Comments (58)

DB wrote on July 11, 2007 11:24 AM:

Note Taylor just included "taking an oath to the President" as part of her employment arrangement. Surely this cannot be right?

Rich Jones wrote on July 11, 2007 11:27 AM:

I think it's time for the Democrats to prorate the salaries paid by the government to Rove and his aides. The same percentage of emails done on government computers should be paid as government work. The percentage done on RNC computers should be treated as political work and not paid by taxpayers. This should be reimbursed to the government by the RNC.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 11:30 AM:

Efficient? How is the RNC system any more efficient than the government system?

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 11:32 AM:

Nothing I've heard yet causes me any concern.

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

What was asked at 11:30. Someone should follow up and ask her for specifics why the RNC account is more efficient than the White House account. And why efficiency took priority over compliance with the Presidential Records Act.

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

The whole thing causes me concern. I'll use the good old GOP mantra: "If you have done nothing wrong, then what's the problem?"

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 11, 2007 11:37 AM:

I hate her smarminess. They need to take the gloves off.

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 11, 2007 11:38 AM:

I hate her smarminess. They need to take the gloves off.

anon wrote on July 11, 2007 11:41 AM:

..."taking an oath to the President"...

Yeah, that seemed odd. Wassup with that?

I'm amazed that the Senators are being so polite. She's clearly laughing at them and she's got the Bush smirk down.

profmarcus wrote on July 11, 2007 11:45 AM:

sounds to me like she's been coached...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

Peter Duffy wrote on July 11, 2007 11:45 AM:

What a slapdash performance from Taylor.How did she survive 2 years with Rove?

Or maybe it is a spectacular blind side move.

Julia wrote on July 11, 2007 11:45 AM:

I noticed that "oath to the president" too. Isn't it an oath to the Constitution?

ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 11, 2007 11:46 AM:

DB, the oath is to the Constitution. Which goes to the heart of what is wrong with this administration.

Peter Duffy wrote on July 11, 2007 11:46 AM:

What a slapdash performance from Taylor.How did she survive 2 years with Rove?

Or maybe it is a spectacular blind side move.

Sara P wrote on July 11, 2007 11:46 AM:

@ Jake D.
Hey Jakers, how many ludes did you drop this morning?

jeffgee wrote on July 11, 2007 11:46 AM:

We were complying with the Hatch Act. We wanted to be sure that we weren't spending taxpayer money on political matters.
Right.
Sara Taylor, gummer of the day.

tgr wrote on July 11, 2007 11:49 AM:

The "Oath to the President" line jumped out at me too. Isn't it meant to be an "Oath to the Constitution?"

Forgive my naivete, but I was always lead to believe that we have a government of laws, not people.

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

JakeD: "Nothing I've heard yet causes me any concern."

JakeD could hear that Bush had committed murder with his bare hands, taking the life of an innocent woman who had merely expressed an opinion that stem cell research should be fully sanctioned, and JakeD would still have no cause for concern, since obviously there is nothing that Bush and his administration can do that would be of a concern.

Code word = nation, as in loyalty is owed to the nation, rather than Bush.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 11:55 AM:

arent the computers she uses government owned? if so, would it matter which email system she sends mail on..

chimpeach wrote on July 11, 2007 11:55 AM:

"We were complying with the Hatch Act. We wanted to be sure that we weren't spending taxpayer money on political matters."

So, the RNC e-mail system was used for political matters, not official ones? Were you doing this political work from your White House office during regular hours? Was the creation of a list of U.S. Attorneys to fire a political matter or an official one?

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 11:59 AM:

the apologist's oath, or how to destroy your own credibility in one easy step:

"Nothing I've heard yet causes me any concern."

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 12:00 PM:

Peter Duffy: "How did she survive 2 years with Rove?"

You forget that loyalty to the party and its leaders trumps competence, integrity, trust, honor, and morality in the Bush administration.

Julia: "I noticed that "oath to the president" too. Isn't it an oath to the Constitution?"

A very, very confused little girl, that Taylor.

But a very revealing statement that points to what is noted above, loyalty to the party and its leaders trumps all else.

The very same principle that the Communist Party or any other totalitarian ruling junta applies in running their regimes.

Xenos wrote on July 11, 2007 12:01 PM:

This may seem petty, but wtf is going on with her hair? Just like Goodling, it is sitting partly in front of her shoulders, hiding her face like a seventh grader who does not want to be called on.

