The Presidential Records Act of 1978 violated [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : The Presidential Records Act of 1978 violated

Samantha

04-13-2007, 12:57 PM

Karl Rove has been deleting his email. There are 18 days of missing emails in the Gonzales attorney firing case. Karl Rove's lawyer says he didn't mean to delete the emails.

Karl Rove's lawyer on Friday dismissed the notion that President Bush's chief political adviser intentionally deleted his own e-mails from a Republican-sponsored server, saying Rove believed the communications were being preserved in accordance with the law.http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/13/ap3610452.html

Like we believe anything Karl Rove says. LOL!

"We're learning that off-book communications are being used by these people in the White House by using Republican political e-mail addresses, and they say they have not been preserved," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on the Senate floor. "I don't believe that! You can't erase emails — not today."

Leahy compared the missing e-mails to the notorious 18-minute gap in President Nixon's White House tapes, discovered during the Watergate investigation. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3037893&page=1

Karl Rove's ability to delete his emails was officially shut off in 2005 during the Fitzgerald investigation into the CIA agent leak.

Democrats believe it's unlikely that people working for a 6-year-old administration would not fully understand their obligations to preserve presidential materials. They want to know if the e-mails were deliberately funneled through the RNC system and deleted to shield certain things from the public eye.

Democratic suspicion increased Thursday when Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who is chairman of a House committee looking into the use of political e-mail accounts, reported on a briefing he received from RNC lawyer Rob Kelner. Waxman said he was told the RNC in 2005 shut off the ability of Rove _ and only Rove _ to delete his own e-mails.

Waxman said one factor was "the presence of investigative or discovery requests or other legal concerns." At the time, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald was investigating the leak of the name of a CIA. officer, a probe in which Rove was a key figure. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said, "There's never been any suggestion that Fitzgerald had anything less than a complete record" on Rove.

Now all of their emails are officially stopped from being deleted. It's about time. These crooked bastards need to be uncovered.

The White House has turned off its staffers' ability to delete e-mails from the political accounts. It now requires that they obtain permission from the counsel's office to have a political account and sign a statement of understanding about the policies regarding their use.

Congress is demanding that the White House produce copies of all e-mails on these accounts _ or any others _ that deal with the prosecutor firings. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., suggested the White House is lying about the e-mails being lost _ saying no e-mails are ever truly gone anymore. Leahy pledged to subpoena them if necessary.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301022_3.html

Gunny

04-13-2007, 01:02 PM

Samantha

04-13-2007, 01:07 PM

Funny thing is, I'd tell Congress demanding these e-mails to go f-ing pound sand. They have no oversight on the hiring/firing of these attorneys. They are just once again presuming to usurp the powers of the executive branch.I guess it would help if you knew how government works and understood the laws. You are here, but are you willing to learn? Read the links I provided. Read about government oversite. Read about the Presidential Records Act. Learn about Karl Rove's underhanded, sneaky, dirty tricks.

Gunny

04-13-2007, 01:13 PM

I guess it would help if you knew how government works and understood the laws. You are here, but are you willing to learn? Read the links I provided. Read about government oversite. Read about the Presidential Records Act. Learn about Karl Rove's underhanded, sneaky, dirty tricks.

I guess it would help if you understood how goverment works and operates. A Dem controlled-Congress, ever-looking for a witch to burn, takes exception to Bush doing the same thing every President before him does. So they snoop around until they find some horseshit, who gives a flip, technical violation to exclaim A-HA!

This is about as important as the biggest Demo-pushed scam of the year ... trying Libby on a bunch of horseshit charges.

manu1959

04-13-2007, 01:18 PM

what an idiot he should have just stuffed his socks and undwear with the e-mails and walked out of the building....:cool:

Gunny

04-13-2007, 01:27 PM

what an idiot he should have just stuffed his socks and undwear with the e-mails and walked out of the building....:cool:

Point is, who cares? The Dem's want copies of the e-maisl pertaining to the firings. It doesn't matter what they say, so what's the point?

