The President cannot as of this moment legally force them to remain silent.

[Swede]

You surprised by that? I was. I assumed, incorrectly at first, that the privilege was the President’s to assert as he saw fit the way a client holds the attorney/client privilege or how a patient controls the doctor/patient privilege. But as conservative attorney and former Reagan Justice Department official Bruce Fein patiently reminded me: the policy considerations behind those privileges are very different from the policy priorities inherent when a President tries to block official communications.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/07/11/couricandco/entry3043677.shtml

[sinkingfeeling]

1. That's exactly what I was trying to say in my post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1302834&mesg_id=1302834

Updated for link

[aquart]

2. Sara doesn't seem to need to be forced.

Put her in jail until she feels like it.

[Robbien]

3. But his claim of priviledge has to be challenged. It has not been.

In fact it was confirmed. The Dems wrote to Bush and asked if Bush would waive his privilege to allow Taylor and Miers to testify, thereby implying that the privilege exists.

[librechik]

4. and yet the Senate is respecting the tradition as if it were law

in today's hearing with Sara taylor. She has repeatedly said " I can't talk about that. The White house was involved" and they move on, looking for her to give up a non WH source. Huh?