By NANCY ZUCKERBROD, Associated Press Writer
July 8, 2007
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.
"In our view, it is unfair to Ms. Taylor that this constitutional
struggle might be played out with her as the object of an unseemly
tug of war," Eggleston wrote.
He added, "Absent the direction from the White House,
Ms. Taylor would testify without hesitation before the Senate
Judiciary Committee. She has committed no wrongdoing. She will
assert no personal priviliges."
The committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, said he expects
Taylor to testify.
"It is unfortunate that the White House is trying to
interfere with Ms. Taylor's testimony before the Senate and
with Congress' responsibility to get to the truth behind the
unprecedented firings of several U.S. attorneys," Leahy,
D-Vt., said in a statement.
Lawmakers have given the White House until Monday to explain
why the White House claimed executive privilege on subpoenaed
documents related to the congressional investigation. Lawmakers
also want an accounting of documents being withheld.
The Washington Post, citing unidentified sources, reported
Sunday that Fielding was expected to tell lawmakers that he
already has provided the legal basis for the executive privilege
claims and does not intend to hand over the documentation sought.
"We're going to pursue our legal remedies to press forward
with the subpoenas. I don't think, if this is correct, we don't
have any other choice," said Democratic Rep. John Conyers
of Michigan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary
Committee, defended the White House.
"There comes a point where the White House to say, 'Hey
look there are certain confidential things in the White House
that we're not going to share with Congress just like there
are certain confidential things in Congress that we're not
going to share with the White House,'" said Hatch, R-Utah.
The fight involves the investigation by Democratic lawmakers
into the firings of several U.S. attorneys. The lawmakers want
to know whether the White House improperly ordered the dismissals.
The investigation has expanded to include scrutiny of the
administration's terrorism-era warrantees wiretapping and Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales' stewardship of the Justice Department.
Without an agreement on the subpoenaed documents, the dispute
appears to be heading toward contempt citations and, possibly,
a constitutional showdown in federal court.
Asked in a broadcast interview if the defiance would mean
holding the White House in contempt of Congress, Conyers said, "Well,
yes. It means moving forward in the process that would require
him to comply with the subpoenas like most other people."
Conyers said he would not hold Taylor in contempt and he hoped
negotiations with the White House might break the impasse.
"We keep getting stalled. They keep pressing us. We're
seeking cooperation. This is not partisan in any way whatsoever.
I would have the same attitude if it were a Democratic president," he
said.
Conyers appeared on "This Week" on ABC, while Hatch
was on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
