What got me, however, was how she seemed willing to answer questions from Republican Arlen Spector (PA).  Where she would state that she couldn't answer a question about conversations about, for example, a particular fired US attorney when asked by Sen. Leahy or Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), she did not declare privilege for similar questions from Sen. Spector.  Throughour the entire hearing, she seemed to selectively apply the prohibition to questions she thought too dangerous to answer.

This may have tripped her up, however.  At one point Taylor stated that she did not speak to the president or have any meetings with him about removing the attorneys.  As Sen. Leahy later pointed out, this seriously undercuts the basis of the declaration of executive privilege by the White House - if the president wasn't involved in the decision making, then why is the privilege claim warranted?

The White House seems unwilling to take a chance on anymore damaging words coming out on record.  Yesterday it was announced that the administration has ordered Harriet Miers not to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, in violation of her subpoena.  So, whereas Taylor appeared but was unwilling to answer most questions, Miers won't appear at all.

What's next?  Contempt of Congress charges?  Who knows?  This isn't a road often travelled, and the legal points involved are far from clear and direct.  Congress doesn't issue subpoenas for White House officials lightly, and I would assume that those White House officials wouldn't violate those subpoenas lightly.  The courts may eventually sort out whose claim will reign, but in the mean time, it's the rule of law and the public who wants only to know the truth of the matter, who suffer.