WH plans to block testimony from former top Rove aide; Miers has not decided

[cal04]

White House plans to block testimony from former top Rove aide; Miers has not decided

The White House appeared set for an expanded showdown with congressional investigators in the probe of the firing of eight US Attorneys over the weekend.

An attorney for Sara Taylor, a former top aide to White House adviser Karl Rove, notified the Senate that she was unlikely to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee July 11.

At the same time, former Counsel to President George W. Bush Harriet Miers told RAW STORY she did not know if she would appear before the House Judiciary Committee July 12.

An attorney for Taylor informed the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the White House sought to block her testimony.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_plans_to_block_testimony_0707.html

Read Eggleston's letter here in PDF.
http://rawstory.com/images/other/rawstoryeggleston.pdf

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

1. 10 Bucks Says Miers Doesn't Testify On 7/12

COWARDS!!

[Disturbed]

4. If either fail to appear send the Fed Marshals to arrest them.

Place them in jail until they decide to testify Under Oath!

[pnwmom]

10. Absolutely. It is only loyalty, not law, that binds them to any directive

Bush gives them now. The Senate's legal subpoena, on the other hand, must be complied with on pain of criminal sanctions.

[MissWaverly]

11. Judy Miller went to jail for failing to testify

[Bitwit1234]

2. So if the white house blocks her testimony

can't who ever blocks it be cited for contempt of congress. REMEMBER they made President Clinton testify. They said he would be cited for contempt if he didn't. So there is a precedent. If Leahy and Conyers don't go after the white house we know the democrats don't have any guts.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. No, there's not a precedent. The Clinton case was different.

He was a Democrat. There is no precedent for citing a Republican President for contempt.

[pnwmom]

8. Sara Taylor should be cited for contempt.

If she chooses a misplaced loyalty to the President she "admires" over following the law and answering the Senate's subpoena, then she should face the consequences.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. The whole bunch should be jailed on general principle,

what with the demise of habeas and all.

[pnwmom]

9. The WH can't block her testimony, legally, because she doesn't work there.

The President can direct her to not testify, but even her own attorney seems to acknowledge that this lacks legal force, when he says that Sara Taylor is being put in the "untenable" position of being "at odds" with the President, a person she "admires."

[MonkeyFunk]

12. Clinton never testified

before congress.

[bluestateguy]

3. There would be a way to make them comply

without having to push paper and endure months or years of court hearings and appeals.

Tell the Bush White House: You don't cooperate with our investigations, no money for your war in Iraq.

But that would require balls.

[bunkerbuster1]

5. But we have to SPORT DUH TRUPES!

If we don't appropriate endless pallets o' cash we won't be SPORTIN' DUH TRUPES!

what the fuck did we do to deserve such a suck-ass "opposition" party, one that constantly allows the Thugs to frame the debate with idiotic terms like "supporting the troops", I'll never know.

[pnwmom]

7. It doesn't appear that Taylor has a legal leg to stand on, based on

my reading of her attorney's own letter.

He says that she has two "untenable" choices. One is to defy the Senate subpoena and risk criminal sanctions. The other is to "accomodate the Senate," which will "put her at odds with the President" whom she "admires."

Her own attorney doesn't appear to think that the President can enforce any directive not to testify.

The Senate shouldn't back off. They should enforce the subpoena with criminal sanctions if necessary. Her desire to remain loyal to Bush shouldn't be a factor in whether she testifies or not.