed this out?!!
Kathleen @ 254
It is a common practice for witnesses in congressional hearings to be given the courtesy of revising their remarks. Think Waxman response to Victrola Toesuck after she appeared before his committee on Valerie Wilson.
It’s not a court.
Snarlin now talking to her after the fact. She smiles at him.
Gee thanks Snarlin. I can’t wait to work to get you unseated in 2010
CSPAN was just showing Specter *conferring* with Taylor immediately after the hearing was ended!
How fucking blatant can you get?
On CSpan 3, Bush just dissed Canada. Yikes!
Kathleen @ 254
Couldn’t agree more. Seems like everyone who has testified has used this wormhole to tell lies face-to-face, and then wriggle out of their lies after the fact.
mui @ 264
That is the first swipe at Fielding I’ve heard … take care Fred, overstepping the law will result in disbarrment (sp?).
TexB @ 258
Now, c’mon Betsy, would you really have wanted to see Cornyn up there playing with himself?
Helen @ 268
Meirs will be a repeat of today, except that, the committee members will walk on eggshells to not appear to be badgering an old lady.
She’ll offer lots of plausable deniability and “I don’t know”’s.
selise @ 252
Feingold was there when the hearing began – sitting to the right of Schumer, if I recall. But I did not notice when he left.
Dee — I’ll keep Levin, thank you. The entirety of his voting record has been one of the very best in the Senate.
But you can trade away Stabenow after her MBNA vote and her MCA vote. They can have her.
dakine01 @ 275
i meant our dems!
TexB @ 272
So that’s the thanks Stephen Harper gets for being his lapdog?
here’s the thing i dont understand – aren’t these folks working on the public dime? if so aren’t they answerable to “we the people”? what is this business of i donr recall or i dont know or i cant answer…. they supposedly work for us or am I mistaken? i think they’re running out the clock – they know their time is limited sooo no need to come forth in any meaningful way….
Fern @ 280
You beat me to it, Fern … that was my thought … let’s see if “Steve” responds as the PM of Canada or just hides in his office and stuff his face with Big Macs …
Remember what Bush said about Meirs when he tried to get her on the Supreme Court? She’s a pitbull in heels. I think that’s what he said.
Fern @ 281
driveby from Al The spook:
there is mondo oil in the arctic, the us has claimed it since forever, but canada does also and since no one could get there, noone cared. now boosh wants that oil and is willing to use force to get it.
There is a sizable warfare simulation going down of the us full out INVADING a major power right now, as an “exercise”. Some of us wonder if its Canada (they haven’t released the name yet). All in good fun, tho, we’re all friends together, right? wink wink nod
SanderO @ 228
Oh wait that must have been Monica Goodling. Same thing. They’re all peas in a pod.
althespook @ 284
An invasion won’t be necessary, Bush will let Canada find the oilfields with taxpayers’ money, then sell them to U.S. oil companies for $1 dollar …
GeorgeSimian @ 283
We better see some fireworks from Congress, cause I’ve just about had it. Goodling/Sampson/Gonzales/Taylor. They are all showing total contempt for congress, the american people and the rule of law.
QuakerGirl @ 191
Remember the issue a few weeks ago about someone conducting loyalty oaths? Was that Ms. Goodling? Regardless, I am willing to bet the loyalty oath was to POTUS. Ms Taylor got indoctrinated that way, and I will bet every one of the POTUS’s people has sworn the same oath.
Ish @ 273
Umm, not to get all nitpicky here, but there is a reason for this.
Congress isn’t a criminal court (except in matters of impeachment). To that end, it’s oversight mandate is to get the truth — in order to craft legislation, and to prevent or address wrongdoing.
For that reason, and in that spirit, it’s more beneficial for Congress to permit witnesses to correct their testimony, rather than gun for contempt or perjury charges immediately.
(Yes, it’s can be frustrating when the witnesses are clearly lying to protect themselves or the administration. But it’s a system that usually works, though it can be discouragingly slow.)
mui @ 288
You said it.
Sojourner @ 288
Not just ANY POTUS. Bush.
Petrocelli @ 287
Canada is BP and royal dutch shell. They think bushco is a wannabe. and they are NOT friendly with any us oil co. shell is also owned either partially or fully by the british crown (entailed, not the individual rulers). don’t know the ownership of bp.
so they will fight to keep that oil. legally and with military power if need be. there seems to be no end to the evil that the Bush Crime Family will do…
Definition of Rivkins “On the same token” If you are in the same club the wealthy and well connected you can operate outside of the law..”a different kind of justice” which is not justice not matter how you spin it Mr. Rivkin
Just how in the hell do we tell our children that different rules apply to those in the Bush administration…Libby.. who was proven to commit perjury and obstrutction of justice in the investigation of the outing of a CIA covert agent. to those who commit petty crimes who will do more time in jail than Libby will ever do?
