PDA

View Full Version : White House To Block Testimony Of Former Rove Aide


|Zach|
07-08-2007, 01:36 AM
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_plans_to_block_testimony_0707.html

The White House appeared set for an expanded showdown with congressional investigators in the probe of the firing of eight US Attorneys over the weekend.

An attorney for Sara Taylor, a former top aide to White House adviser Karl Rove, notified the Senate that she was unlikely to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee July 11.

At the same time, former Counsel to President George W. Bush Harriet Miers told RAW STORY she did not know if she would appear before the House Judiciary Committee July 12.

An attorney for Taylor informed the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the White House sought to block her testimony.

"Ms. Taylor expects to receive a letter from Mr. Fielding on behalf of the President directing her not to comply with the Senate's subpoena," wrote W. Neil Eggleston, counsel to Taylor, in a Saturday letter to Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

Eggleston noted that Taylor, "recognizes the burden of any citizen to respect the Senate's processes and to be responsive to its subpoenas." But he seemed to signal she would follow the advice of Fred Fielding, White House Counsel, and respect the President's assertion of executive privilege.

"This clash may ultimately be resolved by the judicial branch," he added.

RAW STORY contacted Harriet Miers at the Dallas office of her law firm Friday afternoon. When asked if she would appear next week before the House Judiciary Committee, which subpoenaed her at the same time Leahy subpoenaed Taylor, she was uncertain.

"No decisions have been made about that at this point," the former White House Counsel said in a brief phone interview.

On Friday, a House Judiciary Committee spokesman told RAW STORY that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the committee's chairman, still expected to receive testimony from Miers next week.

Senator Leahy criticized Fielding and the White House for trying to hold up Taylor's testimony.

"It is unfortunate that the White House is trying to interfere with Ms. Taylorís testimony before the Senate and with Congressís responsibility to get to the truth behind the unprecedented firings of several U.S. Attorneys," he wrote in a statement sent to RAW STORY. "The White House continues to try to have it both ways Ė to block Congress from talking with witnesses and accessing documents and other evidence while saying nothing improper occurred. I hope the White House stops this stonewalling and accepts my offer to negotiate a workable solution to the Committeeís oversight requests, as so many previous White Houses have done throughout history."

Earlier testimony in the congressional investigation made it clear that Taylor and Miers were both intimately involved in various aspects of the firing of the US Attorneys which got underway at the end of 2006.

D. Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, noted in his May 29 appearance that "I remember speaking with Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley about that. Sometimes this subject would come up after a Judicial Selection Committee meeting, which was a once-a-week meeting that happened in the Roosevelt Room."

He added, "The issue of replacing U.S. attorneys most frequently came up as sort of a pull-aside after a Judicial Selection meeting."

Former Justice Department White House Liaison Monica Goodling also suggested Taylor had been a key decision-maker in the Attorneys firings in June.

"There was an e-mail that Mr. Sampson forwarded to me, I think, on December 4, if I'm remembering correctly, that said that it had been circulated to different offices within the White House and that they had all signed off," Goodling told Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee when she appeared before the House Judiciary Committee. "I think it said that White House political had signed off. Political is actually headed by Sara Taylor but does report to Mr. Rove, so I don't know for sure."

The White House had earlier refused to comply with a subpoena for documents as a prelude to the testimony of Miers and Taylor this coming week. It also made clear that if the House and Senate committees pressed their plan to hear from Miers and Taylor, it would assert executive privilege there as well.

In response, Senator Leahy answered last Sunday when asked if he was willing to schedule a vote to hold the White House in criminal contempt, "If they don't cooperate, yes, I'd go that far."

While Taylor's attorney suggested that she wanted to comply with the Senate's desire to hear from Rove's number two, he also appeared to argue that the possiiblity of targeting her for contempt was unfair.

"In our view, it is unfair to Ms. Taylor that this constitutional struggle might be played out with her as the object of an unseemly tug of war," he wrote in the Saturday letter. "If the executive and legislative branches of government are unable to reach an agreement, we urge the Senate not to use Ms. Taylor as the focus of the constitutional struggle...the White House, not Ms. Taylor, controls the assertion of executive privilege. If there has to be a clash, we urge the Senate to direct its sanction against the White House, not against a former staffer."

