« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Former Rove Aide Testifies before the Senate
Sara Taylor, until recently Karl Rove's former aide at the White House, will begin her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a matter of minutes.
You can see Taylor's opening statement here. In it, she says that she intends "to follow the President's instruction" and not testify about conversations she had at the White House about the U.S. attorney firings. However, there may still be certain questions she can answer:
"While I may be unable to answer certain questions today, I will answer those questions if the courts rule that this committee's need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege...I look forward to answering those questions not covered by the President's assertion of executive privilege."
We'll bring you updates as the hearing (which will probably be relatively short) continues.
Update: For those wanting to watch, the hearing is on C-Span3 and streaming from the committee's website.
Comments (12)
nedbalzer wrote on July 11, 2007 10:32 AM:I think Josh nailed it the other day when he wrote that adherence to the Bush cult of personality isn't a valid reason to refuse to testify.
The courts should not rule that "this committee's need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege." It is already clear that the president's assertion of executive privilege doesn't apply to private citizens or former officials; the president's assertion of executive privilege *carries no weight*.
C 92 wrote on July 11, 2007 10:48 AM:Ask about JANE CHERRY
Jane works in Political Affairs at the White House.
Jane has a gwb43.com e-mail address.
Jane is on the e-mail record involved in the US Attorney removal lists process.
Jane is the daughter of Sandra Cherry, who was the #2 officer under Bud Cummins in Arkansas.
Sandra Cherry died in 2/2006 of liver failure.
Isn't a little odd that the daughter of Bud's deputy was involved in his removal?
Geoff wrote on July 11, 2007 10:52 AM:Page 4 of Ms. Taylor's statement seems to be from another document. It's not the ending of her counsel's response.
Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 10:56 AM:nedbalzer:
What if I simply stated that the Congressional subpoena "carries no weight"? Of course, I thought the compromise where Congress could have received ALL the info in private was MORE than generous. If Congress wants to push it, they can resolve the issue in Court (assuming it is not ruled a "polticial question" first).
gonzone wrote on July 11, 2007 11:03 AM:We'll get nothing from Taylor.
dm wrote on July 11, 2007 11:03 AM:She worked for the Sith Lord so she's not frightened easily. I think she already has the mark of the beast upon her arm and that compels her to forever be a loyal Bushie.
Besides, Cheney might shoot her in the face if she talked.
Two questions:
milton wiltmellow wrote on July 11, 2007 11:04 AM:If Executive Privilege belongs to the President, then why can't he direct former subordinates to abide by the constraints of that privilege? It seems that a person can do this for other legal evidentiary privileges. For example, if a person's former doctor were called to testify about that person's medical status, could not that person refuse to waive the doctor-patient privilege and thereby prevent the doctor from providing the information (assuming that the doctor is independently ethical and/or the court enforces the privilege)?
Also, why does Ms. Taylor's opening statement read like it was written by a middle school student? Is she trying for the "don't hit girls" defense that Ms. Goodling so effectively employed?
She says, in effect, "I'll answer the meaningless questions. I'll refuse to answer the meaningful questions. I'll choose to decide (upon advice of "counsel") which is which. If you don't like it, take it to the (already fixed) Supreme Court."
Threats can only be effective if they can be backed up. Since the Senate's threats cannot be enforced, they're not serious.
If the Democrats -- and Republican Senators -- had any inclination to actually hold the Bush Unitary Executive accountable, they wouldn't participate in this political charade.
The Democrats have the votes. If they were serious, they would issue subpoenas immediately upon WH refusals. Further, they would find a way to indict Gonzales for perjury and obstruction of justice.
cds wrote on July 11, 2007 11:20 AM:"The Democrats have the votes. If they were serious, they would issue subpoenas immediately upon WH refusals. Further, they would find a way to indict Gonzales for perjury and obstruction of justice."
Well, it seems that there are no "serious" Democrats who speak for the people who made them our elected representatives.
jonathan wrote on July 11, 2007 11:25 AM:The condescending attitude of this white house is beyond breathtaking. Maybe it sounds different than it reads, although the video clips of Snow and Perrino (sp?) make me want to slam their heads on a table, repeatedly.
I swear, if I was a questioner in one of these "hearings", I'd wig out in about 5 seconds: "you mean you think you're going to dictate to me what questions I can ask? Who the %^&*$&*^ do you think you are? You don't even work for that %^%^% any more, you ^%*$. Did you sign a non-disclosure paper or something? Where is it? No I won't take your word for it, let me see the non-disclosure agreement RIGHT NOW. I SAID NOW. Fine, then any question you don't answer will find you in contempt. No, that conversation is over, you made your choice. Moving on to our questions..."
This might be why I don't work in washington.
nedbalzer wrote on July 11, 2007 1:21 PM:Jake, you can say that Congressional subpoenas carry no weight but that doesn't make it true. The claim is not that executive privilege assertions carry no weight, it's that executive privilege assertions for people who are not in the executive branch carry no weight.
Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 1:23 PM:The 4th page of Taylor's "opening statement" link is not working.
Troll Patrol wrote on July 11, 2007 7:01 PM:Register your troll complaints at "trolls4jake" - a public service, troll-dedicated blog at the cafe.
Just click on "Troll Patrol" (below) and rant to your heart's content!