As with all liveblog threads, please keep comments to a minimum where possible, so that the servers can survive the onslaught. That includes holding back on one-liners and such -- please -- so that I don't have to constantly cut liveblogging short to begin new threads. And now, to testimony...
__________________
11:35 am ET
SEN. DURBIN QUESTIONS (Cont'd.): Durbin asking about her work with Rove -- Taylor says that she has worked directly for Rove for a little over two years, that she had multiple contacts with him daily in her job, and that it is fair to say that he was her boss. Then question about the WH committee that oversaw judicial and attorney appointments -- Taylor says that she was aware of such a committee, but that she can't answer any questions about it, including whether she ever attended any of their meetings.
Durbin then moves on to questions regarding the underlying issue in the USAtty firings, as he says -- questions of voter fraud and elections. Were you involved in the Bush/Cheney re-election effort in the last election cycle. Says that Griffen worked for the RNC, and that Taylor worked with him in that capacity. Taylor says that she became familiar with the "vote caging" term through press articles and that she can't discuss "vote caging" very well. Durbin asks if she is familiar with the process of what is done in that regard. Taylor says that's sort of behavior has occurred in the past -- Taylor says that she absolutely has not been involved in this, and says that Griffen has great character, she knows what has been said about him, and she thinks it is horrible to say that he would do anything like that -- and people shouldn't say that about her friend Tim.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE QUESTIONS: Is there anything in yoru employment agreement with the WH that requires you to honor executive privilege after you leave the WH? Taylor says that she doesn't know, but she takes her oath to serve the Presidentvery seriously. Whitehouse says that he'd like her to research that question and get back to him with an answer -- Taylor says she doesn't recall signing an employment agreement, but maybe she did. (CHS notes: Would someone ask her if she also honors her oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and the laws of the United States?) Did you and Griffen do oppo research? Yes. Did it give you any hesitation that someone who chose that career path would be in any way inhibited to set aside the motivations and be a fully independent USAtty -- to be able to set those partisan motivations askide? Taylor says no, that didn't give her pause at all about Griffen -- that his oppo research skills would be useful to him as a prosecutor.
Gets into midterm firings -- is that a customary practice of Presidents? Taylor says that she doesn't recall Reagan or Clinton doing that or, perhaps they did and did it in a way "that was much more artful." Whitehouse says that the WH has acknowledged giving political briefings to more than a dozen Administrative agencies. The WaPo reported that Taylor gave a briefing at the EPA -- tell us about this. Taylor says that she doesn't recall the briefing, but her general speaking discussion woudl be to thank political appointees for their service; second, would tell them about the President's upcoming schedule and focus on a particular issue area, and how they would fit into that; and, thirdly, give them an update on the "political landscape of America," because all those folks were involved in politics in one way or another, and she would share with people what she thought about what was going on with politics. She says that President Clinton's staff did them as far as she could tell from news accounts. Would these go into Congressional races? Taylor says she would talk about what was going on in the country, so if pople were focused on particular races, she'd talk about those individual Congressional races in terms of giving a broad overview of what was happening and what the impact would be of that in terms of the President's desire to implement his policies. Taylor says they were meant to be informative for the employees -- not to give them political marching orders for their job context. Would that include the specification or targeting of particular candidates? Taylor now hedges on answering. Taylor says that the purpose of those briefings was "to inform people," not to tell them how to direct their activities based on her opinions. (CHS notes: Hello, splitting hairs much?)
SEN. CARDIN QUESTIONS: Most of the USAttys on the firing list were involved in investigations that were unpopular with the local GOP political establishment. There is concern that political considerations were the motivation for these firings. Would it be wrong to remove a USAtty because of political reasons? Taylor says she thinks so. (CHS notes: she looks tired and not happy to be there at this point.) Did you recieve phone calls or other forms of communication with regard to the USAttys that were fired? Taylor doesn't recall getting communications about them. Taylor says that she doesn't recall specific calls about specific USattys -- says she got maybe 20 calls a day and maybe 300 e-mails per day complaining about various issues. Cardin doesn't find her lack of recollection convincing.
Cardin points out that she is selective in her execution of the WH claim of executive privilege, and points out that she's happy to answer questions that are helpful to the WH, but won't answer the difficult ones. Taylor says she appreciates that this might be frustrating, but she's doing the best she can on this. Taylor says that she doesn't think anyone did anything wrong in these firings. And then cannot answer whether political considerations factored into the firings based on Fielding's letter. Was your assertion that there was no wrongdoing based on internal deliberations? Taylor says she shouldn't have answered the question.
20 minute recess.
Jane and emptywheel are now ready to go at the House Judiciary Hearing which will cover Presidential pardon authority. They are going to be liveblogging directly from the committee room in the Rayburn building. We're going to turn over liveblogging to them at this point, and I'll continue blogging the Taylor hearing -- just behind the scenes. I'll publish an updated transcript on the Taylor hearing later today so everyone will get a full glimpse of that questioning as well. It's a full day of oversight today and we're trying to snag all of it for you all that we can.
ADDED: Please consider donating to our FDL pledge drive. It looks like there are going to be major hearings on Capitol Hill in our future. Help us bring you all the latest live with boots-on-the-ground reporting from Marcy, Jane, Christy, Pach, Jeralyn, and others. You can donate through PayPal or by snail mailing to the address below.
Thank you for your support! It means the world to us.
Snail Mail
The Fire Dog Lake Company
8033 Sunset Blvd. #966
Los Angeles, CA 90046
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
JANE! MARCY!!
zed?
She seems hostile.
There’s something about the smile in that photo that truly frightens me. Talk about your Stepford political operatives…
Light! Sunshine! Justice!
FDL!!!
Are they in break now?
Bob in WI (temporarily)
Sacanagem @ 4
I’m thinking more along the lines of boiled rabbit.
I hate to be the one.
Does anyone see Reese Witherspoon “Legally Blonde” in that picture.
Truly frightening
Can these people obstruct and commit perjury and run out the legal clock by 01/20/09?
Coleman and Collins crossed over and voted with the D’s on Webb’s amendment.
Pressure!
I’m traveling, and on dialup, so CSPAN is not working well for me. I’m depending on the liveblog!!!
Bob in WI (temporarily)
dumb question time:
Why isn’t a vote to limit debate followed by a vote?
Steve-AR @ 9
That does seem to be their intent.
Fucking Lieberman did it again!!
jayt @ 15
And you are, what, surprised?
oddball @ 7
I bet when she had Rove backing her you wouldn’t want to mess with her. Kind of like the people who liked being “camp guards”.
I hate cspan. They always put the good stuff on cspan3 and the internet options for that suck.
While Senators are voting, could EW pass a note to a staffer about the whole ‘oath to the president’ thing? I think it’d be ideal for Sen. Whitehouse to note that he swore an oath to the constitution as US Atty. and as a Senator.
I also agree with the firepups who’ve noted that Taylor’s selective use of privilege means she’s essentially waiving the right to invoke it, and if she refuses to answer on subjects where the WH looks bad, she’s ripe for a contempt citation.
RevDeb @ 16
“Surprised” wouldn’t be my word of first choice, no.
Can Taylor be cited for contempt of congress, and taken by the seargent at arms directly to a DC jail?
Because, if she can, its time to play hardball with the White House, and tell Taylor that there is absolutely no basis for the extraordinary claim of executive privilege in law or precedent, and she can either answer the questions, or sit in jail until the courts decide whether or conversations not involving the President are privileged.
AP is running clips on Yahoo! News… Taylor looks rough… she seems to have put on weight, and her hair looks windblown…
it’s all “no comment,” or “I don’t recall”
typical stuff… thanks, CHS, for doing this for all of us…
What did Lieberman do?
RevDeb @ 13
But what is the Federal Statute of Limitations? If it is longer than ~2 years, that is a huge club to use on these people. As in fine, lie all you want, you will be referred to the DOJ and indicted in 2009. A “f” you very much for coming today.
live mics on SJC site
p.lukasiak @ 19
I agree, but it’s not going to happen
What did Lieberman do? I was dealing with real life for part of this.
EPU’ed
The last exchange went badly for Taylor. Cardin went to the point I wanted. Taylor states an opinion. When asked for the basis for that opinion she is suddenly confronted with giving a factual answer and that puts her in conflict with her use of Executive Privilege.
There is an inherent contradiction here. If she answers any questions and she has, she is in some way not following the blanket assertion of privilege made by this Administration. The Senators have shown this over and over again.
But if she is not using executive privilege all the time, then she can not use it just part of the time or when she feels like it. She can not pick and choose. Oh here I will invoke EP but there I won’t.
Having bailed on Executive Privilege at any time means she can no longer use it at any other time.
That is the importance of what happened at the end. She crossed the line and Cardin showed that. She can not scurry back and say Oh that admission was a mistake, but the damage has been done.
