This from Talk Left:
Anonymous Liberal has unearthed what appears to be an incriminating e-mail in which Monica Goodling instructed DOJ personnel to destroy documents that were clearly pertinent to an ongoing Congressional investigation. The e-mail, dated February 12, 2007, states in relevant part:
These are new and updated USA documents which can be used with the media or friendlies. Please delete prior versions. . .
Why could this be a criminal situation? Because of the federal obstruction statute. This article provides a nice background on the subject:
The federal crime of obstruction of justice is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1503 to include conduct that, among other things, corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice. To sustain its burden of proof, the government must prove that there was pending judicial proceeding, that the defendant knew this proceeding was pending, and that the defendant then corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice. In applying the obstruction of justice statute to issues of destruction of documents, federal courts generally have not required that a subpoena have issued. Rather, it is sufficient for an obstruction conviction that the defendant knew that a grand jury was investigating possible violations of federal law and intentionally caused destruction of the incriminating document. U.S. v. Fineman, 434 F. Supp 197 (E.D.Pa 1977).
. . . In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has expanded the federal law of obstruction by adding new sections to 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and enacting a new statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1519, creating additional crimes relating to alteration, destruction, mutilation or concealment of records, documents, or objects. Section 1512© requires acting corruptly with intent to impair the item’s integrity or availability for use in “official proceedings,” defined by 18 U.S.C. 1515 to include proceedings before federal courts, agencies, Congress, and regulatory proceedings involving the insurance business. This statute is particularly striking in providing, in subsection (f), that an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense and that the document need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
Wow. If this is true, this is going to make the immunity deal hard to justify. Ms. Goodling might have to take the fall for Abu Gonzo for the contempt of Congress thing if she keeps pleading the 5th of the Constitution she and her Dominionist masters don’t believe in if she gets subpoena’d. I’m not too schooled on law. What say you sea-lawyers (old Marine Corps term) out there?
This from My Two Sense:
Many of the U.S. diplomats who received the message, however, were beginning to witness a more embarrassing reality. They knew the U.S. government was turning down many allies’ offers of manpower, supplies and expertise worth untold millions of dollars. Eventually the United States also would fail to collect most of the unprecedented outpouring of international cash assistance for Katrina’s victims.
I know that the US is supposed to be the most powerful nation ever to exist, but you don’t diss allies who were still willing to help out when the chips are down. You can be diplomatic and turn down the help, or accept it and give the money to charitable organizations. Some money was given to charity, but who got it?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the neocons are at least consistant in being arrogant assholes and undiplomatic. You can always count on that from them.
I don’t usually post about the bobble heads, the whole Sunday mish-mash of Beltway punditry turns my stomach. What is it Twain said? “There’s liars, damn liars and then there’s politicians”? I’m paraphrasing here and it probably wasn’t Twain, but what the hell. Call me the cliche kid.
Maybe I should stick to nerdy shit.
Here’s some alternative stuff:
Man, that took longer than I thought. Check ’em out and comment.