Sara also had another use of "we" when she was describing the people who wanted Tim Griffin in the USA job. It was about 1 hour 11 minutes into her testimony.

That would have been a nice followup too. Who was the "we" that wanted Griffin in that job?

No, I'm calling BS on Taylor's response. Issue a contempt citation. Now. Here are the reasons: She's made conflicting statements.

1. First, she's argued that she took an "oath to the President", implying she looks at herself as a subordinate.

2. Then, she contradicted herself, saying, "We" took actdion, having us believe that "we" meant DoJ and teh WH.

See the problem: She's asserting, by saying "We" that she's [a] on the wsame level as the WH; but then reversing herself when she talks about an aoth to the President, imlying [b] a subordinate relationship. This needs a follow-up: The two explanations for the e-mails to not reconcile.

Here's what I would like to see happen:

A. Ask her: If we are to believe that by "We" she mean "the White House and DoJ," why would someone need to "take an oath" to the President; yet she's included in "We" both the DOJ and White House?

B. What is the _real_ loyality of the "oath to the President" -- is taht oath to the Vice President; does it include the GOP; or does th eath to the President mean loyality to the "common interests" of the WH and DOJ?

C. Who defines, decides, evaluates, monitors, and reviews whether this "oath to the President" has or has not been fulfilled?

D. When soemone takes an "oath to the President" what does that mean: Who is reviewing whether that oath has or has not been complied with?

E. What happens when someone does "not" meet their "obligations" of their "oath" to the President?

F. When someone is talking about a subordinate reationship with the PResident int erms of an aoth, why would Taylor put herself ont he esame leve as the White hosue while working in DoJ?

G. Is it eh view of Taylor by "we" whse means, "All the pweople who are _above_ we the People" and are _above_ the oversight of Congress; and _above_ the enforcement of the GEneva and FISA requirements?

H. How did Taylor decide that she was going to put herself on teh same leve as the White House; or on any given day does she look more toward the OVP as the larger loyalty; and is the "subrdinate relationship" one that means the WH-DOJ-WE are below the OVP?

Fine out. Here comments do not reconcile. Recommend examining in detail teh witness statement for purposes of perjury. Need a fast prosecution on this. Would like for Congress to move quickly on this, and not wait as they havedone with AG GOnzalez perjury/false statements in re FISA warrant non-compliance.

Can "we" confine the "oath to the President" posts to that thread (below)? Back on topic: Ms. Taylor was correct in following the President's direction at this point -- she should decline to identify anyone who was involved in any internal deliberations -- as she advised in her opening statement, if a court rules otherwise, she will gladly testify.

NEED SOME TIMELINES OF E-MAILS RALSTON, TAYLOR, MCNULTY USING

Notice, if you read the memo at TPM link, the reference to "lazy" isn't directly by Taylor about Cummins, but includes someone else: McNulty.

This means: Taylor and others were reviewing what McNulty was saying through some sort of means; or they had the ability to overhear and monitor what McNulty was saying.

- Where are the memos that Taylor did review that were specifically discussing McNulty's comments about Bud Cummins?

The key is not whether we can see the memos: I want to see the specific _time_ that Taylor _reviewed_ that document.

Again, recall the issue raised with the Ralston deposition: Berenson wanted to _shield_ the e-mail _timing_. There was an apparent concern by Berenson that any revelation about the order, timing of the e-mails would be important.

This may be important: If we can get a sense of the _timing_ that Taylor was using to review McNulty's comments:

- What form -- was McNulty's comments in an e-mail, was it a form, was there some sort of review sheet, or was there an external file sharing system with MicrosoftOutlook linking to SharePoint.

The issue is not the contents, but the _means_ by which Taylor was notified of what McNulty said; and the physical content of that transmission; then the _timing_ of that review:

- How soon after the notice went from the WH to McNulty on a conclusion did Taylor have the chance to review McNulty's response?

- What information did Taylor have supporting here assertion that McNulty, in not calling Cummins "lazy" was something that needed to be commented on?

WHERE THIS IS GOING

The point isn't the content of the mail: The point is to get a timeline of the interactions through whatever means to know: Was there a long-lag; or a short lag. If the lag was long, then we know that between the first known communication McNulty had, and the final information Taylor got, that there was a physical space of time were there were meetings in the White House.
This will give us a sense whether they were moving on a fast cycle, or one that was long and deliberative. Again, we're keying off what Berenson said in re Ralston: Trying to pinpoint whether the _speed_ of the interchanges could have been physically done whether RNC e-mails; or whether there is, in fact, another method of communication which the President and other others are using, but have not disclosed -- BUT IS RETAINED outside the Executive office.

- Were there transcripts of these telecoms?
- How quickly did Taylor learn of the McNulty conclusions?
- What meeting did Taylor attend where she learned that McNulty learned something?

The point is that it seems strange for Taylor to refer to "We" as being "DoJ and the WH" but she's acting as if the McNulty communications are from somewhere else, that she has no control over the timing of that release, and that she has little influence to McNulty. It looks as if Taylor looks at McNulty as someone who is not responding to her as she may have been led to believe McNulty was "supposed" to do. This indicates there is not a uniform view within WH-EOP-DOJ what "we" means, but there is more of an adversarial position-relationship.
Thus, little confidence "We", as Taylor reports at the Testimony" is consistent with the "We" as used in the e-mail. Notice the relationship between McNulty and Taylor changes from:

A. One of defence in re President, they're all below the President

B. Equal footing with the President, DOJ< and WHO

C. Conflict, opposition

It's not possible for Taylor -- relative to DJ Staff -- to have three different relationships: Either she's on the same level; or above' or below. Her responses are not reconciling indicating deception about what "We" means; and the true intentions and requirements of the Oath to the President.

The issue is: There is a reason why Taylor has this "shifting perspective" on how WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ staff interacted. From what little we're seeing here, it's as if DoJ-EOP Staff have this shifting, ill defined relationship in their day to day interactions; but on paper, they wold have us believe that the interactions are formal.

I'm wondering: To what extent Executive Privilege isn't being invoked to hide things related to the structure and organization, but to shield public knowledge that there is no leadership, the interactions are ill defined, and they are making things up as they go along in a moment to moment basis. Perhaps that's the real issue: They have no leadership, and the problem is just that: They are just making this up as they go along; and they're pretending that there is some big master plan that they're hiding.

Think Wizard of Oz. My sense is that the invocation of executive privilege is to hide the reality: The legal counsel working for the President have deluded themselves to think they're important, when -- as we see form their actions -- they're clueless, reckless, not able to independently rise above illegal activity,a and will make up excuses to rationalize abusive conduct which violates the law. No wonder they can't keep their story straight: They still haven't figured out what is really going on _in their own minds_. They haven't agreed to what happened, and there are inconsistent statements because _there is no effective leadership_ to ensure the personnel are working along a coherent path to a well defined objective.

Bothered by trolls?

Register your discontent at "trolls4jake."

Click "Troll Patrol" (below) - for a troll-dedicated blog at the cafe.

Brought to you as a public service.

Rebel:

Perhaps they need to call Clinton to testify himself then?

What in hell would Clinton know about Bush's criminal behavior?

My understanding of privileges is that they can be waived by voluntary disclosure of relevant facts. In this video Sen. Whitehouse points out that the relevant facts -- namely the internal deliberations leading to the dismissal -- are contained in voluntarily disclosed documents "Bud is lazy -- that's why we got rid of him ..."

A strong case can be made that with regard to the executive process leading to Mr. Cummings termination the privilege has been irrevocably waived.

Rebel:

You are assuming that Clinton didn't do the same exact thing.

skdadl:

You KNEW the answer to this question before it was asked "Is it your opinion, based on your experience as a long-time observer of government, that a mid-term firing of nearly 10% of the U.S. Attorney corps is a customary practice of American Presidents?" Wow, you must be really, really old. Quick, did George Washington do it?

Or, we could take each State in turn:

The western lands of colonial Georgia became the Mississippi Territory on April 7, 1798. At that time, President John Adams appointed a governor and three superior court judges to govern the new territory. Before long, the governor pleaded with the President to appoint a United States Attorney who was, as the Judiciary Act of 1789 required, "learned in the law." Congress granted the governor's wish and, in 1813, a District Court for the territory was created. Thomas D. Anderson was commissioned as its first U.S. Attorney on July 29 of that year.

In 1817, Mississippi entered the Union as the 20th State and on April 3, 1818, was organized as a single judicial district by Act of Congress. Sessions of the court were held at the State Capital of Washington in Adams County. The District Court was moved to Natchez in 1822, and to its present location of Jackson in 1835.

Early United States Attorney's
Bella Metcalf became the first United States Attorney following Mississippi's statehood. He had been educated by his older brother, "Old Stone Hammer" Metcalf, the tenth Governor of Kentucky. After leaving the district, Metcalf was commissioned as Judge of the Mississippi Supreme Court. His successor, William Griffith, also left the Office of the United States Attorney to become Justice of the State's Supreme Court.

Mississippi Divided Into Two Districts
In 1838, Mississippi was divided into the Northern District and the Southern District. Although the districts had separate U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals, they shared a District Judge until 1929.

Richard M. Gaines was U.S. Attorney for the District of Mississippi when the state was divided into two separate districts. Still in office after the division, he became the first U.S. Attorney for the Southern District. Gaines served in that post for more than a decade. An 1843 newspaper article described him as "energetic and rigidly conscientious in the discharge of his duties," which may account for the article's further description of him as "now scarce forty and ... gray as a Norwegian rat."

Carnot Posey was United States Attorney when the civil War broke out. He resigned his office and was reappointed by Jefferson Davis to the same position under the Confederacy but soon resigned again in order to join the war effort. His bravery made him a local hero. Posey attained the rank of General before dying from battle wounds in 1863.

Another U.S. Attorney who greatly influenced life in the region was A.H. Longino. Longino, commissioned on February 6, 1888, resigned his office one year later to run for the Office of Governor which he won. Under his leadership, Mississippi began construction of a new statehouse with a rather substantial appropriation for that time of $1 million.

Julian P. Alexander served as U.S. Attorney from 1919 to 1921. Unable to qualify for active service during World War I, he became a member of the Four-Minute Men Organization and delivered many speeches on war causes. As U.S. Attorney, Alexander became known for locating and placing into active service, hundreds of draft dodgers. In 1941, he became an Associate Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court where he gained a reputation for the humor contained in his opinions.

Edward Hindman dubbed an "able and fearless prosecutor" by the local newspaper, served as United States Attorney from 1921 to 1929.

United States Attorneys (1929 - 1954)
From 1929 to 1933, Ben Cameron served as U.S. Attorney. A former school teacher and football coach from Meridian, he found his true calling and achieved immediate recognition in the practice of law. He was greatly admired and respected for his integrity and his strong and loyal devotion to Mississippi. Cameron went on to become a Judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, appointed by President Eisenhower in 1955.

Another favorite son of Meridian, Robert Bourdeaux, succeeded Ben Cameron, and served as U.S. Attorney from 1933 to 1938. An honors graduate of Ole Miss Law School, and a former County and Circuit Court Judge, Bourdeaux presided over a staff of two Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

From 1938 to 1947, one of the most beloved Mississippians of his day, Toxey Hall, served as U.S. Attorney. Spectators would fill the courtroom just to hear him speak, and it once was determined that Hall was so popular that more than 300 people had been named in his honor.

Joseph Brown served as U.S. Attorney from 1947 to 1954. A former District Attorney from Adams County, he was the last U.S. Attorney permitted to maintain a private law practice during his tenure.

U.S. Attorney Robert E. Hauberg (1954 - 1980)
In January 1954, Robert E. Hauberg took the oath-of-office as U.S. Attorney, a position he held for 26 years, setting the record for the longest tenure of any U.S. Attorney. An impressive figure, he stood six & a half feet tall and used this to full advantage in prosecuting criminals or hitting home runs in the annual "Sawbones versus Shysters" softball game.

Under his guidance the District gave priority to voting rights and school desegregation suits under the Civil Rights Act. Hauberg and Department of Justice attorney John Door were successful in the prosecution of seven defendants charged with conspiracy to violate the civil rights of three civil rights workers murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Observers cite this, and related cases, as the point at which the federal courts broke the strangle hold of the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi.

United States Attorneys: Later Years
Hauberg's successor, George Phillips, began in 1980 as the Nation's youngest U.S. Attorney, and concluded as its most senior in 1994. He once declared he'd rather have been a cowboy, and proved as proficient at rounding up criminals, as he was at rounding up horses in private life. One of Mississippi's "Untouchables," he earned the reputation as tough on public corruption by helping convict over 50 county supervisors in "Operation Pretense." He also received national recognition for his work with the District's Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee. Phillips' statement to prospective Assistants characterizes the history of the Office: "If put to a pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness."

From 1994-2001, Brad Pigott served as U.S. Attorney. Noted for his community outreach, Pigott established a nationally recognized "Weed & Seed" and "Safe Streets" program to both reduce and prevent crime. An advocate of proactive civil enforcement, he worked to add resources for the District's civil division. Under his leadership, a strong program of affirmative civil enforcement, such as housing discrimination suits and healthcare fraud cases, produced significant recoveries by the government.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mss/about/index.html

Why does Senator Whitehouse let her off the hook, saying that her assertion of executive privilege is not her assertion. It's her testimony, her email, her oath...

In this video, at 4:53, Taylor is explaining that Tim Griffin had "just come back from serving in Iraq, in Mosul, of all places...."

What does "of all places" mean? That Mosul is/was a dangerous hellhole ?

Whitehouse did an excellent job there.

Hoppy: I think, given the bizarre circumstances which Taylor was placed in, the bar assoc. would probably be inclined to give Eggleston a break in this case

I would love to know who is paying Jake D to spend so much time on blogs defending this administration. Is this another excellent use of our tax dollars? Or is he just an unemployed troll

Hey, gussmith:

"Above there is a very poorly edited opinion and questionnaire of Sara Taylor's testimony on Wednesday (anonymous sender)."

Take a chill pill, Man. Here on the "internets," we overlook a whole bunch of writing and typing errors, as well it should be. I myself appreciate the reasoned and intelligent arguments the anonymous poster makes for whatever they're worth.

Oh, and by the way, judging by the example below, perhaps you ought to be more diligent in your own proofing efforts as well:

"Have some respect for other," -- perhaps you meant "others" here?

Pauline
(A court reporter who proofreads and who puts words to paper for a living)

Executive privilege is supposed to protect the President's ability to get unvarnished advice from his advisers. If no advice was given to the President, then the reason for invoking privilege does not exist.

The Bush administration is invoking an extremely broad notion of privilege that has never been tested in the courts. The reason that it never has been tested in the courts before is that with previous administrations (including Clinton's) Congress and the Executive branch arrived at some compromise. But as always Bush is not interested in compromise.

Much of this likely will end up in court, and that is exactly what this administration is hoping for: to stonewall and deceive with bogus invocations of executive privilege so they can run out the clock on this corrupt presidency.