Comments (67)

Bill Cameron wrote on April 27, 2007 1:23 PM:

So the trick is, commit a crime but then not let the prosecutors see the evidence. Good tip. Thanks, DOJ!

Anonymous wrote on April 27, 2007 1:25 PM:

the Department has "substantial concerns about the disclosure of documents that were generated after December 7, 2006 for the purpose of responding to congressional and media inquiries about the resignations of the U.S. Attorneys."

Now THAT I believe.

mike wrote on April 27, 2007 1:30 PM:

"substantial concerns about the disclosure of documents that were generated after December 7, 2006 for the purpose of responding to congressional and media inquiries about the resignations of the U.S. Attorneys."

Can someone explain why this would be a legally acceptable rationale for ignoring a subpeona?

I must be missing something, but it sounds like they're saying "Sorry, you can't have these documents because you might take them the wrong way."

bcf wrote on April 27, 2007 1:30 PM:

Rove's Supreme Court Math tells him relying on privilege is better than deletion?

Kentucky Tomahawk wrote on April 27, 2007 1:31 PM:

DOJ: "No, you may not have the 18 minutes missing from my audio recording.

So go chew on your subpeona, we're not going to enforce it on ourselves."

Security Code: Book

As in- 'Throw the Book at Gonzales and his accomplices.'

ahem wrote on April 27, 2007 1:32 PM:

mike: it sounds like they're saying 'you can't have these documents, because they make us look *really* bad.'

Tim wrote on April 27, 2007 1:32 PM:

Disclosure of documents? Good God, that goes against everything the right wing stands for. Once documents are disclosed to the public, the unwashed masses won't stop. They'll want to know everything ... how the war was sold, who Cheney met with ... chaos will ensue. Democracy will rear its ugly head. Dictatorial powermongers won't be safe.

TheraP wrote on April 27, 2007 1:32 PM:

Through the Looking Glass...

Which way did the White Rabbit go?

Nestor wrote on April 27, 2007 1:32 PM:

If they agreed to provide some, then they should provide all. There is no reason to hold any back, unless there is substancial evidence of wrong-doing. IE, only the guilty withold some documents and not others.

Code word: smell, as in 'this smells'

Tulkinghorn wrote on April 27, 2007 1:35 PM:

Do they even articulate a privilege they are relying on? I mean, they have to at least make a claim for privilege if they want the cronies on the USSC to back them up... unless, like Bush v. Gore, they want to throw it to the court and ask the court to come up with a rationale...

Phil wrote on April 27, 2007 1:37 PM:

Only 171 documents are being withheld? That is impossible.

ihatebeets wrote on April 27, 2007 1:39 PM:

Hmmm, after December 7, 2006. Could this have something to do with the fact that the Democrats had just taken back the House and Senate, yet this was before the seating of the 110th Congress? Were we concocting a plan back then knowing oversight was imminent?

Just asking.

Ron Byers wrote on April 27, 2007 1:39 PM:

The documents, as always, are sanitized for Karl's protection.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 27, 2007 1:41 PM:

Each member of both houses of Congress should chip in two bits or so and buy a copy of Black's Law Dictionary, highlight the passage on "Obstruction", insert a bookmark at that page and send it over to the DoJ.

jeffgee wrote on April 27, 2007 1:44 PM:

Once again the Presidential middle finger is raised.

VJB wrote on April 27, 2007 1:45 PM:

Thank you , DoJ. Shorter Waxman (I hope): "thanks for the list. Hand 'em over."

C 92 wrote on April 27, 2007 1:46 PM:

Looking over the LIST -

1/Kyle Sampson is listed as the "custodian" of all records. Does that mean that he (personally) has the records and DOJ does not?

2/Sampson was contacting Miers on 1/7, yet the Washington Post said Miers resigned effective 1/4. What authority did private citizen Miers have on 1/7 and why was Kyle e-mailing her on a Sunday?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010400778.html

Tomas wrote on April 27, 2007 1:47 PM:

I guess this is is why the DOJ can claim that "there is no evidence of wrongdoing." And, Gonzales claimed, the burden of proof is on Congress, no on him!

