Bill Taylor, the veteran State Department official who called freezing Ukrainian aid “crazy,” has been asked to give a deposition before House committees.
Let’s just start with a subpoena right off the bat, shall we?
Does the Executive Branch have a legal right to prevent Taylor from testifying before Congress? What legal exposure does he face if he defies the administration and does indeed testify?
I’m interested in what light others here may shed on this topic.
Mostly the career suicide bit. Lots of ways for them to make life miserable for him until he decides to take early retirement.
Maybe I’m slow, but I don’t understand the legal mechanism by which the White House (executive branch) can block the legal request from the legislative branch to call a witness to give a deposition, or testify? It’s not as if State Department employees are acting as the President’s legal counsel.
It sounds outside of the law and closer to obstruction than anything legal?
I can’t link tweets, but just read breaking news that Amb. Sundland “will defy State Dept order and testify to Congress in impeachment inquiry, his lawyers say.” So I’m guessing his lawyers have advised him that the executive branch does not have the right to prevent testimony, and ignoring the new subpoena exposes him to legal jeopardy.
Look, this is important enough that Bill Taylor needs to resign from the State Department and appear before Congress as a private citizen. You would think that an honest diplomat would see that as his duty. By the way, the same applies to the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.
Feel sorry for the guy, now he has to quit his State Department position so he can testify because his superiors certainly will not take the hit for him when Donnie two scoops forbids him for doing so. He seems a straight up person, so that is probably what he will do to avoid legal exposure. And he now has legal bills.
OTOH What a golden opportunity to show his integrity, and go down in history.
Just plod along the list of witnesses…get it on record that the Extortionist-In-Chief over and over again obstructed Congress!
Addendum:
Let’s see what happens today with Yovanovitch. She is still employed by State Dept, though not in her old job. Scheduled for 10 am. I put her in the same group as Taylor, namely career professionals trying to do their job, not political types like Sondland and Volker.
IIRC, he’s like 72 (born in 1947), so he’d not have to take early retirement.
He could just tell 'em to FO.
Yovanovitch is just 61, so she’s in a different position.
I’m torn as to just how much all of this will eventually plunge into chaos, trials and unknown mayhem. But it seems things don’t bode well, short or long term, for Trump and many in his administration. Assuming that is correct, I’d expect people like Taylor to size up demands for testimony and decide to relent.
It’s like meeting a hungry bear on a barren plain. You can attempt some lame manuever at survival. Or run like hell. But either way you’re getting eaten. So maybe just give in and resign yourself to the fact you’re dinner, and get it over with.
yeah, but he’s not turning over any documents. So for him to really shine, he needs to completely empty his guts out on the table, otherwise it’ll be a bunch of I don’t recalls and at the advice of counsel, you can fuck off.
So, are you volunteering to give up your multi-decade career just for a few hours of testimony?
Don’t make light of the sacrifice you’re asking other people to make.
I agree with you regarding duty to country. We need to keep in mind that there are other considerations that us in the audience don’t have to weigh. These people have families to support, they have careers that they have built over many years. Defying the president could put these people’s livelihoods and futures in jeopardy.
I am grateful that I have never been forced to make such a choice, and even more grateful for those willing to make the sacrifice for the good of the country.
They should.
Acting as if the other side is behaving in good faith? That charade was never actually necessary and certainly isn’t now. In fact, it’s beginning to hurt.
As for Taylor in particular, yes, a subpoena should provide him with any cover his attorneys want him to have.
I guess his lawyer has explained to him just how things NOT in Trump’s orbit of chaos actually work, and how much intel and evidence the various committees already have on him, huh?
From the WaPo, I see Josh has posted similar. Amazing that we’re less than an hour from when her testimony should start, and everyone is hedging because this administration has gone off the rails.
The technical term is “witness intimidation.”
Example: