Sunday, April 29, 2007

i think too much has been made of the latest monica goodling e-mail. . .

while i was away for a weekend in
the surf and sun, it seems much has
happened. . . and, i'll get to some of
it during the coming week, but i wanted
to quickly note that, as part of the
latest DoJ document dumps on friday, a
new monica goodling e-mail has surfaced.

it was dated february 12, 2007. many
solid bloggers have written that
this may be the primary criminal
"smoking gun admission" that led
to her assertion of her fifth
amendment rights
. . .

i do not think so -- let's talke a look
[as ever, click it to enlarge the image]:



we will soon know for certain -- but i doubt
that this document was the primary reason she
decided to "take five for freedom."

i take it as true that she knew the house
and senate were asking after these matters.

i also take it as true that she plainly
meant -- and i think plain meaning important,
here -- to tell others to keep their versions
straight. she does seem a bit of a control
freak, after all. . .

unless she was completely inept,
she could not possibly have believed this little
four-word directive would destroy all evidence
of any and all prior versions. . .

and, so -- i think -- the main thing she
wanted was: no "outdated talker" being used by staff.

but now -- if it turns out that she personally
deleted all her own prior versions of these documents
on or after february 12, 2007 -- well, that would at least
hint at some nefarious -- if highly ineffectual -- thinking.

no -- i think the more damning e-mail is the one that
isn't here. more on this later, but where is the "wells
notice
" type e-mail encouraging everyone on the
team to preserve all documents, as a governmental
investigation was, by then, clearly-pending?

[a wells notice is what the s.e.c. sends
a target in an investigation -- corporate lawyers
regularly, and pre-emptively, instruct all hands
on a project -- with knowlege or documents -- to
preserve all documents, lest they be charged with
destroying evidence, or obstructing justice, in
such situations. . . but i digress.]

so -- where is the gonzales/hertling/sampson/
goodling [attorneys all, are they. . .] e-mail
directing/ordering that no one delete documents?

it is not here -- so far as i can tell.

and that -- to my practiced eye -- may
be more damning than anything thus far
produced and delivered. it is what's miss-
ing that matters most, here, imho.

as ever, developing. . .

4 comments:

Freewill said...

Very nice and very compelling.

By George I believe you have hit the nail right on the head.

Thank you for your incite and research. Awesome work!

nolo said...

thanks -- and, well-met!

c'mon back now, ya' hear?

Anonymous said...

We keep looking for what isn't there when its absence is plainly in front of our eyes.

You're right - - the 'preserve it' command is MIA. Hmmm

nolo said...

indeed -- so much so,
that i wrote a whole
'nother post on it. . .

[points -- skyward. . .]

thanks for stopping
by. . .