6 Comments
User's avatar
Joshua Marquis's avatar

It may be common for the lawyers for the targets of a federal investigation to object to the scope of a grand jury subpoena, but in this case Oregon DOJ does NOT represent Fagan. They represent the state agencies, and ultimately the people of the state of Oregon.

So either they DO regard elected (or appointed) state officials as the targets, but it is disconcerting that their first reaction is to whine about the scope of the subpoena.

If this were their real concern, it could be easily resolved by Oregon DOJ lawyers less formally asking the feds to define or clarify the scope of subpoena.

Expand full comment
Jeff Eager's avatar

Yes, and to whine about it (in writing, at least) on the date production was due.

Expand full comment
James Lyon's avatar

I thought that's what lawyers are supposed to do. :o)

Expand full comment
S.P.H.'s avatar

Calling up digitized records 'would present a significant staffing burden'? Since when has any Oregon department or agency been short of staff? Not producing any subpoenaed documents further exacerbates the feeling that the people can not trust government. If there's nothing to hide why are they hiding it? Just like cast vote records, almost impossible to obtain in a timely manner and with many hurdles thrown in the way.

Expand full comment
Kendall's avatar

Fascinating, I keep saying Oregon has got Louisiana beat hands down

Expand full comment
James Lyon's avatar

"press" on! I see you have a pro in your court. bless you all in this endeavor. I can't remember who Marcellus is, but he has got the Oregon situation pegged, something IS rotten here. hang in there, Horatio.

Expand full comment