This is none of Congress's business.

stephanie

04-13-2007, 01:38 PM

The Democrat Congress are pathetic..As is the Democrat party.
We can expect this to go on till the election in 08.
They'll keep these phony scandals alive with the help of the media..
Their thinking on doing this, is will help get them the Presidency..
But I think the American people will start seeing through it, and it will backfire on them.. People will get sick of all the investigations, all the money their spending on them, and will see this for what it is...PAYBACK
The Democrats don't feel they can win any other way..
They have no ideas that sell to the majority of Americans, so they have to try and win instead, by destroying people...

Birdzeye

04-13-2007, 01:58 PM

Gunny

04-13-2007, 02:04 PM

Where I work, we've been told that they archive all email records "indefinitely." I'm not sure how long "indefinitely" is, but we've been cautioned to be careful what we put into emails so as not to embarrass anybody (includindg ourselves).

I've been under the impression that this is SOP in most places, but maybe I'm wrong.

Probably. On a normal system, they would probably be able to just go into a restore mode and get them back. I'm sure the White House however is quite careful in what kind of backup it has. From what I have understood, if they were on a hard drive, the aren't gone and can be retrieved. Beyond that, a data geek would have to explain it.

Samantha

04-13-2007, 03:03 PM

Probably. On a normal system, they would probably be able to just go into a restore mode and get them back. I'm sure the White House however is quite careful in what kind of backup it has. From what I have understood, if they were on a hard drive, the aren't gone and can be retrieved. Beyond that, a data geek would have to explain it.That's why Leahy is calling bullshit on the White House's claim that the RNC emails are unretrievable. I hope they subpoena the hard drives and bring back government transparency, even though there are some extreme right wingers who like the idea of a soviet style secret government.

Hobbit

04-13-2007, 03:22 PM

So, Samantha, I take it you were upset with the way the Sandy Berger case was handled?

Samantha

04-13-2007, 03:38 PM

So, Samantha, I take it you were upset with the way the Sandy Berger case was handled?The Prosecutors under the Bush administration investigated that case. I suppose it's another one of the failures of this administration, wouldn't you say?

Meanwhile, this is a thread about Rove and the hiding of evidence and violating the Presidential records act etc....link me to the thread about Berger and we can discuss that there.

manu1959

04-13-2007, 03:56 PM

The Prosecutors under the Bush administration investigated that case. I suppose it's another one of the failures of this administration, wouldn't you say?

Meanwhile, this is a thread about Rove and the hiding of evidence and violating the Presidential records act etc....link me to the thread about Berger and we can discuss that there.

don't need to pelosia went to syria because....newt went ...

what rove did is just fine cuz sandy did it too....plus it was accidental....

Dilloduck

04-13-2007, 03:58 PM

The Prosecutors under the Bush administration investigated that case. I suppose it's another one of the failures of this administration, wouldn't you say?

Meanwhile, this is a thread about Rove and the hiding of evidence and violating the Presidential records act etc....link me to the thread about Berger and we can discuss that there.

It's no longer "news" for someone to make allegations about the GOP that no one can prove. The democrats holler wolf continually.

Samantha

04-13-2007, 04:23 PM

don't need to pelosia went to syria because....newt went ...

what rove did is just fine cuz sandy did it too....plus it was accidental....
I have no idea what Pelosi, Syria and Newt have to do with this issue.

So you think if one person breaks the law, it's OK if another person breaks another law?

Are you against law and order in society?

Samantha

04-13-2007, 04:24 PM

It's no longer "news" for someone to make allegations about the GOP that no one can prove. The democrats holler wolf continually.Perhaps if the republicans would stop breaking laws, the democrats could focus on other things.

manu1959

04-13-2007, 04:27 PM

Perhaps if the republicans would stop breaking laws, the democrats could focus on other things.

so it is the republicans fault all yall have ADD?