No Matter how you spin it Rivkin..this is not JUSTICE THIS IS HORSESHIT!
Our justice system is not just and the Libby commutation proves it once again. Americans and the rest of the world are looking for justice in this critical case, and you twisted radicals continue to spin justice into utter hogwash!
Why do all the Stepford Women in the Bush Syndicate all have that trampy, Jenna quality about them?
David Rivkin is one of the go-to whores for the Bush Syndicate on NPR. He knows they won’t challenge any of his bullshit.
it was infuriating that cspan didnt use split screen technology today. normally they can do no wrong by me – but i had to call to complain about this today. why werent we allowed to see sara taylors face more often???
JGabriel @ 255
I think I heard Leahy mentioning something to Specter off mic, with ‘not yet’ as one of the phrases. That’s to say, Leahy was more than ready until Arlen Aquarius stepped in to remind Taylor to say how she’d be a good little witness.
dakine01 @ 275
I have had a fun time needling the good senator from time to time, asking him why he does not participate more. Next year’s election will be fun — his approval rating is sinking just like the P’s and I am going to actively work to get him out of there.
Educated Plaintiff @ 296
There will be much more face time for Ms. Taylor on tonight’s replay. It hasn’t been scheduled yet, since it will depend on when the House or Senate recess for the day.
cosmosis @ 294
and you believed all that stuff about being against cloning. *g*
IrishJim @ 235
I’d love to see what SHE sends in to the alumni mag about her “recent activities.”
do-si-do @ 268
Did you see her gulp when he pointed this out?!!
It’s going to be real interesting when Harriet Meiers, recent nominee to the United States Supreme Court, is forced to choose between hiding behind privilege and telling what she knows. Unlike ST, Meiers, *is* an attorney, and should see that the privilege claim is somewhere between weak and specious.
That being said, I think we’ll see an essential repeat of today’s performance, dodging, weaving and prevaricating.
Wonder who she’s having dinner with tonight?
A very good day at the lake, indeed.
And the AP’s Laurie Kellman is on Lil’ Loyal Sara-kins Versus The Eeevil Leahy:
contempt for congress is built into bushco – thats a given but dems are running things so i expected more hard-driven oversite… and yet bushco goes merrily along
There is no incentive for Taylor to testify. Even if she goes to jail, she knows that she will not be there long because Bush will commute her sentence, and any fees or fines accrued will be paid by fundraisers. She has NO incentive, and if she wants to be gainfully employed, will keep her mouth shut.
The only way for this round-the-block BS to stop is to begin impeachment hearings.
Get Tough @ 306
Can he commute a sentence for contempt of congress?
IrishJim @ 234
Me, too, Irish Jim.
althespook @ 292
That’s not how the oil business works now. If we went and took over the Canadian oil fields, it wouldn’t change the price of oil. It would just mean different companies would get the profits. However, the large companies have already made agreements between each other so that they all get rich. The only time oil fields are taken over is when a country (like Venezuela) nationalizes their oil industry. Look for us to invade soon.
I have the final installment of the Taylor hearing up here. And Marcy is liveblogging the House Judiciary Committee hearing here.
boxer @ 310
oh yes, i was aware of all that. BUT, he who actually OWNS the oil (PSA) gets the lions share, and bushco wants that. And of course he won’t invade, i was being snarky. but there are other ways to force the canadians to knuckle under (like interdicting the grand banks fishing zones on a trumped up eco-reason). the side agreements are essentially to keep the big boys from killing each other if a stockholder group gets an eagle up about something.
Venezuela is another matter. i don’t see invasion, rather internal subversion as we did with pinochet in chile (anaconda copper, IIRC). What is interesting is whether china will fish in these troubled waters. they are hugely oil dependend and have got enough military to make a valid ally for the Venezuelans.
Folks, for the safety of our servers, please move to one of the newer threads. This one is getting long and it is starting to drag. Marcy is liveblogging above — any off-topic comments can be taken to the last Taylor thread that I just put up. Thanks!
Dee @ 77
You cannot recall a senator, sorry.
American Idolator @ 155
Makes you wonder if she feels bad about feeling badly. Heh.