Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What Is the Statute of Limitation for Obstruction?
Common Ground Common Sense > Online Café > Political Investigations
Noonan
What Is the Statute of Limitation for Obstruction?
by emptywheel

I'm going to take a wild guess about the way that Kagro X would answer Paul Kiel's question:

QUOTE
QUOTE
And today, in a letter to the RNC, the White House made their position clear: you have to give them to us first. There "exists a clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest" in the emails on the RNC-issued accounts, wrote Emmet Flood, Special Counsel to the President.

Conyers isn't buying it:


QUOTE
"The White House's position to clear all RNC emails before they can respond to our request is extreme and unnecessary. This is a clear attempt, on the Administration's part, to delay this process and keep the wheels of Justice turning slowly."
What happens next?


I'll take a wildarsed guess and say that Kagro X would answer: "Nothing. Because which USA are you going to have enforce an obstruction of justice charge?" Jeffrey Taylor, who was himself brought to DC to obstruct Democrats' investigations? Dang. I hate when Kagro X is right.

Except the RNC is still going to be around in two years time. They're still going to be around after President Edwards, Clinton, or Obama appoints a new USA for DC.

The White House wasn't able to save the last guy who obstructed an investigation from facing consequences (even if Laurence Silberman is still working on it, even if Bush is readying his pardon pen). Are they so sure they'd be able to keep the folks at the RNC safe from consequences, as well?
Trackback
graham4anything
who is kagox?
who is emptywheel?


White House to RNC: Don't You Give Those Emails to Dems
By Paul Kiel - April 17, 2007, 4:40 PM
The White House and Democrats in Congress are both pushing for emails kept by the Republican National Committee, and the RNC is caught in the middle.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003033.php
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), wants to get its hands on those RNC-issued email accounts used by Karl Rove and other White House personnel. Congressional investigators want to know about Rove's and his deputy's involvement in the U.S. attorney firings. But the White House insists that it review the emails first, before handing anything over to Democrats. Last week, Conyers warned the RNC not to do that, saying that it would be "an unjustified delay" and "potentially... an obstruction of our investigation."

And today, in a letter to the RNC, the White House made their position clear: you have to give them to us first. There "exists a clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest" in the emails on the RNC-issued accounts, wrote Emmet Flood, Special Counsel to the President.

Conyers isn't buying it:

"The White House's position to clear all RNC emails before they can respond to our request is extreme and unnecessary. This is a clear attempt, on the Administration's part, to delay this process and keep the wheels of Justice turning slowly."
What happens next? I don't know.

Permalink | TOPICS: Presidential Records
grammydidi
Since Bushie executive privilege always falls back on "national security", I don't see how the WH can claim their old "national security" crap as a reason to vett e-mails on the RNC servers. If WH personnel were using RNC laptops and servers to conduct national security business, they surely must be violating some existing statute. They can't have it both ways, can they?


The RNC should be subpeona'd to produce all e-mails containing any of the eight USAs' names and either being sent to or from any WH employee to the JD or to the applicable states' senators.

And the RNC should be held in contempt of Congress if they don't comply, with a $1Million a day fine until they do. tongue.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.