Samantha

04-13-2007, 04:28 PM

so it is the republicans fault all yall have ADD?WTF? It's very hard to understand you. Is English your second language?

manu1959

04-13-2007, 04:29 PM

I have no idea what Pelosi, Syria and Newt have to do with this issue.

So you think if one person breaks the law, it's OK if another person breaks another law?

Are you against law and order in society?

the argument worked for pelosi why not karl...since when is accidently deleating an email against the law?....and if it has been deleted how do you know it was there in the first place...that is like a blind person saying they almost got hit by a prius because it is too quiet

manu1959

04-13-2007, 04:30 PM

WTF? It's very hard to understand you. Is English your second language?

will insulting me make you understand me better?

Dilloduck

04-13-2007, 04:32 PM

Perhaps if the republicans would stop breaking laws, the democrats could focus on other things.

Like the cash in the freezer? :laugh2: :laugh2:

manu1959

04-13-2007, 04:33 PM

Like the cash in the freezer? :laugh2: :laugh2:

good one...

Samantha

04-13-2007, 04:34 PM

the argument worked for pelosi why not karl...since when is accidently deleating an email against the law?....and if it has been deleted how do you know it was there in the first place...that is like a blind person saying they almost got hit by a prius because it is too quietI don't think I'll have much patience in discussing things with you if you refuse to read the articles and learn about what is going on. It's not one email deleted. It's thousands. The law is mentioned in the article I quoted. Go read and learn.

manu1959

04-13-2007, 04:37 PM

I don't think I'll have much patience in discussing things with you if you refuse to read the articles and learn about what is going on. It's not one email deleted. It's thousands. The law is mentioned in the article I quoted. Go read and learn.

do you actually belive you can convince me to agree with you by insulting me....how do you know it was not an accident? how do you know what they e-mails were about....have you read the article?

Samantha

04-13-2007, 04:38 PM

Like the cash in the freezer? :laugh2: :laugh2:
Yes, there is one Democrat scandal.

How many republican ones are there?

Abramoff
Delay
Libby
Rove
Gonzales
Mark Foley
Ted Haggart
etc...........

manu1959

04-13-2007, 04:40 PM

Yes, there is one Democrat scandal.

How many republican ones are there?

Abramoff
Delay
Libby
Rove
Gonzales
Mark Foley
Ted Haggart
etc...........

William Jefferson Clinton- Impeached by the House of Representatives over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Scandals include Whitewater - Travelgate Gennifer Flowersgate - Filegate - Vince Fostergate - Whitewater Billing Recordsgate - Paula Jonesgate- Lincoln Bedroomgate - Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate - Lippogate - Chinagate - The Lewinsky Affair - Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate - Kathleen Willeygate - Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate - Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate - Jaunita Broaddrick Gate - Lootergate - Pardongate

Edward Moore Kennedy - Democrat - U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.

Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

DNC - The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct.

Sandy Berger - Democrat - National Security Advisor during the Clinton Administration. Berger became the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings.

Robert Torricelli - Democrat - Withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election because of controversy over personal gifts he took from a major campaign donor and questions about campaign donations from 1996.

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Jesse Jackson - Democrat - Democratic candidate for President. Admitted to having an extramarital affair and fathering a illegitimate child.

Gary Condit - Democrat - US Democratic Congressman from California. Condit had an affair with an intern. Condit, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing. No charges were ever filed against Condit. Her remains were discovered in a Washington DC park..

Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde - Democrat - the son of newly elected U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, was booked on charges of criminal damage to property for allegedly slashing tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party for use in Election Day voter turnout efforts.

Daniel David Rostenkowski - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1959 to 1995. Indicted on 17 felony charges- pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds and sentenced to seventeen months in federal prison.

Melvin Jay Reynolds - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. Convicted on sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison.

Charles Coles Diggs, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan from 1955 to 1980. Convicted on eleven counts of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms- sentenced to three years in prison.

George Rogers - Democrat - Massachusetts State House of Representatives from 1965 to 1970. M000ember of Massachusetts State Senate from 1975 to 1978. Convicted of bribery in 1978 and sentenced to two years in prison.

Don Siegelman - Democrat Governor Alabama - indicted in a bid-rigging scheme involving a maternity-care program. The charges accused Siegelman and his former chief of staff of helping Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo rig bids. Siegelman was accused of moving $550,000 from the state education budget to the State Fire College in Tuscaloosa so Bobo could use the money to pay off a competitor for a state contract for maternity care.

John Murtha, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

James C. Green - Democrat - North Carolina State House of Representatives from 1961 to 1977. Charged with accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI agent, but was acquitted. Convicted of tax evasion in 1997.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Raymond Lederer - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

Harrison Arlington Williams, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1959 to 1970. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Allegedly accepted an 18% interest in a titanium mine. Convicted of nine counts of bribery, conspiracy, receiving an unlawful gratuity, conflict of interest, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $50,000.

Frank Thompson, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1955 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting, convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Sentenced to three years in prison

Michael Joseph Myers - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and conspiracy; sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000; expelled from the House of Representatives on October 2, 1980.

John Michael Murphy - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1963 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, and accepting an illegal gratuity. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

John Wilson Jenrette, Jr - Democrat - U.S. Representative from South Carolina from 1975 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to prison

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Alcee Lamar Hastings - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida. Impeached and removed from office as federal judge in 1989 over bribery charges.

Marion Barry - Democrat - mayor of Washington, D.C., from 1979 to 1991 and again from 1995 to 1999. Convicted of cocaine possession after being caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine. Sentenced to six months in prison.

Mario Biaggi - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1969 to 1988. Indicted on federal charges that he had accepted bribes in return for influence on federal contracts.Convicted of obstructing justice and accepting illegal gratuities. Tried in 1988 on federal racketeering charges and convicted on 15 felony counts.

Lee Alexander - Democrat - Mayor of Syracuse, N.Y. from 1970 to 1985. Was indicted over a $1.5 million kickback scandal. Pleaded guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Served six years in prison.

Bill Campbell - Democrat - Mayor of Atlanta. Indicted and charged with fraud over claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts.

Frank Ballance - Democrat - Congressman North Carolina. Pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering related to mishandling of money by his charitable foundation.

Hazel O'Leary - Democrat - Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration - O'leary took trips all over the world as Secretary with as many 50 staff members and at times rented a plane, which was used by Madonna during her concert tours.

Lafayette Thomas - Democrat - Candidate for Tennessee State House of Representatives in 1954. Sheriff of Davidson County, from 1972 to 1990. Indicted in federal court on 54 counts of abusing his power as sheriff. Pleaded guilty to theft and mail fraud; sentenced to five years in prison.

Mary Rose Oakar - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1977 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of funneling $16,000 through fake donors.

David Giles - Democrat - candidate for U.S. Representative from Washington in 1986 and 1990. Convicted in June 2000 of child rape.

Gary Siplin - Democrat state senator Florida- found guilty of third-degree grand theft of $5,000 or more, a felony, and using services of employees for his candidacy.

Edward Mezvinsky - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Iowa from 1973 to 1977. Indicted on 56 federal fraud charges.

Lena Swanson - Democrat - Member of Washington State Senate in 1997. Pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting unlawful payments from veterans and former prisoners of war.

Abraham J. Hirschfeld - Democrat - candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner.

Henry Cisneros - Democrat - U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI.

James A. Traficant Jr. - Member of House of Representatives from Ohio. Expelled from Congress after being convicted of corruption charges. Sentenced today to eight years in prison for accepting bribes and kickbacks.

John Doug Hays - Democrat - member of Kentucky State Senate from 1980 to 1982 Found guilty of mail fraud for submitting false campaign reports stemming from an unsuccessful run for judge. He was sentenced to six months in prison to be followed by six months of home confinement and three years of probation.

Henry J. Cianfrani - Democrat - Pennsylvania State Senate from 1967 to 1976. Convicted on federal charges of racketeering and mail fraud for padding his Senate payroll. Sentenced to five years in federal prison.

David Hall - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1971 to 1975. Indicted on extortion and conspiracy charges. Convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

John A. Celona - Democrat - A former state senator was charged with the three counts of mail fraud. Federal prosecutors accused him of defrauding the state and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from CVS Corp. and others while serving in the legislature. Celona has agreed to plead guilty to taking money from the CVS pharmacy chain and other companies that had interest in legislation. Under the deal, Celona agreed to cooperate with investigators. He faces up to five years in federal prison on each of the three counts and a $250,000 fine

Allan Turner Howe - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Utah from 1975 to 1977. Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Jerry Cosentino - Democrat - Illinois State Treasurer. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud - fined $5,000 and sentenced to nine months home confinement.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Louisiana from 1961 to 19 79. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

Albert G. Bustamante - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Texas from 1985 to 1993. Convicted in 1993 on racketeering and bribery charges and sentenced to prison.

Lawrence Jack Smith - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida from 1983 to 1993. Sentenced to three months in federal prison for tax evasion.

David Lee Walters - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1991 to 1995. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor election law violation.

James Guy Tucker, Jr. - Democrat - Governor of Arkansas from 1992 to 1996. Resigned in July 1996 after conviction on federal fraud charges as part of the Whitewater investigation.

Walter Rayford Tucker - Democrat - Mayor of Compton, California from 1991 to 1992; U.S. Representative from California from 1993 to 1995. Sentenced to 27 months in prison for extortion and tax evasion.

William McCuen - Democrat - Secretary of State of Arkansas from 1985 to 1995. Admitted accepting kickbacks from two supporters he gave jobs, and not paying taxes on the money. Admitted to conspiring with a political consultant to split $53,560 embezzled from the state in a sham transaction. He was indicted on corruption charges. Pleaded guilty to felony counts tax evasion and accepting a kickback. Sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Walter Fauntroy - Democrat - Delegate to U.S. Congress from the District of Columbia from 1971 to 1991. Charged in federal court with making false statements on financial disclosure forms. Pleaded guilty to one felony count and sentenced to probation.

Carroll Hubbard, Jr. - Democrat - Kentucky State Senate from 1968 to 1975 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1975 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the Federal Elections Commission and to theft of government property; sentenced to three years in prison.

Joseph Kolter - Democrat - member of Pennsylvania State House of Representatives from 1969 to 1982 and U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1983 to 1993. Indicted by a Federal grand jury on five felony charges of embezzlement at the U.S. House post office. Pleaded guilty.

Webster Hubbell - Democrat - Chief Justice of Arkansas State Supreme Court in 1983. Pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges - sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Nicholas Mavroules - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1979 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud and accepting gratuities while in office.

Carl Christopher Perkins - Democrat - Kentucky State House of Representatives from 1981 to 1984 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1985 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud in connection with the House banking scandal. Perkins wrote overdrafts totaling about $300,000. Pleaded guilty to charges of filing false statements with the Federal Election Commission and false financial disclosure reports. Sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Richard Hanna - Democrat - U.S. Representative from California from 1963 to 1974. Received payments of about $200,000 from a Korean businessman in what became known as the "Koreagate" influence buying scandal. Pleaded guilty and sentenced to federal prison.

Angelo Errichetti - Democrat - New Jersey State Senator was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $40,000 for his involvement in Abscam.

Daniel Baugh Brewster - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Maryland. Indicted on charges of accepting illegal gratuity while in Senate.

Thomas Joseph Dodd - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Connecticut. Censured by the Senate for financial improprieties, having diverted $116,000 in campaign and testimonial funds to his own use

Edward Fretwell Prichard, Jr. - Democrat - Delegate to Democratic National Convention from Kentucky. Convicted of vote fraud in federal court in connection with ballot-box stuffing. Served five months in prison.

Jerry Springer - Democrat - Resigned from Cincinnati City Council in 1974 after admitting to paying a prostitute with a personal check, which was found in a police raid on a massage parlor.

