Lawyer: Bush told ex-staff to ignore subpoena

[EV_Ares]

Says it would be 'unfair' for former director to testify on fired U.S. attorneys. Former White House political director Sara Taylor, seen in 2005, is willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee but does not want to defy President Bush, her lawyer said.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is urging a former White House political director to ignore a subpoena and not testify before Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors, her lawyer says.

The Senate Judiciary Committee wants to hear from Sara Taylor at its hearing Wednesday and she is willing to talk. Testifying, however, would defy the wishes of the president, “a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years,” lawyer W. Neil Eggleston said.

Eggleston stated, in a letter this weekend to committee leaders and White House counsel Fred Fielding, that Taylor expects a letter from Fielding asking her not to comply with the subpoena.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19662270/

[BattyDem]

1. Isn't this witness tampering?

She no longer works for the White House, yet they're telling her to ignore a subpoena. What right do they have to do that?

[Kagemusha]

2. Your question is not a mere idle one. Not at all...

Because as has been exhaustively repeated in past clashes with Congress, only the President can exert executive privilege.. and executive privilege is not comprised of merely telling people who do not work for you to defy congressional subpoenas in defiance of law. It may not be witness tampering per se, but only because it would fall in some other category, like contempt of congress. Let the lawyers fight out which category it belongs to; my memory just won't help me enough there. But, I have read in the past that doing exactly this - working to deny Congress testimony it has subpoenaed - is not kosher. If they aren't claiming privilege, it's very likely illegal.

Though the question then goes to, who will punish it? Who will investigate it?

[pinto]

5. Precisely. She is no longer an employee. Fielding may 'ask' her to withold testimony,

but it sure looks like an attempt by a *current* employee of the Federal branch to tamper with the process. Conyers ought to call Fielding up, as well. This is a 'good' constitutional crisis, of sorts, to play out.

[Kagemusha]

8. Non-WH lawyers aren't allowed to "ask" people to defy Congress' subpoenas.

At least not to my knowledge. (The limits of a subject line on display.) I just don't know how that's legal at all. Perhaps it isn't.

[pinto]

10. And I certainly can't see the 'propriety' of a WH lawyer even 'asking' a private citizen

to fail to respond to a Congressional request for testimony *or* a subpoena.

Especially when it concerns possible WH actions...Geez. Their hubris with the law and the role of staff in things legal is pretty amazing. We'll see how this plays out. I hope Conyers keeps the pressure on. Seems he's of a mind to. :thumbsup:

[Major Hogwash]

13. There is no precedent for what this President does.

Even the legal eagles on DU would agree with that.
The sheer audacity of Bush is amazing, considering how unpopular he is now.
I could understand Bush showing this level of bravado if he were immensely popular, but not now.

The camel can only support so much weight, and yet Bush is using a pitchfork to heap more straw on the camel's back.
Incredible.

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. That so many are in jail, and Bush is not, is a tragedy. nt

[HereSince1628]

4. Do WH staff sign confidentiality agreements that would remain after employment?

And how would such an agreement negate Congressional access to information for which they have security clearances and a need to know in order to perform their Constitutional function?

[TheMadMonk]

6. Confidentiality agreements can not be used to conceal a crime.

[HereSince1628]

7. Is Congress conducting oversight or investigating a crime?

I'm not sure anyone in Congress actually has suggested they are investigating a crime.

I hate the way that reads, but is suspect in legal wrangling such differences are significant.

[shraby]

9. Looks to me like contempt of congress from

both the White House and Taylor for not complying with the subpoena.

[NastyRiffraff]

11. Okay, let's put this in personal terms

That I think we all can understand.

Say, for example, that the company I worked for, and resigned from last Fall, were involved in a Congressional investigation somehow. Say, then, that Congress subpoenad me as an ex-employee of that company. (It's a pretty large company.) Then, say, the CEO of that company, or the company's legal counsel in his name, wrote me and "asked" me not to testify.

If that happened, I'd immediaely smell a stinking, dead fish. I'd like to hear from some lawyers out there....is this witness tampering? Or if I'd be merely "asked" would it then be legal? Would a confidentiality agreement apply (I don't think so).

They're not claiming executive privilege, or Taylor would have been told, not "asked." It sounds like witness tampering to me (with the caveat that I haven't seen the letter, nor has anyone else). It seems to me that even asking the subject of a subpoena not to testify is tampering, especially given the power of the White House.

[Kagemusha]

14. I too am waiting for someone to spell out the specific law but...

I'm PRETTY darn sure that there is a specific law against trying to deter people from testifying before Congress, be it through "asking", telling, coersion or anything else...

I'll be watching if the big legal mind bloggers spell that part out. (emptywheel, Glenn Greenwald, etc...)

[frogcycle]

12. put her sycophant ass in jail

let bush commute THAT