WaPo: Poor Sara Taylor

In one of the most ridiculous pieces yet on the Congressional inquiry into the firing of US Attorneys, the Washington Post "reports":

After leaving her post as White House political director in May out of what she says was a search for normalcy, she now finds herself part of the unending congressional probe into the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys.

(Emphasis supplied.)Unending? Umm. Has the investigation even reached its first Friedman Unit? Nice "reporting." More.

But even if we were going to buy into this nonsense, who's to "blame" for poor Ms. Taylor's ordeal?

Said friend and former White House communications director Nicolle Wallace: "I just feel like it's incredibly unfair that she's being caught in what's really a struggle between Congress and the White House."

The obvious question to ask Ms. Wallace, Ms. Taylor and the Washington Post is this, why didn't the White House seek a court order quashing the subpoena of Ms. Taylor? The White House could have helped Ms. Taylor avoid yesterday's ordeal by filing a motion to quash the subpoena on the grounds of a claim of executive privilege. Why doesn't the Washington Post report that?

Why doesn't the Washington Post understand the implications of this statement?

Her new role meant constant contact with Rove, whose relationship with Taylor evolved from first "a teacher and leader to almost more of a partner," said Wallace.

This would point to Ms.Wallace having a deep involvement in the firings, given the evidence that Rove was up to his eyeballs in the scandal.

The WaPo reporter does not even consider the import of this statement:

But now she's on several hooks. This week she found out the insurance will not cover her legal costs. Moreover, she's restrained from fully telling her side of things, from moving on. "It's a very difficult position to be in," she said. "The president has exerted executive privilege and I have great respect for the president. The problem for you as an individual is that this comes at a huge personal cost financially. "But this is a bigger issue than me. I understand the president is doing what he believes is right."

President Bush could make this easy for everyone, by testing his claim of executive privilege in a motion to quash the various subpoenas. Why is President Bush afraid to do so?

< House Hearing on DEA's Regulation of Pain Medicine | Headlines >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes poor Sara (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by TomStewart on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:21:51 AM EST
    If only she had quit when her department started to wade into the deep waters of the constitution, when they started to judge people not by their deeds but their support of a runaway president, not by the quality of the justice they pursued but by how justice could serve the president, not the people.

    Really, the poor poor thing.

    WaaaaahWaaaaahBooHoo (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 01:14:03 PM EST
    Just Like  Goodling. I am sure that she was as ruthless and nasty as her when she was playing politics with peers. She should get charged with contempt.

    I wholeheartly (none / 0) (#1)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:53:37 AM EST
    support the dems unending search for troof.  It keeps their hands off my wallet in the mean time.  

    I hate to feed a troll (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by aj12754 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:34:25 AM EST
    but I found this comment hysterically funny -- while Wile is suspiciously eying the Dems and guarding his pocket change, the Republican admin is quietly lifting 3 billion a week from his (and our) retirement account to pay for an unending war.

    What retirement account are (none / 0) (#7)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:59:14 AM EST
    you talking about?  My 401K?

    BTW, I agree with you about the war spending.  Look at my comments on this thread.

    It would be alot worse spending if the Dems were on track with their quasi-socialist legislating and not looking at these investigations.  

    Don't worry, I am not a troll, Ms. TL would have banished me years ago.  I have noticed here that if you show any independent thinking here on the web site (not marching in lockstep with the majority with those on the site,) you are considered a troll.  Not to worry, with time you may figure out.  


    That's it -- no more kibbles n/ bits for you (none / 0) (#8)
    by aj12754 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:17:42 AM EST
    Troll? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peaches on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:47:59 AM EST
    I'm about as far from Wile on the political spectrum you can get and we've both been referred to as trolls about as often.

    The accusation of trolling usually comes from those who cannot debate honestly and cannot meet an argument with a rational counter-argument. Nothing wrong with not being able to come up with a counter-argument, but the honest thing to do is leave it there as I often will do for Wile. Others will call him a Troll. Took me a while to figure that out.


    I've never seen you called a troll (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:10:18 AM EST
    Have a link?

    I agree that neither you nor Wile are trolls.


    Not good with the links (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peaches on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:34:59 AM EST
    Somewhere in the archives. Before you got here, for sure. Also a few times since you've arrived, I believe.

    Doesn't matter, since the accusation of trolling by these commenters (one in particular) has been cast so often and so wide as to make the term practically meaningless. I usually had fun with it each time I was accused of it.


    It's a ridiculous charge (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:42:59 AM EST
    And if I see it, I will certainly condemn it.

    Oh please... (none / 0) (#15)
    by aj12754 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:39:57 PM EST
    look at the comment that started the thread.

    This take sounds familiar. (none / 0) (#2)
    by RSA on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:00:18 AM EST
    ...the unending congressional probe...

    As with most investigations into the actions of the Bush administration (including of course the Libby affair), this one could be brought to a quick conclusion if they'd simply come forward and tell the truth.  It's bizarre to complain that Democrats  just keep asking questions without noting that the Bushies refuse to answer them.

    Well, KargoX has seriously suggested (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:10:19 AM EST
    inherent contempt. I doubt the Dems would try, but I would guess that it's subject to filibuster in the Senate.

    He is referring to the House (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:12:42 AM EST
    and Harriet Miers. No filibuster.

    Of course, it won't happen, but it is possible for the Democratic Hopuse to do it.

    I am not one to pooh pooh the power of the House.

    It is the basis of my strategy on Iraq.


    Right, and it can be done by (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:16:11 AM EST
    ONE BODY. Inherent contempt makes me really uncomfortable.