To use her words, this inartful use of Executive Privilege sets her up for a contempt citation. I hope that the Committee will have the stones to issue it.
Millineryman @ 3
Good. Remember “A Few Good Men”? If they can get her angry enough, perhaps she’ll spill a few beans.
GeorgeSimian @ 17
I called my local Comcast and asked them to add CSPAN 3 to the TeeVee and they first said they never heard of it, then they said no one would watch it and then I asked if they knew what kind of programming it was and they said “no”. I think they could find a job in the White House.
spurious @ 24
He was born to start.
GeorgeSimian @ 17
You mean the testimony that is most incriminating to the Administration is censored by the administration by putting it on C-Span3?
Whoda thunk?
LIEberman…NAY of course….the amend failed to receive 60 for cloture..Webb withdrew only got 56 votes
Obama in da house - as is HRC.
Motion Defeated.
Lieberman voted with the R’s against Webb’s amendment which would give the troops a little time off now and again.
And we can’t have that, now can we?
These senators are too afraid to play hardball.
She is a fraud, a liar and actualy a very dangerous person if you listen to what she said about talking to the EPA… that those people are polical appointees and working for the president. Ha? I thought the EPA worked for the people?
This is really scary stuff.
She is dissing the committee with her dismissive and dodgy answers and she should be literally slapped with a contempt and hauled to the brig until she cooperates. But they won’t do that. They are too polite and scared of the bad press they would receive for locking up a little blonde girl who worked so hard for the president and she knows they did nothing wrong. She knows.
So why not answer the questions if there was no wrong doing? What is she hiding?
Webb amendment goes down.
41 senators voted not to support the troops.
The use of Executive Privilege makes them look guilty as hell. The WH would have been better served to allow her to say, yes, we discussed replacing the USAs, the President made the decision, and there was no wrongdoing. Clearly, that is not what went down. This just digs the ditch deeper for them.
She strikes me as very pragmatic, tempermental, and scrappy. I would not want to work “for” her, but she probably did her job well.
Hugh: I’d recommend calling a Senator’s office and making just those points.
Cardin’s laying the groundwork. I think it’s time for Leahy or someone else to float the words ‘obstruction of justice’.
valletta @ 28
That’s a waste of a dime. They don’t listen to that stuff. They still think they’re a monopoly. And they are, mostly.
Will someone please tie her hair back?
p.lukasiak @ 22
Ding!
OT: Hans Blix just started on wnyc.org. You can listen to the webcast.
Hugh @ 26
Betweeen Schumer and Cardin (and my god, Schumer’s ability to think on his feet is frightening — he just zeroed in on her answers to Specter and showed how they blew her EP claim all to hell), the EP stonewall is in rubble now.
And yes, they’re setting up for a contempt citation. And yes, the GOP/Media Complex will whine about What Eeeevil Meanies They Are.
LS @ 36
I love how angry she gets. Indignation is a clear sign of criminalilty.
jayt @ 34
Sh*t.
For several minutes at the beginning of the I thought she could be a “sacrificial lamb” as the hearing went on it became crystal clear that she is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
How could anyone in their right mind possibly say that she does not believe that anyone in the White House did anything wrong in the firing of these Republican prosecutors.
This has never happenned before (my understanding) where so many prosecutors who were appointed by the present administration were fired mid stream for doing their jobs by rising above party politics in administering the rule of law.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/.....attorneys/
p.lukasiak @ 19
Can they do this?
jayt @ 32
Wisconsin National Guard just back from what was supposed to be a six month deployment.
They left in 2005.
So much for supporting the troops, J-LIE.
Back from recess.
Whiny Joe LIE up on Span-2.
Time to turn it off.
They’re back
GeorgeSimian @ 37
That is rather odd..put it on the most watched c-span spot
we’re back
I watched a bit of the clip on Yahoo - with the better quality video, you can really see how scared she is. She’s not used to being out there on her own without Rove’s authority behind her.
About executive privilege - looks like she is using a definition that means that anything ever said in the white house by anyone to anyone is covered. Also anything any white house folks ever say to anyone outside the white house. Doesn’t leave much.
Took an oath to the Constitution!
Leahy gets her.
Leahy: You took an oath to the constitution?
Yes
And to the President?
Oh no oath there
Leahy is looking like god again (if there is a god)
Kathleen @ 51
CSPAN is committed to broadcasting the House and the Senate when in session
Leahy asked if she really took an oath to the president. Did you mean to the Constitution?
