Comments (58)

Michael wrote on July 10, 2007 4:37 PM:

Thornier??? Come on..let's have some action. Stop all this criminal stonewalling and actually do something like issuing a Contempt of Congress??

jane wrote on July 10, 2007 4:38 PM:

The Bush White House gets to put government documents on RNC computers so the Republican Party gets to see this information but Congress doesn't?

When a legal privilege -- and it is executive privilege -- not a right --is abused it is frequently destroyed. If I talk about confidential legal matters publicly, client/attorney privilege is
destroyed. The same argument should apply here.

This is more particularly true as the RNC accounts were used as a way to evade the laws requiring that a record of actions be kept.

Michael wrote on July 10, 2007 4:38 PM:

Thornier??? Come on..let's have some action. Stop all this criminal stonewalling and actually do something like issuing a Contempt of Congress??

Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 10, 2007 4:39 PM:

The White House and RNC are wholly owed subsidiaries of George W. Bush. The RNC is not a governmental institution. The RNC is POLITICAL. Executive Privilege ends at the public and the political.

Makes one wonder how the Fascist Five are going to rule on this.

Englishlehrer wrote on July 10, 2007 4:39 PM:

Maybe I'm a bit daft but how can an RNC email from say, Rove to Gonzales be covered under executive privilege? Is Fielding really trying to "gum this to death"?

And if we were to begin impeachment hearings, don't all claims of executive privilege go out the window?

Gonzales has a faulty _SC_...

sean nyc/aa wrote on July 10, 2007 4:42 PM:

This is the issue to push harder than the others because the Administration's claims are much weaker. Once this domino falls, others may follow suit.

William Ockham wrote on July 10, 2007 4:44 PM:

I would like to point at that Flood's letter is an implicit admission that the White House and the RNC broke the law (Presidential Records Act). I hope the Archivist is going to get a copy of all those official records.

Jake wrote on July 10, 2007 4:44 PM:

Who is paying the fees for all the high priced legal help the White House is getting? Could it be the U.S. taxpayer? So, ~30% of our income is going to aid and abet crime.

Redshift wrote on July 10, 2007 4:45 PM:

Okay, let me get this straigh -- their argument is:

"Even though White House officials were improperly working outside official channels to avoid oversight, the emails they laundered through us were official business covered by executive privilege."

Can we get a RICO prosecution against the RNC now?

Buck wrote on July 10, 2007 4:47 PM:

Hopefully the RNC hasn't *tried* to destroy the evidence. There are many unhappy Republicans. *If* there are unhappy moles, they might take down some folks who have no earthly idea how deeply they're in muck.

skip edwards wrote on July 10, 2007 4:47 PM:

The battle lines are just beginning to be drawn over the corrupt White House of the Republican Party. The big picture is that they undertook an organized and illegal plan to steal elections and make the Justice Department an arm of the GOP and Karl Rove!
Democrat Party leaders need to lead or we need to have new leaders!

skip edwards wrote on July 10, 2007 4:48 PM:

The battle lines are just beginning to be drawn over the corrupt White House of the Republican Party. The big picture is that they undertook an organized and illegal plan to steal elections and make the Justice Department an arm of the GOP and Karl Rove!
Democrat Party leaders need to lead or we need to have new leaders!

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 4:50 PM:

Let me see if I understand this:

White House aides, who are using a non-government email system to send emails related to a subject that the White House has explicitly stated it had no involvement in are still covered by executive privilege?

I can't believe how deep the BS is that Fielding is shoveling.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 10, 2007 4:51 PM:

Perhaps if Congress would declare that the matter IS an investigation of a criminal matter we could get this kicked up a notch or two.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 10, 2007 4:53 PM:

Perhaps if Congress would declare that the matter IS an investigation of a criminal matter we could get this kicked up a notch or two.

KestrelBrighteyes wrote on July 10, 2007 4:53 PM:

So, if the RNC system was used in relation to official government business, it's a violation of the Presidential Records act. The emails sent/received to/from a .gov email address are evidence.

If they say the system was NOT used in relation to official government business, it doesn't fall under executive privilege anyway.

Does that about sum it up?

Rock, meet hard place.

