These are the choices?

"She can follow the president's direction and face the possibility of a contempt sanction by the Senate, with enforcement through the criminal courts, an action that regardless of outcome, will follow her for life," he said.

Or she could try to accommodate the Senate, which would "put her at odds with the President, a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years," he wrote.

Well, well, the second seems rather a weak argument to me. What stupidity!

It is well documented that the Bush family has simply never held their precious oldest son to account. Now he has been foisted on an entire country. It's time for the people of the United States to hold this man to account - he can not continue to get away with illegal behavior. In so doing, he sets a precedent for all incoming presidents as to the meaning of "presidential power." For the health and well-being of the United States of America, we must assert ourselves and Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

There is no legal basis for the executive privilege claim. While there are situations that require secrecy or sensitivity, there are none which can legitimately be blocked from some level of oversight, period. Those who are elected work for us and we want to make sure they're doing what they're paid by us to do. Our representatives, or at least a subset of them, have every right to that kind of access.

Bush is simply pulling his legal precedents from an earlier King, Louis XIV, who simply stated, "L'État, c'est moi" which translates as "The State is me."

This allowed him the right to everything from killing or imprisoning anyone who displeased him, to the first fruits of any marriage bed in the country if he saw something he liked.

With der Bush, the ladies probably have nothing to worry about, the the other subject is already being seriously explored and implemented.

Is there some reason why so many white house aides look so completely vacant?

Is it the fake smiles?

Is it the wide-eyed innocent look?

Are they really Stepford aides?

Is there really just one, using different names?

Has anyone ever seen two of them together?

...face the possibility of a contempt sanction by the Senate...

Or ... put her at odds with the President, a person whom she admires...

So what is the issue here? Since when does someone
have the option of testifying or not just because of
their personal feelings about a person? Are they
secretly married?

Is this another MalAdminsitration "Christian" (in name only) yes-person? Just sayin' its been the pattern...

...would "put her at odds with the President, a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years,"

I cannotf**kingbelievethis! This is an astounding comment from a lawyer.

John Dean was "put at odds" with Nixon for whom he worked tirelessly for years!

remember, Bush is only concerned with his base and, of course, his own agenda. He's never really cared what the rest of us think, that's why he and the people who work for him will make any ol' stupid argument, they just don't give a damn what anyone else thinks.

I think she was the inspiration for the film and musical "Legally Blonde."

Does anyone know the ACTUAL legal implications of testifying when ordered by the President to withhold testimony?

Samuel Alito was a strong proponent in the Reagan years for a "unitary" executive, such as the Nixon administration imagined. John Roberts is of the same school. I do not expect that the Court will support the Constitution on the area of Executive Privilege. Nor do I expect them to limit the Executive in any other way. Should this come down to a showdown in court, I wonder what might happen to Ms. Taylor if she testifies. We've seen the penchant for retribution within the Bush camp. If no one will restrain this tendency, what can Ms. Taylor expect?

I think, however, that it is not just a legal imperative, but a moral one as well, that she testify. She can be a heroic figure in history, but, strangely, many who have been in a position to do choose their place in history have chosen the villains role. It is hard to imagine that Katherine Harris expects to be remembered fondly.

I hope that the Congress will have the courage to challenge this executive in its unconstitutional usurpation of power. I hope that Sara Taylor will chose to serve the ideals of democracy rather than the illegal, deceitful ambitions of a small party trying to highjack our government.

C'mon Sara. To hell with what Bush wants. Your responsibility is to the country. We have been waiting for a real patriot to step forward and reveal the crimes of this administration.

DAMN! WHAT IS THE WHITE HOUSE HIDING????

thry certainly look like criminals at the moment

Sen. Leahy, his colleagues and the Senate leader together should create a "signing statement" asserting the right of the Senate and its committees to summon any and all witnesses by invitations or subpoenas in order to carry out their duties as a third branch of government as charged by the U.S. Constitution as they send out such subpoenas.

A court battle is precisely what Bush's lawyers want, because they could easily string out the litigation far beyond the end of Bush's term of office. A court battle may also be what most Congressional leaders want, because they can pose as champions of Congressional power while engaging in protracted litigation which they know will be mooted by the expiration of Bush's term. Of course Bush and Congress both know that this dispute need not be submitted to the courts, should Congress elect to impeach Bush for obstructing the Congressional investigations in question. If Bush succeeds in "stonewalling" these investigations, it will only be because Congress has failed or refused to utilize the Constitutional remedy that our Founding Fathers provided for this political problem.

Sara, consider admiring Bush much less! Consider that you will find other people to admire who haven't used the world's most powerful office as a lever for corporate greed. Consider that people may admire you for not betraying the public trust by staying silent.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, ...

Impeach them already!

I've having another of my hallucinations...what if, what if Sara of the vacant expression is in reality an undercover agent working on behalf of the people of these untied states? What if she does get to testify and blows the cover of the one she admires and works for so tirelessly? Wow! But then I'm just hallucinating.

Bush has left Congress with only one alternative -- Impeachment. It is unreasonable for Pelosi to keep Impeachment off the table regardless of what Bush does. The only justifiable position is that Impeachment was off the table for Bush's misdeeds pre-November 2006. Pelosi put Impeachment off the table for the elections of 2006 because polling indicated that position helped Democrats with Independents.

Now the 2007 Democrats can implode as the most feckless and craven major political party in US history or they can move to Impeach. It is up to them. We are waiting.