Destruction of evidence charges, I think.

[Justice Is Comin]

Who agrees with that? I just have a feeling that Fitz has proof of attempts to destroy evidence. He convinced a federal republican judge to sentence Miller and Cooper to jail despite almost unprecedented resistance from a passel of lawyers, including the NYT. They wouldn't have granted him that motion without some very compelling evidence. It was then even upheld on appeal. Judges have to have more than oral testimony to rule on something of this magnitude which flies in the face of the reporter's shield law.

Destruction of evidence is almost a prosecutors dream. It proves a willful intent to cover up the crime. Emails are another thing I think are playing a much bigger role in this investigation than anybody has discovered at this point. They put your fingerprints right on the gun. And there are always at least two copies of emails; the senders and the receivers. They have a way of just popping up after you thought you had destroyed them. Ask FEMA dude.

This cabal of slugs would have thought nothing about sending inter-office communications by emails and memo. They thought they were the untouchables. One raise up the rug, the other one sweeps it under. But this time they enountered a little thing called Joe Wilson.

And if you recall, that specific language was incorporated into Fitzgerald's expanded authority to conduct his investigation-- destruction of evidence.

It's just me reading the taro cards. But watch for those two things in the bill of particulars and the charges. I have a feeling we're going to hear about some. And they are almost indefensible.

[HereSince1628]

1. Maybe but the judges made decisions on secret documents

which made them very concerned. That doesn't fit the profile of destroyed evidence.

The 8 redacted pages is some serious shit. I suspect it has to do with evidence of an effort to defraud the American people about Iraq's WMD capability.

[halobeam]

2. I think destroyed docs... (aka the "heads up" from Gonzales)

that an investigation was being launched, AND secret docs... (redacted)...

hmmm...

[HereSince1628]

4. I agree documents could have been destroyed. But

finding evidence that happened is tough, unless someone flipped.

To demonstrate a document is "missing" it would need to be referenced in another document, a ghost file on a hard drive or such.

Have I missed some report of Fitz' gaining access to hard drives on White House pcs or servers?

[Justice Is Comin]

5. You're correct.

And that's exactly what I think happened. Destruction of evidence is a moot point unless it can be shown that there was evidence there that someone intended to destroy.

It is developed through investigations and closing in on people who don't want to take the fall for their boss and this provides their ace in the hole to bargain their own fate. Once an unknown document which is a smoking gun is produced, it's all over for the person who failed to disclose the document, or memo, or email...whatever it is.

I think Fitz has proof of these attempts much to the dismay of their clients lawyers.

[spindrifter]

3. What is really interesting

is whatever procedures the WH requires for the maintenance of email. I think most of the WH people understand that email is not just on sender and recipient computers, but also on the ISP or intranet or whatever they call their secret system. Consequently, there are less likely to be possibilities for people to emulate Rosemary Woods with their email.
I am not that high on the idea that they will get anyone on destroying evidence or even attempting to do so. I think there are plenty of obstructings and perjuries out there, though.