Maybe it's time to apply the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" sophistry...

ColoradoDem wrote on April 27, 2007 1:47 PM:

It also seems that we might want to start brushing up on the notion of 'Contempt of Congress'.

rts wrote on April 27, 2007 1:48 PM:

Isn’t interesting that the AG’s office thought that John Solomon’s story on the USAO scandal was “far and away the best story” on the subject? Good ol’ John Solomon — prepared to scribble down whatever story the Administration feeds him.

Node of Evil wrote on April 27, 2007 1:51 PM:

Woohoo, John Solomon is back! I was wondering what sort of stories he was working on for the Post, apparently he's become one of the DOJ's go-to journalists (4/26/2007 document set 1, page 1). I wonder if the accolades from Sampson are just for Roherkrasse's quotes in the article...

gchaucer2 wrote on April 27, 2007 1:55 PM:

The excuse for not releasing these documents (congressional and media inquiries) boggles the mind. As far as I am aware, the only reasons not to produce under subpoena are: 1)outside the scope; 2)executive privilege; and 3)attorney client privilege.

The documents are within the scope, there's no attorney/client privilege and they haven't nor can they claim executive privilege. Sanctions are in order, methinks.

Sonny Lyons wrote on April 27, 2007 1:58 PM:

It's a shell game once again, IMO. They've probably already destroyed the evidence, and these records are being withheld only for misdirection purposes. In the end, they will amount to nothing, but for now it will keep investigators busy. After the Dems fight for a -long- time, they'll be released, but the content will be nothing useful- and they'll paint the whole thing as "a witch hunt."

With this bunch, you can usually assume the worst, and you'll still end up underestimating it.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on April 27, 2007 1:59 PM:

In Set 3, Tasia Scolinos sent a NYT story to JCC on Sunday, 3/4, and JCC replied. Who is JCC? JCC is not in the abbreviations index.

Crust wrote on April 27, 2007 2:02 PM:

Are they making even the pretense of a legal argument for withholding these documents?

They say they have "substantial concerns" but they give us no idea what those concerns are or even if they are of a legal nature. They do tell us some properties of the documents in question, but they don't tell us why they are concerned.

georgia wrote on April 27, 2007 2:04 PM:

The "Department's deliberations on responding to congressional and media inquiries" are "beyond the scope"???

That would go to the heart of how Sampson planned to "gum this to death". It would show if they followed through with the plan. Critically important.

malcontent wrote on April 27, 2007 2:04 PM:

Why says the Supreme Court is relevent? If we as citizens lose faith in the Court, then its rulings are worthless.

In my opinion, the Court lost its legitimacy the second it executed a coup against America in Bush v Gore. Adding insult to injury, Bush has now had the ill-gotten honor of appointing two dyed-in-the-wool cronies to the bench, so the legitimacy of the court is even lower.

We know we're right on this one. Eff the courts.

Node of Evil wrote on April 27, 2007 2:04 PM:

From the Index of unreleased documents, I'd really like to know what Kyle Sampson had to say in #96, titled 'Comments re: the "Preserving USA Independence Act of 2007"', dated 2/02/2007. I wonder if he though their original plan to skirt the Senate confirmation process was still a bad idea then. BTW, anyone know who the abbreviations in the "To" and "CC" columns stand for? I can decipher some of them, but others aren't apparent to me. The "To" line contains "RS, ME, K. Blackwood" and the "CC" line contains "WEM, NSF".

djcrow22 wrote on April 27, 2007 2:06 PM:

Time for a Special Prosecutor. CREW's Melanie Sloan asked Pat Fitzgerald to re-open the investigation into Rove's role in the Libby affair
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27630. I am all for a sequential, orderly oversight investigation, but the USA scandal is crying out for a special prosecutor with some teeth to tear into this blatant, illegal, immoral and extremely unethical politicization of this DOJ. If this is a nation of laws and not men, when the federal citadel of law has been completely infiltrated with political hackery and religious idolatry, it must be the primary and singular focus of every American to ensure that this cancer in our democracy is identified, isolated and eliminated. The evidence is overwhelming and to delay action against these enemies of true freedom and democracy is treasonous and criminal.

Also, in agreement with many TPM posters, I hope the code word frivolity will draw to a close, we had a bit of fun with it but I think its time has passed... Peace

Legalize wrote on April 27, 2007 2:08 PM:

Dear Congress:

WE respectfully submit that we have concerns about the following documents and their disclosure to this Body. It is our position that these docments make us look bad and probably implicate us in more nefarious shit than you already suspect us of. Thus we feel that production of said material is not warranted at this time. Should our position change, please note that we shall alert this Body in a timely manner. Should these documents vanish into thin air, please also note that the Department had nothing to do with it.

Sincerely,

DOJ

Crust wrote on April 27, 2007 2:09 PM:

Well, I think we now know which story the Pentagon leak was trying to bury. If you don't know what I'm talking about, see

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013868.php

patriotboy wrote on April 27, 2007 2:11 PM:

"Through the Looking Glass...

Which way did the White Rabbit go?"

Go ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall.

Or is that:
Go ask Monica, when she's immunized to tell all.

daCascadian wrote on April 27, 2007 2:11 PM:

Crust >"...They say they have "substantial concerns" but they give us no idea what those concerns are...they don't tell us why they are concerned."

They are concerned that if "We the people..." find out the truth we will toss them out. Plain and simple. I think they should be concerned. Of course I also think they must hand over all the documents.

Buh bye Bush Handlers, Inc.

"Proof depends on who you are. We're looking for a preponderance of evidence, and some people need more of a preponderance than other people." - John Kantner

Node of Evil wrote on April 27, 2007 2:13 PM:

Doh, I found the abbreviations index. Those included on his email were Rebecca Seidel, Michael Elston, "K Blackwood" (don't know who he is). The CC recipients were William E. Moschella and Nancy Scott-Finan.

Tomas wrote on April 27, 2007 2:28 PM:

My guess is today's Pentagon leak is meant to compete with the Tenet story...

lower tiberius wrote on April 27, 2007 2:31 PM:

can someone say "We're Taking The 5th"?

Concern ... I am certain of

Those documents represent obstruction of justice until handed over willingly and in the spirit of explaining what in the hell is going on with the United States Department of Justice.

Long Memory wrote on April 27, 2007 2:33 PM:

If these are the documents the DOJ is saying they don't want Congress to see, can you imagine the documents the DOJ has in its pocket, all the while hoping no one will find out about them and ask to see them?

mo2 wrote on April 27, 2007 2:38 PM:

Information about Mary Neumayr -
http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/news/newsletter/2000/winter/neumayr.htm
For the past three years, Neumayr has served as the President of the San Francisco Lawyers Division of The Federalist Society..."Mary has been essential in making sure that conservative legal ideas see the light of day in the Bay Area," says Leonard Leo, Director of the Lawyer's Division in Washington, D.C .

lower tiberius wrote on April 27, 2007 2:38 PM:

Cheney said Gonzales would explain thoroughly and make it plain and simple to the American people just how innocent and typical the "attitude readjustment was in this trend of slipping Royal Loyal Bushies into every branch of government on earth. (I hear Pakistani coloring books have an ode to the great "white savior" George Bush sublimated in school studies mandated for their children.? WTF is going on in this world ... can anyone shed some light (or the sun) on this megalomania?

EH wrote on April 27, 2007 2:40 PM:

All geared towards putting the matter in front of a judge where the real stonewalling can begin.

chubuka wrote on April 27, 2007 2:44 PM:

Ironic, you say...?? That the DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE..appears to be obstructing justice and ignoring a Congessional subpoena...? The JUSTICE Dept.???? And yet the right wing say there is not any thing POLITICAL going on...once you rule out the fact that the Justice Department is not representing JUSTICE...what else is there, except POLITICAL

actic wrote on April 27, 2007 2:48 PM:

It's like the baby objecting to having his diaper changed.

