Taylor Testifies—Sort Of

The news was that there was no news.

She showed up and testified--but in the end former White House political director Sara Taylor didn't--or couldn't--say much.

Again and again at a hearing of the Senator Judiciary Committee, the underling of Karl Rove invoked the order of executive privilege President Bush mandated on Monday to prevent his aides from testifying about the dismissal of nine US Attorneys. But in between her frequent bouts of non-answer, Taylor did manage to include a plug for her boss.

Taylor told Chairman Patrick Leahy that she never discussed firing the attorneys with the President. "I don't believe the White House did anything wrong," she stated.

If there was no foul play, Senators wondered, then why couldn't she discuss what went on at her old employ?

Leahy blasted the President's executive privilege intervention as "an unprecedented blanket assertion" and kept asking "What is it that the White House is trying to hide?"

President Bush announced this afternoon that Harriet Miers will not testify on Thursday before Congress as scheduled. Senator Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Committee and the only GOP Senator to originally show up, even suggested that Taylor and Miers could face criminal contempt charges for following Bush's order "not to testify concerning White House communications whether internal or external."

The 32-year-old Taylor, who worked with Rove on a daily basis for four years, did an expert job of cherrypicking. She spent three hours of testimony answering almost any question that did not implicate the White House in "Attorneygate" and invoked executive privilege when Senators pressed for specifics about the hiring and firing of federal prosecutors. She admitted toward the end of her hearing that while she tried to be consistent in honoring the President's executive privilege, "perhaps I have not done a great job."

In fairness, Taylor was placed in an untenable spot by the President. Answer questions and violate a however misguided presidential order. Or refuse to talk and anger Senators hungry to get to the bottom of this convoluted story. Senators understood that she was yet another pawn in the Bush Administration's resistance to Congressional inquiry. "The White House has put you in a position of being a tight-rope walker," said New York Democrat Chuck Schumer. Illinois's Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, added, "Karl Rove should be sitting at that table, not you."

Reporting by Matthew Blake

Comments (30)

1. Good for Taylor...someone with starch...

   Posted by john maasch at 07/11/2007 @ 5:51pm

2. The Founders intended for Congress to fill the role of holding the Executive accountable.

   If there's nothing to hide, why not talk. What was said and done is the peoples' business; we deserve to know what it is our elected representatives are doing. If Jr and all the rest of the lying scum have done nothing wrong, then there's nothing to fear.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 07/11/2007 @ 5:56pm

3. And for those not bright enough to look a few years down the road: If the current administration can get away with this breach of the system of checks and balances designed to restrain all three branches, then a Democratic administration will be able to do the same thing in the future. What goes around, comes around, fools.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 07/11/2007 @ 6:05pm

4. Another lying Rove proxy. If we have to beat the truth out of these people, I say send'em to Gitmo and break out the boards.

   The American people deserve to know the full truth about the SCUM infesting the WH.

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/11/2007 @ 6:23pm

5. How these people can be so stupid as to continually pretend nothing's wrong never ceases to amaze me. Oh sure, they can probably run out the clock and get away with it ... but, get away with what? Turning the Republican ideal of honesty, toughness, and sticking to business into a laughingstock for another generation?

   Watch for more and more Republicans to start demanding changes.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 07/11/2007 @ 6:29pm

6. Turning the Republican ideal of honesty, toughness, and sticking to business into a laughingstock for another generation? - MyPAra

   Hey, I'll settle for that.

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/11/2007 @ 6:31pm

7. All this subterfuge amply demonstrates just how far these neo-cons have gone down the road of subverting the "public trust." We need campaign finance reform and verifiable elections before specific policy changes, yes even war, are subject to true democratic decision making, as opposed to oligarchic manipulations of governmental powers.

   Posted by lewwelge at 07/11/2007 @ 6:46pm

8. Where is our contingent of "if you have nothing to hide why do you care if your phone is tapped" Howling Monkeys today?

   C'mon, neo-klowns, can't have it both ways now can we children?

   Step up kids, let's hear your cheap rationalizations of THIS one.

   We're all waiting......

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/11/2007 @ 6:57pm

9. Where is our contingent of "if you have nothing to hide why do you care if your phone is tapped" Howling Monkeys today?

   C'mon, neo-klowns, can't have it both ways now can we children?

   Step up kids, let's hear your cheap rationalizations of THIS one.

   We're all waiting......

   Posted by DR DECIBELS 07/11/2007 @ 6:57pm

   crickets......

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/11/2007 @ 7:06pm

10. This is yet another non-issue.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/11/2007 @ 7:09pm

11. Posted by USAPRIDE 07/11/2007 @ 7:09pm

    Thanks. I wasn't going to wait much longer.