This is like cross-examining Cousin It.

Sam wrote on July 11, 2007 12:02 PM:

I agree with Sara. It is more efficient because she doesn't have to differentiate between a political and an executive act. And since the Hatch Act specifies you can't use a government computer for a political act, she simply relied on her RNC account for efficiency. But maybe that's exactly the type of efficiency that we can't afford - and in fact should be illegal. Does anything require her to use her government computer for official business?

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 12:08 PM:

Sara P:

If you are referring to qualude (Methaqualone, Sopor), none.

P.S. If Bush murdered someone with his bare hands, meaning the unjustified taking of a human life, I would obviously support him impeachment in the House of Representatives, conviction in the Senate, and then arrest and trial for the murder under state or applicable federal law.

ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 11, 2007 12:13 PM:

Yes Sam. There are record keeping requirements for official business, which is why same needs to be conducted on the White House computers.

As for the Executive Privelege claims, the point the Senators are making is that E.P. is a blanket claim, you can't answer questions that make the White House look good and claim E.P. on things you don't want to answer.

Schumer and Cardin made this point very well...and she is set up for a contempt of Congress citation, if they choose to go that route.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 12:15 PM:

Sam:

The Presidential Records Act would require her to preserve any and all "documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President . . ."

Lots of wiggle room there.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002201----000-.html

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 12:18 PM:

Sam: "Does anything require her to use her government computer for official business?"

Probably not.

Using a non-government computer for official business, however, does impact whether any claimed privilege has been waived.

In this case, since the RNC is not within the Executive Privilege (well, legally; we don't know what bizarre construction of the privilege will come out of the administration's mouth next), using their accounts to send official correspondence in such a manner as to show no concern for it being revealed to persons outside the privilege (that is, not accidently made available to unauthorized persons), then the privilege should be considered waived and the e-mails are fair game.

ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 11, 2007 12:21 PM:

Leahy points out the oath is to the Constitution, not the preznit. Most bushies just don't get that.

Austin Cooper wrote on July 11, 2007 12:22 PM:

Where do they (these so-called Republicans) find these particular people?

And by that I mean, women like Goodling (whose immediate reaction upon realizing she was about to be held accountable for her actions was to sob and whine), or Doan (who doesn't appear to do anything well, including suborning the offices of the GSA for partisan political purposes, and purchasing her wardrobe from the Home Shopping Network), or Paulose (who, as an absolute newbie at DoJ, held a "ceremony of investiture" upon her appointment, and frequently quotes the bible in the workplace).

Now, little Sarah -- fat Karl's right hand after losing his previous co-conspirator to Jack Abramoff.

Knows nothing. Just a secretary; just being efficent. Nothing to see here -- because there's too much hair, and as Sara would have us believe, just not that much under it.

Right.

(Code = like, as in "I like totally know everything that I totally know!")

St. Augustine wrote on July 11, 2007 12:23 PM:

Methinks Sara sounds much like Alberto in her responses.

EH wrote on July 11, 2007 12:24 PM:

"arent the computers she uses government owned? if so, would it matter which email system she sends mail on.."

Ah, the anonymous coward award. Come on, Jake has given himself a name, it's not anything to be afraid of.

The computers she used were not government owned because half of them were owned by the Republican Party, which last I heard was not an official arm of the US government. Read up on the Hatch Act if you need clarification beyond this.

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 12:25 PM:

JakeD: "P.S. If Bush murdered someone with his bare hands, meaning the unjustified taking of a human life, I would obviously support him impeachment in the House of Representatives, conviction in the Senate, and then arrest and trial for the murder under state or applicable federal law."

This is not obvious at all.

Code word = glass, as in the type of house that Bush is living in when he accuses the Dems of playing politics with the war.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 12:26 PM:

is "wiggle room" a strict constructionist term?

chimpeach wrote on July 11, 2007 12:27 PM:

"Does anything require her to use her government computer for official business?"

Yes, the Presidential Records Act provides for archiving of official records. If the official business is conducted on a system that is not archiving a record of it, that circumvents the record-keeping obligation under the PRA.

Slippery Slope wrote on July 11, 2007 12:27 PM:

She stated that she had two computers / two blackberrys; one for Official Gov business / the other for "political" activities.

Does privilege apply to the "political" activities?

Should the committee be asking what is her understanding of the distinction? Get her on record now? On a daily basis, how did she make that determination? How was she instructed (the mode of communications) in how to make that determination? Was she presented with any written policies regarding this use? Did the communications of such policies (that is the use or determination of use) ever change during her time in her position?

chimpeach wrote on July 11, 2007 12:29 PM:

"Does anything require her to use her government computer for official business?"

Yes, the Presidential Records Act provides for archiving of official records. If the official business is conducted on a system that is not archiving a record of it, that circumvents the record-keeping obligation under the PRA.

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 12:30 PM:

JakeD: "Lots of wiggle room there."

Only for the pathologically dishonest.

I truly love it when the supreme haters of technicalities, conservatives (at least when it comes to the prosecution of blacks, or hispanics, or liberals for that matter), microscopically pull apart the law looking for even the most obtuse artificial technicalities when defending their own, even to the point of using semantic falsehoods and outright lies to justify bad faith technicalities when they would otherwise condemn good faith technicalities being used by others.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 12:30 PM:

Fairly abrasive tone, obvious self-satisfaction and continual interruption of senators. Yep, an asset to Karl Rove's shop.

Lee wrote on July 11, 2007 12:31 PM:

Just to be fair and set the record straight...

She made a mistake when she said she took an oath to the President. What she meant to say was that she took an oath to the Fuhrer.

Frederick wrote on July 11, 2007 12:36 PM:

Somehow, somewhere one of these Bush cohorts is
going to flip on the White House stonewalling. Surely
someone has got the self respect to tell the nation the
unvarnished truth about these slimeballs.

tmb wrote on July 11, 2007 12:36 PM:

A look at her is a look at what's "running" our government - - truly sad . . . .

ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 11, 2007 12:37 PM:

You mean der Chimpenführer, Lee?

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 12:39 PM:

Sara does not come off as a convincing liar. Karl should have coached her better.

Mark wrote on July 11, 2007 12:43 PM:

If she had 66,000 emails in roughly 5 years, assuming a 365 day workyear and 8 hours/day, she had one email roughly every 13 minutes on this RNC account. Back out the time it takes to read and draft an email, and I wonder what, if any, time she had left for paid government work.

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 12:45 PM:

Slippery: "Does privilege apply to the "political" activities?"

No.

"Fairly abrasive tone, obvious self-satisfaction and continual interruption of senators."

No administration lackey has anything to fear. Worse comes to worst and they'll get the same benefits from Bush that Libby did: a get out of jail free card, your fine paid for by so-called law-and-order hypocrites, and a fake probation period.

Code word = like; I got nothin'.

Bart wrote on July 11, 2007 12:46 PM:

Oliver North used that "I took an oath to support my commander in chief" line repeatedly and it's always irritated me that no one called him on it: "Colonel, wasn't your oath 'to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies foreign or domestic' and didn't you in fact violate that oath?"

I hope Leahy made that point strongly enough.

Eric wrote on July 11, 2007 12:51 PM:

The efficient answer could be talking about using a blackberry?

Chris wrote on July 11, 2007 12:51 PM:

Jake sez:
"The Presidential Records Act would require her to preserve any and all "documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President . . .'

Lots of wiggle room there."

If her communications involved the firing of Justice Dept personnel, they clearly fall under the description of "activities [which] relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory...duties of the President . . .'

trillian wrote on July 11, 2007 12:51 PM:

uh...wouldn't the spending taxpayer money on political stuff be your salary for all the time you spent doing political stuff - it's not the cost of the emails - emails don't cost jack.

smedley wrote on July 11, 2007 12:53 PM:

Jake D:

Please give examples of the "lots of wiggle room" you cited.

PrahaPartizan wrote on July 11, 2007 12:54 PM:

Of course, it was more efficient. She wasn't going to have to jump through hoops to scrub all of the emails on the official network and just rely on the more pliable system set up by the RNC. Don't think for a minute that that didn't save a lot of valuable Bushie time.

jrcjr wrote on July 11, 2007 12:56 PM:

good point Mark, sounds like she owes the treasury a couple years salary.

bohdi wrote on July 11, 2007 12:57 PM:

Leahy looks well into the autumn of his years. Hesitant,limp, slow out of the blocks, probably chronically challenged by grape-like clusters of bleeding piles. Where is anyone who will step up to the plate with a Louisville slugger and start hitting hardballs out of the park?