Stormwatcher wrote on April 27, 2007 3:27 PM:

WHo is JCC and what "residence" did he Xmt'd them to?? For reference:

DOJ doc set 3

Thanks in advance.

Stormwatcher wrote on April 27, 2007 3:29 PM:

Sorry , the hyperlink didn't work.

http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=512
and Doc set # 3 is here:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/OPA218-221.pdf

MB wrote on April 27, 2007 3:46 PM:

Froomkin has the White House staff list. There is a Cavanaugh, Jeffrey C (JCC) listed as a staff assistant to someone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/2006stafflistsalary.html

jak1 wrote on April 27, 2007 3:48 PM:

The only thing I can figure, that makes any sense of all this. And even GWB's comment about the confidence he NOW has in Gonzo after his testimony of I don't remembers.

There must be some serious smoke being passed around at all these Gonzales meetings. That explains all the I don't recalls.

I must go something like, you know who we should fire?

Who?

The guy that makes it rain. That dude is a drag.

Dude, we were talking about USAs.

Oh Yeah! We should fire that Lame chick. you know the one that busted the Duke.

You mean Lam?!?

Yeah her too!

Mooser wrote on April 27, 2007 4:01 PM:

You people don't understand, those e-mails and other material were written on golden plates in a hitherto unknown language and delivered by an angel in golden robes. After translating the e-mails by listening to the voices in his hat, Kyle settled down for a well deserved rest, and in the morning, the e-mails had mysteriously disappeared.
Is that story unlikely? You be the 'judge'

biggerbox wrote on April 27, 2007 4:02 PM:

They have "concerns" that, if they give Congress the emails where they discuss how to organize the cover-up, then Congress will know right where to look. Plus, it may have been just a tad bit illegal to plan the cover-up. Providing the documentatary evidence of obstruction would quite understandably raise "substantial concerns", like, you know, prison time?

Stormwatcher wrote on April 27, 2007 4:02 PM:

Would they use "residence" to refer to anything other than Bush's Whitehouse residence??

Stormwatcher wrote on April 27, 2007 4:19 PM:

And what would the V/r above JCC mean?

parrot wrote on April 27, 2007 4:29 PM:

See DAG 2533

A prosecutors dream. What does "though against our interests" mean?

Ask everyone on that list seperately in private and see what they say...

parrot wrote on April 27, 2007 4:34 PM:

Same as OLA 1585 re Hertling response to WaPo article.

MB wrote on April 27, 2007 4:49 PM:

JCC might be located in the Old Executive Office Building, which is right next to the White House (residence).

I believe V/r is short for Very respectfully.

mo2 wrote on April 27, 2007 4:53 PM:

I believe that the change to the Patriot Act was hatched by Federalist Society members, in particular Antonin Scalia and his friends: Henry Weissman (clerked for Scalia), Mary Neumayr (loves tennis as does Scalia), Bradford Berenson, Daniel Collins (clerked for Scalia), William E. Moschella, John Nowacki (and a few more).

The call by Moschella to Collins at the law firm of former Scalia clerk, Henry Weissman, is the key.

phil james wrote on April 27, 2007 5:07 PM:

My guess..."substantial concerns" is code for executive privilege. Disclosing them would violate the inner sanctum of the imperial presidency and allow us, the common rabble, to be privy to the holy deliberations of our most high unitary executive. But that's just a guess. Still, it's so very nice of them to at least give us a hint about the cake we will not be eating. Let us all avert our eyes.

coltergeist wrote on April 27, 2007 5:18 PM:

As best I can tell, this "concern" most resembles the objection of refusing to produce documents created in anticipation of litigation. Companies that have an inhouse investigation of alleged malfeasance can protect these investigations if they were performed in anticipation of a specific litigation.

If you perform the same investigation as a matter of course, you cannot protect the details of the investigation. This doesn't qualify for two reasons. First, they DOJ was busy concocting a back story for terminating these attorneys before the election and before they knew the democrats took control of Congress.

Second, they did not do an investigation to find out who was the culprit (like say when you are trying to figure out who leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative-which they didn't do either). In this case, they all were the culprits. This was just a collective ass covering act. Furthermore, you cannot refuse to reveal documents because you have concerns, you have to cite an objection.

-no relation to Ann

John S wrote on April 27, 2007 5:53 PM:

The call by Moschella to Collins at the law firm of former Scalia clerk, Henry Weissman, is the key.

Posted by: mo2

What call? There's no doubt that the USSC is packed with loyal members of the Federalist Society, but it would be very nice if it could be shown that they are complicit in the current administration's shenanigans.

It also would be nice to have some more people on the USSC for whom the term "jurisprudence" reflects the ability of the individual to make sound legal judgements, not their ability to construct bizarrely intricate (and lame) judicial arguments around equally bizarre social doctrines.

code: false -- Way too much here in the word association category.

Sharon A wrote on April 27, 2007 5:59 PM:

I'm not sure Bushies have a meaningful endgame with all these scandals that is working for them. I mean, I can see how they might have been planning to fritter away their last year juggling scandals until they were able to leave office to rejoin the U.S. Treasury funds they stole in some foreign country.

Last night as I was falling asleep, another thought occurred. What if the loony RWRS were planning to start a civil war if we in the majority refused their come-to-geezus con game. What if they need Armageddon so badly they would actually create it themselves?

Okay, maybe I was already asleep. But really, what's the final chapter on this show look like? Who is penning the final chapters of the Bush Administration?

skyreader7 wrote on April 27, 2007 6:14 PM:

obstruct delay "can't recall" defy

obstruct delay "can't recall" defy

obstruct delay "can't recall" defy

obstruct delay "can't recall" defy

phil james wrote on April 27, 2007 6:23 PM:

All you have to do to explain their endgame, i.e. what they planned to do about all these scandals during the last 2 years of Bush's presidency is to imagine what things would be like if the Republicans had kept control of Congress in 2006. Voila! Virtually everything disappears. That, my friends, was their plan...and remember, these guys don't do a Plan B.

DF wrote on April 27, 2007 6:29 PM:

They have substantial concerns...you bet.

Woodhall Hollow wrote on April 27, 2007 6:44 PM:

They may have substantial concerns, but their concerns have no merit.

Code word: fact, as in "just the facts ma'am."

py wrote on April 27, 2007 10:40 PM:

time to break in and get those documents for the good of the country.

kidding, don't come get me. i'm getting paranoid too.

the special prosecutor waits in the wings for his/her dramatic entrance.

if bushco is as over the edge as wingnut bloggers seem to be all over the net, we have to act soon or they will go nuok-yuler.

pointus wrote on April 28, 2007 1:59 AM:

Why on earth hasn't Congress appointed a special prosecutor? Someone besides Fitzgerald, who I believe gave Rove & Cheney a pass.

Please, God, don't allow these sh*theads to remain "free".

Poncho & Lefty wrote on April 28, 2007 5:01 AM:

Ok so DOJ says-

the Department has "substantial concerns about the disclosure of documents that were generated after December 7, 2006..."

Congress should reply,

"Well yeah. That's why we need to have them."

rochina wrote on April 29, 2007 7:37 PM:

Why on earth hasn't Congress appointed a special prosecutor? Someone besides Fitzgerald, who I believe gave Rove & Cheney a pass.

Fitzgerald's deliberate failure should be discussed more.

We need a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ASAP!

Where is Interpol on the kidnappings, concentration camps and torture that the orwellians call rendition, gitmo and interrogation

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:05 AM:

Hi
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye