Sarah Taylor / C-Span3 - thread #4

http://c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan3_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

Thread #3 can be found here.

Thread #2 can be found here.

The original thread can be found here.

What can they do about it that won't take years to resolve??

She's being completely inconsistent in how/when she hides behind the letter -- clearly it's only when she doesn't want to answer something that might hurt BushCo.

And it seems that this shakes her confidence.

A little of Karl Rove's demeanor has rubbed off on her over the years. But she's not capable of carrying it off over the long haul today. An hour into the hearing and her glow is starting to look like sweat to me. She should be hitting the face powder hard in the ladies room, for sure. I know I would.

and make "talking" the only condition for her release.

She IS being contemptible..and they ARE the congress :)

...and tries to sidestep every question.

It is so blatant that she is lying. I love that they called her on her selective invocation of executive privilege: invoke it when the answer might harm your side, but waive it when it works to your advantage.

She turns my stomach.

for his or his underlings actions. We saw it with Water Gate and Iran Contra, it didn't work for Nixon but it worked for Reagan, To bad for * that he is no lying Reagan.

you will be held accountable one day

is it worth it???

Although I hope she changes her career path from her on out. She seems a little loopy.

And a quick call to Karl....

:evilgrin:

did anything wrong". . .Now she says she shouldn't hav eanswered it because the assertion would have required that she KNEW SOMETHING. . which she's not allowed to do.

sorry to say.

Believer.

...it was Susan Ralston

on Webb amendment (equal time at home for time spent in Iraq). Available on C-SPAN 2

In more ways than one. Perhaps the DC madam can enlighten us?

claim executive privilege. Didn't John Dean say the other night that the Preznit would have had to get a court order squashing her testimony? Shouldn't she be found in contempt of Congress for this stonewalling. Didn't the Senators get advice about the legality of STaylor claiming privilege as a private citizen no longer working at the WH? WTF WTF WTF????? Are we supposed to accept Fielding's letter as the law in this case? Nixon's lawyer's letter is now held up as a higher legal standard than the Constitution and Congressional oversight? Where am I, is this still America???

Sara Taylor is a citizen. She worked in the political wing of the white house. Congress needs to hold her feet to the fire. I don't think Conyers likes to go after the small fish, but its time!

and exactly what I was thinking. Why are they sitting there taking this shit? Doesn't Leahy have a freaking law degree? WTF is right!!!

letting Bush get away with the BS he is getting away with is not legal

Americans watch Law & Order every night they are smarter about law than they give thme credit

If you are going to claim 'Executive Privilege' and not answer questions within the boundaries of the privilege claimed, you cannot selectively answer some questions within the boundaries and refuse to answer others.

I think she has screwed up bigtime here, and her lawyer has committed malpractice on television for all to see.

It is just my opinion but I think she has been intentionally lying about certain activities within the White House by either saying she does not think anyone did anything wrong in the US Attorney scandal, and liberally using the 'I don't recall' dodge.

Does anyone believe for a minute she does not recall anyone outside the WHite House calling her to complain about one of the fired US Attorneys when her name is on all the emails, and her job would description would place her exactly in the position to receive those calls?

She could not even bring herself to admit that her job involved conducting 'opposition research.' Took 3 questions for her to admit it --which everyone in the whole wide world already knows.

It would be entirely appropriate to hold her 'in contempt of Congress' and I hope they vote to do so.

teflon answers, by saying the WH hasn't done anything wrong in regards to the US Attorney firings but then immediately answering 'I don't recall' when asked how she came up with that opinion, was it from internal communications or outside phone calls that she came to that conclusion. She even said next that she would obviously have had to have had some information in order to come to the opinion that there had been no wrongdoing. Either that or just admit she has been programmed and brainwashed to believe there can never be wrongdoing in King George's WH.

It takes decades of experience to dodge questions that way; I've only seen hardened politicos do it up until now. Can you imagine how much more corrupted she is going to become, given all the time she has?

A foregone conclusion.

I hope Leahy lays into her, these Senators know what the story is. More stonewalling.

First of all, merely invoking 'Executive Privilege' is not a free pass to avoid answering all questions presented to you.

Second, every Executive Privilege attempt that has gain any recognition whatsoever has had a direct link to Presidential communication with individuals, and in almost all cases that communication had to occur inside the White House. Fielding's letter attempts to extend the privilege to cover WHite House and ADministration Staff communications with one another, and then to any 'external communication' of those individuals with individuals OUTSIDE the White House.

The only way to read such a claim of privilege is that the White House is outside any court order or act of Congress to get to evidence of any wrongdoing not only inside the White House, but inside the Administration. An all powerful Executive Branch beyond oversight and compliance with the law and court orders.

The courts are not going to approve such a sweeping ultimate power grab by this WHite House. The fact Bush appointed Roberts and Alito is not going to save the day on this one. If the Courts went along on this one, they would no longer need to show up to hear cases and issues orders in the future.

within reason but that it does not in any way, shape or form trump law and Legislature's Constitutional oversight.
Am I in bizarro world?
Oh wait, don't answer that.

questioning, and rattle her cage a bit. She seems to think invoking Fielding's letter is a talisman of sorts that she can just waive around at will to protect her from having to tell the truth.

It is a theoretical concept that has been advanced in the past, most notably by Nixon --in which it failed.

It has been alleged since then in numerous cases, but before the Court could rule on it a compromise was struck obviating the need for the Court to strike it down.

It cannot be used in the manner that this Administration is alleging without destroying the co-equal branches of government and checks and balances set out in the Constitution.

that what she is saying or in this case not saying is protected by executive privilege. Why don't they tell her (in polite terms of course) to cut the shit?
Or will they just get the standard, all encompassing, 'I don't recall' United States of Amnesia answer anyway?

it is all about proceeding from a position of strength and authority.

her to avoid testifying. If the Senate waits for this to move through the courts it will delay getting to the heart of the wrongdoing that much longer.

It really falls on her to decide whether to honor the subpoena and the Congress whether to find her in contempt if she fails to testify.

Bush could not get a court order in a situation like this one.

difficult her testimony has been in light of honoring Fielding's letter leave me to believe that the Senate does not intend to find her in contempt.

For example, in the Espy case, the court clearly found that communications made by presidential advisors in the course of preparing advice for the President come under the presidential communications privilege, even when these communications are not made directly to the President. On the other hand, the court also suggested that the privilege would not extend to communications between the WH and other agencies. And the court (as did the SCOTUS in Nixon) ducked the question of how the privilege should apply when the privilege is invoked in the context of congressional oversight rather than a proceeding involving the judiciary.

It is to uphold the constitution of the US, NOT to be loyal to Bush

NOT the president -- !!

selective amnesia?

shows that you were aware of it.

hehe, just wait. Leahy is on fire

mumble, mumble stumble I don't recall, I don't know.

then she's saying that there were such deliberations.

Uh oh, your Freudian slip is showing Bushbot.

Methinks she has a bit on her mind. . .

You're welcome....lol

Can you imagine having to type up those transcripts???

Hooray! She exposes them with every utterance.

Uh, uh, ... I, uh, ... Again, what I think you are asking me... fact-based question... "I'm doing the best that I can here"

Leahy admonished her to please try and answer the questions as asked.

She seemed surprised at the request.

Not used to truth-telling, this one.

Leahy: "My last question ... assuming you answer it"

Her answer: "I don't recall"

sorry for the caps

Nobody believes what she is saying about Griffin. If she keeps pushing it, she is just killing her own credibility.

Does Taylor say anything other than she won't?

deliberations. Didn't he AG say there were no WH deliberations?

There's perjury right there.

she is confirming that there were WH deliberations.

She looks it to me. They must have had to medicate her big time for this.

She is having trouble making her answers consistent (as Leahy pointed out) and believeable.

politics does not seem to be working out so well for you.

Exsqueeze me, baking powder?

wtf was so helpful about her lying bs?

is representative that he is a great person)

be involved with that.

Until this Committee clearly asserts that she is NOT subject to executive priviledge, this is all bs 'can not recall' and 'can't answer that because of Fielding's letter'.

She's a piss poor liar and covering for the White House. Get the bitch to answer the damn questions!! grrrrr......

Oohhhh, this could get good.

STFU with your enabling little summation.

NY represent. Fuck her up.

That may be the biggest bullshit answer I've ever heard from one of these clowns.

Ingelais -invokes letter (earlier she said she didn't recall) Now she doesn't recall. but there were many people who didn't think highly of him

amazing...is she from Pat Robertshits university?

This is not going well for ST.

She's lying her stinking ass off.

but Schumer is on a Hatch Act attack

lies. Which is, of course, the reality.

EXACTLY the same method as was used with "outing" VP: Make it seem that the "knowledge" was pervasive and, therefore, source-less.

The mantra of Washington criminals.

Bud Clemmings: "I DO NO----- I don't mean to pause."

LOL What a dumb ass.

what a farce--she is a bad liar.

If didn't remember stuff related to my job I wouldn't be employed :shrug:

:D

Do they think we really buy this crap?

:D

can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shitcan't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit can't remember shit

:D

:-)

thanks.. I couldn't resist making fun of little Paris.. :D

LOL

concerning her job or responsibility, maybe someone should ask the question,"exactly what is it that you do-do and who do you get authourization to do it?

You forced him to do what he did....who is him and who is you.

She's gotta be.

Would that be the same Tim Griffin who most likely made sure that hundreds of other soldiers were unable to have their votes counted in the 2004 election because they were overseas in Iraq, due to Griffin's efforts at caging? Spare me your 'ire' over what Tim Griffin had to go through Ms. Taylor.

back and look at the other two threads to see if its been mentioned.

but of course, no answers were forthcoming other than ST saying something like no one would do anything like that.

Bud is lazy and we got rid of him. Cummins was let go, she does not want to embarass him. Cummins is an honorable person, but poor communication, and we has a qualified candidate (Tim) who wanted to serve and now neither of them is serving

What exactly did Ms. Taylor receive a paycheck for when she worked in the WH for KKKarl, hmmm? She seems to not recall anything at all or have been privy to any information at all.


oooh, the L word has been brought out. Thank you Patrick Leahy.

to uphold the Constitution? Or do they just pledge an oath to the President? Since the President swears an oath to uphold and honor the Constitution, doesn't an employee of the administration hold that oath as paramount as well. You can't honor and respect the President without also honoring and respecting the Constitution no? The Constitution expressly holds the Legislative body as a co-equal branch of power, so legislative privilege is just as compelling as the President's farcical executive privilege.


Why is Leahy the only one rattling her cage here. He is calling her a liar and can barely contain his sarcasm at her bogus claims of executive privilege.

He's giving her a chance to answer again.