You have a full blown baby she-wolf right in front of you. A demon vampire who nests all day long for 6 fateful years with Rovacula. Any first year actor,therapist or hot dog vendor on the street can see that she is repeatedly lying and prevaricating. Shifting sidelong eyes,huge pauses mid-syllable,strained vocal timbre resembling the bleat of a baby goat led to slaughter, dead hooded pupils. This is a souless whore for American facism and they can't even summon a decent pile-on to at the very least nail an old iron spike thru one of her squirming appendages.

jonnybutter wrote on July 11, 2007 1:05 PM:

Actually, Taylor's Hatch Act explanation is completely accurate. They were running the Justice Dept. as if it were part of their political organization. Patent. The problem with these people is that, on a certain level, they honestly don't see what was wrong with stuff like this.

I noticed that "oath to the president" too. Isn't it an oath to the Constitution?

Same deal. This is analogous to Bush's thinking that he's 'Commander and Chief of the United States'. These people are simply unamerican, traitors to the spirit of the country. And they're not entirely dishonest about it.

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 1:29 PM:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath:

``I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''

========================

Don't see no stinking oath to the president.

Has Bush established a super secret loyalty oath for members of the executive branch that he and the administration are purporting trumps the above lawfully required oath of office?

Maybe its a skull and bones thing.

Austin Cooper wrote on July 11, 2007 4:21 PM:

"...even to the point of using semantic falsehoods and outright lies to justify bad faith technicalities when they would otherwise condemn good faith technicalities being used by others."
Anonymous

Oh, please. That isn't it. That isn't it at all -- and you know it.

Taylor's "testimony" -- like Goodling's, Like Doan's, like Sampson's, like McNulty's, like Schlozman's; like Libby's multiple Grand Jury appearances; **like Gonzales' testimony** -- exhibit the same hallmarks as anyone caught in the potential commission of a crime and trying hard to tack away from a charge and an indictment.

Speaking as someone who used to catch and interrogate Very Bad People for a living: These Republican functionaries aren't all telling the same story. They're trying hard *not* to tell a story. Because they are compelled to say *something*, they talk in generalities, in circles, in trivalities -- but not on point.

In fact, the similarities in their testimony lie in **how** they don't tell a story. How they all can't seem to focus. All have faulty memories. All apologize (as Taylor did over the characterization of the USA Griffin would replace as "lazy") when exposed behaving as they normally did between each other, in their power playpens. All hide behind purged emails or protected communication, or claims of privilege from a President who doesn't know the difference between Democracy and the beginnings of dictatorship.

They ramble, hope that misdirection will magically replace a straight answer, and pray for help from Republican members of the Committees.

And, in all that, they claim errors were made in "good faith". Honest people can make errors without a greater knowledge -- which, if they'd had it at the time, would have led them to make different choices. And that's not difficult to prove.

However, people like Taylor *did* have a wider knowledge, and I'd argue that a claim of decisions made (which may have been violations of law) in "good faith" should be met at a minimum with a higher degree of skepticism.

These people don't have poor memories. They remember things very well; it's what make them "efficent" -- especially in Tubby Karl's little shop. I'd guess he's a pretty demanding employer, and you'd better be able to recall, and juggle, and deliver. Sara wouldn't have been much use to Karl otherwise.

The Senators who are trying to hold those testifying accountable for their actions and decisions aren't lying, or using semantic faleshoods. They're asking the questions anyone would want answered (except, possibly, you, and those -- "anonymous" -- like you). They want accountability. They'd like a little honesty.

Taylor's responses are part of a pattern of behavior, already repeated over and over, from the top of the Cheney-Bush 'administration' to its bottom. We not only have a right to be skeptical about Taylor's "testimony" -- we *should* be.

anonymous wrote on July 12, 2007 10:40 AM:

Austin Cooper: "The Senators who are trying to hold those testifying accountable for their actions and decisions aren't lying, or using semantic faleshoods."

My comments were about the attitude of the witnesses, if you will read carefully, not the questioners, so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point was (perhaps more clearly):

Bush administration witnesses are relying on real or faux technicalities to justify their actions and testimony, the very same type of technicalities that attorneys for criminal defendants raise all the time and which conservatives (like the witnesses) routinely criticize as bad faith attempts to avoid responsibility, technicalities that should be in their opinion ignored (when either faux or legitimate) or removed from the law when it involves the prosecution of common criminals.

In other words, these conservative witnesses are perfectly willing to create, embrace, and proffer in defense, technicalities that they would readily condemn others for raising or taking advantage of.