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 4:54 PM:

If "executive privilege" will be exerted over RNC assets the following needs to happen:

1/NARA (the Archives) needs to go in immediately and seize all servers and RNC e-mails that are White House work product. The White House is mandated by the PRA (Presidential Records Act) to properly archive this information, and NARA is the official repository. White House work product is presently in "foreign" hands and needs to come back under government control. The RNC is not entitled to retain any of it.

2/The White House needs to fully reimburse the RNC for any and all use of its systems, assets, etc. It is ILLEGAL for the US Government Executive entities, agencies, etc to augment operating budget appropriations by using resources not alloted to it be Congress.

3/Sanctions need to be ordered for violation of the PRA.

modmom wrote on July 10, 2007 4:59 PM:

I wish they would also subpoena emails from Ken Blackwell, and the Ohio Republican party concerning the Ohio '04 Election. there is sure to be some incriminating info in those.

It also would be interesting to see if any email info on USA Northern Ohio Gregory White and the Republican leadership. USA White had fore knowledge of an impending scandal with Tom Noe (a Bush pioneer jailed for the Coingate scandal whose wife was the Chair of the Lucas County BOE) but elected to postpone public knowledge until after the election.

Legalize wrote on July 10, 2007 5:04 PM:

The RNC is a 3d party. One can not assert a privilege while simultaneously sharing this allegedly privileged material with 3d parties. For Christ's sake, the WH doesn't even control this allegedly privileged material if it is on RNC servers!

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 5:04 PM:

Let's take a look at the RNC e-mail IP numbers:
- Which legal counsel were using their computers for non=official business;
- Which open source information -- related to the RNC e-mail accounts -- has been disclosed, helping to fill in the holes of what was destroyed
- How many RNC e-mails were sent related to war crimes, Geneva violations, and violations of international criminal law
- Does it appear WH Counsel memoranda were shared with outside counsel discussing the concerns the evidence would not, ultimately, enjoy a privilege claim
- How did the RNC coordinate with outside counsel to establish a backup system
- What evidence destruction procedure did outside counsel know about, but refuse to audit or report
- What was the means by which outside counsel's legal services in re evidence "retention" was used as a means to explain how to destroy evidence so that it could not be retrieved
- What information does the Grand Jury have related to patterns of RNC e-mail destruction that shed light on the specific assumptions outside counsel shared with the RNC on how to destroy this evidence
- What RNC e-mails were sent to confirm access to the MicrosoftOutlook SharePoint system, or other file transfer system used to quickly coordinate on legal memoranda
- Does the SharePoint system have a copy of the RNC e-mail requests to gain access to these file sharing systems
- Which outside legal firms are on the access list for the specific RNC e-mail/file sharing systems
- Which legal memoranda, written after the _decision_ to destroy evidence was made, exist confirming outside counsel did review the RNC e-mail system; and were involved with the audits related to the compliance or non-compliance with the Hatch Act?
- Have all RNC e-mails connected to any US Government computer been reconciled to work flows, time sheets, and specific DoJ, OLC, WH, EOP, OVP,and outside counsel work products?
- Are personnel, assigned to specific IP numbers, not using that system for official business?
- Which Instant Messaging system liked with DOJ and outside entities are known to have been used while personnel were engaged in joint discussions related to third party-stored information on sites outside the control of the US Government and the outside entity?
- If this issue was "not a concern," why were the personnel -- inside EOP and the outside counsel's office -- working on the weekend to prepare for this review?
- How do the DOJ Workflows -- as a measure of what legal counsel were supposed to have been working on -- compare with the actual IP-connections between [a] DoJ-OLC-EOP-WH-OVP and [b] the outside information sources; is there a pattern of key personnel not using their computers for the workflows they were reporting as complete; who was actually doing the work: Processing the warrants; or was this activity not done at all, and was this malfeasance known to the AG in re compliance with FISA, rendition, Geneva, and other legal obligations?
- How were the risk factors with the document retention factored into the audit of the outside counsel's review of the firms alleged to be involved with rendition, FISA violations, NSA illegal activity, and Geneva violations?
- What financial incentive did outside counsel have in conducting a cursory review of the RNC email retention plan; which contracts in other areas were they guaranteed to win on a no-bid basis; how were the consulting contracts on the various issues for the WH assured if outside counsel was silent in official reporting to the SEC on the status of compliance or non-compliance with document retention,audits, and legal compliance?
- Where are the internal memoranda consistent with the SAS Standards of outside counsel's legal reviews of the entities; and how were differences of opinion as it relates to rendition, FISA violations, NSA illegal activity, and prisoner abuse resolved internal: Which legal counsel with reservations about war crimes were subsequent denied promotion, fired; and how did the litigation related to these premature firings ultimately get resolved by the courts: Was discrimination found to have occurred?
- What is the legal status of Judge Robert's ethics investigation; and how will this be resolved in re the RNC e-mail reviews?
- When did the IP numbers for Judge Roberts' wife's law firm get reviewed for purposes of identifying the communications between outside counsel linked with the White House, with ongoing legal discussions on issues related to other financial interests?
- Has a review of all staff counsel at Judge Roberts' wife's' law firm been done to determine whether counsel have or have not been using their business computers; why are these computers linked with specific identifying information of personnel linked with non-official websites?
- Why is the NSA linked with IM systems that are not official; what audit has NSA made of these non-official e-mail systems to send and receive information from oustide entiteis into the NSA?
- Why is the DOJ connected with IM systems that have been coordinated with outside entities; and used concurrently during official duty hours?

Don wrote on July 10, 2007 5:07 PM:

I'm no expert on executive privilege but known something about attorney / client privilege which is analogous. Has every first year law student learns, the privilege belongs to the client, in this case the POTUS and covers those who advise him directly. As Jane correctly points out, once information that would be privileged is disclosed to third persons not in group of advisors, the privilege is deemed waived.

If an attorney and client are speaking in public and the client makes an admission overheard by third parties, that admission is fully admissible.

To suggest that communications in the possession of a political party are privileged is absurd, and should be considered legally frivolous such that Fielding or any RNC attorney should be sanctioned under FRCP Rule 11 if they actually make that argument in a Federal Court.

This claim of privilege is meritless and Congress needs to press the RNC hard and get the matter in Court immediately, if the RNC doesn't comply.

My guess is that the WH will back down before any substantive court hearing.

Stephen Kay wrote on July 10, 2007 5:09 PM:

It seems to me that Congress should subpoena all of the RNC's officials to discuss this with them. They can't claim executive privilege, so what the country would see is all the top Republican's pleading the fifth. We might not get any answers, but it surely would look bad for the GOP!

MeJustMe wrote on July 10, 2007 5:18 PM:

As an attorney long involved in pre-trial matters, I can understand the assertion of a privilege between Party "A" & Party "B" but it has always been my understanding that the inclusion of a third party breaks that privilege.
What am I missing?

Jake wrote on July 10, 2007 5:27 PM:

Buck wrote

"There are many unhappy Republicans. *If* there are unhappy moles, they might take down some folks who have no earthly idea how deeply they're in muck."

Notice the anonymous postings that are beginning to make their way into TPM, such as the one @5:04 PM. Other examples can be found in other threads.

Hope the intended audience is paying attention...

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 5:31 PM:

WH appears not inclined to back down: The RNC e-mail destruct appears to be linked with war crimes. Possible punishment: Death penalty. They have nothing to lose by fighting everything.

Not to worry: We the People outnumber them; the law is on our side; and their legal arguments are frivolous, without merit, and uncompelling. We the People retain the power and right to impeach legal counsel and officers of the court if they choose to hide evidence of illegal activity.

sailmaker wrote on July 10, 2007 5:38 PM:

Subpoena the servers: do the search correctly. Delete does not equal delete, and servers, short of a magnet and/or hammer do not easily shred their data.

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 5:38 PM:

So if I heard George W. Bush speak at a public event and my spouse did not, can I share what I heard, or am I bound by Executive Privilege not to divulge anything?

I do know for a fact that anyone who meets with the President in a non-press event is told NEVER to quote the man directly. This is remarkably consistent.

Styve wrote on July 10, 2007 5:43 PM:

I recently read that the GOP was successful at destroying 2.7 Terabytes of electronic information pertaining to the Able Danger investigative matter.

That don't bode well for the 5 million email that the RNC has supposedly "lost".

daCascadian wrote on July 10, 2007 5:46 PM:

Jake >"...Hope the intended audience is paying attention..."

These anonymous posters need to make copies of their information & leave said copies laying around in many public places. Think pamphletering and postering as practiced by rock groups. Post the details on telephone poles, bathroom walls and tenement halls.

Flood "We the people..." with details of the truth

"...It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins..." - Benjamin Franklin

Punchy wrote on July 10, 2007 5:53 PM:

"My guess is that the WH will back down before any substantive court hearing."

Did you just wake up from a 6-year slumber? You're kidding, right? Name ONE THING they've backed down on since the Dems took over.

Case closed. This goes to court. And ya know what? IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT THE JUDGE RULES. Bush will ignore the order, and claim "national security". Guarenteed.

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 5:55 PM:

"Executive branch interests" cannot be asserted on data which was not stored in conformance with statute; subsequently destroyed.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wh-rnc/
Once legal counsel asserts that the RNC e-mails are "connected" to the White House, they cannot justify: Why there was no audit of the RNC e-mails; why the RNC e-mails were destroyed.
Once a document is "related" to the White House, counsel must explain the contrast: [a] why documents were supposed to have been privileged; yet [b] they sent that "protected" information through a backup system; and [c] the "expected to be shielded information" was destroyed.
- Why, if the invocation of "privilege" on these backup systems were bonaifde, did the RNC destroy the e-mails, not retain them, or not protect them?
- What is the RNC legal counsels explanation for the contrast: [a] RNC e-mails were sent; [b] the WH is claiming privilege to shield these non-official e-mails; yet [c] the very email that was supposed to enjoy protection, and never see the light of day, was destroyed?
- If the claims of privilege, as the RNC-OLC-DoJ-OVP-WH-EOP have asserted are bonafide, how do they explain this contrast: [a] creation of a non-official e-mail system that would enjoy privilege; but [b] destruction of those official records in violation of hatch; and [c] elimination of the very documents that were supposed to be remain forever protected by this sweeping Presidential assertion of privilege?
There is only one reasonable conclusion: Counsel, when it developed the backup e-mail system, and let RNC e-mails get destroyed, did not believe that the privilege claims would survive; and the backup e-mail sent through the RNC was destroyed to avoid detection. Sometime after 2001, someone concluded that the privilege claims would fail; and that RNC e-mail -- sent supposedly outside the WH, and was not supposed to have been detected -- was known, but had to be destroyed because of this known problem with privilege.
- Who in the EOP political-legal-public affairs office jointly communicated [a] their concerns with privilege; [b] their concerns Thai privilege would fail; and [c] their solution to destroy the RNC e-mails?
- When did someone transfer information, legal conclusions, concerns, or other opinions by a member of the legal community to someone else?
- When was it known to counsel that the backup RNC e-mails would not survive privilege claims?
- Who after receiving this information from counsel that the RNC e-mails would not survive privilege, did destroy or order destruction of the RNC e-mails?
- What knowledge did the WH EOP-OVP-OLC-outside counsel have of this destruction?
- What role did OVP-EOP-WH-OLC have in the [a] determination that the RNC e-mails would not survive privilege; [b] communications with WH legal-political-public affairs to coordinate on a policy and response to questions about this destruction; [c] coordination the transfer of the legal opinion to someone who would oversee that the specific RNC e-mails that needed to be deleted or removed were targeted; and [d] how did the Fitzgerald grand jury supboena of the RNC e-mails play into the decision to target which RNC e-mails?

Sojourner wrote on July 10, 2007 5:59 PM:

There is no way they can claim "executive privilege" if the emails went over RNC servers, networks, equipment, etc. As Jane noted early on in this posting, "The Bush White House gets to put government documents on RNC computers so the Republican Party gets to see this information but Congress doesn't?"

I know that there is a lot of legal interpretation that goes on, but what is to prevent Conyers, etal, from ordering seizure of the servers and equipment to enforce the law as it stands? It seems pretty clear that this is evasion of the oversight authority vested in Congress, and is the administration's Nazi-like attempt to keep stalling.

I definitely think it is time to play hardball with these idiots and make it clear to them that they are nothing more than ordinary criminals.

This whole thing is getting to be more and more far-fetched and despicable.

lysias wrote on July 10, 2007 6:04 PM:

OLC played a role in this? I've never heard of an OLC opinion being destroyed. Classified, yes. Destroyed, no.

Jake D. wrote on July 10, 2007 6:19 PM:

Sojourner:

You mean "what is to prevent Conyers from ordering seizure of the servers and equipment" other than the fact that there is only ONE Sergeant at Arms in the House?

