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).
The Raw Story | White House plans to block testimony from former top Rove aide; Miers has not decided
From Daily Kos:
I'll add this refresher on what typically happens when subpoenas are defied: The house that issued the subpoenas can vote to hold non-compliant subpoena targets in contempt of Congress, but those charges are prosecuted only at the discretion of... the US Attorney for the District of Columbia.
Imagine that. In the middle of an investigation of how it came to be that the US Attorneys were prosecuting political enemies and coddling political friends, it's up to the US Attorneys to decide whether or not to prosecute their political friends for refusing to answer questions about the scheme that started the investigation in the first place.
Sounds fair.
But has the US Attorney ever done that before? Declined to prosecute a political friend on orders from the White House? Absolutely. The case was that of Reagan administration EPA chief Anne Gorsuch Burford in 1982.
And who was the White House counsel who ran the strategy? Why, it was
Fred Fielding himself:
In 1982, during current White House Counsel Fred Fielding’s first stint in the position, the U.S. attorney declined to bring a contempt charge against a Reagan administration official, instead seeking an injunction against the House.
Thinking this executive versus legislative branch showdown will have to be resolved in the courts? Maybe even the Supreme Court?
Know who helped direct Fielding's legal strategy on the Gorsuch case?
Guy by the name of
John Roberts.
So, what will be interesting to see here is whether or not the Democrats push ahead with a decision to hold people in contempt of Congress.. and if they do and it goes to the USA / courts, whether Bush's appointees will decide in a manner favorable to him like they've done several times already.
Is it possible that they stacked the courts with people (like Roberts, Alito, other appointees in the lower courts as well) they knew would be favorable to their legal arguments on issues they were fairly certain would come up if Democrats began reasserting their authority?
07-11-2007, 06:42 PM