    Is that the best you have though, a dismissive sniff?

    Weak. very weak. Next?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/11/2007 @ 7:12pm

12. See, there's this thing tickling the back of my mind (insert dirty joke here) and it's this...

    Rove is smart. Quite smart, even his opponents will admit.

    And I'm curious as to whether this is "playing out the clock"...or if it's truly calculated down to the last chess piece move, i.e. that the Congress gets worked up into a major frenzy. We go to the Fall and the US Supreme votes down Bush's exec privilege and ...

    nothing.

    Taylor turns out to be telling the truth and ON THIS, the WH did nothing wrong.

    Then, Leahy and Conyers and the gang end up with a "non-scandal"...nothing done for the last half of '07 and it becomes a GOP talking point called "the Do Nothing Congress" for '08.

    Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's just what it seems, a "desperate attempt at stonewalling"...but maybe, just maybe...it's not.

    Posted by Mask at 07/11/2007 @ 7:31pm

13. So tell me this:

    How can anyone - in the Congress or in the nation at large - ever trust the word of any Bushco underling ever again?

    How do we know that there isn't a Scooter Pie waiting for the loyal minion that goes to the Hill, or to a court and lies, dissembles and otherwise obfuscates?

    Think about that for a minute. The truth-telling abilities of these hyenas have always been suspect, but now, how can they ever be trusted again?

    The damage these people have wrought can only be remedied by impeachment; start with Cheney and go from there.

    Posted by skeletonman at 07/11/2007 @ 8:36pm

14. Look folks, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the simple fact is the President has the power to hire and fire US attorneys. I disagree with the way the administration carried out these dismissals, but the courts will most likely find for Bush, if it ever gets that far.

    We need to understand that congressional oversight is pointless when it becomes political posturing or follows a road to nowhere. The Republicans treated the American people to hearings on Bill Clinton to the point it became sickening. Clinton's attorney general came under fire when she steadfastly refused to pursue illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese despite reccomendations from career prosecutors and other investigatory agencies that she should do so. In the end, all those hearings went nowhere.

    I am not saying any branch of the government should be able to act without review. I am saying that judgement needs to be used in order to determine wheather or not there is actionable evidence to proceed. If not, then our representatives need to pursue other priorities.

    I am not a defender of Bush or Clinton. There is no credible evidence that either committed an impeachable offense. That being the case, it's way past time that Congress addresses the morass of festering issues that have plagued us for so long.

    Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/11/2007 @ 8:58pm

15. impeachment. do it. i don't care, if we wish to maintain a constitutional republic, we have no choice. if the proceedings drag on til inauguration day, fine, perhaps it will obfuscate an administration of vile fascists and prevent them from wreaking a little more evil on this sad bloody world they have enthusiastically and arrogantly helped bring about.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2007 @ 9:08pm

16. As with most hypocrites, you all have a very short memory.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/11/2007 @ 9:20pm

17. Government by smear and investigation---the model that the democrats have made famous. Sure there are checks and balances, but just as we don't want the Executive Branch to be too dominant we also don't want the Legislative Branch to excede their powers. The Congress does not have the right to call in every Presidential aide and ask them about the conversations they had with the President. If there is an underlying criminal act then maybe, but that has not been shown in this case and until it has the Executive Privilege is an important check on the powers of Congress. The Court long ago established this principle during the Nixon years---If a crime is being investigated then the Executive Privilege may not be appropriate----no crime, then Executive Privilege stands. Firing Prosecuters is not a crime---Clinton fired almost all of them during his Presidency.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 07/11/2007 @ 9:29pm

18. Strike that - "selective" memory.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/11/2007 @ 9:30pm

19. Impeaching bushco before their term is up...no matter how late and seemingly futile, will not only keep them tied up, as ibble suggests...But it is America's only chance to save our reputation for being reasonable sane and a nation to be emulated.

    Alot of them really used to be jealous. Now we would be a laughing stock, if we weren't scaring, even ourselves.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 07/11/2007 @ 9:39pm

20. Strike that - "selective" memory.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/11/2007 @ 9:41pm

21. Impeachment is HSUBFOOLS' baby and he and I have gone round and round about it, but one thing he's said (in a round-about way) that I think is true....

    if it doesn't come by Halloween this year...it isn't coming.

    Any later and we're too far into the Presidential primaries/election and too much "It's just another ** months, why bother?" from Congress.

    Posted by Mask at 07/11/2007 @ 10:00pm

22. How can anyone - in the Congress or in the nation at large - ever trust the word of any Bushco underling ever again?

    Posted by SKELETONMAN 07/11/2007 @ 8:36pm

    Clinton sent out his entire cabinet to defend and lie for him in the "Affair" and the spin the yarwn about a right wing conspiracy...only to find out he had his pants down the whole time...and they looked like fools in front of the nation...how can we trust the Clintons again?

