BREAKING: White House To Block Testimony Of Former Rove Aide

[Hissyspit]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/07/breaking-white-house-to-block-testimony-of-former-rove-aide

BREAKING: White House To Block Testimony Of Former Rove Aide
Early last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to former Karl Rove aide and former Director of the White House Office of Political Affairs, Sara Taylor, for her involvement in the “unprecedented firings of several prosecutors and politicization within the Department of Justice.” Taylor — despite White House refusals to surrender documents related to her subpoena — agreed to testify before the Judiciary Committee as required on July 11, 2007.

Today, however, Taylor’s attorney W. Neil Eggleston, delivered a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) explaining that Taylor expects that the White House will attempt to block her testimony, citing executive privilege:

Ms. Taylor expects to receive a letter from (White House Counsel Fred) Fielding on behalf of the President directing her not to comply with the Senate’s subpoena. These contrary directions undoubtedly create a monumental clash between the executive and legislative branches of government. This clash may ultimately be resolved by the judicial branch.…

(Taylor) is unquestionably loyal to and committed to the President and his agenda. …

Absent the direction from the White House, Ms. Taylor would testify without hesitation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She has participated in no wrongdoing. She will assert no personal privileges.

(Taylor) faces two untenable choices. She can follow the President’s direction and face the possibility of a contempt sanction by the Senate, with enforcement through the criminal courts, an action that regardless of the outcome, will follow her for life. Or, she can attempt to work out an accommodation with the Senate, which will put her at odds with the President, a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years.

In response, Leahy issued a statement:

The White House continues to try to have it both ways — to block Congress from talking with witnesses and accessing documents and other evidence while saying nothing improper occurred. I hope the White House stops this stonewalling and accepts my offer to negotiate a workable solution to the Committee’s oversight requests, as so many previous White Houses have.

[gatorboy]

1. Because they have nothing to hide, right?

RIGHT????

Good God, these folks make my head hurt.

[mod mom]

43. of course not-it's all "PRINCIPLE" with those folks

:sarcasm:

[barbtries]

70. exactly

as regular citizens we're supposed to be okay with the government tapping our phones, intercepting our email, secretly learning what books we read for gawdsake.

their hubris and the extent of the corruption and the way they get away with cloaking it in validity because they have the presidential seal drives me utterly apeshit.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

2. Maybe this will be the straw that will put Impeachment on the table? eom

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Is this White House acting like it's afraid of this Congress?

[Starfury]

17. No, they're acting like they have nothing but complete contempt for this Congress... n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

54. Contempt, disrespect, and, not too concerned about what Congress

will do, apparently.

We just have to assume that members of the Republican party will continue to act in a criminal manner, until someone can prove to them by punishing them that what they're doing *is* criminal, and not politics. Because, this mincing of words is why there are more minorities in jail, than Anglo-Americans. Anglo-Americans have learned to game the system so that they can behave with the same disdain for society and property as an embezzler or grand larcenist, by committing politics, not crime. And in their little world, there is a difference.

So, it comes down to what the definition of "is" is. This is an Isis problem.

[Beartracks]

85. Right - When you have a "Decider", who needs a legislative branch? nt

[barbtries]

71. i would say so

and like any bully, the best defense is a good offense. they are extremely, absolutely, to the bone offensive.

[malaise]

3. They will soon learn that the gig is up

Impeach these fuggers. Arrest them, whatever.

[WinkyDink]

4. Total psycho reaction to Gore's DAY.

[Disturbed]

6. Will Leahy &/or Conyers be bold and send the Fed. Marshals

to arrest them and keep them in jail until they testify? It can be done but will it?

[malaise]

7. I wish I wish I wish

but am I hopeful? No.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. IMPEACH! IMPEACH!! IMPEACH!! Is there any other answer???

[aquart]

20. Frankly, no.

[malaise]

25. No

IMPEACH!!

[PurpleChez]

62. Me neither.

The Dems' new-found backbones dissolved after the november elections. Now they just want to play nice and not offend Preznint Psycho.

[orleans]

51. no no no. sara taylor is president and therefore will be allowed to claim

YEE-HAW!

executive privilege

[karlrschneider]

8. Leahy "hopes". How nice.

:grr:

[C_U_L8R]

10. Afraid to testify ????

so much for Repuke bravado.... as soon as the heat is on they run to hide.

[creeksneakers2]

11. Leahy ought to quit negotiating

Could the latest White House action be obstruction of Congress or something illegal like that? Would Taylor be in contempt if she doesn't testify? She's a private citizen now, and I don't see where the White House gets the authority to tell Congress who they can and can't call.

I think the subpoena/ignore subpoenas/contempt findings/ignore contempt findings route can lead us to a valid impeachment.

[wtmusic]

50. Exactly. Negotiating with these criminals is pointless. nt

[EST]

74. It is called "Contempt of Congress" and it IS illegal.

It can lead to prison time, however, that depends on congress. They can let the party of contempt off the hook by ignoring their transgressions, granting them more time or by doing nothing at all.

IT requires that they do something that congress is loathe to do-democratic congress, that is: make criminals of fairly tall members of the opposing party.
I'm glad to see a few members actually calling crooked partisans crooks--'bout time.

[Canuckistanian]

12. The pResident is "directing her not to comply with the Senate’s subpoena"?

Since when does a president advise someone to ignore the law?

[Starfury]

18. Why not? He can just commute her sentence after all... n/t

[Canuckistanian]

23. Exactly when do the Contempt of Congress charges kick in?

Let's see, there's Condi, Dick, Bunnypants and now Sara Taylor.

If I ignored a subpoena, there'd be people knocking on my door toute suite.

Why does the executive branch get an exemption again?

[ClintonTyree]

53. According to Tony Snow....

Congress HAS no oversight ability of the Executive branch. Simple as that! :eyes: They make up the rules as they go along, Constitution or no Constitution. After all, it's just a quaint piece of paper, not to be taken seriously. Unless of course THEY want it taken seriously for their own purposes, then the rules change again.

"It's good to be the King". :grr:

[elehhhhna]

21. Yeah that sounds like Obstruction of Justice SQUARED!

[rumpel]

13. RNC e-mail account. Taylor = 66,018 e-mails

from Henry Waxman's Committee

White House officials made extensive use of their RNC e-mail accounts. The RNC has preserved 140,216 e-mails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these e-mails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official “.gov” e-mail accounts. Other heavy users of RNC e-mail accounts include former White House Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 e-mails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 e-mails). These e-mail accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1362

[thereismore]

45. Of course she did nothing wrong... used RNC emails. How about that Ms Taylor? nt

[spanone]

14. Of course they will, the truth to the bu$hits is like the sun to vampires.

they will dodge & weave and obstruct justice until junior's out of office....and we'll pay for the attorneys to stonewall it. ain't america great! :sarcasm:

[WinkyDink]

16. Perfect simile! In their case, the Truth shall make them IMPRISONED.

[sellitman]

15. What are they hiding?

Another poster suggested this be our mantra until some daylight is cast upon these nocturnal Vampires.

I agree.


What are they hiding?

Ask a Freeper today!

[Emit]

34. I took your advice and asked. Here's the response I got

Shipwrecked wrote:

Emit wrote:

Shipwrecked wrote:

Emit wrote:
What are they hiding?

None of your business.

Nor yours. And you're okay with that. I'm not. It's my country, too.

Good, then you'll appreciate the protection.

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=78752



It's so classic of the authoritarian followers discussed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1269324

[JDPriestly]

75. I'm wondering if they are hiding a lot worse things than we even suspect.

They are going to such lengths, risking the 2008 election, the whole shebang on preventing Congress from calling witnesses and investigating actions that they claim are perfectly legal. I'm really wondering if the Bush administration is even worse than our worst imaginings. Why else would they be so protective of their privileges.

They will probably push the issue of executive privilege to their Supreme Court. The problem is that a decision that prevents a Democratic Congress from obtaining the information this Congress is requesting would someday prevent a Republican Congress from getting similar information from a Democratic president. I heard Conyers say this morning, for example, that Clinton waived his executive privilege so that Congress could investigate the Mark Rich pardon. Of course, I am unaware of any previous president who used the Justice Department for blatantly purposes so blatantly partisan.

[aquart]

19. Holiday week dump.

[Spazito]

22. Any letter from Mr. Fielding holds no legal weight....

and her lawyer knows it. She has no protection from the White House because she no longer works there. The Judiciary Committee should act accordingly, imo.

[Canuckistanian]

26. That's right

It didn't work for Monica, so why should it work for Sara?

[Spazito]

29. At first I thought you were saying Monica was sent a letter

instructing her not to testify which is NOT true then I realized, I think, you were saying allegiance to the President doesn't buy you a pass from testifying which is absolutely correct.

I am reading you correctly, right?

[Canuckistanian]

32. Yes

There was great pressure (in the media AND the executive) for Goodling NOT to testify, or at least to cover up the involvement of Gonzo:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1633004,00.html

[Spazito]

37. Thanks for confirming I read it right....

I am really smelling sweaty desperation on the part of the WH in the last few weeks, very much like the later days of the Nixon Presidency.

[NancyBreen]

24. I love how they use the diversion

of Live Earth Day, when the world is begging for responsibility in saving our planet, to issue this kind of a statement.

[snappyturtle]

36. I doubt they even know it's going on much less care.

:-(

[The Wielding Truth]

27. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

[alfredo]

28. "directing her not to comply"? Oh how imperial of him

[deutsey]

30. Well, impeachment is off the table, after all, so what's the big deal?

:sarcasm:

[Richard Steele]

31. Another big stinking pile of "nothing to hide". recommended.

[Hissyspit]

33. .

[snappyturtle]

35. I hope Taylor's attorney has told her there could be "consequences"

in her not complying to the Senate Judiciary Committee and maybe she can figure out, although she's probably fatally flawed with her loyalty to *, that her loyalty isn't worth it. However, I believe Leahy's comment that this matter may, in the end, be settled by the judicial branch is delusional. I'm afraid the judicial branch won't find in the DEMS favor. Impasse 'til the election?...hope not.

edit: BTW: K&R thanks hissyspit!

[billbuckhead]

38. AND WHAT EXACTLY IS KKKArl ROVE'S POSITION THE WHITE HOUSE?

Isn't this a clear signal fascism is already here?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. this executive privilege is getting out of hand

how to weasel your way out of trouble

[bdamomma]

40. Leahy stop toying with these monsters and fucking do something!!

[funflower]

41. When your impeachment rating is double your approval rating, who gives a damn

what people think? All you need is 34 U.S. Senators in your pocket.

:puke:

[SalmonChantedEvening]

42. "loyal to and committed to the President and his agenda."

Message sent.

Fall on your sword like a good lil girl and serve your master.

Or serve this interests of the country and risk his wrath, because loyalty only goes one way with *.

[Hissyspit]

44. .

[Hissyspit]

46. .

[wildbilln864]

47. K&R! eom

[Eurobabe]

48. What'cha hiding Sara? n/t

[Kablooie]

49. We have nothing to hide we're just not going to show you anything.

We've not done anything improper and we'll be damned if we'll let you prove it.

[Contrary1]

52. Print this out and send it to your Senator/Congresscritters:

*** TRY GROWING ONE! ***

[cassiepriam]

55. Duh. The dictatorship is going swimmingly. As per usual.

[Pharaoh]

56. IMPEACH!!!

Christ almighty, what will it take for the dems to get enough spine to do it?

[loudsue]

57. Where in the hell is the "LAST STRAW" ????

There's a certain point where WE, THE PEOPLE are going to all suffocate from outrage overload!

:kick::kick::kick:

[MiniMe]

66. I don't know, but there are a lot of camels with broken backs out there

[sellitman]

58. She has no memory of anything anyhow--move on folks.

She has a case of Rightwing CRS

[Sarah Ibarruri]

59. I'm very depressed about the behavior of our Democrat representatives

I thought they were there for precisely situations like these, to protect and defend us, rather than to be smiley wimps. I'm truly frustrated and ready to give up hope. This is sickening.

[drm604]

63. DemocratIC Representatives.

Please be careful about that. It's "Democratic representative", not "Democrat representative". It's a common Republican slur to do that. If you do that, people may think that you're actually a right-wing mole. Your announcement about being ready to give up hope could add to that impression.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

65. I had no idea that was the correct grammatical term

Is it? In any case, I didn't know. Don't be calling me a right winger, however, simply because I'm PISSED OFF that the Democrats are sitting on their behinds and little else. What I said still stands. I'm very sad and angry about it. I don't know if they think that by saying nothing they'll appeal to the wingnuts and convince them to vote for them next go-round, or if they are afraid of not receiving campaign funds from corporations, but it's quite clear that the American population is beginning to see them as having no credibility. Compare them with parliamentary procedure in Europe, where people SCREAM, STAND UP, MARCH OUT, SPEAK TO THE PRESS, CALL THE PRESS when they disagree! Right now we are witnessing the sickest, most criminal administration in our history. This is not a time to be polite!!!!!!!! These people just sit there and relax. VERY upsetting. And if my statement about being upset is not to your liking, that's life.

[drm604]

67. If you reread my statement you 'll see that I wasn't accusing you of anything.

I was just warning you that other people may see that usage as indicating that a person is a Republican operative and that they will then suspect the motives of any other statements you make.

Language is important because the Repubs have become masters at manipulating it in order to change people's perceptions.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

86. Ok, I'll try to use the correct grammar

HOWEVER, I am still not sure which is used when, and, more importantly, why. I wasn't born in this country and perhaps that might explain my inability to discern.

[u2spirit]

60. I'm sure our Dem leadership

Will caucus to determine whether they should hold a hearing on why the admin is refusing the subpoenas and then draft a strongly yet politely worded letter to Fred Fielding asking him "pretty please with sugar on top" to cooperate. Charge these assholes with contempt already. As I have stated here recently, even most conservatives I know here in red Oklahoma could care less whether Shrub gets thrown overboard. They are waiting for Jan 20, 2009 as much as we are.

[Forkboy]

61. I'd do it too...what the hell does Bush have to fear?

The Democrats?

