Comments (15)

Candyce wrote on July 11, 2007 11:20 AM:

Wow, is she playing coy with that letter from Fielding or what?

I have a question. Are the Senators restricted to only asking questions related to the stated purpose of the hearing, or can they use this opportunity to ask her about any subject?

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 11:21 AM:

How exactly does Taylor's willingness to answer questions NOT COVERED BY SAID PRIVILEGE "weaken" the claim of privilege again? Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Candyce wrote on July 11, 2007 11:23 AM:

Durbin just answered my question! That was exactly the question I wanted him to ask her...about the caging. (Which she says is bunk, but obviously it's a game they played if they used the term in their emails.)

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 11:30 AM:

It's not considered proper form to ask questions outside the stated topic noticed for the hearing. Like that's going to stop any Democrat.

nancy wrote on July 11, 2007 11:32 AM:

Taylor has actually answered a number of questions that would seem to be covered by privilege, but not others.Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) later remarked that Taylor's willingness to answer certain questions had "weakened" the White House's claim of privilege.

Try actually reading what was written Jake.

The mountain exists.

SteveW wrote on July 11, 2007 11:35 AM:

Tim Griffin is a loyal Republican flak, thus qualifying him to be a U.S. attorney? What a joke!

Bud Cummins was resigning on his own? Cummins acknowledged he was told that he was to be replaced by "Karl's guy." So, was it Cummins was told or was it that he was "lazy?"

Bill Clinton fired U.S. Attorneys. Yes, Bill Clinton, like Reagan, fired U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his first term. Why don't Dems acknowledge this?

Taylor and Rove were CLEARLY in violation of the Hatch Act in their "presentations" to government department agencies.

There are so many lies here, it's hard to keep track. This woman worked for Rove, so that's all that needs to be said. She's a professional political hack and liar.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 11:35 AM:

None of the questions she's answered "seem" to be covered to me -- more importantly, she has consistently refused to answer questions which are obviously covered: "Taylor Refuses to Answer about Conversations with President" DUH!!

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 11:45 AM:

For the record, Candyce, here's the "topic" as noticed by the Democrats on June 14, 2007:

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing on “Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys? – Part VI” for Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Eric Muller wrote on July 11, 2007 11:46 AM:

There's no way that executive privilege can protect the simple fact that a particular communication occurred. At most, it can protect the content of the communication.

I could envision a circumstance in which a court might conclude that even the fact of a communication ought to be privileged. For example, if the President were engaged in secret negotiations with a foreign power, such that national security would be undermined by the disclosure of the existence of the communication itself, then I could imagine a court sustaining the claim of privilege.

Here, in the context of what Leahy is asking Taylor, the claim is just nonsense.

West wrote on July 11, 2007 11:52 AM:

During my freshman year of college a friend of mine was pulled over for speeding. As I'm sure was a result of his long hair and other factors the cops asked if they could search his car. Knowing his rights (and that the car was "clean") he said no just to screw with the cops. Obviously they now thought he had something in the car and called for backup, dogs, the works. About an hour later they finally search the car, citing some legal reason to do so. They find nothing. My friend made his point and the cops felt like a bunch of dumb asses.

Does anyone else fear a similar situation occurring in this investigation?

The WH evokes executive privilege (even with nothing to hide..or at least nothing that will be found), the dems persist, go to court, the works... and then as it turns out there is nothing to be found and the Dems look like a bunch of dumb asses.

West wrote on July 11, 2007 11:56 AM:

During my freshman year of college a friend of mine was pulled over for speeding. As I'm sure was a result of his long hair and other factors the cops asked if they could search his car. Knowing his rights (and that the car was "clean") he said no just to screw with the cops. Obviously, they now thought he had something in the car and called for backup, dogs, the works. About an hour later, they finally search the car, citing some legal reason to do so. They find nothing. My friend made his point and the cops felt like a bunch of dumb asses.

Does anyone else fear a similar situation occurring in this investigation?

The WH evokes executive privilege (even with nothing to hide..or at least nothing that will be found), the dems persist, go to court, the works... and then as it turns out there is nothing to be found and the Dems look like a bunch of dumb asses.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 12:02 PM:

Which one is it then, Eric?

1) There's no way that executive privilege can protect the simple fact that a particular communication occurred; or

2) I could envision a circumstance in which a court might conclude that even the fact of a communication ought to be privileged.

Eric Muller wrote on July 11, 2007 12:37 PM:

As I made clear in my post, Jake, this case is clearly of category (1). Stop being obtuse.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 1:01 PM:

They are mutually exclusive statements, Eric. So, I am not being the "obtuse" one.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 11, 2007 6:57 PM:

Troll rant coming on?

Keep the threads clean and post your rant at "trolls4jake" - a public service blog.

Make the trolls go there to find what you think!

Just click "Troll Patrol" (below) and rant to your heart's content!