Sara: uh, yeah, i shoulda said that…
Hugh @ 26…exactly.
She’s even admitted today that during her earlier answers regarding Biskupic and Griffin she should have invoked the “letter” defense and not answered the questions. So once she fails to use the letter defense for all issues concerning the USA’s doesn’t she lose and forgo her ability to use the “letter” defense and therefore has to answer all the questions from now on. I think Cardin also made this point with his questioning.
oooh, Leahy smackdown about the nature of her oath. (to the Constitution, not GWB)
Government by the people and for the people? Who knew?
Leahy up again. Taylor’s oath was to the Constitution not the President.
Taylor: Oh right. She then says it means to uphold the President.
Leahy reminds her the President is not the Constitution.
Taylor: I’m trying to . . .
Leahy: I know what you are trying to do.
Leahy has to give her a basic lesson in civics. Taylor doesn’t seem convinceed that her duty is to the constiution, the American people and NOT the preznit.
What difference does it really make if she uses EP or “I don’t recall”? Either way, it’s bull, right?
Whoa! Leahy obviously told her lawyer that she was going to jail unless she started answering questions…
Two things strike me in Sara Taylor’s testimony so far:
1) The questions to which she responds ‘can’t answer that’. One assumes that if she can’t answer something, that such discussions were held in the WH. Which means she’s basically confirming the WH’s involvement in the US Attorneys firings, because you can’t invoke privilege to protect nothing.
2) Sara Taylor really is an obnoxious, unpleasan, argumentative, disrespectful asshole. That may be a necessary set of qualities in a political director, but one should be able to turn it of when responding to the people of the United States and their representatives.
Also, I don’t think she’s very bright.
If she looked like a toad and was a guy, they would definitely throw her in jail. I doubt they will do it with her, unless she blows up and gets really rude with them. She almost did, but she kept it together. I’ll bet she really talked back to her parents when she was a teenager. If they push that button, she might pull out her broomstick and really let it fly…teeanage girls can really go off on authority…it would be a great popcorn moment.
p.lukasiak @ 64
A-Bout Time!
There’s something very ancien regime about the loyalty of thirtysomething Bushies.
The picture I would like to see of Taylor on the front pages is when Leahy explains to her that her oath was to the “constitution” not to the President. She looked absolutely dumb founded and humiliated.
Leahy missed the next question which should have been…
“So if the President violated the law, where do your obligations lie, with the President or with the law?”
Egregious are you here? She is taking your name in vain. The caging allegations against Griffin are egregious.
When she said Griffins is a fine upstanding individual, and didn’t believe he would be involved in anything untoward, she lost all credibility in my eyes.
GeorgeSimian @ 63
Yes, it is bull. The difference is that for one you can be held in contempt.
sara: egregious claim against timmy griffin re:vote caging.
I cry foul. taking the name of egregious in vain!
Wait a minute. Was the Webb Amendment defeated, or did they just lose the cloture vote? If the former, who are the Dems who don’t support the troops? If the latter, why doesn’t Harry just let them filibuster? Seriously, how long do you thing the Republicans are going to want to hold the floor to make sure that our troops can’t have any time off?
Amb.Wilson statement for Committee is officially released,
HuffPo and No Quarter have it.
Prairie Sunshine @ 46
Why don’t his consituents just recall him? He continues to do the opposite of what he told them he’d be doing. If someone flipped me off like that, I would want him out of office so I could get someone who would actually represent me.
She really hesitates before she answers Leahy: whether or not she believes there was a vote-caging scheme (targeting largley African-American voters.)
Pound pound Taylor
Jennings email discussed. And why hasn’t Scott Jennings been hauled up in front of a committee yet? He had his fingers in the attorney firings and the political briefings.
she said she wasn’t aware of any presidential meeting w/regard to US Attorney replacement.
So how can she, in any good conscience, claim that executive privilege is proper?
Document
OAG1622
Feb 28 2007 e-mail from Scott Jennings to Rover copy to ST
NM USA Urgent issue
p.lukasiak @ 67
That will explain why the laywer is sitting there rocking in his chair and looking grim.
Hugh @ 60
Here it is. This is the tipping point. That was huge.
Documents. Yes! Emails.
I hate it when Taylor et al claim “they read it in the press” especially when it was probably sitting on their desks.
Heh. I was wondering when Leahy would ding her for “swearing an oath to the president” as opposed to the Constitution.
