When they act like they have something to hide…

July 7, 2007

Nearly two weeks ago, in the midst of claiming executive privilege on documents relating to the U.S. Attorney purge, the Bush White House also told Congress that lawmakers would not be permitted to see documents relating to former political director Sara Taylor’s work on the matter. It was obviously disappointing (though not unexpected), especially given the Bush gang’s rhetoric about their willingness to cooperate.

But at least Taylor agreed to honor a subpoena and will testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee about what she knows of the scandal, right? Wrong. Her appearance, which was scheduled for Wednesday, is now off — Taylor’s lawyer doesn’t think the White House is willing to let her talk the committee.

From the letter Taylor’s attorney delivered to Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy:

Ms. Taylor expects to receive a letter from [White House Counsel Fred] Fielding on behalf of the President directing her not to comply with the Senate’s subpoena. These contrary directions undoubtedly create a monumental clash between the executive and legislative branches of government. This clash may ultimately be resolved by the judicial branch. […]

Absent the direction from the White House, Ms. Taylor would testify without hesitation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She has participated in no wrongdoing. She will assert no personal privileges.

[Taylor] faces two untenable choices. She can follow the President’s direction and face the possibility of a contempt sanction by the Senate, with enforcement through the criminal courts, an action that regardless of the outcome, will follow her for life. Or, she can attempt to work out an accommodation with the Senate, which will put her at odds with the President, a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years.

Chairman Leahy responded, “The White House continues to try to have it both ways — to block Congress from talking with witnesses and accessing documents and other evidence while saying nothing improper occurred.”

If I didn’t know better, I might get the impression that the White House has something to hide.

What do you mean, “know better”? Of course they have something to hide.

  • Okay, this gets to something I was wondering about the other day. If Congress subpoenas someone who is no longer working at the White House, can the White House claim executive privilege and keep the person from testifying even if they want to?

    The letter from Taylor’s lawyer is a bit peculiar. It says that complying with the subpoena will ‘put her at odds with the president, a person whom she admires’. That doesn’t sound to me at all like a legal argument!

    If the White House cannot legally stop these people from testifying, I think the Congressional response should be, “we don’t care doodly about who this puts you at odds with, get your little fanny into that witness chair.”

    But that’s just me…

  • That letter is weird. The two untenable choices are 1) Face contempt for not testifying 2) Be “at odds” with the president.

    Is there anything illegal about being “at odds” with the president? Or is she just afraid he’ll have her tortured and murdered if she comes to the committee?

    Did her lawyer really have to add that Bush is “a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years”? It seems totally irrelevant, and it certainly makes her less sympathetic.

  • Sure, they have plenty to hide. So much, in fact, there’s no rug large enough to sweep it under and no Bush-el tight enough to keep the rays of truth from peeping.

    But it’s also, I think, just another case of middle finger. “Make me”, says Bush, particualry emboldened by Libby’s brave rescue. And, chances are, that like in the past, Leahy will fulminate… And do nothing much. We’ll see.

    PS Leahy is working on *Saturdays*??? And: what’s more weaselly, dropping news-bombs on Fridays or on Saturdays?

  • I’m with the rest. I don’t see what legal weight a letter from Fred Fielding has. I was not aware that under our system of government, the President had a right to order a citizen to NOT to appear before the Congress.

    This letter from Taylor’s lawyer reads like he’s trying to bluff his way toward keeping his client from testifying, and he’s hoping for a letter from Fielding so he can pretend there’s a larger issue between the branches to hide behind. It’s a good try.

    If I were Leahy, I’d suggest to Taylor’s lawyer that she be in the witness chair at the agreed upon time, or that he be there instead, with the videotape of her being detained by federal marshals on her way to the Capitol and a copy of her arrest warrant. The “I don’t want W to be mad at me” defense doesn’t fly.

  • You’re all right about the “being at odds with the President” not being an excuse, etc. What would likely happen is taht the White House would make a motion in the DC Circuit to quash the subpoena if she were to go ahead with testifying. If the WH doesn’t move to quash, I would think she would have no basis for refusing to testify. Should be interesting….

  • I’m up (really up!) for Congress pursuing its ‘inherent contempt’ powers if the US Attorney won’t prosecute for ‘regular’ contempt of congress. Although the Sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate can enforce inherent contempt, it appears to me that the US Marshall Service is also subject to Congressional Directive (and I so would like to see Tommy Lee Jones reprise his role as Dep. US Marshall in the 1998 movie (US Marshalls), by breaking down the WH gate. See my comment here at Ezra Klein’s blog.

  • What a waste of time and energy. I think some serious thought should be give to letting the clock run out – forget the politics – By March 1, 2009 the next administration can be ready to go with subpeonas and indictments for TurdBlosson, Scooter and Fredo. Don’t waste any more time on this crap – Little George will just undo anything legal and delay until it’s over anyway. Probably issue blancket pardons for everyone on his way out the door. Everything has to be put beyond his reach.

    This shit is beyond politics. These people are treasonous felons, there will be no justice or progress until the immovable object is pushed out the door.

