White House Deleted Some RNC Emails

Couple of updates:

The Milwaukee USA responds and confirms that he was on the list and then taken off this list, but denies he did anything to affect that.

Also, the White House agrees to find an independent IT company with Congress to scrub the servers, but still won't agree to turn over what they find.
 
Unabogie said:
Also, the White House agrees to find an independent IT company with Congress to scrub the servers, but still won't agree to turn over what they find.
Click to expand...


How can they claim executive privilege over mails on the RNC server? I would think this would be one of the collateral effects of violating the Presidential Papers Act. Can they say "Sure, we broke the law using the servers, but they are still under our purview"? Methinks not.
 
As I said before, one can only imagine the depth of deceptions that FIVE MILLION deleted emails could contain.

Democrats charge this raises questions about whether the public has gotten the full story on everything from the CIA leak case to the fired U.S. attorneys controversy.

"The biggest problem here is really that here is a White House that is deliberately violating an existing statute that requires them to preserve all records," said Sloan. "And we have significant evidence now both from the RNC e-mail and the White House e-mail that are missing that the White House was using every means possible to avoid complying with the law.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/index.html
Click to expand...


Yet another scandal from the most scandal-prone administration this country has ever seen.
 
King of the Americas said:
of.
-The VP shoots his friend in the face, and doesn't even go to the ER with him
Click to expand...

He had a very good reason. He wanted to be available when the police showed up at the hunting ranch to investigate. No, wait. That can't be right because when the police did show up, the ranch owner told the police that Cheney would talk to the police on the following day. Maybe he didn't go to the ER because he didn't want the hospital personnel to see that he had been drinking.
 
To Ladewig:

Well, the point was that he 'fled' or abandoned his friend.

If 'I' shot MY friend by 'accident', I think I'd be the one putting pressure on the wound, on the way to the ER or until a more qualified first aid render arrived.

Cheany had been drinking that day, admittedly. In fact, I am certain that that truth probably had something to do with why he didn't go to the ER with his friend.

My point in adding this to the list of mis-steps, if that it was an avoided scandel. One where the truth was successfully covered up, and or bypassed, and any negative impact upon the Administration was avoided.
 
King of the Americas said:
To Ladewig:

Well, the point was that he 'fled' or abandoned his friend.
Click to expand...

Yes. I know that was the point and I agree that it is a somewhat important point. I was making a little joke about it. Apparently my joke was so little that it wasn't even funny.
 
Mephisto said:
As I said before, one can only imagine the depth of deceptions that FIVE MILLION deleted emails could contain.

Yet another scandal from the most scandal-prone administration this country has ever seen.
Click to expand...


Scandal? Isn't there a better word or phrase than scandal to descibe the 5 million missing emails?
 
UPDATE:

The DOJ has not complied with a subpoena

(Washington, DC)- Today, U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) issued the following statement in response to the Justice Department’s failure to comply with the Committee’s subpoena response deadline of 2 p.m. today. The subpoena seeks information the Department has continued to refuse to provide or has provided only in redacted form.


“We are disappointed that the Justice Department failed to produce the documents and other materials for which we issued a subpoena last week. While we understand that the Department considers this effort a priority and we plan to continue working with them, we will review all available legal options to secure compliance with the subpoena.”
Click to expand...
Also, Gonzales' testimony has been postponed.

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy made the decision Monday to postpone the long-awaited hearing that has been considered Gonzales’ last chance to quiet a controversy that has prompted calls in both parties for his resignation.


Leahy said the hearing had been rescheduled for Thursday. He said he made the decision after conferring with Gonzales and the committee’s senior Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. ”All three of us agree,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
Upchurch said:
The Department of Justice.
Has not Complied.
With a Subpoena.

Nope, not even writing it out makes it any easier to digest.
Click to expand...

NPR reported that an "insider" told them that this was all Karl Rove's idea, and that he wanted to fire all 93 to cover up his main goal, which was to fire a few key USA's.

At the time this was floated, one of the USA's in question was Patrick Fitzgerald who Kyle Sampson admitted to suggesting as one of the fired USA's.

Ponder that one for a moment.

Then ponder the fact that the documents the DOJ is withholding include an unredacted list of the USA's who were on the list but were not fired. There are four names.

Could it be that Fitz was on the list a bit longer than the "joke" suggestion testified to by Sampson?
 
UPDATE:

Kyle Sampson sent an email which contradicts Gonzales' SWORN testimony.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' assertion that he was not involved in identifying the eight U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign last year is at odds with a recently released internal Department of Justice e-mail, ABC News has learned.

That e-mail said that Gonzales supported firing one federal prosecutor six months before she was asked to leave.
Click to expand...
Gee, I wonder which USA could have garnered such concern? Could it have been the one who had convicted a sitting Congressman and was expanding her investigation to the DCI, Porter Goss?

Why yes, it was!

But the recently released e-mail from Sampson, dated June 1, 2006, indicated that Gonzales was actively involved in discussions about Lam and had decided to fire her if she did not improve. In the e-mail to other top Justice Department officials, Sampson outlined several steps that Gonzales suggested, culminating in Lam's replacement if she failed to bolster immigration enforcement.


"AG [Attorney General] has given additional thought to the San Diego situation and now believes that we should adopt a plan" that would lead to her removal if she "balks" at immigration reform, Sampson wrote.
The e-mail laid out other possible ways to deal with Lam short of dismissal. Gonzales supported the idea of first having "a heart to heart with Lam about the urgent need to improve immigration enforcement" and of working with her "to develop a plan for addressing the problem." Sampson said another alternative would be to "put her on a very short leash.


"If she balks on any of the foregoing or otherwise does not perform in a measurable way … remove her," Sampson wrote of Gonzales' suggested plan. "AG then appoints new U.S. [attorney] from outside the office."
Click to expand...
Now, this is actually BS too, since this email postdates the famous "real problem" email from Sampson.

The conviction of Duke Cunningham was leading to the next step. In May 2006, Lam had informed DOJ she was going to raid the offices of Dusty Foggo. Porter Goss resigns within days, but claims it's unrelated. Sampson fires off his email. Next, Gonzales has a "plan" to blame this all on "immigration" even though he never had that "talk" with her.

Even if you buy his explanation, he still committed perjury, since he testified that he never had input on firings or on who would should axed.
 
Write up the articles of impeachment.

This one's got teeth, and it will get some republican congressional support.
 
pgwenthold said:
Write up the articles of impeachment.

This one's got teeth, and it will get some republican congressional support.
Click to expand...

While I agree that no administration has deserved impeachment more than this one, I'm not sure that would a great idea for several reasons. First of all, that leaves either President Cheney, or should you manage to pull a twofer, President Pelosi.

Would President Pelosi help get a Democrat elected in 2008? I kind of doubt it. Would Cheney as President be any kind of upgrade? I kind of doubt it.

In fact, the best result we can hope for at this point is to put Bush and Cheney under Scandal Arrest. As long as they are being exposed on a daily basis for the corrupt bastards they really are, there will be no war on Iran, no privatizing Social Security, no Patriot Act III, and no new sweetheart deals for Halliburton. Hell, even Wolfowitz has been exposed as a crook, and is being hounded to resign from the World Bank. AGAG is on his last legs, and Rove is once again in the center of a scandal.

Can you think of the scenario wherein Bush is impeached and you see this kind of perfect storm while that's happening?
 
Just so we keep it all in perspective, that's five million emails. "The two million dogs ate my homework?" C'mon, there's no place to hide here, any more than the eighteen minutes. No court could possibly deny the Senate Judiciary Committee a subpoena against the Justice Department.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom