Former Bush Adviser to Say No to Senate (Sara Taylor)

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

Former Bush Adviser to Say No to Senate

By LAURIE KELLMAN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; 3:42 AM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's former political director says she intends to follow his directive and not answer questions about her role in the administration's firing of federal prosecutors _ unless a court directs her to defy her former boss.

"While I may be unable to answer certain questions today, I will answer those questions if the courts rule that this committee's need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege," Sara M. Taylor, who left her White House job two months ago, said in remarks prepared for presentation to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

"Thanks for understanding," she added in the statement, made available in advance of the midmorning hearing.

Democrats insist that there are plenty about the firings that Taylor can discuss _ and is compelled to reveal under a subpoena _ that are not covered by Bush's executive privilege claim. Her lawyer was expected to advise her as the hearing progressed on which questions she could or could not answer under the president's directive.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071100074.html

[aquart]

1. Her loyalty is to Bush but not her country? Good to know.

[Diane R]

2. That's republican 'patriotism' for you. Did they teach that at Regents?

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

4. Here's the lawyer's oath administered by the U.S. District Court for D.C.

"I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, that I will respect courts of justice and judicial officers, that I will well and faithfully discharge my duties as an attorney and as an officer of the court, and in the performance of those duties I will conduct myself with dignity and according to both the law and the recognized standards of ethics of our profession."

Nowhere does an attorney pledge fealty to the president in general and * specifically.

But what does that matter -- everything changed on September 11.

[Kikosexy2]

14. Hold her in ...

contempt...whisk off to jail...Chimpie has no executive privilege here...

[Roy]

3. Isn't an investigation by a Special Prosecutor warranted now!

Jail time for contempt should loosen a few tongues.

[liberal N proud]

5. Since when did telling Congress no become an option

I always thought that if you were subpoenaed you were required by law to show up.

Of course that was when we had a Constitution

[semillama]

6. If Bush can commute your sentence and pardon you,

what's the incentive to follow the law if the threat of punishment is hollow?

[nealmhughes]

16. During a "quaint" period of Anglo-American jurisprudence, the use of compulsory writs

was one of our hallmarks. Of course, such went out with the LP, as 911 Changed Everything! Warrant? How quaint! Subponea for a former member of the executive branch? How quaint! Add in a few more quaint things such as the actual public counting of ballots, Congress alone having the power to wage war, and we had might start up a buggy whip factory!

[alfredo]

7. I would love to ask her where her loyalty lies. Is it the president or

is it the country? they should ask her to choose between bush or the constitution. Refusing to testify shows she puts bush above the people of the US, but we need to hear her say so.

[auburngrad82]

8. Jail her for contempt of Congress nt

[Igel]

18. That would take a court to implement.

And, of course, some prison to take her.

And that's not something that the dem Congress wants to do--take the entire executive privilege business to court. The only time executive privilege has seriously shown up was in a *criminal* case, not a political case.

[Doctor_J]

9. We're now seeing the effect of hacing a fascist court in place

The cataclysmic things like Roe v. Wade and such are bad, but the worst of it is cases like this. Eventually her case will reach one of the RW circuits or districts, and the partisan hacks that * has put in place will rule that the Constitution is trumped by *'s interests.

For students of such things, one of the first things the Nazis did was to rig the German judiciary so that all rulings would go in their favor.

[Cass]

10. So what's the next step here?

She mentions unless a court directs her to testify....meaning the Administration is banking on running out the clock with a court challenge, which according to the posted article could take years to resolve. Is that it then? They run out the clock and skate, or does Congress have another option at its disposal? What is accomplished if one is held in contempt of Congress?

[Nunyabiz]

15. Yeah its called IMPEACHMENT

Like I and many others have been saying IMPEACHMENT is the ONLY answer.
Don't matter at all if the rethuglicans wont pass it because it forces them to stand beside the most hated man on the planet, the worst Resident in American history that was never elected, and it will show everyone in the country just how crooked, vile and deceitful the entire Rethuglican party is.

They are also cut throat and would sell their mother into slavery if they thought it would help them politically so if they get hammered hard enough during the Impeachment proceedings then just enough of them might jump ship and Impeach his ass just to save themselves.

[Igel]

19. It wouldn't take more than a few months.

It would be expedited in the court system, arguments would be heard fairly quickly and SCOTUS would take any appeal (or not) fairly speedily.

Over a year? I seriously doubt it.

Having a court direct her to testify would be one result of a contempt of Congress charge. I'd like to see it go that way--it would be a hoot to see what the courts finally decide and read the opinion.

[CoffeeCat]

11. Let's see...

...Unpatriotic Lemming Beeeotch...party of one--your table is ready!

I bet she orders the spineless jellyfish seared in a raspberry-robot
induction--topped off with a side of steamed cowardice.

[paparush]

12. My former boss has totally f#cked your country, and the world. Thanks for understanding...

:puke:

[1monster]

13. As a former Executive Branch employee, is she required by law to not testify until

the Courts rule on the Executive Priviledge questions because Bush says so? Or is she free to decide that question herself?

[Acadia Blue]

17. So legally, can they force her to testify?

[Igel]

20. It's a question.

If a clerk for Pelosi leaves and voluntarily makes public all the discussions over the sausage making that takes place in her office, would it be illegal? What if it's 'voluntary' in the sense of 'we won't charge you with a crime if you show us what you have'?

After all, the Constitution says documents used in producing legislation are privileged, and that's a clearer privilege than executive privilege. By extension that would inevitably preclude bugging Pelosi's office--conversations would be included under the privilege.

[cosmicdot]

21. self deleted

n/m

[cosmicdot]

22. the OP link now goes to a different article

Bush Orders Miers Not to Testify

By LAURIE KELLMAN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; 11:03 PM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush ordered former counsel Harriet Miers to defy a congressional summons, even as a second former aide told a Senate panel Wednesday she knew of no involvement by Bush in the dismissals of eight federal prosecutors. Contempt citations against both women were a possibility.

House Democrats threatened to cite Miers if she refused to appear as subpoenaed for a Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday. The White House said she was immune from the subpoena and Bush had directed her not to appear, according to Miers' lawyer. Democrats said her immunity ended when she left her White House job.

~snip~



Traitor Sarah Taylor: thanks for understanding, love ya, mean it