RE: Quashing Deposition Subpoenas and Kyle Sampson

[hang a left]

I was searching for information regarding Ralston's Deposition Request and what steps may be taken to avoid getting her on the record.

In doing so I found these interesting documents that relate to a previous case VS Dept. of Interior Gale Norton and the motions to quash a deposition by Kyle Sampson based on Executive Privilege.

IANAL but I was curious if anyone could analyze these and what they mean. Furthermore I think that these documents hold clues into how the WH will assist Ralston and others from submitting to depositions.

http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/cobell/docs/txt/09162002_reply.txt

http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/cobell/docs/txt/09162002_reply.txt

[Bitwit1234]

1. I thought government employees

could not refuse to testify unless it was something incriminating them personally.

ALL her testimony can't be about her. Even the gangsters in the racketeering investigations had to answer questions that did not pertain to them.

[bleever]

2. Thanks.

I look forward to studying these later.

[EVDebs]

3. The CIA will undoubtedly be assisting in order to keep from appearing in this scandal

but the CIA/Cunningham/Wilkes/Foggo/GOP money is too huge to keep hidden now.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

4. That's an interesting point.

They're really scramblin' now.

[EVDebs]

7. The Octopus is out of the bag and Casolaro and Webb will be avenged

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2787841&mesg_id=2787914

[CrazyOrangeCat]

8. .

:popcorn:

[Canuckistanian]

5. Quashing a subpoena from the Senate?

Um, pardon my ignorance, but isn't that POLITICALLY speaking, EXTREMELY RISKY?

Is there a precedent for this before Gayle Norton?

[Marie26]

6. I'm not sure this is the same

type of situation.