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-835.pdf

manopeace wrote on July 10, 2007 6:37 PM:

After WWII, the Nazis were undermined by their meticulous recordkeeping. Each experiment was detailed, every prisoner and death catalogued, every order filed with an almost compulsive thoroughness. When it came time to prosecute the Nazis most responsible for the crimes, it was all there in black and white for the prosecutors.

I think the neocons learned from the Nazi mistake -- they understand that everything illegal needs to be off the books as much as possible. If it doesn't become a part of recorded history, then it's almost like it didn't happen.

Sojourner wrote on July 10, 2007 6:46 PM:

Jake D, have you ever met him? I understand he is pretty mean... ;-) Maybe he has a bunch of friends or something!

Jake D. wrote on July 10, 2007 6:54 PM:

I have never met the Sergeant at Arms, but I understand he carries a big mace!

shortstop wrote on July 10, 2007 7:37 PM:

They'll risk being charged with violation of the PRA to prevent the info from getting out. It's quite delicious and horrifying to realize just how much data they're desperate to hide now.

theswan wrote on July 10, 2007 7:47 PM:

Go John, you got the power! Use it for all of US! You know the law, you have had it around. Push your Authority, John. I want to see your courage. I want to see you win. It would make a lot of People happy. Push, push. Many are behind you.

Mr.Murder wrote on July 10, 2007 7:54 PM:

Fielding is in contempt, if he cites privilege after his initial claim of the emails being irrelevant?

jak1 wrote on July 10, 2007 8:00 PM:

As Mel Brooks once said, "It's good to be the king!"

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 8:06 PM:

You can't just assert a blanket privilege like that for all of those documents. You have to be more specific. The Dems should request a privilege log listing every single document, it's date, time, recipients, general subject matter, and an explanation of why it is privileged.

Really, the same goes for Myers and Taylor. They should have to appear and answer non-privileged questions.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 8:47 PM:

Thornier??? Come on..let's have some action. Stop all this criminal stonewalling and actually do something like issuing a Contempt of Congress??

Posted by: Michael
Date: July 10, 2007 4:37 PM

Until the pressure is sufficient on the foot-dragging Republicans in Congress, matters will continue to be slow for Democrats. You don't put the necessary pressure on the foot-dragging Republicans by gratuitously bashing the Democrats.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 8:52 PM:

". . . . The Dems should request a privilege log listing every single document, it's date, time, recipients, general subject matter, and an explanation of why it is privileged."

The Democrats have done that, with the subpoena for the documents. And Fielding has specifically refused that log.

Anyone who has been following these issues knows that.

"Really, the same goes for Myers and Taylor. They should have to appear and answer non-privileged questions."

Those who have comments about what Executive Privilege is and isn't, and can and cannot do, will find the law on the issue, posted and discussed by law professors, layers, and others, on --

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

Those who postulate and speculate off the top of their heads have the most to learn about it.

Posted by:
Date: July 10, 2007 8:06 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 8:59 PM:

ALL --

The law concerning Executive Privilege, including citations to and summaries of statutory and case law, and concerning the other relevant legal issues that are being reported, are posted about and discussed by law professors, lawyers, and others, on "Balkinization". There you'll find the shortcuts around much blowing and speculation and postulating --

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

It is _essential_ that We the people know what we're talking about based upon knowing the law and facts of what is happening.

Samsara wrote on July 10, 2007 9:05 PM:

This privilege stuff is interesting and all, but its not going to result in jack. President Bush has shown he is willing to misuse his pardon power. Even if they fiddle around and don't charge anyone till after Bush leaves office it won't matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon

A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.

Dick already has Fred working on language

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 9:10 PM:

Maybe I'm a bit daft but how can an RNC email from say, Rove to Gonzales be covered under executive privilege? Is Fielding really trying to "gum this to death"?

And if we were to begin impeachment hearings, don't all claims of executive privilege go out the window?

Gonzales has a faulty _SC_...

Posted by: Englishlehrer
Date: July 10, 2007 4:39 PM

The White House is palying a game of chicken. It is inevitable that Bushit, et al., will be impeached, because they are betting Congress doesn't dare.

I've been saying for years that impeachment is inevitable. Their miscalculation is that legitimate impeachment originates with We the people, as a demand of Congress, not with Congress. And there is plenty of time to impeach and remove.

The most important numbers at present are the polls. Secondary, at the moment, is the major fact that Republican Senators are breaking with Bushit on Iraq. Come September-October-November, they will breaking on more than Iraq. Don't be surprised if the Republicans in Congress, in effort to save their political hides, are the first to raise the issue of impeachment.

As someone else said, impeachment isn't only for president. In view of the fact that Bushit is not legitimately president, everything he has done flows from an unconstitutionality. And everything which flows from an unconstitutionality is null-and-void. Idealy, everything he has done will be rolled back -- rescinded -- including the removal of all the judges he appoionted, including such as Roberts and Alito.

SC = crime. As in, 'Nuff said.

We the people, as is reality, and proper, are out ahead of Congress. We the people will win, but in order to do that the Democrats need our support, which also constitutes direction, not gratuitous, destructive bashing.

Don't waste time and hot air and bashing them for mnot impeaching; instead, communicate to them that you want impeachment, and that you have their backs on the issue.

Want to bash? Go after the foot-dragging Republicans, who are on the record as intending to obstruct, obstruct, and obstruct.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 9:16 PM:

If "executive privilege" will be exerted over RNC assets the following needs to happen:

1/NARA (the Archives) needs to go in immediately and seize all servers and RNC e-mails that are White House work product. The White House is mandated by the PRA (Presidential Records Act) to properly archive this information, and NARA is the official repository. White House work product is presently in "foreign" hands and needs to come back under government control. The RNC is not entitled to retain any of it.

2/The White House needs to fully reimburse the RNC for any and all use of its systems, assets, etc. It is ILLEGAL for the US Government Executive entities, agencies, etc to augment operating budget appropriations by using resources not alloted to it be Congress.

3/Sanctions need to be ordered for violation of the PRA.

Posted by:
Date: July 10, 2007 4:54 PM

Have you bothered to read the applicable laws and regulations on the issue? No. You speculate, postulate, then conclude.

As result, you arrive "It sounds good" BS.

First question: does the Archives have the legal authority to "seize" [fill-in-the-blank]?

Let us know what you find in the law on that question. Be certain, while you're at it, to Shepardize.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 9:25 PM:

Perhaps if Congress would declare that the matter IS an investigation of a criminal matter we could get this kicked up a notch or two.

Posted by: Richard L. Adlof
Date: July 10, 2007 4:51 PM

Congress did exactly that with the letter included with the subpoenas. They expressly state that they are investigating possible obstruction of justice.

They are also specific in the description of the documents demanded, and the line between what they have, and what that indicates they need to determine the full issue, and thus determine whether there was obstruction of justice.

The evidence is on their side, and the subpoenas well-grounded. The proper response to the subpoenas is for Bushit to go to court in effort to get them quashed. Or to seek a restraining order against Miers and Taylor. The claim of Executive Privilege is essentially over the top. And so all-encompassing that it can't withstand scrutiny (depending on the judges ruling). The DC Court is problematic; but it held against Libby's whine against sitting in jail while appealing his conviction.

Much of those facts are in the reports here on TPM, especially detailed in the letter from Leahy and Conyers included with the subpoenas.

It's tiresome to have to detail the facts which are readily available here, and have been, to those who don't bother to read.

Xenos wrote on July 10, 2007 9:37 PM:

"A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime."

Interesting thought. But how is Bush to pardon Cheney if there is no independent prosecutor appointed, no impeachment proceeding, and the investigations by Congress have not directly targeted Cheney? At this pace (and this could be a feature, not a bug) Congress will investigate far enough to politically weaken Bush and Cheney, and will save the special prosecutor part for a new Democratic DOJ in 2009. I guess you could pardon someone pre-emptively for a particular crime, but can you pardon them for 'anything and everything they could ever be accused of in the future?

If a pre-emptive pardon is to be effective, it needs to specify the crime being pardoned, which here would be an explicit admission by Bush that the administrations has been a criminal enterprise.

Al in Austex wrote on July 10, 2007 9:46 PM:

Jake ,
You confused me with the mention of the 5:04 pm anon posting .Which audience are you referring to ? What information do you have on BushCo that might help us take down these NeoCon thugs?
I am prepared to take under advisement , & maybe even retract all the mean & tacky things I've said about you - if you could shed some light on which audience you are referring too ...
I know for a fact as reported in open sourced venues ie the Leopold interview w /USA McKay that in his (McKay's ) opinion impeachable offenses have been committed .So Jake what gives which audience are you referring too ?( Or is this just more of you being a republican troll/tool ?)

Sojourner wrote on July 10, 2007 10:20 PM:

Something I have been puzzling over this evening was the post at 5:04 by an anonymous poster that states, "- What RNC e-mails were sent to confirm access to the MicrosoftOutlook SharePoint system, or other file transfer system used to quickly coordinate on legal memoranda
- Does the SharePoint system have a copy of the RNC e-mail requests to gain access to these file sharing systems"

Nowhere before have I seen mention of Sharepoint being used in all of this mess. The writer refers to the Microsoft Outlook SharePoint system, and then asks if the system contains a copy of the RNC email requests.

If RNC is hosting a Sharepoint system, I have to think that it has played a big part in all of this -- and it is likely where those emails are stored (along with virtually anything else that is missing). Sharepoint can be compartmentalized to the point that no one person knows about everything that is going through it.

It is a great collaboration tool, and it would be ideal for what Rove etal have been doing. Rove's Blackberry device probably goes off every time something gets changed on Sharepoint. He reviews whatever has changed to make sure it toes the party line, and passes it on to whoever is next on the list.

I have not used such a configuration, but Sharepoint can be set up so that a person can email documents to it for storage.

I would certainly agree with the writer that it is an ideal tool for collaborating on the legal memoranda. There are all kinds of uses for it -- and with a solid database system behind it, it can store LOTS of information. With a storage area network behind it, I suspect that the data can be easily moved from one server or domain to another in very quick order, such as www.rove.com to www.rnc.com.

Can our Congressional chairs be asking for the wrong things? Are the subpoenas pointed in the wrong directions?

Perfidius wrote on July 11, 2007 2:56 AM:

Anonymous needs to send these questions directly to the committees, which anonymous can contact via navigating the Senate and House Web sites.

teacherken wrote on July 11, 2007 8:21 AM:

this has a possible impact in Virginia this year. In the 27th State Senate District the Republican candidate is Jill Holtzman Vogel. She is a long-time lawyer in Republican endeavors, and served as chief Counsel for the RNC beginning in 2004. Thus she was in place during the time of many of the emails being sought. I can imagine that being called before Waxman or Conyers might not be exactly helpful for her campaign.

Xenos wrote on July 11, 2007 9:10 AM:

JN:

I don't recall anyone requesting your assistance. The next time I need a pissy 1L, I will drop you a line, though.

Gordon wrote on July 11, 2007 9:27 AM:

Seems to me that if the RNC accounts were used for official White House business it is a violation of the law on preservation of government records and should be prosecuted. If the RNC accounts were not used for official business, they can't claim that they are covered by executive privilege.

Gonzalez is a major stumbling block since he won't enforce the law. Maybe impeaching Gonzalez is a necessary first step to get things moving.

C 92 wrote on July 11, 2007 10:17 AM:

Teacherken:

Don't overlook Holtzman-Vogel's key role in standing up and running the fraudulent American Center for Voting Rights.

Don't overlook Holtzman-Vogel's "law firm" in Warrenton, VA which appears to be a RNC-funded dirty tricks shop.

Don't overlook the fact that Holtzman-Vogel's technology fits into the SmarTECH Corp infrastructure system that the GOP and Rove put together.

Holtzman-Vogel is a key player.

pj in jesusland wrote on July 11, 2007 1:16 PM:

One thing that comes out of Sara Taylor's testimony this morning, it appears she and the President have opposing interpretations of the Hatch Act.

Sara Taylor states she used her RNC e-mail account for political work. Political work is outside the purview of the Executve Office -- in other words, as Taylor states, taxpayers shouldn't be paying government employees to do political work. That's a violation of the Hatch Act, she notes.

So when Conyers subpoenas the e-mails sent over the RNC mail server that have to do with the attorney firings, the President claims that because these e-mails were sent by government employees they are subject to Executive Privelege and don't have to be released to Congress.

Taylor: government employees shouldn't be doing political work on the clock. President: even if they do political work on the clock they work for me and are therefore exempt from the Hatch Act.

Bush can't violate the law any more baldly. His hired office help call him on it even as they try to worship him through their testimony.