ATI's video summary of the Mann UVA case

KnR says:
April 25, 2012 at 12:55 pm
‘Rob Schiling, WINA radio, points out that UVA has previously fired an employee for using university email accounts for private email and this is a taxpayer freedom issue.’
He could have also pointed out that UVA were more than happy to give out a past employees e-mails when Greenpeace came calling too. With no mention of academic freedom then .
________________________________
And let us not forget the dust-up with the NIXON TAPES The issue of privacy is also raised.

….The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondence, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and, added to those values, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making…..

UNITED STATES v. NIXON Full Text of the Supreme Court Decision In The Watergate Case
…4. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.…
7. Since a President’s communications encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of an ordinary individual, the public interest requires that Presidential confidentiality be afforded the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice, and the District Court has a heavy responsibility to ensure that material involving Presidential conversations irrelevant to or inadmissible in the criminal prosecution be accorded the high degree of respect due a President and that such material be returned under seal to its lawful custodian….
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This litigation presents for review the denial of a motion, filed in the District Court on behalf of the President of the United States, in the case of United States v. Mitchell (D.C. Crim. No. 74-110), to quash a third-party subpoena duces tecum issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, pursuant to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 17 (c). The subpoena directed the President to produce certain tape recordings and documents relating to his conversations with aides and advisers. The court rejected the President’s claims of absolute executive privilege, of lack of jurisdiction, and of failure to satisfy the requirements of Rule…..
On March 1, 1974, a grand jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia returned an indictment charging seven named individuals 3 with various offenses, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice. Although he was not designated as such in the indictment, the grand jury named the President, among others, as an unindicted coconspirator…..

“…including conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice… GEE, doesn’t that sound familiar. I guess Mann rates higher than a sitting Republican President.

Wow, I almost didn’t watch it with all the negative comments about background music. But I thought it was great. Have you guys ever watched a documentary or TV? Anyway, kept me interested and I passed it on to friends who don’t know much, if anything, about this. I don’t think they would have watched a powerpoint lecture. And people who only watch TV and movies like Gore’s need to know these guys are cooking the books.
Earle Williams,
Whether Greenepeace exercised their option or not is moot. The option was not given when Bob Marshall requested Mann’s emails. Greenpeace was told they could have the emails of someone who was gone and Bob Marshall was told Michael Mann’s emails were denied BECAUSE he was gone. And in fact Mann’s emails WERE there.

First, good video, very informative.
Second, thank you PJM for setting the record straight about Greenpeace. The word was that they did not want to pay for them, but your explanation makes alot more sense.