Illegal Intent
This is how much the Bush White House knew they were breaking the law: they systematically set up an arrangement for an entire communications network which was illegal for the purpose of escaping scrutiny of their actions. The fact that they set up the alternate, private email system itself proves that they knew about the Presidential Records Act and the legal necessity of keeping White House records. That they were willing to violate the Presidential Records Act makes it clear that what they were doing in that communication was a lot worse than just violating the Presidential Records Act.
And now that everyone knows about the separate email system, the entire email records for 51 White House officials in that system have been erased. This goes beyond shameless. It goes into the territory where there is zero doubt left that there were major laws being broken–but since the records were destroyed, we can’t say which laws and which officials. Which was the whole idea. Even though it is absolutely undeniable that they broke the law and did so with clear intent, by using the “whoopsie!” defense in claiming the records’ destruction was “inadvertent,” they give just enough wiggle room that they can probably slough the eventual criminal prosecutions off on some aide (Scooter’s already booked for another gig, they’ll have to look elsewhere).
So, when you catch a major criminal in the police evidence locker standing over a pile of smoldering ashes and claiming that “the match just slipped from his fingers” and accidentally burned that pile of evidence that happened to be at his feet, what are you going to do as he looks at you with knowing contempt?
Let me just say, for a group of people who claim one of the biggest problems in society is criminals getting off on technicalities because of a bleeding-heart liberal justice system, they sure do take advantage of those technicalities every chance they get, don’t they?
The common law crime of conspiracy, if I remember correctly is simply two or more people agreeing to commit a crime, and, the taking of a substancial step to commit the crime.
There is also the crime of aiding and abetting a crime. Which means, if I recall, know and allowing it to occur.
The White House is rife with criminals.
If we had true opposition party, they’d be pursuing this with great vigor.
Instead we have the loyal opposition democrats, which is more loyal to the Republicans the opposed to them.
>>> Let me just say, for a group of people who claim one of the biggest problems in society is criminals getting off on technicalities because of a bleeding-heart liberal justice system, they sure do take advantage of those technicalities every chance they get, don’t they?
At least they have been consistent. From the very beginning.