How can Smirky get off telling a witness that she cannot testify when she is willing?

[deminks]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015052.php


In light of the letter from Sara Taylor's lawyer to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Atrios asks a question I've been mulling over myself.

What possible authority does the White House have to try to prevent a former employee from testifying about something? How can they White House "not let her" testify?

Obviously if she doesn't want to testify they can play legal games to try to prevent her from being compelled to testify, but she's said she's willing. How can they stop her?

I suppose the natural White House response is that Bush is concerned about the ability of presidents to get unvarnished advice from his aides, and if a president's team has to worry about discussing internal Oval Office deliberations, aides might hold back. Or something. It's never been entirely clear to me.

link to Atrios

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_07_08_archive.html#2645183192188433881

[Mz Pip]

1. 'Cause he's the Decider

He decides things. He's decided she should shut the f*ck up. That's what you can do when you're the Decider.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[SpiralHawk]

8. Bush decided to go AWOL. Decided to ignore 9/11. Decided to ignore Hurricane Katina

And he also decided to lie to the American people about the republicon reasons for staring an oil crusade war in Iraq. He really is the decider.

[Uncle Joe]

2. "unvarnished" is a really sweet sounding word, this makes

me think of carpentry, Jesus's step dad was a carpenter. How about illegal, immoral, unconscionable, corrupting or treasonous advice.

[Marr]

3. You know what I don't understand about that argument?

The "unvaranished presidential advice" argument, I mean.

If an advisor thinks his suggested course of action is somehow illegal or an abuse of power, then he should not be offering that suggestion. Why should they be shielded in such a way? It makes no sense.

An administration that's acting legally has no reason to demand such secrecy.

[Pharaoh]

4. Because he's an asshole?

I don't know but if they don't impeach these fuckers soon, we're doomed. Course we are probably already doomed so please pass the tequila :beer:

[Igel]

5. Start with the idea of executive privilege.

And you pretty much end there.

If you talk to a doctor, a priest, or a lawyer, the conversations are privileged: They are not free to discuss your conversations. With the doctor and lawyer, there's a legal privilege. With priests, the courts sometimes let the issue pass, and sometimes if they don't the priest still keeps quiet.

But if they wanted to talk, it's up to you to allow them. Even if you get a different lawyer or a different doctor, or the lawyer or doctor retires, the conversations were protected and that protection doesn't depend on the lawyer's or doctor's current status.

Now go to Sara Taylor. If the conversations she had were privileged--the WH claim--it's not her current status that's at issue. What's at issue is the status of the conversations.

Now, I can't imagine how the WH can keep Taylor from testifying, any more than I can imagine a Catholic lay person keeping the priest s/he confessed to from testifying. I'm far from sure that the conversations were priveleged.

[thereismore]

6. It's the authority of intimidation. Cheney's evil eye. Whatever. nt

[WinkyDink]

7. He personally has NO authority over civilians. The DoJ could pursue something, I suppose.

[ljm2002]

9. I think her willingness to testify...

...is a convenient fiction. They knew that Bush's admin would not agree to her testifying. But if she signalled an unwillingness to do so, she could be held in contempt *and* everyone would know that she had something to hide. This way she has her cake and eats it too: she would gladly have testified, really! But darn it, the President just wouldn't let her.