[drm604]

64. Untenable choices?

(Taylor) faces two untenable choices. She can follow the President’s direction and face the possibility of a contempt sanction by the Senate, with enforcement through the criminal courts, an action that regardless of the outcome, will follow her for life. Or, she can attempt to work out an accommodation with the Senate, which will put her at odds with the President, a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years.

This is a ridiculous statement! The two choices are not in any way equivalent.

A choice between violating a subpoena and violating personal loyalty. Yea, I'm sure no one has ever faced that before. :sarcasm: :eyes:

On Edit: After rereading it I realized a bigger problem with this statement. It's not stating that the choice is between violating personal loyalty and violating a subpoena. It's stating that the choice is between personal loyalty and reaching an accommodation with the Senate, as if the choice of simply obeying the subpoena isn't even on the table.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

68. Torches and pitchforks

coming soon to the front porch of 1600.

Either that or jackboot thugs with truncheons (or worse) on OUR doorsteps.

illegal codesmilie_remote(':wow:')

[L. Coyote]

69. DU Archive: EXIT RIGHT. Sara Taylor, WH political director, Rove Aide RESIGNS? "subpoenas for....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x990202

[MADem]

72. I'd love to see a cadre of GOP Senators hoist the bullshit flag.

Really, it's going to take some bipartisan hollering of 'BULLSHIT!!!' to get this out of 'Partisan Lalalala (I can't hear you!!) Land.' The GOP mouth breathing stooge-faithful will continue to use the "Awww, they're being POLITICAL in their investigations" whine until someone from the other side of the aisle pulls a Lugar (and I don't mean the pistol, poorly spelled) and says "Enough!! We need to hear!!!" on this issue...

We aren't going to get any help from the corporate media. They'll frame it the way their moneybags masters who are making billions off the war tell them to. And that framing will ensure that the Democrats are seen as being "mean" to poor Li'l Bush and his pals.

Unless we can get a few well-credentialed latter-day Goldwaters to pipe up. Once that happens, the house of cards (Andy and the rest of them) falls.

[EVDebs]

82. Time is on our side. By that I mean the Time April 16th cover with details on

'Why our Army is at the breaking point' and how Bushco is destroying the military with this occupation in Iraq

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070416,00.html

[MADem]

84. And that's the Republican Weekly Reader...so that's a good thing.

[nealmhughes]

73. If the President were to "direct her not to comply," would that not be a prima facie case of his

usurpation of powers in which he is not vested? And by extention, deserving of impeachment for overstepping his bounds by interfering and obstructing a Congressional investigation?
Is there any difference between an executive "directing" any private citizen to not heed any subponea regard of its source or intent and what Mr. Bush appears being prepared to do?
In short, Bush, fils has not a whit of authority to order a subponea not to be honored. His duties are to execute the laws as they are made and ratified by Congress, be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and nothing more, save preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
Can he next thwart a grand jury investigation of Noelle the next time she goes on a crack/Xanax binge? What would the court say to that? I see no difference in his attempting to thwart Congress. This actually means that a Congress is subservient to the Executive, when in actuality, it is Congress who can override vetoes and remove from office, and not vice versa, all signing statements, claims of executive privledge and theories of a unitary executive aside.
Bush, fils obviously had the right to remove his appointments at will, what he has no right to do is to lie about why it was done.

[EVDebs]

83. Congressional investigations...

"Periodically, the Supreme Court has helped to define the scope and limitations of Congress's power to investigate. In McGrain v. Daugherty (1927) the Court ruled that anyone, even private citizens, could be subpoenaed (compelled) to testify before a congressional committee. And in Sinclair v. United States (1929) the Court said that Congress had the power to investigate anything related to legislation or oversight, the monitoring of the activities of executive agencies. But in Watkins v. United States (1957)—which involved a witness who declined to give names of suspected communists to HUAC—the Court ruled that Congress's investigative powers are limited by the Bill of Rights and that witnesses do not lose those rights when they testify."

http://www.answers.com/topic/congressional-investigations

[HuffleClaw]

76. sounds to me like their plan is to make her a scapegoat

they'll encourage their corporate media friends to crucify her and let bush skate. i hope she's not foolish enough to do bushco.'s bidding.

[Labdad95]

77. Question

How can Preznut Bush claim executive privilege over someone who is no longer a White House employee?

[MasonJar]

78. The concerts put together by Al Gore yesterday render these little,

self-centered, selfish oafs seem even more inconsequential. They are slime and can be expunged with a strong hose.

[EVDebs]

80. We need the disinfectant of powerful sunlight. Light, more light ! nt

[EVDebs]

79. Anybody remember that James Cagney "Come and get me, coppers" scene

and can get Bush photoshopped onto it ?

White Heat (1949)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042041/

George Bush = Cody Jarrett

[proud patriot]

81. No one is above the law

:grr: There is No Royalty In America