Comments on: 9/11 Commission Decries Obstruction

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:50:57 +0000

Great thread, but: Whoa there. Don’t let’s us lose our heads. Remember folks, seeing W lose his office is not necessarily the smart thing to want first — repeat after me: “Impeach Dick First.”

By: bmaz

bmaz — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:37:22 +0000

Agreed; and coupled with the heightened duty of governmental prosecutors, this was always a mindless defense.

By: radiofreewill

radiofreewill — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:06:05 +0000

klynn – Vent’s article was excellent background – thanks for recommending it!

By: masaccio

masaccio — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:39:13 +0000

In an earlier response, I pointed out that my subpoenas contain a definition of the term “document”. Here it is:

“Document” without otherwise limiting the generality of its meaning includes, but is not limited to, the following items: agreements; correspondence; telegrams; cables; memoranda; records; books; summaries of records or notes of personal conversations or interviews; diaries; calendars; forecasts; statistical statements; accountants’ work papers; journals, ledgers and other accounting papers; graphs; charts; maps; diagrams; blueprints; tables; indexes; pictures; recordings; tapes; microfilms; charges; accounts; analytical records; minutes or records of meetings or conferences; opinions or reports and/or summaries of investigations; opinions of reports of consultants; appraisals; reports and/or summaries of negotiations; brochures; pamphlets; circulars; trade letters; press releases; contracts; stenographic, handwritten or any other notes; projections; working papers; federal and state income tax records; checks, front and back; check stubs or receipts; invoice vouchers; deposit slips; check vouchers; tape date sheets or data processing or word processing cards, tapes, backup tapes, or discs or any other written, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter, however produced or reproduced; and any other document or writing of whatever description within the scope of Rule 34(a) of the … Rules of Civil Procedure, including without limitation any information contained in any computer or word processor, although not yet printed out, within the possession, custody or control of plaintiff or the possession, custody or control of any agent or employee of plaintiff (including without limitation attorneys, accountants, consultants and investment brokers or advisors) and other persons acting or purporting to act on plaintiff’s behalf.

I just refuse to believe that the people sending out requests and subpoenas and getting court orders don’t use similar or better definitions, and it is ridiculous for anyone to assert that the Commission did not request the information, and it is absurd to think that these kinds of things aren’t covered by the Court’s order.

By: phred

phred — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:52:20 +0000

Thanks bmaz, I appreciate your insight as always.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:45:17 +0000

I don’t know Bennett personally and, to the best of my knowledge, have not even ever seen him at NACDL meetings or anything; but from everything I have seen over many, many years, as well as what others I do know have said, Bennett is a stand up lawyer. So, I think he will do right by his client; however, that certainly doesn’t mean that he won’t do things that people on the outside, and not in his shoes, think are sellouts to “interests of those he is in a position to protect”. You and I may not like it, but that may be, indeed, the best course of action for his client.

By: phred

phred — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:22:50 +0000

Thanks for the link. So do you think Bennett will really represent Rodriguez’ best interest rather than the interests of those he is in a position to protect? I know there are serious ethical issues raised by that question and that a lawyer is supposed to represent his client’s best interest. Given our prior discussions about who constitutes the client when there is a defense fund paying the bills, one still has to wonder… Perhaps the insurance policies will have the unintended consequence of ensuring the legal representation remains focused on those who bought the policies.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:57:55 +0000

I don’t know how widespread it is, but I know that many that are in the direct line Rodriquesz was in did, indeed, take out such policies. This report gives a good overview.

By: phred

phred — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:47:16 +0000

Is that a common practice for folks at the CIA?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:27:46 +0000

My guess is that he may be one who took out one of the insurance policies to cover legal problems….