Richard Hertling’s March 5 e-mail to Faith Burton Discussing How Moscella Should Respond to the House Judiciary Committee About Documents the White House Will Withhold

Here's the March 5 obstruction instruction from Richard Hertling (Richard A. Hertling. Acting United States Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs. He reports to United States Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) to Faith Burton, Moschella's assistant:

http://judiciary.house.gov/...

P263

HERTLING, RICHARD From: Hertling, Richard

Sent: Monday, March 5, 2007 4:05PM

To: Burton, Faith

Subject: Re: URGENT Will is our witness. Think about how we would want to frame an answer. -----Original Message----- From: Burton, Faith

Sent: Monday, March 05 16:03:43 2007

To: Hertling, Richard

Subject: Re: URGENT We would not provide such highly deliberative docs in which the WH has such significant equities – no way would the WH allow that. Need to think about how exactly to phrase the response but Will may have some thoughts. From: Hertling, Richard

Sent: Monday, March 05 15:48:29 2007

To: Burton, Faith

Subject: Re: URGENT What is the correct response if at the US Attorney hearing tomorrow Will is asked by HJC to provide e-mails and other communications we had with the WH on firing US Attorneys? SNIP

Here’s relevant sections of Moscellas’s testimony the following day. http://media.washingtonpost.com/...

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW HOLDS A HEARING ON THE DISMISSAL OF U.S. ATTORNEYS

MARCH 6, 2007

SNIP

REP. HANK JOHNSON, D-GA.:

Were there meetings of the group within the Justice Department that compiled the termination list?

MOSCHELLA: Meetings? There were meetings.

JOHNSON: And were there memoranda or record of these meetings or e-mails or other communications on the subject that were generated?

MOSCHELLA: I don't know of any memoranda that was created. At some point, names were put on a list, but I don't know about the specific records.

JOHNSON: Who would have control of that list? Who would maintain control of that list?

MOSCHELLA: Well, if folks have a list in their...

JOHNSON: Specifically who?

MOSCHELLA: I don't know what information is in anyone's files. The information could be in any number of places. __________________________________________

JOHNSON: How many times did this group meet along with McNulty and Gonzales about this list?

MOSCHELLA: I don't know a specific number of times that the group met.

JOHNSON: Do you recall the dates that you all met?

MOSCHELLA: No. And as I said, I may have been involved in some of the meetings. I did not have a basis upon which to add substantively to the record of the U.S. attorney. So I may not have been in any meetings.

Prior to serving as the Pay DAG (ph), I was the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs for three and a half years and so...

JOHNSON: Mr. Moschella, I'm getting ready to run out of time and I want to ask you this question.

The committee is very interested in further inquiry into this matter. Can I have your assurance that you'll make available to the committee the individuals I have asked you about and all memoranda, e- mails and other documents on this subject as was asked by myself and previous questioners? Can I get your commitment on that?

MOSCHELLA: Congressman, we have done everything we can to cooperate, including providing documents to the committee, having the briefings. We'll continue to work with you.

SNIP

*****

White House Continues to Withhold e-mails from Moschella and Burton to Five Potential Witnesses Discussing Response to Potential Subpoenas.

On Friday, DOJ released to the Committee a list of e-mails that continue to be withheld by White House lawyers as "privileged". At the very last page of that list is another most intriguing document.

Withheld e-mails, Page 10, Lines 160 and 161 (March 7, 2007) - http://hosted.ap.org/...

Line 160, From Faith Burton, DESCRIPTION: Discussion re: draft subpoenas for KS (Kyle Sampson), MG (Monica Goodling), ME (Michael Elston), WM (William Mercer), and MB (Michael Battle).

Line 161, From William Moschella, DESCRIPTION: Discussion re: voluntary interviews or testimony from leadership staff before the SJC (Senate Judiciary Committee).

Five of those on the list for receipt of subpoenas receive two e-mails from Faith Burton and William E. Moschella "discussing" the subject of their subpoenas.

CONCLUSION:

It is nothing less than astonishing that the White House would continue to withhold the Moscella and Burton e-mails that discuss testimony to Congress on grounds of Executive Privilege. On Monday, officials discuss how to avoid a direct response to Congressional questions about the AG firing lists -- what other "deliberative documents" would they be talking about? -- documents that on Tuesday Moscella testifies both do and don't exist, and then on Wednesday he discusses his testimony with several other witnesses facing subpoenas -- and the White House now withholds Moscella's Wednesday e-mails. This raises serious questions about the judgment and good faith of the White House about the communications it continues to claim privilege.

These e-mails also show a pattern and practice of deception, a concerted effort to evade Congressional subpoenas, and a criminal conspiracy to deceive Congress and withhold materials from investigators.

____________________________________________

UPDATE: See, Murray Wass, National Journal, "Administration Withheld e-mails about Rove", May 10, 2007 --http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070510nj1.htm -- follows up several of these same e-mails, and uncovers the contents of several that were withheld, to show the collusion between the White House and various ranking lawyers in the Justice Department to carry out a political purge of the Executive Office of the US Attorney and to deceive Congress about the role of Karl Rove in directing that effort.

____________________________________________