What is a privilege log? Would it hold real information about what went on within the administration in re: the topic of the DOJ firings?

-- Holly McLachlan

I am not sure how a privilege log operates in Congressional hearings and investigations. While I'm not a litigator (so bear with me), I do know how it's used in civil suits. In discovery, a privilege log is used when parties refuse to hand over documents on the basis of some privilege (usually attorney-client). The log lists the title or brief description document being withheld and then the privilege which allows it to be withheld. That allows the other party to bring a motion to compel if it does not believe the privilege actually applies.

As a result, while it does not provide the content of the documents withheld, it does explain what documents are in existence, responsive to the request for documents (or here, responsive to the subpoena) but being withheld. I assume it operates the same way for Congressional subpoenas.

Do you really not know? It's been in the public domain forever. Right in this decision, the judge reviews who the fired U.S. attorneys are and the reason there is suspicion the dismissals were politically motivated (some prosecuted GOP office-holders, others refused to pursue Democrats, the US Attorney in Washington refused to pursue a voter fraud case in the Governor's race where the Democrat won, etc.).

-- GlennGreenwald

Do you think he actually read the opinion? Or if he did that he didn't just ignore any facts that he didn't like? After all, the guy is still claiming that Obama is a "liberal."

Pedinska, glad I could be of help! :)

(Also, I am actually a lawyer.)

"Anthrax-laced letters that killed five people and severely rattled the post-9/11 nation may have been part of an Army scientist's warped plan to test his cure for the deadly toxin, officials said Friday." [My emphasis.]

The story is linked to my sig. This is, I believe, an update to the AP's original story. (It's dated "3 minutes ago.") Not that improtant, I suppose, but interesting nonetheless.

There's a lot to be suspicious about this case, but I think the one thing that's not odd is Ivins suicide.

I completely agree. His background of mental instability, combined with the fact that the FBI was going to sit down with his attorney and him to discuss its evidence against him, is enough to convince me.

Also, people seem to think that the guy swallowed a bottle of Tylenol, and that it seems suspicious. My understanding is that he took tylenol with codeine, which is similar to vicodin (except that vicodin has hydrocodone which is a synthetic version of codeine). Most people I know have a bottle of vicodin hanging around, from either a dentist or a doctor (I have some tylenol w/codeine left over from a car accident in April). A codeine overdose would result in respiratory failure. We don't know that he died from liver failure. And, someone taking a bottle of vicodin to take his own life doesn't seem suspicious to me at all. It's probably relatively common.

Still, it's worth noting that when people off themselves, they usually choose methods that don't take days to finish them off.

-- Silash

I still don't find it remotely suspicious that a person would try to take his/her life with a prescription narcotic.

I don't agree with you that Republicans are telling people what matters--i.e. unfettered militarism and hegemony for ostensible security reasons. I believe that they are instead agreeing with a significant portion of our population who already thinks that matters, basically enabling their darker nature.

I'm not sure if I agree with this, but I'm pretty sure the Obama campaign does. If you look at all the speeches from last night, they're all laced with promises that Obama won't back down from taking military action when needed, etc. This was almost as frustrating to me as the points Glenn brings up and the McCain-as-honorable-hero-and-friend-to-all talk.

I lost my blockquotes. My last post should have looked like this:

I don't agree with you that Republicans are telling people what matters--i.e. unfettered militarism and hegemony for ostensible security reasons. I believe that they are instead agreeing with a significant portion of our population who already thinks that matters, basically enabling their darker nature.

I'm not sure if I agree with this, but I'm pretty sure the Obama campaign does. If you look at all the speeches from last night, they're all laced with promises that Obama won't back down from taking military action when needed, etc. This was almost as frustrating to me as the points Glenn brings up and the McCain-as-honorable-hero-and-friend-to-all talk.

Its customary to attribute to the poster, me. What is it that you are unsure about (I ask politiely, not rhetorically or aggressively)?

-- omooex

I don't understand your question. I merely had a failure of html in responding to an interesting part of one of your comments. It was corrected in a later post.