Former White House Political Director Sara Taylor “Can’t Recall” (UPDATED)
Former White House political director Sara Taylor’s testimony yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee committee on the firings of the U.S. attorneys proved to be anything but… testimony:
(1) President George Bush cited executive privilege and basically squelched her from answering the panel’s most significant and probing questions.
(2) She either set a record for or tied Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for the record for “I can’t recall” (and also some thinking, throaty noises).
CLICK HERE to see Think Progress’ montage of her “I can’t recall” moments. It is amazing.
P.S. When you view this there are three possible conclusions:
–She is not answering because it would incriminate higher ups such as the President.
–She really can’t recall.
–If she and Gonzales can’t recall then voters and Congress need to find out how an administration could possibly hire so many people with hideous memories. If they really can’t really can’t recall, then it’s a damning indictment of the quality of people in the administration. And if they really can’t recall, how can they be entrusted to bring together the strands of past policies, present challenges and choices for future action? Shouldn’t they be let go because they can’t remember anything?
UPDATE: Taylor took an oath and took it “seriously.” And who did she say she took it to? See the YOU TUBE VIA MATTHEW YGLESIAS.
12 Responses to “Former White House Political Director Sara Taylor “Can’t Recall” (UPDATED)”
Late Night: Justice Department Says Disregard Subpoenas
Above the law?
In a broadly worded legal opinion, the Justice Department has concluded that President Bush’s former top lawyer, and possibly other senior White House officials, can ignore subpoenas from Congress to testify about the firings of…
Y’know, the whole “can’t recall” defense reminds me of a corruption case that happened here in Spain some time ago. The culprit said he simply “didn’t recall” the numbers for the secret accounts where he had put all that tax money and furthermore also “couldn’t recall” where he had hidden such information. The judge said that was OK, he’d just sit in jail until he could “remember”.
[...] Gavel has more. And there’s discussion at The Moderate Voice, Think Progress, Shakesville, and on the WaPo’s Capitol Briefing. Memeorandum has it [...]
Why can’t these people who can’t recall anything be held in contempt of Congress? I believe that John Dean said recently that many in the Nixon administration unsuccessfully used that approach during the Watergate Hearings, and ended up in jail.
It is amazing that the Sentate did not have time for hearing on the immigration bill but has times for political grand standing.
At least when the Democrats control all branches of the government the Senate will not have time for this type of hearing either but I doubt if they will make time for immigration bill hearings.
SD- The Judiciary Committee wouldn’t be holding immigration bill hearings whether there was or wasn’t time for it.??
In any case, the Republicans blocked the bill’s passage in the Senate early in July.
kritter,
Every committee in the senate should have had good reasons to hold hearings on the immigration bill. The Judiciary Committee should have been looking at the effects on crime, federal prisons, and law enforcement. Just Democratic Senator Harry Reid refuse to let any committee have hearings on the immigration bill claiming that there just was not enough time.
Yet, the Senate definitely has time to ensure that no conservative will ever want to work in Washington, DC again which is really the point of the hearings, isn’t it?
There hearings are just another expression that the Democrats know that they are going to quickly become the one dominate political party that that their future White House staffers will have absolutely nothing to fear for the so-called oversight of a Democratic lead Congress.
Yet, the Senate definitely has time to ensure that no conservative will ever want to work in Washington, DC again which is really the point of the hearings, isn’t it?
I don’t think that’s the point of these hearings SD. These “public servants” obviously are sticking it to Congress, and have no intention of providing candid testimony. Gonzales’ performance was a travesty that only Bush can defend-why is he still at Justice?
The immigration bill is DOA and Reid isn’t going to waste any more of the Senate’s time on it. Rush, Sean and Bill’0 and the rest of the AM talk crowd made sure that the bill would never see the light of day. Don’t blame the Democrats for that one- they were ready to work with Bush.
Kritter,
Considering the President can fire political appointees for any reasons, then why is the Senate spending time of the firings? Because it creates good television and creates the perjury trap for every Republicans who testifies. The perjury trap is a clear message to Republicans to get out of town and never come back.
I doubt that anyone in the a Clinton or Obama administration will have to hire an attorney before they testify before a Democratic Party dominate senate.
That is why all the talk about oversight is nonsense and just political theater.
SD Maybe you forget a Saturday night over 30 years ago.
Do the names Cox and Bork ring a bell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
SD- How can you commit perjury when you can’t remember anything that happened past last Tuesday???? The only one who has been charged with perjury is Scooter Libby, and he lied to the FBI and knew all along the president would bail him out.
The Senate has made it its goal to find out what really happened with the USA’s after no one at Justice could get the story straight. They immunized Goodling, who probably did break the law (she admitted she crossed the line), and have not threatened any of the witnesses with a perjury rap. I realize you believe that its just partisanship, but you do know that millions of WH e-mails are missing and many of the WH staff used accounts at the RNC to hide their correspondence.
Bush has the right to fire appointees but not if its political interference with an ongoing case.
SuperD, don’t you ever wonder why everyone all of a sudden forgets who told who what and emails go missing all the time when no one in the administration is doing anything wrong? Doesn’t it make you even a little bit curious? I agree, the president can fire prosecutors at will. But he is a public servant not a private citizen so lets see some of the rationales behind that firing. I’m sure he had his reasons.