Leahy now on vote caging in Florida and elsewhere. ST “believes” it didn’t happen. Leahy asks her how she can be sure of this; she flounders and keeps repeating “I am not aware”.
Leahy then hits with the 2/27/07 e-mail “NM US Attorney Urgent Issue”. And Rove’s private e-mail address.p.lukasiak @ 65
Yupper. :-)
Leahy: It would make life easier if you take the time to answer my questions.
“I’ll simply die if I don’t get that recipe!”
Isn’t she confirming that the Iglesias firing was a WH determination (& not DoJ) just by claiming it is a WH determination?
EllenG @ 70
If it is to the President can they walk her out in cuffs after the hearing?
did leahy mumble ’she won’t answer it’?
Leahy; Where’d you hear about the packet of info that went from Rove to Sampson re: voter fraud in Wisconsin
Sara: That happened? Was it in the press? Go figure!!
Well, she stepped in the shit on that one, since Leahy’s basically walking her up to the point where she declares privilege and essentially acknowledges White House deliberations.
RevDeb @ 34
Is Reid gonna hold press conferences every day and hammer it home? That 41 Senators refuse to support the troops.
“Don’t answer”(lawyer
“I’m not sure I recall…”
Someone from Wisconsin flipped. They’ll torch this liar quick. Sen.Leahy wouldn’t have asked otherwise, he doesn’t play cards blind.
cleter @ 84
TRY HARDER
Unfortunately, you can’t recall a Senator. Sad, but true.
Specter: Was Rove involved in Cummins replacement by Griffin?
Sara: Applying EP to Rove
No she did not
She absolutely just said that answering the question about Iglesias would require her to discuss WH deliberations. Bingo.
now she’s saying that she can’t talk about Rove’s determinations and actions.
(cough)bullshit(cough)
Dee @ 75
Beyond the fact that CT does not have a recall provision in their state constitution, HoJo is considered a “Federal Officer” and there’s no recall for them (includes Senate and House).
Taylor: “It’s fair to assume…”
No, goddamit, it is not. The purpose of these hearings is to determine *facts*, not reinforce assumptions.
We’ve had enough of that from the administration in the past 6 years.
Oh. She stepped in it with comments about Griffin’s service in Iraq.
Hope somebody for our team brings up the disparity between Griffin and Iglesias, where Iglesias’ service was used against him.
The ‘oath to the president’ thing basically set Taylor up as someone obstructing justice, not just in contempt.
And I now suspect that the shit is going to come down on her at the end of this hearing.
pseudonymous in nc @ 107
And after her, do we get Rove?
Oooooh!
Is Leahy tracking FDL?
Did you take an oath to the USofA, or to the Pn’t?
Here. Let me clarify for you in a short lecture.
ST: …uh..uh..
Oh goodie, she’s not refreshed by the break in action atall atall. Now trying to try to be respectful, & totally failing at that simple task.
Go Leahy! Caging!
ST: deafdumb&blind to everything that ever happened with anyone about anything about caging.
Leahy bores in. Her purty lil hairdo is sagging to match her shoulders. OMG, she just sounded close to tears as he called her attn to a real live document, copy there-of right before her very person. She admits to seeing it.
this. is. going. to. be. a. long. afternoon.
for the little, -uh.. missy.
oops, now she’s back to snippy, wringing hands, shifting in her seat.
Helpful Leahy points out it’d be an awful lot easier if she’d just answer simple questions…
she looks like a bratty little 10-yr-old in the principal’s office for ripping up little Suzie’s pom-poms right before the big game…
ST: asking if an info-tidbit had been in the press, while she stalls otherwise - cute. telling.
[transl: can i get away with lying about this one, or is it already public knowledge?]
Specter up: doing her no favors, by pumping up her credentials, thus making her poor-lil-dumbell routine fly out the window…
Uh..oh…Cunningham investigation…uh…uh…I read about it in the press..what just happened to her nose?? She could have said no.
re: Carol Lam “Don’t know Shit”
I wanna see the Carol Lam case put at the very front of this whole process.
Hmmm. Joe Wilson all but calls Scooter a traitor.
Where and who do you think that Rove is watching this hearing from and with? Haides? In the bunker with Cheney?
ST: Even things I have no knowledge of falls under Exec Priv
Objection, hearsay.
And I’d like the SJC to bring up the Chiara case, not least because her email exchange with DOJ officials (McNulty, yes?) is pretty fascinating.