posted by Damozel |
Andrew Sullivan says that this videotape exemplifies the Bush Administration. He's not wrong.
Watch Senator Patrick Leahy slooooooowly explain to a very confused and harried Sarah that IN FACT the oath that she took was to uphold the Constitution of the United States and Sarah make it completely clear in every respect that this is news to her. "I took an oath to the President...and I take that oath very seriously.... I did not take a second oath to the President....I believe taking that oath means that I need to respect---and do respect---my service to the President."
LEAHY (grindingly): "Your oath is--- NOT ---to uphold--- the President....Your oath---like my oath----is to uphold---- the Constitution."
Someday maybe we willl all look back on this and laugh. But it's not funny now. And it wasn't funny at all for her. She has a hunted, haunted look.
Subsequently, she inadvertently---according to Senator Leahy--- undercuts his claim of executive privilege. (Think Progress)
A sometimes shifty-eyed Taylor squirmed uneasily like a butterly impaled on a pin throughout the questioning. Columnist Dana Milbank marveled at the amount of fluid she consumed. (The Washington Post)
Taylor's appearance was a watershed because of the extraordinary amount of liquid she consumed -- three bottles of Deer Park spring water, not including the half bottle her lawyer quaffed.
"What is the White House trying to hide?" demanded the Judiciary Committee chairman, Pat Leahy (D-Vt.). Taylor grabbed her bottle, licked her lips and sipped.
"This is a difficult time for you," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said through his crocodile tears. Taylor took a big swig.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) accused the White House of putting "young, loyal, talented people like yourself in to the line of fire." Taylor savored a long draught.
When Leahy called a recess after a little more than 90 minutes, the former White House official rose to leave the chamber and said something quietly to her lawyer that sounded very much like, "I need to use the ladies' room." (The Washington Post; links on original)
After all, when you're stressed, it's a good idea to hydrate, hydrate, hydrate!
Eventually Senator Leahy's broken-record approach to questioning got a concession from her that Leahy, at any rate, considered significant. ""“I did not speak to the president about removing U.S. attorneys." (Think Progress) She also said that she didn't attend any meeting with the president where the firing of the U.S. attorneys was discussed and that she wasn't aware of any presidential decision document relating to the firing plan. (Think Progress) Leahy said that if the president wasn't involved in any way, then the executive privilege claim may not hold. (Think Progress)
Taylor, like so many White House officials, recently jumped ship---in her case, because she was searching for "normalcy"----but before that she seems to have been powerful indeed in the West Wing.. (The Washington Post) The 32 year old Taylor-- eventually advised "the senior staff and the president on domestic political issues and played an important role in anything involved with Bush's domestic agenda. Her new role meant constant contact with Rove, whose relationship with Taylor evolved from first "a teacher and leader to almost more of a partner," said [another official]." (The Washington Post) I wish Aaron Sorkin would write that show. I would totally watch it. Also: a 32 year old was advising "senior staff and the president" on Bush's domestic agenda?
Rove, says Taylor, made her a better person by being methodical and smart and demanding in a good way. (The Washington Post) Bless the child for having a good word to say for Rove. In fairness, somebody ought to. Even my 79 year old mother, who voted twice for Bush, doesn't like him.
At the moment, she's caught between a rock and a hard place. Congress has subpoenaed her; the President has asked her not to testify, claiming executive privilege.
"It's a very difficult position to be in," she said. "The president has exerted executive privilege and I have great respect for the president. The problem for you as an individual is that this comes at a huge personal cost financially.
"But this is a bigger issue than me. I understand the president is doing what he believes is right."(The Washington Post)
Ah, Sarah, if believing only made it so!
The reason that she's in a difficult position is, of course, because Bush directed her to defy the subpoenas issued by Congress.. (The New York Times) White House Counsel Fred Fielding says that Bush is in good faith withholding privileged documents and directing Taylor not to testify. Furthermore, he again offered to let Taylor, Miers, and others meet off the record and with no transcript----which the Senators are unwilling to do. . (The New York Times)
Taylor did her best to protect the president, while avoiding a contempt citation for herself.
Taylor invoked Fielding's name 24 times and used his letter like a shield. She mentioned it 35 times: "I have a very clear letter from Mr. Fielding. . . . Again, I have a letter. . . . I believe that Mr. Fielding's letter is quite clear."...
Taylor had a brash presence that belied her tender years ("almost 33," she said), but her mannerisms betrayed youth: She flipped her hair back after some answers, fiddled endlessly with a paper clip and resorted regularly to verbal filler. "I'm trying to, you know, infer here," she said. And, "You know, again, and I will continue to try to be as cooperative as I can, and, I guess, you know, the only alternative is to just sit here." (The Washington Post)
At Balkinization, Marty Lederman says that the failure of Taylor (and Miers) to "give testimony responsive to the subpoenas" is---pursuant to 2 USC section 162---is a crime.(Balkinization)
Though the president believes that executive privilege applies to their testimony, he doesn't have any right to direct private citizens to commit a crime. And he has taken no procedural steps (such as asking for an injunction) to prevent them from being compelled to testify; he has simply asked them to defy Congress. (Balkinization) "All of which is to say that Taylor and Miers have chosen to commit a federal crime, and to disregard the only legal directives (the subpoena, the federal statute) to which they are in fact subject." (Balkinization; emphasis in original)
Taylor has decided, without reaching a conclusion regarding the existence of any privilege, to comply with Bush's "directive" to her not to testify out of loyalty.(Balkinization) A private party who has no opinion about the constitutionality of the statute requiring her to testify or executive privilege should, says Lederman, comply with the subpoena and let the person who wishes to prevent enforcement seek an injunction to prevent it.(Balkinization) [Some of the people who responded in the comments differ on this point. It's an interesting discussion (for lawyers) of executive privilege versus attorney-client privilege. Make of it what you will]
Meanwhile, at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall has published this document. A "very knowledgeable e-mailer" wrote the following, citing 18 USC sections 1505 and 1515(b). "Invoking a privilege is one thing, but telling a person not to show up in response to a subpoena -- if only to actually invoke the privilege -- is quite another. It's not just worse, it's a felony under federal criminal law." (TPM)
I have no idea.
- Dana Milbank,Against Claims of Executive Privilege, a Committee Comes Up Dry (The Washington Post)
- Leahy: Taylor’s Testimony ‘Undercuts’ White House Claims To Executive Privilege (Think Progress)
- Sridhar Pappu, A Bush Aide's Long Road From The White House (The Washington Post)
- Bush Denies Congress Access to Aides (The New York Times)
- Josh Marshall, Felony (TPM)
- Marty Lederman, What Is a Private Citizen to Do (When Caught in the Middle of an Interbranch Dispute) (Balkinization)?
Comments