« You Want a Motive? Libby's Secret Mission | Main | And While We're Talking about Taylors at the Center of the USA Purge »

July 07, 2007


Go EW step up the pressure I will look foward to it

You know, this old lady remembers how it was the drip, drip, drip that brought Nixon down, if not to justice. I say, let's just watch this, sip our mint juleps, and fan ourselves under the magnolia tree.

Is there any precedence on a matter like this? I fail to see how Bush can direct Ms. Taylor's actions as a private citizen.
The Senate can certainly require her testimony. I would think only a court could forbid her testimony, but how?
When is one of these 'Bushies' going to really crack?

Like, 32 years old is *so* ancient, and she's been working for *so* many years.
They ought to be able to come up with a better grade of sh*t than that.

And if she can't decide between personal loyalty and constitutional duty, she shouldn't be in any job where they come into conflict. (There really shouldn't be *any* jobs of that description in the executive branch, but that's why we're in this mess.)

sorry to be so stupid... but can't Sara Taylor testify even though president bush "instructs" her not to? is she required to follow his instructions, but not congress' subpeona?

Sara Taylor reminds me of the Wild Boy of Aveyron... So young, just 32, and they never let her out of the [White] House... She knows nothing but Rove... Naturally, she can hardly be expected to know the difference between right and wrong... Seriously, are they really trying to make the feral child argument here?

Isn't this the same argument Kinsley was making in the NYT for Libby - the so-called "perjury trap" of either telling the truth, or letting Bush down? It's become so common in the discourse of our Very Serious pundits and lawyers that it should have a name - I lean towards Sophistry's Choice? Crock and a Hard Place? Between Silly and Can you Believe This?

I would say that by the qualifications laid out by her lawyer, she isn't qualified for current or future employment anyway. "Bush's people trained me" sounds about as impressive as "I mostly slept through college" on a resume.

the possibility of a contempt sanction by the Senate, with enforcement through the criminal courts

Hah! Not if Kagro X has his way :D

BTW selise's question has me wondering too. IANAL and I haven't done any research but offhand I can't see how an executive privilege claim could possibly hold up in these circumstances.

The Bushies' hiring practices are quite something. Hire them as young as you can barely get away with, and the benefits are huge. They become almost pathetically loyal due to gratitude at having been giving a 15 to 20 year jump ahead in the normal process of career building.

That is, if all you care about is loyalty. But if you need experience, competence, the ability to do the job you're being paid to do, then not so great. Yeah, Brownie, I'm writing from New Orleans and I'm talking about you.

I have to pinch myself to believe we are seeing this "logic" coming from a reputable attorney. "My client is under a hardship situation because she admires, and has been working for, the guy she is being called to testify against."

What a novelty.

Because we know that people served with a subpoena are usually all "Wow, I really want to testify against my (friend, employer, co-worker) because it will be so fun, and I know we will really feel great about each other and get along well after this!"

I am getting teary already. Free Sara Taylor! She is an about-to-fall soldier. Commute Sara's sentence in advance so she can get on with her life.

Or something like that.

Bush and Cheney are playing hardball. They are giving Congress the big finger and challenging them to do something. All this contempt citation is going to do is provide the corporate media the "he said-she said" talking point. What the Dems ought to consider is a clear PR strategy to show that not only do these guys have contempt for the law they have stacked the judiciary. Since that's the best that can be achieved from a "legal" perspective - the Dems in Congress should do what they truly have the power over - funding. They should just zero out funding for any agency or department that does not cooperate with their investigation. Yes, its a blunt tool but at the end the only tool that Congress has. The best would be to not fund OVP.

Wait, am I naive? Bush is *telling* her not to testify?

I can imagine the stress has played havoc with her memory.

okay -- i am pretty-thoroughly,
nah -- totally! -- stoked about this:

ab initio wrote: . . .What the Dems ought to consider is a clear PR strategy to show that not only do these guys have contempt for the law they have stacked the judiciary. Since that's the best that can be achieved from a "legal" perspective . . .

okay -- here is how we do that!

much more in my latest -- linked below, but. . .

senator leahy -- do not buy the debevoise & plimpton
horse manure -- that taylor faces a difficult choice.

this is the way the karmic wheel spins. . .

to be plain[er], i find it funny that mr. eggelston
believes he can tell the senate judiciary committee that
he wants to wait for a court order. his client has been
served a lawfully-issued subpoena. by his own admission,
she possesses no privilege. she must comply, or face contempt

the "normal" approach here, of course -- if
the bush-cheney white house actually thinks it will
prevail on its privilege claim -- would be to file for an
emergency t.r.o. (temporary restraining order), the aim of
which, ultimately, would be to enjoin the senate from taking
taylor's testimony. but that burden must rest
squarely on the white house -- and its lawyers.

senator leahy must not surrender the high ground he
has won -- no, now simply force messrs. bush and cheney
and rove to sue
to prevent a private citizen from
testifying truthfully
(her lawyer says she did nothing
unlawful). make bush-cheney "own" the result of closing
the doors on the senate judiciary committee's quest for
the truth about matters vital to our republic.

do it. do it, senator leahy!

Who is this lawyer Neil Eggleston? What an assinine and weak little letter. If I had ever written such a letter on a case like this, I fully expect my fellow partners would have shot me in order to maintain the standards of the firm gene pool. Taylor and her counsel need to be pounced on hard and fast. The poor things just don't know which way to go; force them off the road and onto the shoulder of justice.

The funny thing is that she hasn't even gotten a letter from Fielding yet. Is her lawyer trying to pressure Fielding?

It occurs to me that the bush/cheney/rove recruiting may have had its' most obvious parallel in LA a couple decades back. Most of these folks would have been great staffers for Charles Manson.

Living Piggie lives, eating their bacon, and out to dinner with their Piggie wives.

And now we see, in full splendor, Helter-Skelter as it was meant to be.

Put her in the fucking cell. If Taylor gets out of testifying, Congress will have created the Presidential Sniffiness Privilege and it will be used against them till 2009.

Eggleston's letter makes a dramtic and misleading argument that frames Sara Taylor's dilemma - whether to testify truthfully and without reservation - as nothing less than a constitutional showdown between Presidential and Congressional power.

If you're Sara Taylor, and you don't want to implicate yourself, Bush, Rove or anyone else, the shadow of this great question is a safe place to hide and it'll work if the SJC decides Sara is caught in the middle as opposed to being one of perpetrators who broke the law and then choose to obstruct justice by lying to Congress.

Eggleston's argument follows Fielding's lead.

When Fitz had the only eyewitness to the crime, Judy Miller, cornered, he played out the hand. I'd like to see Leahy et al do the same.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad