Taylor to appear anyway?

July 9, 2007

Salon’s Alex Koppelman adds an odd twist to the White House/Congress conflict over testimony of former Bush aides.

We just got off the phone with Tracy Schmaler, a spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Democratic majority. Schmaler told us it is her understanding that — despite President Bush’s invocation of executive privilege in regards to the testimony of former White House staffers Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers about the ongoing U.S. Attorneys scandal — Taylor will still appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

Schmaler says she learned that from Taylor’s lawyer, W. Neil Eggleston, earlier Monday afternoon. When called for confirmation by Salon, Eggleston was unavailable. He has not yet returned a message left seeking comment.

That’s encouraging, but I have to admit that I’m completely lost at this point. Here’s the chronology, as I understand it:

* Congress subpoenas Taylor;

* Taylor agrees to testify;

* Over the weekend, Taylor’s lawyer tells Congress she may not testify because the White House doesn’t want her to;

* This morning, the White House tells Congress that the president forbids Taylor from testifying;

* And a few hours later, according to Koppelman, Taylor is testifying anyway (despite, apparently, Taylor’s belief that the president is “a person whom [Taylor] admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years”).

I’m having a little trouble digesting all of this — and I haven’t seen confirmation of Koppelman’s report elsewhere — but the bottom line remains the same: if Taylor testifies, that’s a good thing.

Taylor’s on more solid legal ground by just testifying. Not even Bush would be dumb enough to sue her for complying with a congressional subpoena, whereas Congress very likely might sue her for contempt if she did not appear.

  • Dudley:

    Taylor’s on more solid legal ground by just testifying. Not even Bush would be dumb enough to sue her for complying with a congressional subpoena, whereas Congress very likely might sue her for contempt if she did not appear.

    Bush wouldn’t sue her, true. But he might exclude her from a blanket pardon as he leaves office.

  • Is it a good thing that Taylor is testifying? She’s already said she knows nothing about the attorney purge. Will it end up with the WH saying, “you see, we told you we have nothing to hide so stop this political witch hunt…Miers will not testify”. Does it mean that if they make a big enough ‘to do’ about the little fish they can stop congress from getting the big fish. Bush/Cheney/Rove will not allow anything that might incriminate them.
    I will be shocked if anything remarkable comes from Taylor’s testimony.
    But I ask, will Taylor’s appearance be used to justify Rove and Miers not appearing before the committees?

  • No, no, no. Taylor is not testifying. She is simply showing up to avoid contempt of Congress charges. Once questions are asked, she will either plead the Fifth or say that she cannot answer because her answers are covered under the WH’s executive privilege.

    That will be what happen.

  • If Taylor chooses to testify there’s nothing that Bush can do about it because Executive Privilege is neither mentioned in the Constitution nor is it codified in law. It has been asserted by Presidents beginning with Washington and accepted as being implied by separation of powers. When cases involving privilege have come before the courts it was generally found to apply only in those matters involving national security.

    The concept of Executive Privilege was argued before the Supreme Court in 1974 in United States v. Nixon. Nixon’s claim of Executive Privilege in the Watergate case was rejected.

    Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for a unanimous court:
    “Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisors calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises.”

    The administrations’ numerous invocations of Executive Privilege strain even the “broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest…” However, because Bushco avails themselves of the same legal system that they would deny others, many of the claims won’t be settled until long after G. W. Bush has retired to Paraguay.

  • My guess is she either has nothing to say, or has the same severe memory problems that have infected any and all associated with this thing.

  • Kagro X has an interesting post on executive privilege over at Daily Kos: White House demands reinvention of wheel. In addition to discussing the basic types of priviledge and their legal standings is this assessment:

    The White House position is “extremely weak.” But more than that, it’s a position that’s been to court and lost before. The “administration,” though, seeks to burn up the calendar by forcing Congress to reinvent the wheel, just to prove to the American people that the wheel was, in fact, invented at one point. Which will be proven by showing the court the first wheel, and then describing the round and rolling properties of the object the White House claims is something completely different.

  • The bottom line for me is that this person, and anyone else under subpoena for that matter, must show up to claim privilege. Failure to show should be treated as contempt and punished accordingly. The majority party simply should not stand for and should not allow these people to merely claim that a privilage is applicable and not show up, and should instead force them to come to the hearing room, get sworn in, and start claiming privilege on relevant questions. Let the public hear the questions and see the administration’s personnel refuse to answer. It really highlights the fact that something is being covered up. Failure to force these people to come in is a win for the administration. This is similar to the filibuster issue–the majority party needs to force the GOP Senators to actually filibuster, not just point out that a certain number of votes are not available. Let the public see the obstructionism on legislation that a large majority of the public supports. There is power in that, and failure to use all tools available are victories for the opposition party.

  • The WH stonewalling is so much like Watergate. This behavior proves those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it. Bush obviously knew nothing about Vietnam, or Richard Nixon, or if he did, he figured he would do it better. Nixon didn’t have the Patriot Act on his side.

    Nixon looks good compared to these creeps. It is time to impeach Bush, Cheney and Gonzales. They all have to go, if not, the next president will also have too much power, and it will only get worse.

    I urge everyone to call their gutless congressperson and demand impeachment. The phone is a better weapon than emails.

  • At first I was going to agree with Dudley, but now I think Nonesuch has it right. Taylor may have realized it is better to be in compliance with the law than it is to be in the good graces of this regime, but if she shows up, given the history of Bush regime testimony, we can certainly count on Taylor to dodge everything.

    • Comments are closed.