  • Her appearance, which was scheduled for Wednesday, is now off — Taylor’s lawyer doesn’t think the White House is wiling to let her talk the committee.

    I read the letter and found no indication that she won’t show up on Wednesday. That might ultimately be the case, but I don’t think that it is currently the case.

  • If you think of executive privilege like attorney-client privilege, maybe it makes more sense. Bush is claiming executive privilege on the basis that his advisors (lawyers) must be free to counsel him (the client) without fear of having to testify about it. That privilege lasts until the client (Bush) waives it. So, even though Taylor no longer works in the WH, Bush is apparently not waiving his privilege. Yes, she can violate that privilege, but I have no idea what the consequences are for that; an attorney can be disbarred for violating attorney-client privilege.

    That being said, there are numerous examples of presidents waiving privilege, and doing so does not erode the president’s right to do it – and if it stops either the president or those advising him from giving advice that would be illegal, that’s not such a bad thing. The office should not be so impermeable that it allows no light to shine, and restricts the legislative and judicial branches from exercising the checks on executive power. What we have now, with the Bush WH, is just such an attempt to have unrestricted power.

    If that’s the kind of precedent you all want future presidents to be working off of, by all means, turn off the alarm, roll over and pull the covers over your heads until we have a new president.

    I think the more pressure is maintained and increased, the better; there’s just too much at stake.

  • “But at least Taylor agreed to honor a subpoena and will testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee… right? Wrong.” — CB

    Are these subpoenas or pretty-please invitations? Where is the Congressional outrage over this and every other refusal to cooperate? Why aren’t Dem’s staging rooftop events to shout about Bush’s obstruction?

    Bush already rewrites the laws Congress passes. If he’s is permitted to continue circumventing their oversight without consequence, the great American experiment comes to an end. The final chapter closes as the first began, with a tyrannical King George.

  • I’m no lawyer, but she took an oath to support the Constitution, not the president. So she either shows up, or she’s arrested and takes a perp walk to jail. It’s time to get tough with the little guys, put pressure on them to flip the bigger fish. Put enough of them in jail and Bush has two minutes to get to his Paraguay (no extradition) ranch.

  • What Joyce, etc., said. The “My Preznit gonna be mad at me” defense, while politically appealing, has no legal merit.

    Though it is cute how Fielding pretends that “enforcement through the criminal courts… will follow her for life.”

    Or, Fielding might as well say, “or, until the president decides to whitewash her record of any trace of criminality with his magic pardon/commutation pen.”

    Because nothing says “rule of law” like telling the cops, in advance, that their bosses are going to set you free even if they *do* arrest you.

    On the other hand, Fielding’s merely one of a thousand turds in the public punch bowl left over from the Nixon Administration, so it’s hard to get worked up about him exclusively…

  • Leahy’s focus: you can’t keep the official records under executive privilege and then keep saying we did nothing wrong. TeamBush continues to sound unAmerican in its defense of its actions.

    Yes, though Richard Nixon declared “I am not a crook” with a straight face, I imagine none of the current Bush cultists are capable of keeping such a face should they need to utter such words themselves. -Kevo

  • I think this is where Leahy needs to turn the constant refrain of “Clinton did it!” back on these bastards. Hell, Clinton waived EP for people who still worked for him. It looks like Bush will try to claim it for someone who doesn’t. Is EP a life-long thing? And if so, why didn’t he claim it for Scooter?

    You also have to love the way the Oh so holy, “I’ve got God on speed dial,” crowd finds the choice between telling the truth and being at odds with a mere human “untenable.” Unless they fear playing Judas to the sick little Jesus in the White House.

    Others have already pointed out that if you tried Eggleston’s “I’m being loyal,” defense in a court of law, the judge would stick his gavel up your nose (if you were lucky). I also think calling attention to her “unquestionable loyalty” to the pResident was not the best idea. Gee, who else was “unquestionably loyal to the pResident?” Hmmm….

    And WTF does Leahy care that she’s been working for the man since she was 24? Oh yeah, poor little thing, she don’t know no better.

    Shit, there are younger people mouldering in Gitmo because they know or might know someone who might have done something or plotted to do something bad or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But Eggleston expects Leahy to believe Taylor should get out of testifying because she’s stupid enough to admire the shit bucket in the Oval Office? I would suggest counsel read the transcripts of a few war crimes tribunals, to get an idea see how much ice that line cuts. And it might be good practice, assuming Taylor doesn’t come to her senses and fire your useless arse.

    Finally, I agree with Rege @ #9. Taylor’s expecting to get a note from mom Fielding excusing her from gym testifying. Frankly, I suspect Leahy would’ve wiped his arse on it and sent back a sharp reply but this letter might have really fucked things up for Taylor.

    Not only did her lawyer take a chunk out of whatever time she might have gained while the Legs and the Exec duked it out by warning Leahy, but the WH will have to deal with a few extra days of reporters asking why.

    Popcorn?

  • “Listen – I’m a politician which means I’m a cheat and a liar, and when I’m not kissing babies I’m stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open. ”

    – Jeffrey Pelt (Richard Jordan) The hunt for Red October

    that sounds about right when talking about our Government…..

    • Comments are closed.