« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Whitehouse Presses Taylor on Rove Briefings
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a former U.S. attorney himself, pursued the most grueling, unrelenting and outright damning line of questioning of the day.
Whitehouse wanted an answer to a simple question. The topic was those by-now famous briefings that Karl Rove and his aides (Taylor included) gave at a number of agencies throughout the federal government. The slides from one of those briefings, given at the General Services Administration, showed that Rove's aides had briefed officials there on which Republican Congressional candidates were in danger.
Whitehouse wanted to know: during those briefings that Taylor gave, did she mention the "names of particular candidates?"
It took about three minutes for a rambling, stuttering Taylor to admit it. Taylor didn't want to. She talked about how the briefings were "informative," how they were meant to "thank employees," how they were meant to impart some knowledge about the "political landscape." Finally, she admitted, "It's hard to give the landscape without talking about the people who were the stars in the show."
But she wanted to make clear: “The purpose of those briefings was to inform people, it was not to direct people.” That, of course, is the narrow distinction on which Rove has relied.
Comments (35)
Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 1:25 PM:Again, no violation of the Hatch Act proven yet.
mo2 wrote on July 11, 2007 1:37 PM:She insisted over and over again that she was asked to give her opinion of the political landscape at these meetings as if she possessed some sort of expertise. She did not demonstrate expertise today. Can she give us an actual example of some sharing that she did at any one of the many meetings? It seems like she just quoted Rove's math, and the reason for the meetings was to affect the political landscape.
Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 1:37 PM:Jake, Jake, Jake….
You. Just. Don’t. Get. It…. Do ya?
We don’t HAVE to prove a damn thing.
That’s not the objective here.
Let me draw you a picture. It’s pretty simple really, I’ll use big colored crayons.
The Bush Administration corrupted the constitution and subverted the powers of the presidency in order to create a SUPREME EXECUTIVE… all for the purpose of creating a single party dominance for the next generation.
They did it in mean nasty unethical ways… they did it to get what they want.
Now, they are ‘ running out the clock’ to avoid legal prosecution and probable jail time. They think they are being smart. They think they are ‘working the clock’ to their advantage, while playing defense and holding off the stupid, slow dems…
They are blinded by their arrogance and ineptitude. This is possible because they are supported by lockstep idiots like yourself.
What they, and YOU do not understand, is that the people in charge of the great ‘left wing conspiracy’ don’t want impeachments. They don’t want trials. They don’t want accountability.
They want power.
Same as Bush had.
All they have to do is RUN OUT THE CLOCK with all these hearings and headlines, highlighting to the average Joe and Jill that the Republicans are killing their sons and daughters in a culture of corruption and cronies, while Halliburton makes a fortune.
That will surely translate to low poll numbers and victory at the voting booth.
Then – President Hillary will be using signing statements, executive privilege and a rubber stamp congress to appoint liberal judges and rule the world for the next generation.
It’s heartwarming to know that you don’t have a problem with this approach, and will gladly be the first to post in her support when people on this blog complain.
Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 1:40 PM:Perhaps you do not understand. You see, if you do not turn any more pages then we will never get to the end of this book. And that is good - BECAUSE THERE IS A MONSTER AT THE END OF THIS BOOK! Now please, stop turning pages!
KestrelBrighteyes wrote on July 11, 2007 1:42 PM:Yeah, no evidence of the Hatch Act violations - except for those damned incriminating slides...
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002896.php
KestrelBrighteyes wrote on July 11, 2007 1:45 PM:Yeah, no evidence of Hatch Act violations - oh wait:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002896.php
FRP wrote on July 11, 2007 2:04 PM:Tom Delay was a first rate second rate man . Perhaps before he is carted off he can develop from his signature specialities in eXtermination , a first rate Pesky remover . Pesky facts would be the among the most endangered Peskies in his long career and with his eXperience in dealing death and obscurity to them would find great demand before his renewed federal employment as a prisoner with all his old palsy walsies .
Lawrence wrote on July 11, 2007 2:04 PM:code shoe
Kick 'em when their up kick 'em when their down
Jake, what is your favorite flavor of Kool-aid?
ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 11, 2007 2:06 PM:So what have we learned? The White House was indeed behind the firings, and Bush wasn't involved.
Karl Rove's greasy paws are all over the mysterious list, as has been clear right from the start...continuing the pattern he began in Arkansas.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000428
Lawrence wrote on July 11, 2007 2:09 PM:In case readers are not familiar with Jake, he is a well known wingnut on other sites and a Kool-aid addict. Please do not feed the trolls.
Thomas J. wrote on July 11, 2007 2:10 PM:Who as at these briefings? I only ask because she said that she did three things at these meetings.
1) Thank the people for their service to the President
2) Told them what the President was up to i.e. his schedule
3) Then told them of the political landscape
It just seems she gave us a good insight into their belief system. Not only did she serve the President and not the American People but, in the administrations eyes, so did the people working at these departments she briefed. What a joke. I know quite a few career career bureaucrats who sure as hell don´t feel that they are serving the President. So although she offered nothing really exciting, her insight into the administrations views was valuable to me.
TheraP wrote on July 11, 2007 2:41 PM:Somehow "public servant" has morphed into "bush servant."
We are paying for "bush servants." We are paying for propagandistic "bush briefings."
And indeed, it would not surprise me if they had some sort of secret oath they swore to, these people who serve - not the public good - but the "bush good."
St. Augustine wrote on July 11, 2007 3:11 PM:I beleive, I beleive, sweet Jesus, I beleive.
Methinks tis time to attend to patronly duties.
Chuck J wrote on July 11, 2007 3:14 PM:My guess is that Jake would be ready to hang either one of the Clintons-or any Democrat for that matter- for the same acts Bush and his accomplices stand accused of.
shystr wrote on July 11, 2007 3:20 PM:TheraP says:
"Somehow "public servant" has morphed into "bush servant." We are paying for "bush servants."
I agree, TheraP. Except maybe I'd change it a little. How about, "public servant" has morphed into
"Bush Sycophant".
That's what these people are. Integrity-less kiss-ups, groupies and wanna-bes. Sycophants, who ignore their real duty and the real loyalty they owe to the American people, so they can stand in line to fellate Mr. lifelong loser Bush.
Disgusting, no?
turtleman wrote on July 11, 2007 3:23 PM:wow, another stuttering liar, what a surprise.
This is one of those clips that everyone should see because even an idiot can see she's lying through her teeth.
Louis wrote on July 11, 2007 3:29 PM:You know. . .
Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 3:39 PM:Louis
No, we don't know. We haven't all attended the K.R. Goebbels Institute of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda.
JT wrote on July 11, 2007 3:42 PM:One thing I've learned is that a truly consciousless professional liar can find some meaningless distinction without a difference, as Rove, Taylor, etc are doing on this issue.
This applies to Ms. Taylor, virtually the entire Bush administration, and, of course, our resident troll Jake D, who will of course be crying like a little baby about accountability and transparency starting, oh, Jan 20, 2009.
In the meantime, of course, we're treated to a seemingly endless spectacle of top Republicans who can't remember anything about anything which of course is supposed to prove that all the written evidence of wrongdoing doesn't add up to anything.
Is the clock running out? Maybe. I can't yet hear it over the sound of the credibility of the GOP drip, drip, dripping away for the next generation or so.
Roberta wrote on July 11, 2007 3:52 PM:As I watched Sara Taylor lean toward the attorney next to her to get guidance on her answers, a vision flashed in my mind of clip after clip of all those movies and TV shows where the mob soldier, charged with crimes that the prosecutor really wants to pin on the boss, protects his capo at his own expense. His lawyer’s concern is for the boss, not the soldier, but the soldier still turns to the lawyer and does what he's told. The goal is that if anyone goes down, it’s not going to be the boss. The “advice” he gets does nothing for the soldier.
That’s what all these hearings are about for this administration, isn’t it? Protecting the capo. They give a whole new meaning to the Mafia, AKA the cosa nostra -- literally "our thing."
Bush/Cheney -- giving Americans an offer they can’t refuse since 2001.
Roberta wrote on July 11, 2007 3:58 PM:"Perhaps you do not understand. You see, if you do not turn any more pages then we will never get to the end of this book. And that is good - BECAUSE THERE IS A MONSTER AT THE END OF THIS BOOK! Now please, stop turning pages!"
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 11, 2007 1:40 PM
Please explain what this "monster" is. I foresee that it's what's at the end of most good books -- truth.
Is this what frightens you so?
Louis Swaim wrote on July 11, 2007 3:58 PM:Has anyone done a count of how many times Taylor says "you know?" How did she get hired?
Louis Swaim wrote on July 11, 2007 4:00 PM:Has anyone done a count of how many times Taylor says "you know?" How did she get hired?
JNagarya wrote on July 11, 2007 4:07 PM:Again, no violation of the Hatch Act proven yet.
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 11, 2007 1:25 PM
Liar. See the findings on Doan by the Bushit appointee who investigated. That she hasn't been fired by a criminal enterprise does not mean she didn't violate the Hatch Act.
And Taylor attempted to avoid answering the question because she is very much aware that she was knowingly violating the law.
Otherwise, NPR is correctly reporting that Taylor contradicted herself throughout her testimony, and it was Republican Specter -- who is not a Democrat -- that she had in the end "waived the privilege".
When you know what you're talking about, and are willing to tell the truth, post. Until then, blatant liar, STFU.
JNagarya wrote on July 11, 2007 4:19 PM:Again, no violation of the Hatch Act proven yet.
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 11, 2007 1:25 PM
She admitted to "political briefings" -- her words. That is a violation of the Hatch Act, despite the fact that you are opposed to the rule of law, except as a political weapon against others than Republicans, and despite the fact you are so thoroughly dishonest and anti-American that you refuse to accept that blatantly obvious fact.
People who lie are liars, "Jake". You are a liar.
ed wrote on July 11, 2007 4:24 PM:hmm
correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't the phrase
"I don't believe anybody in the White House did any wrongdoing."
mean she believes there was wrong doing?
isn't this something of a double negative?
mo1 wrote on July 11, 2007 4:29 PM:Taylor is not a shrinking violet..check out her tone and attitude..much more assertive, if not downright aggressive, than Monica.
Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 4:37 PM:I have no difficulty believing she ranked high iin the decision making/carrying out.
Scary lil zealous zombies, ain't they.....
Stop debating a troll, fer chrissakes!
You cannot have rational debate with these people.
Learn that and life will be easier.
He cannot have fun unles he gets a rise out of someone. So take away his fun.
Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 4:41 PM:Igore the trolls, please.
mo2 wrote on July 11, 2007 4:48 PM:They're morons and wingnuts.
They thrive on people attempting to debate them.
Roberta, that was me making fun of the troll. The post is quoting from a Sesame Street book about loveable, furry old Grover. But, yes, the troll, Rove, and Bush do not want to get any closer to the truth.
Lucy wrote on July 11, 2007 4:50 PM:Heh, I won't debate Jake, but I know the book, and the monster at the end is the narrator. It's amusing to see a troll out himself as a monster.
Now I'm off to call my Rep and ask why he isn't supporting impeachment proceedings yet.
TheraP wrote on July 11, 2007 4:50 PM:shyster @ 3:20
I accept your suggestion. Yes, public servants have morphed into "bush sycophants."
Truly, it is disgusting to see apparent adults behaving so slavishly. I thought we abolished slavery quite a while ago! This is self-enslavement, which is even worse! Self-delusion - by consenting adults.
Troll Patrol wrote on July 11, 2007 5:03 PM:For those who want to comment to or about a troll, please click "Troll Patrol" below - and you will be taken to "trolls4jake" - a troll-dedicated blog at tpm cafe.
As a public service this blog will provide ample opportunity to waste your time on trolls.
Photobones wrote on July 11, 2007 9:43 PM:Throughout the years I've worked with a lot of different people and have met people trying to cover their keester for one thing or another and it doesn't appear to me that Sara is trying to shuck and jive her way around the questions, rather, it appears that Sheldon is having a hard time articulating his questions... he's trying to be too general and open-ended. He's looking for some information regarding grants, but he seems unwilling to ask a question with point blank specificity.
It's seems to me that he wants to know if she is the trigger-woman in a murder, but all he's willing to ask her is "were you in the house at such and such a time with other people?"
I don't get why his questions are so terribly circumspect.
Ron Phillips wrote on July 25, 2007 12:17 PM:"Is the clock running out? Maybe. I can't yet hear it over the sound of the credibility of the GOP drip, drip, dripping away for the next generation or so."
JT, I wish I could believe it would last so long, but it was less than 6 years from Nixon's resignation to Reagan's election. Even less than that from Ford's pardon.
Ron