« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
"Our Quarrel is Not with You"
That's from Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) opening statement at the hearing, as he made a point of saying that the Senate Judiciary Committee's fight is not with Sara Taylor, but "with the White House," which, he said, had issued a "gag order" in the form of an assertion of executive privilege.
Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) said that he hoped that the committee would not seek to cite Taylor with contempt for refusing to answer questions that the president claimed was protected by privilege.
Advertisement
Josh
Zachary
This is going to be a long morning for Sara Taylor, aka Alberta Gonzalez, Karla Rove, ad nauseum.
She looks as if she went out partying last night. Her eyes are drooping. Wake up, Sara and smell the subpoena.
July 11, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is going to be a long morning for Sara Taylor, aka Alberta Gonzalez, Karla Rove, ad nauseum.
She looks as if she went out partying last night. Her eyes are drooping. Wake up, Sara and smell the subpoena.
July 11, 2007 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
She is not going to reveal much at all. Remember who she worked for: Karl Rove. Why would she reveal anything damning towards him?
July 11, 2007 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully, Specter can keep her from getting arrested for simply following the President's directions as well.
July 11, 2007 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does it worry anyone else that all of the current Bush drones look alike? Taylor and Goodling, Rove, Griffin, Sampson, etc. Is this a requirement of the Bush White House? Loyalty, omerta, and genetic duplications?
Taylor has that same "ehh ehhh ehhhhgggh" crackle to her voice that Gonzales used while pretending not to know anything.
This is truly a Stepford Wives White House.
July 11, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This is truly a Stepford Wives White House."
Not that there's anything wrong with that ; )
July 11, 2007 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
First answers from Ms Taylor: She left her White House position for bigger and better things? Her departure had nothing to do with the gathering clouds regarding DOJ & US attys? Oh yeah, that sets a tone of honesty right out of the gate.
July 11, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously she has been told to note how Libby didn't have to serve any time in jail. So, she will stonewall and stonewall, until Bush rescues her. Laws are not the issue here. Bush is above any laws except what those strange voices in his head tell him.
July 11, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Schumer won't seek to cite her for contempt of Congress! The administration gets its way by creating something of a de facto executive privilege! Anybody can use it!
July 11, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
fyi, live blogging of hearing at dailykos.com
July 11, 2007 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, EH! Not just "anybody" is using it -- it can only apply to those who deliberated for and/or advised the President of the United States -- have you done that lately?
July 11, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can she claim the inability to answer as being "respectful" of her former employers? Her former employers were the American people!
July 11, 2007 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting to note that there are 7 Dem SENs on hand and only Grassley and Specter from the Repubs. The WH seems to have had difficulty putting together a team to run interference. Or they view this hearing as insignificant given Fielding's executive priviledge letter.
July 11, 2007 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her answers (or more specifically, refusals to answer) already indicate that the White House was heavily involved in the firings, and the magical that no one has admitted to making (so far).
July 11, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Magical list, that is.
July 11, 2007 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone notice that she doesn't look anyone in the eye when she is talking?
July 11, 2007 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If they don't cite her for contempt how do they get answers without a court case to test Bush's exagerated version of privilege? Of course, if they moved directly to impeachment they would avoid dealing with the Rove Clones appointed to judgeships and save time.
SC: Past as in "Those unable to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."
July 11, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
actually chuck, the problem is with her. She has apparently committed crimes that her boss doesn't want known, and you sit there and allow her to push you around.
Taylor has given up her privilege by answering and you can't issue the contempt citation now and compel her to testify under penalty of imprisonment? You can't even inform her that she has no immunity due to her admissions?
This is a farce. as long as you have a teevee camera on you, you do things with "decorum" as rome burns
July 11, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
if the prez tells you to do something illegal and you do it, you still broke the law.
they should cite her for contempt if she refuses to answer. I wonder if they're holding that charge for someone the public will have less sympathy for.
July 11, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schumer should have a quarrel with anyone invoved in criminal acts such as Sara Taylor and her Hatch Act violations including the DOJ conspriracy. He just shouldn't stop at the lower level criminals. Cite her with contempt of Congress.
July 11, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink