Rove's Former Aide Sara Taylor Finally Testifies

Posted by Guest Blogger at 8:26 AM on July 11, 2007.

This post, written by Christy Hardin Smith, originally appeared on FireDogLake

10:06 am ET

Sen. Leahy opening the hearing. Detailing the conversations had with Taylor and her attorney. Leahy says there is clear evidence that Karl Rove was involved inteh US Atty firings. Says that Taylor informed the committee that she wants to cooperate with the SJC -- President's blanket assertion of executive privilege is unprecedented.

Leahy says under oath, the bottom line of the AG, the DAG, the AG's former CoS, the WH liaison was that none of them were responsible for the USAtty firings. Gets into the WH political office role in trying to use USAtty offices and prosecutions to potentially impact elections.

What is it that the WH is so intent on hiding? They cannot even give us information on the firings and other basic information. Ms. Taylor's honest testimony could answer these questions. The WH is contemptuous of Congress and the American public's right to know what is being done. This is serious -- about improper political manipulation of the justice system, about USAttys being encouraged to bring cases against political enemies, it is about high ranking officials maniuplating justice. This has included lying, misleading and stonewalling the Congress -- "this Administration has instituted an abusive policy of secrecy, aimed at protecting themselves from embarassment and accountability." In America, no one is above the law.

I hope Ms. Taylor chooses to reject the WH insistance on secrecy, and cooperates with this committee.

SEN. SPECTER OPENING: Specter says the SJC should cave to the WH demands, do without the oath, he could live with a closed session, etc. (CHS notes: I see that Lord Noth has shown up just in time this morning with his subservient act. Right on cue...again.) I believe that the continuation of AG Gonzales as the attorney general -- as I've said both privately and publicly -- is nto in the best interests of the United States. But, I won't presume to tell the President that he ought to fire him.

Specter talking now about Gonzales' lying to Congress re: the FBI infringement reports. Now arguing against holding Sara Taylor in contempt if she improperly asserts privilege. Specter says that there are 6 Democrats at the hearing today, and that he could use more Republicans who might actually like to do their jobs.

SEN. SCHUMER OPENING: I know that you want to cooperate and to talk with the Committee. The WH has issued a gag order, plain and simple. The President can dress it up all he wants, but it is ill-considered and unpersuasive and overbroad. Our faith in this Administration is misplaced -- there is an effort, it seems at all costs, at avoiding telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Believe that the privilege claim that the President has asserted is weak -- because we are asking about a discrete series of events, because some of the documents have already been issued by the DOJ to the SJC, and for a number of other reasons.

SEN. GRASSLEY OPENING: Thanks Taylor for appearing. Taylor is from Iowa, Grassley's home state, and is giving some background on her now. Says she is in the unenviable position of being sandwiched between the clashing interests of two branches of government. Grassley says that testifying is the right course of action, and he thanks her for being here.

Taylor now being sworn in to testify.

Am going to start a new thread...

As with all liveblog thread, 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...

__________________

10:30 am ET

SARA TAYLOR OPENING: Has worked in various political capacities for the Bush Administration. Professional opportunities given to her by the WH have had a profound impact on my life. I am here to testify pursuant to subpoena, as a willing and cooperative citizen.

Received a letter from WH counsel, informing me that the President has directed me NOT to testify regarding internal or external communications, conversations, or other information regarding the firing of USAttys and any and all matters that may pertain thereto. President claims this information is privileged, and she will honor that because she is unable to determine what is or is not covered.

She will answer what she can, and commits to abide by whatever judicial determination may be made in the weighing of the assertion of privilege versus the committee's need to know information.

SEN. LEAHY QUESTIONS: Why did you resign as WH political director? Taylor says that she's 32, and has additional career and personal goals in her life. Considered leaving last year, maybe summer, and informed Rove that she would be leaving in December. Says that the investigations into the USAtty matter was not a factor -- says that she hasn't told anyone that this was a factor. Did anyone at the WH tell you that you would be protected from legal consequences for not testifying -- nor anyone from outside the WH.

Doc. # OAG1814. 2/16/07 e-mail exchange between Taylor and Kyle Sampson. Taylor says that she has seen this document. The gwb43.com domain is controlled by the RNC -- she used this e-mail addy for political matters. Says that she read it regularly -- pretty frequently. Knows from press accounts that she had 66,000 e-mails. This e-mail addy goes back to 2001/2002. The reason for the e-mail account was so that political appointees did not violate the Hatch Act -- as a result of that system, I had two computers, two blackberries...as someone who tried to be efficient with her time, I would sometimes just use the wrong computer.

Leahy asking about violations of the Hatch Act -- whether or not you purposely violated, the law is the law. Have you reviewed all of the e-mails that you had from the RNC? Taylor says that her attorney has looked through the e-mails. Her attorney sent them to the WH for their review. Leahy asks: so you have not determined whether they were responsive to our subpoena? Taylor says yes -- we sifted through the e-mails and determined whether they were responsive to the subpoena, and then those that were responsive were sent to the WH for them to decide whether Congress could have any of the responsive e-mails.

Taylor says as she read Fielding's letter, any conversation which may or may not have occurred is under the President's assertion of executive privilege. (CHS notes: We're getting into the "I'm not going to answer this, because I'm providing the WH some CYA" portion of the testimony.)

SPECTER QUESTIONS: Says that he agrees with Taylor's declining to answer Leahy's questions was correct under Fielding's letter, but says he thinks Fielding's rationale for privilege is wrong, and that Congress ought to challenge it. (CHS notes: Specter, having his cake and eating it to, today.) Going into the Griffen issue in Arkansas. Going through all of the circumstances on the Cummins/Griffen issue. Taylor says that she had heard that Cummins may have said something around 2004 that he was thinking about leaving -- doesn't remember where she read that or when. Specter says that her testimony is contrary to McNulty's testimony -- and asks her to account for the differences.

Specter says that she was closer to Griffen because he was her deputy political director. Fair to say that she knew Griffen better than McNulty. Questions about intervention by Rove and Miers -- what knowledge do you have of that? Says that a lot of people thought very highly of Griffen's character, work ethic and skill. Did Rove or Miers intervene? Taylor says she can't answer that -- says she doesn't specifically know for sure that one or both or either did. What other people are you referring to that approved of Griffen? He worked with a number of people in the WH -- had worked at WH, at DOJ, knew folks in Arkansas -- a lot of people knew him and thought highly of him.

SEN. KOHL QUESTIONS: Going through the Biskupic question. Taylor says that she doesn’t know anything about the Biskupic issue — says she didn’t discuss it that she can ever remember.

SEN. FEINSTEIN QUESTIONS: Who decided which USAttys to fire and how were they selected? Can’t really answer. Where did the plan to do this originate? Can’t answer. What was the basis to fire these attorneys — what citeria were used? I don’t know. Did you add or remove names yourself? I don’t recall doing that. Going over some of Sampson’s testimony — he said the replacement of the USAttys wholesale was a “bad staff plan” — said that Taylor supported avoiding Senate confirmation for USAtty replacement. Taylor says she was just upset about her pal Griffen and didn’t want him to have to go through a bunch of mean questions from the Senate — mean old Sen. Pryor. Taylor says that Sampson’s characterization is not an accurate portrayal of her position — she was only upset about them “pulling the rug out from under Griffen.”

Now getting into the Cummins “lazy” comment from Taylor — Taylor says that the comment was unkind and unnecessary, says she had heard that from someone else, and that she feels that it was unfair and apologizes to Cummins. (CHS says: could we have some follow-up as to where she had heard that, please?) Taylor says that she doesn’t recall seeing the plan for firings. Who suggested names for the Dec. 7th firings? Taylor says she can’t answer that question. Were you aware that USAttys were going to be called and asked to summarily resign? Taylor says she declines to answer, now consulting wih her attorney. (CHS notes: let the flashbulbs pop.) Taylor says that she had heard that some USAttys would be replaced, doesn’t recall if that was going to be the date for replacement. Can’t answer question on what she did when she heard that USAttys were going to be replaced, either.

SEN. SCHUMER QUESTIONS: Says that the WH has put her in a position to be a tightrope walker in answering questions that you want to answer. In fact, you have answered some questions about views at the WH that you answered for Sen. Specter. This shows that the broad claim of privilege doesn’t stand up — it is a weak claim, and you have a genuine desire to answer questions that you can answer. The claim of privlege is specious. Can’t answer a question about external communications coming from outside the WH, according to Fielding’s letter. Schumer says that he’s asking about things from outside the WH. Again, Taylor says that Fielding directed her not to answer. Taylor says that she would like to answer, but she’s following Fielding’s guidelines. Schumer again addressing that to her counsel — because this is dealing with people outside the executive branch. Eggleston says that President has made this assertion, and that they aren’t going to analyze whether it is or is not appropriate. (CHS notes: in other words, take it to court, because my client isn’t going out on a limb for you.) We have a bit of parsing of the Fielding letter wording, and some more consultation time with counsel.

Taylor now answering the question. She says that she heard complaints about all things all the time from all over the country as the WH political director. How about complaints about USAttys? Taylor says that she suspects there were calls — but she doesn’t recall specific phone calls.

SEN. DURBIN QUESTIONS: Durbin unhappy with the WH obstacles in getting to the truth on this. Was Rove your boss? What contacts did you have with him? Yes, he was her boss and she had contact with him multiple times per day, every day.

__________________

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. LEAHY QUESTIONS, SECOND ROUND: You said, “I took an oath to the President, and I take that oath very seriously.” Did you perhaps mean that you took an oath to uphold the Constitution? Taylor says yes, she misspoke, and she took an oath to the Constitution, and that she takes her oath to uphold the President seriously. Leahy says, no, that her paramount duty is to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this nation, not the President alone, just like Leahy’s oath is to do the same and not just uphold the Congress. (CHS notes: Taylor sitting through this discussion with a sullen look on her face.) Taylor says that she did not attend any meetings in which USAtty replacements were discussed, and is not aware of any Presidential documents with regard to the USAtty firings.

When did you first become aware of Griffen’s involvement in the Bush/Cheney scheme on vote caging in Florida? After the election in 2004, Griffen visited with her to talk about how upset he was that someone would make such an egregious claim about him. Taylor says that she was not aware of such a campaign and doesn’t believe that it occurred. Doesn’t believe that Griffen was involved in such a scheme – she’s aware of nothing, and isn’t aware of anyone involved in a senior capacity on the President’s staff being involved in something like that.

Doc. # OAG1622. Taylor says she’s seen this before – 2/28/07 e-mail from Scott Jennings to KR@GWBush.com, WH counsel Fred Fielding, Kevin Sullivan, Dana Perino, Kyle Sampson, and copied to you, with the subject line “NM USAtty Urgent Issue.” The e-mail addy of KR@GWBush.com is an RNC e-mail, according to Taylor. Leahy asks if Taylor was aware of NMGOP questions about Mr. Iglesias? Taylor dodges around — says she believes that she knew people were upset with him, but she doesn’t recall any particular person’s complaints. Do you know why Iglesias was asked to resign? Nope. How did you learn about his resignation? Says she’d have to get into a WH deliberation process to answer that, and so no answer. When and how did you first learn of a packet of information that Rove sent to Sampson about voter fraud issues in Wisconsin prior to the 2006 elections? Taylor says that she doesn’t recall that he did that — was that in the press?

SEN. SPECTER QUESTIONS, ROUND TWO: Specter asks about whether Rove was involved in the replacement of Griffen replacing Cummins. Taylor says that she can’t talk about Rove and internal deliberations, but Tim worked with these people directly, so it’s fair to assume that these people had opinions of him because they knew him. Taylor says that she doesn’t believe that Griffen would have done anything political – and gosh he’s swell. You’ve been asked about Iglesias in NM – are you in a position to shed any light on whether he was replaced because of his alleged failure to prosecute vote fraud cases. Taylor says that she doesn’t believe that was the case – says that much of her knowledge is based on what she has read in the press, and that he should have brought more indictments where he didn’t do so. What about the replacement on McKay in WA? Taylor hedges, and then goes back to the deliberation and Fielding shield letter.

Specter asks her to submit in writing whether she has any knowledge of Charlton (AZ), Bogden (NV), Ryan (CA), Chiara (MI) or Graves (MO), aside from her knowledge through press. Taylor says she will provide the information she can while respecting the Fielding gag letter. Specter thanks her for her personal knowledge of Griffen – and then says that this type of hearing is supremely helpful to getting at least some information from the WH because, golly, they sure are swell. (CHS notes: I’m paraphrasing here, but Specter is kissing some serious Fielding behind.)

SEN. SCHUMER QUESTIONS, SECOND ROUND: Schumer says that this hearing has been helpful in showing how the WH assertion of privilege is overblown. Want to follow-up on where you said you could answer questions about outside executive branch communications. Did you ever hear any complaints from outside the executive branch about: David Iglesias? Taylor says she can’t answer. Consults with counsel. And now says she doesn’t recall any specific complaints, but does recall that there were many people who didn’t think highly of him – but can’t remember if it was internal discussions or people from outside the WH who called or what. Talking about Scott Jennings arranging a DOJ officials meeting with GOP lawyers active in NM politics – Barnett and Rogers. Told DOJ officials that Iglesias wasn’t pursuing a voter fraud case as quickly as they wanted against Democrats. Taylor says she had read accounts that it occurred, but she doesn’t have personal knowledge outside what was raised in the press. Taylor says she didn’t facilitate the meeting or participate in such meetings, to her knowledge. Wheh – another GOP official in NM – spoke with Rove or other political deputy – Taylor says she’s not aware of any calls that he made. Did you know Mickey Barnett, Pat Rogers or Alan Wheh at all? Says she met Barnett and also has met Wheh on a couple of occasions – he was the chairman of the NM GOP, and saw him at RNC meetings.

Ryan Doesn’t recall. McKay? Nope. Charlton? No. Lam? Nope. Bogden? Doesn’t recall. Chiara? Nope. Graves? Nope. Cummins? Taylor pauses. Doesn’t recall complaints about him, but she does recall unfortunate comments.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE QUESTIONS, SECOND ROUND: Your “more artfully” comment in other administrations – you have no information that this was a customary practice of any former president? No, I was just pulling that one out of the air. (CHS notes: my paraphrase.) Whitehouse going through an e-mail regarding Griffen – “you forced him to do what he did.” Taylor says she was saying that when Pryor was informed that the WH would not be going forward with Griffen, then Tim was made aware of that and then rightly concluded that he unfortunately had to announce that he would not seek the nomination or read about it in the paper the next day. Goes through a colloquy on Griffen’s fabu military service, “in Mosul of all places,” and how the AG owed him better than what they gave him. And Griffen then had to announce that he wouldn’t seek the nomination. Whitehouse then moves on to a subsequent sentence “we make the determination.” Taylor says that “we” is a collective Bush Administration “we.” Taylor then backtracks, again, on her “lazy” comment about Cummins – Whitehouse says he’s trying to figure out where the thread is to determine where the “lazy” comment came from and how that fit into the “getting rid of Cummins.” Taylor says that would clearly be internal WH deliberations and she can’t answer that, even though as Whitehouse says, they have an e-mail in front of them that says this and that the ludicrous assertion of executive privilege from the WH prevents her from talking about her non-privileged own words in the communication in front of all of them.

Whitehouse then asks whether the President was involved in any way in the decision to remove the USAttys. Taylor says that she is not aware of his involvement at all.

LEAHY QUESTIONS, THIRD ROUND: When did you first learn that Graves (MO) was being asked to resign? Taylor says that her first knowledge was when she saw it in the paper – didn’t recall knowing it beforehand. When did you recall hearing that Schlotzman was being considered to replace him? Taylor says she doesn’t recall. Were you aware that he was being considered to be put into his position without Senate confirmation? I don’t recall being aware of that.

Let me give you a copy of Doc. #OAG45. This is a copy of a 12/4/06 e-mail exchange between Sampson and Dep. WH Counsel Kelly and copied to Harriet Miers. Kelly says that “we are a go for the USAtty plan.” Getting into the Sampson testimony that Taylor was the head of the WH political office and that she signed off on the end-run of the Senate installation of USAttys plan. Taylor asking about that characterization and says she doesn’t recall Sampson saying that. Did you sign off on the plan? Taylor hedges. Leahy says did Sampson lie to the committee when he said you signed off on the plan? Taylor says that she can’t discuss this per Fielding’s letter. Leahy says that she is hiding behind the broad claim of executive privilege. Leahy says that he thinks she is doing the best she can not to answer legitimate questions and the letter gives her cover to do just that.

How was the plan for the dismissal of multiple USAttys given to you for your sign-off? Taylor consults with her counsel again. (CHS notes: cue the photographers.) Taylor now says that she cannot answer that question. Did you have discussions with folks at the DOJ? Taylor says that her letter says internal and external and she can’t talk about that. Did you raise any objections about any of the USAttys on the list? Taylor says that she doesn’t recall objecting to any names. Taylor also says that she doesn’t recall objecting to any part of the plan. Did you talk with Rove about any part of the plan? Taylor says that she can’t talk about any discussions with Rove. Did you talk with any reporters about this? Fielding’s letter expressly says reporters, so can’t say. Leahy says, so if you spoke to a reporter to give the WH spin on things, you say you can’t talk about it even though they are outside the WH. Isn’t this just like Mr. Cheney marking Top Secret his talking points for his staff to give to reporters to spin them? (CHS: Ooooh, good one.)

As political director, you’d want to spin things in the light most favorable to the WH, a statement to the press which is something done publicly, but when you are asked about this anywhere else, you are asserting a very broad definition of executive privilege. Again, talking to her attorney. Taylor says she’ll answer – doesn’t recall having conversations with reporters about this. (CHS notes: Taylor looks exhausted at this point.)

SEN. SPECTER QUESTIONS, ROUND THREE: Says he is concerned that there may be an effort to pursue a contempt citation based on what you have testified to here today. Specter says she sure is acting properly. Taylor gives him a smart-assy sounding “Ummm hmmm.”, in response. Specter asks if a court orders you to answer questions, that the privilege is crap, would you answer questions? Taylor says absolutely. Specter says what if we compromise and the President withdraws his claim? Taylor says yes. (CHS notes: Specter asks, “what if we cave and give the President everything he wants to make this all go away.” Hello, Lord North.) Now we have a joking bit back and forth between Leahy and Specter – Leahy notes that Specter is “leading the witness.” Specter now going on and on about how mean it would be to hold her in contempt.

SEN. LEAHY QUESTIONS: A decision on whether or not a contempt citation will be issued has not yet been decided. You are going to be sent written questions and a copy of your transcript. You’ll be given time to correct your testimony, a limited time, but I suggest that you avail yourself of that time. Your statement that you don’t know of the President being involved in this process seriously undercuts the question of executive privilege – and supports the President’s own public statements that he didn’t make some of these decisions. This looks increasingly like a cover-up. Who made these decisions? What are they trying to hide? Was this an attempt to corrupt law enforcement? If so, that would upset me even more than attempts to politicize this process.

Thanks the witness. Stand in recess.

Taylor and Specter now having a cozy conversation away from the microphones after her testimony has concluded. She finishes by patting him on the arm as he smiles.

Tagged as: rove, gonzales, taylor, mcnulty, us attorney firings

Christy Hardin Smith is a former attorney, who earned her undergraduate degree at Smith College, in American Studies and Government, concentrating in American Foreign Policy.