    Easy...Most of you want to put them back into office..again..despite their BS, too...so your question is moot...it only matters if the other side lies...not yours...

    Posted by john maasch at 07/11/2007 @ 10:03pm

23. Posted by USAPRIDE 07/11/2007 @ 9:20pm | ignore this person

    no - i remember exactly what happened. a pack of well financed right wing ideologues, joined by spineless "go-along-with-the-packers" cynically abused the system to launch a witchhunt they knew was bullshit. they intentionally rammed it through, not because of righteous indignation, but because of cynical, intentional desire to stop progress at any cost.

    hypocrisy? oh my...

    and yes, it is sweet to take vengeance, but when vengeance actually coincides with (karmic?) justice... a sweet serendipity is indeed achieved. there is no doubt in my mind that this administration has done a hell of a lot worse than perjury...

    traitors...there, i said it. traitors to democratic, constitutional dreams, principles, and indeed, laws...and considring all the evil suffering their arrogance and incompetance and criminality they have wrought on this country and the world,

    impeachment is the wisest, most "conservative" idea i can think of.

    and like it or not...the people elected a democratic ongress to stop these bastards, not to continue cowardly blabbering, and hand wringing. if the presidency refuses to cooperate according to the law of the land...

    impeach and be damned if wrong.

    but not wrong...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2007 @ 11:20pm

24. Clinton blah blahblahblah blahblah. Blahblah Clinton blah blah blahblahblah.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/11/2007 @ 10:03pm | ignore this person

    To which RIO POLLO 07/12/2007 @ 12:18am | ignore this person, he's a fool replied;

    Blah blah blahblah more stupid blah blah blah Clinton blah blahblah.

    Ronald Reagan sold arm to IRAN! George H.W. Bush pardoned all the IRAN-CONTRAS liers and thieves. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush are crooks and liers.

    If shrub has nothing to hide why won't he let private citizens testify?

    What is it about "So help me God" that makes the shrub wet his pants? I thought he was such a good Christan? Is he afraid of Gods wrath?

    "These guys [Republicans] are the most crooked, you know, lying group(sacks of shit) I've ever seen." - John Kerry

    icf itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 07/12/2007 @ 01:07am

25. Any later and we're too far into the Presidential primaries/election and too much "It's just another ** months, why bother?" from Congress.

    Posted by MASK 07/11/2007 @ 10:00pm

    Masky, your NNoN is showing again.

    "All in all, the framers would probably agree that it's better to impeach too often than too seldom. If presidents can't be virtuous, they should at least be nervous." - Joseph Sobran

    Posted by COProgressive at 07/12/2007 @ 01:13am

26. So can anyone tell me how Shrub has the authority to tell a private citizen to ignore a subpeona?

    Is this not the same thing as telling someone to violate the law?

    Such power does not reside in the executive as authorized by our Constitution (that goddamned piece of paper).

    Anyone want to defend Chimpy on this one?

    Posted by skeletonman at 07/12/2007 @ 07:16am

27. Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 07/12/2007 @ 01:13am |

    Okay, COPRO...I'll bite. What does the Internet meme "NNoN" stand for?

    BTW, as I've noted to HSUB, my view on impeachment is identical to...

    David Corn....Pelosi...Reid....Rahm Emmanuel...George Miller...Barack Obama....even....Al Gore.

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2007 @ 08:41am

28. Oh, so the excuse is "Clinton." I'm not a Clinton supporter (not Bill or Hillary). And this is not about what some Democrat did; this is about the President giving the law of the land the finger. Oh, why should any of us little people obey the law when the President brazenly defies the Constitution?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/12/2007 @ 09:30am

29. You put forth a reasonable argument, Frank, for just "ignoring" the ignominious shrubco, but in this "theatre of the absurd" death-house we distract ourselves from by "bread and circuses," I would very much enjoy the deliberative process of investigation into the executive's connivance in allowing, if not fomenting, 9/11. Have you not seen WTC #7 coming down in its own footprint? Have you not seen the tens of credible witnesses state on camera that explosions were rocking the twin towers prior to their collapsing into their footprints. The footprint of traitorous treason is starkly evident to moi.

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/12/2007 @ 10:08am

30. How can a president invoke executive privilege to his employees? Doesn't make sense. Why is the Congress dancing around this issue? What happened to contempt of court? IMPEACH NOW!!! Pelosi, Put this issue on the agenda or the American people will do it for you.

    Posted by Sinatra at 07/12/2007 @ 11:32am