Taylor resigned from the White House in June, although reports of her resignation first surfaced in April.

Taco John
07-08-2007, 02:07 AM
America has been hijacked by extremists.

patteeu
07-08-2007, 07:48 AM
America has been hijacked by extremists.

It's not my fault. I voted Republican in 2006.

patteeu
07-08-2007, 07:50 AM
The White House should defend itself from an over-reaching Congress.

Taco John
07-08-2007, 09:02 AM
The White House should defend itself from an over-reaching Congress.



The Whitehouse should protect itself because they're a bunch of crooks who should be in jail.

jAZ
07-08-2007, 11:14 AM
The White House should defend itself from an over-reaching Congress.
The White House is trying to defend itself from an "over-reaching" public.

If it's only about congress, then they should give the information directly to the public. Post the docs on their website and instruct their people to answer the media's questions fully.

BigMeatballDave
07-08-2007, 11:18 AM
The Whitehouse should protect itself because they're a bunch of crooks who should be in jail.True. But, thats EVERY administration...

|Zach|
07-08-2007, 01:31 PM
Congress, jeez...what a bunch of drama queens.

Pitt Gorilla
07-08-2007, 03:16 PM
The White House should defend itself from an over-reaching Congress.It's sad when the American people, through their representatives, have to defend themselves from an over-reaching White House.

Ugly Duck
07-08-2007, 03:47 PM
"Ms. Taylor expects to receive a letter from Mr. Fielding on behalf of the President directing her not to comply with the Senate's subpoena"

Good move by the neocons... they can protect themselves by directing underlings not to co-operate with investigations, and then commute the sentence of anyone who gets tossed in jail.

TinyEvel
07-09-2007, 12:21 AM
Bush/Cheney are the most crokked self-entitled "leaders" of this country in decades.

Further proof that they should be in jail, rather than running our country.

Logical
07-09-2007, 02:24 AM
The White House should defend itself from an over-reaching Congress.

You have to be kidding, the whole checks and balances setup is a joke to you evidently.

Planetman
07-09-2007, 10:40 AM
Bush trumphed Congress by playing the "Executive Privilege" card. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3358670

I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked. [/sarcasm]

Bowser
07-09-2007, 11:19 AM
If you force the White House to be accountable, the terrorists win.

redbrian
07-09-2007, 11:46 AM
The Whitehouse should protect itself because they're a bunch of crooks who should be in jail.

Alright letís say I make you prosecuting general attorney of the universe for a day.

What specific charges are you filling, on whom and what is your proof (which of course is only allowable if it can be presented in a court of law).

(Now I realize that I am dealing with someone who strongly believes that the evil empire of Bush and Co. is responsible for the twin towers, so Iím not really holding my breath for anything even closely being based on reality).

memyselfI
07-09-2007, 11:56 AM
If you force the White House to be accountable, the terrorists win.

And you obviously hate America as well.
ROFL

Logical
07-09-2007, 12:02 PM
If you force the White House to be accountable, the terrorists win.:thumb::clap:

patteeu
07-09-2007, 08:15 PM
It's sad when the American people, through their representatives, have to defend themselves from an over-reaching White House.

Not really. That's what the adversarial system we have is supposed to handle. The Executive branch isn't the only branch that over-reaches from time to time. There's no shortage of tools available to each branch to keep the others in check. And there's always the next election looming.

patteeu
07-09-2007, 08:21 PM
You have to be kidding, the whole checks and balances setup is a joke to you evidently.

To the contrary, I trust the checks and balances setup to be reasonably effective in reigning in any of the branches that over-reach. It shouldn't even require resorting to hysterical whining about such things as the Imperial Presidency.

Hydrae
07-09-2007, 08:29 PM
"Of the people, by the people and for the people."

Ah, dreams of years gone by when those words truely meant something. Now it is all grandstanding and avoiding scrutiny from any angle.