Guy Hamilton Jones, Sr. - Democrat -Arkansas State Senate. Convicted on federal tax charges and expelled from the Arkansas Senate.

Daniel Flood - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1945 to 1947, 1949 to 1953 and 1955 to 1980. Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving payoffs and sentenced to probation.

Otto Kerner, Jr - Democrat - Governor of Illinois from 1961 to 1968. While serving as Governor, he and another official made a gain of over $300,000 in a stock deal. Convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury, and related charges. Sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000.

George Crockett, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan. Served four months in federal prison for contempt of court following his defense of a Communist leader on trial for advocating the overthrow of the government.

Cornelius Edward Gallagher - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1959 to 1973. Indicted on federal charges of income tax evasion, conspiracy, and perjury

Mark B. Jimenez - Democrat fundraiser - sentenced to 27 months in prison on charges of tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit election financing offenses.

Bobby Lee Rush - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois. As a Black Panther, spent six months in prison on a weapons charge.

Bolley ''Bo'' Johnson - Democrat - Former Florida House Speaker - received a two-year term for tax evasion.

Roger L. Green - Democrat - Brooklyn Democrat Assemblyman. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for accepting travel reimbursement for trips he did not pay for and was sentenced to fines and probation.

Gloria Davis - Democrat - Bronx assemblywoman. Pleaded guilty to second-degree bribe-taking.

google is cool http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm

stephanie

04-13-2007, 04:41 PM

do you actually believe you can convince me to agree with you by insulting me....how do you know it was not an accident? how do you know what they e-mails were about....have you read the article?

But but......It's got to be true...The Democrats and ABC news said so.:poke:
It's all a conspiracy...
At least all they had to do was delete things, not go to all the trouble of stealing classified documents, and stuffing them down your shorts...:poke:

Dilloduck

04-13-2007, 04:41 PM

Yes, there is one Democrat scandal.

How many republican ones are there?

Abramoff
Delay
Libby
Rove
Gonzales
Mark Foley
Ted Haggart
etc...........

I thought the democrats "mandate" was to end the war--absolutely NONE of this crap is stopping them from fulfiing thier "mandate". It's all a dodge

avatar4321

04-13-2007, 04:47 PM

William Jefferson Clinton- Impeached by the House of Representatives over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Scandals include Whitewater - Travelgate Gennifer Flowersgate - Filegate - Vince Fostergate - Whitewater Billing Recordsgate - Paula Jonesgate- Lincoln Bedroomgate - Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate - Lippogate - Chinagate - The Lewinsky Affair - Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate - Kathleen Willeygate - Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate - Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate - Jaunita Broaddrick Gate - Lootergate - Pardongate

Edward Moore Kennedy - Democrat - U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.

Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

DNC - The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct.

Sandy Berger - Democrat - National Security Advisor during the Clinton Administration. Berger became the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings.

Robert Torricelli - Democrat - Withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election because of controversy over personal gifts he took from a major campaign donor and questions about campaign donations from 1996.

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Jesse Jackson - Democrat - Democratic candidate for President. Admitted to having an extramarital affair and fathering a illegitimate child.

Gary Condit - Democrat - US Democratic Congressman from California. Condit had an affair with an intern. Condit, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing. No charges were ever filed against Condit. Her remains were discovered in a Washington DC park..

Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde - Democrat - the son of newly elected U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, was booked on charges of criminal damage to property for allegedly slashing tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party for use in Election Day voter turnout efforts.

Daniel David Rostenkowski - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1959 to 1995. Indicted on 17 felony charges- pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds and sentenced to seventeen months in federal prison.

Melvin Jay Reynolds - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. Convicted on sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison.

Charles Coles Diggs, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan from 1955 to 1980. Convicted on eleven counts of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms- sentenced to three years in prison.

George Rogers - Democrat - Massachusetts State House of Representatives from 1965 to 1970. M000ember of Massachusetts State Senate from 1975 to 1978. Convicted of bribery in 1978 and sentenced to two years in prison.

Don Siegelman - Democrat Governor Alabama - indicted in a bid-rigging scheme involving a maternity-care program. The charges accused Siegelman and his former chief of staff of helping Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo rig bids. Siegelman was accused of moving $550,000 from the state education budget to the State Fire College in Tuscaloosa so Bobo could use the money to pay off a competitor for a state contract for maternity care.

John Murtha, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

James C. Green - Democrat - North Carolina State House of Representatives from 1961 to 1977. Charged with accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI agent, but was acquitted. Convicted of tax evasion in 1997.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Raymond Lederer - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

Harrison Arlington Williams, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1959 to 1970. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Allegedly accepted an 18% interest in a titanium mine. Convicted of nine counts of bribery, conspiracy, receiving an unlawful gratuity, conflict of interest, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $50,000.

Frank Thompson, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1955 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting, convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Sentenced to three years in prison

Michael Joseph Myers - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and conspiracy; sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000; expelled from the House of Representatives on October 2, 1980.

John Michael Murphy - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1963 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, and accepting an illegal gratuity. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

John Wilson Jenrette, Jr - Democrat - U.S. Representative from South Carolina from 1975 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to prison

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Alcee Lamar Hastings - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida. Impeached and removed from office as federal judge in 1989 over bribery charges.

Marion Barry - Democrat - mayor of Washington, D.C., from 1979 to 1991 and again from 1995 to 1999. Convicted of cocaine possession after being caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine. Sentenced to six months in prison.

Mario Biaggi - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1969 to 1988. Indicted on federal charges that he had accepted bribes in return for influence on federal contracts.Convicted of obstructing justice and accepting illegal gratuities. Tried in 1988 on federal racketeering charges and convicted on 15 felony counts.

Lee Alexander - Democrat - Mayor of Syracuse, N.Y. from 1970 to 1985. Was indicted over a $1.5 million kickback scandal. Pleaded guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Served six years in prison.

Bill Campbell - Democrat - Mayor of Atlanta. Indicted and charged with fraud over claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts.

Frank Ballance - Democrat - Congressman North Carolina. Pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering related to mishandling of money by his charitable foundation.

Hazel O'Leary - Democrat - Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration - O'leary took trips all over the world as Secretary with as many 50 staff members and at times rented a plane, which was used by Madonna during her concert tours.

Lafayette Thomas - Democrat - Candidate for Tennessee State House of Representatives in 1954. Sheriff of Davidson County, from 1972 to 1990. Indicted in federal court on 54 counts of abusing his power as sheriff. Pleaded guilty to theft and mail fraud; sentenced to five years in prison.

Mary Rose Oakar - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1977 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of funneling $16,000 through fake donors.

David Giles - Democrat - candidate for U.S. Representative from Washington in 1986 and 1990. Convicted in June 2000 of child rape.

Gary Siplin - Democrat state senator Florida- found guilty of third-degree grand theft of $5,000 or more, a felony, and using services of employees for his candidacy.

Edward Mezvinsky - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Iowa from 1973 to 1977. Indicted on 56 federal fraud charges.

Lena Swanson - Democrat - Member of Washington State Senate in 1997. Pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting unlawful payments from veterans and former prisoners of war.

Abraham J. Hirschfeld - Democrat - candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner.

Henry Cisneros - Democrat - U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI.

James A. Traficant Jr. - Member of House of Representatives from Ohio. Expelled from Congress after being convicted of corruption charges. Sentenced today to eight years in prison for accepting bribes and kickbacks.

John Doug Hays - Democrat - member of Kentucky State Senate from 1980 to 1982 Found guilty of mail fraud for submitting false campaign reports stemming from an unsuccessful run for judge. He was sentenced to six months in prison to be followed by six months of home confinement and three years of probation.

Henry J. Cianfrani - Democrat - Pennsylvania State Senate from 1967 to 1976. Convicted on federal charges of racketeering and mail fraud for padding his Senate payroll. Sentenced to five years in federal prison.

David Hall - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1971 to 1975. Indicted on extortion and conspiracy charges. Convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

John A. Celona - Democrat - A former state senator was charged with the three counts of mail fraud. Federal prosecutors accused him of defrauding the state and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from CVS Corp. and others while serving in the legislature. Celona has agreed to plead guilty to taking money from the CVS pharmacy chain and other companies that had interest in legislation. Under the deal, Celona agreed to cooperate with investigators. He faces up to five years in federal prison on each of the three counts and a $250,000 fine

Allan Turner Howe - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Utah from 1975 to 1977. Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Jerry Cosentino - Democrat - Illinois State Treasurer. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud - fined $5,000 and sentenced to nine months home confinement.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Louisiana from 1961 to 19 79. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

Albert G. Bustamante - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Texas from 1985 to 1993. Convicted in 1993 on racketeering and bribery charges and sentenced to prison.

Lawrence Jack Smith - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida from 1983 to 1993. Sentenced to three months in federal prison for tax evasion.

David Lee Walters - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1991 to 1995. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor election law violation.

James Guy Tucker, Jr. - Democrat - Governor of Arkansas from 1992 to 1996. Resigned in July 1996 after conviction on federal fraud charges as part of the Whitewater investigation.

Walter Rayford Tucker - Democrat - Mayor of Compton, California from 1991 to 1992; U.S. Representative from California from 1993 to 1995. Sentenced to 27 months in prison for extortion and tax evasion.

William McCuen - Democrat - Secretary of State of Arkansas from 1985 to 1995. Admitted accepting kickbacks from two supporters he gave jobs, and not paying taxes on the money. Admitted to conspiring with a political consultant to split $53,560 embezzled from the state in a sham transaction. He was indicted on corruption charges. Pleaded guilty to felony counts tax evasion and accepting a kickback. Sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Walter Fauntroy - Democrat - Delegate to U.S. Congress from the District of Columbia from 1971 to 1991. Charged in federal court with making false statements on financial disclosure forms. Pleaded guilty to one felony count and sentenced to probation.

Carroll Hubbard, Jr. - Democrat - Kentucky State Senate from 1968 to 1975 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1975 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the Federal Elections Commission and to theft of government property; sentenced to three years in prison.

Joseph Kolter - Democrat - member of Pennsylvania State House of Representatives from 1969 to 1982 and U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1983 to 1993. Indicted by a Federal grand jury on five felony charges of embezzlement at the U.S. House post office. Pleaded guilty.

Webster Hubbell - Democrat - Chief Justice of Arkansas State Supreme Court in 1983. Pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges - sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Nicholas Mavroules - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1979 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud and accepting gratuities while in office.

Carl Christopher Perkins - Democrat - Kentucky State House of Representatives from 1981 to 1984 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1985 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud in connection with the House banking scandal. Perkins wrote overdrafts totaling about $300,000. Pleaded guilty to charges of filing false statements with the Federal Election Commission and false financial disclosure reports. Sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Richard Hanna - Democrat - U.S. Representative from California from 1963 to 1974. Received payments of about $200,000 from a Korean businessman in what became known as the "Koreagate" influence buying scandal. Pleaded guilty and sentenced to federal prison.

Angelo Errichetti - Democrat - New Jersey State Senator was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $40,000 for his involvement in Abscam.

Daniel Baugh Brewster - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Maryland. Indicted on charges of accepting illegal gratuity while in Senate.

Thomas Joseph Dodd - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Connecticut. Censured by the Senate for financial improprieties, having diverted $116,000 in campaign and testimonial funds to his own use

Edward Fretwell Prichard, Jr. - Democrat - Delegate to Democratic National Convention from Kentucky. Convicted of vote fraud in federal court in connection with ballot-box stuffing. Served five months in prison.

Jerry Springer - Democrat - Resigned from Cincinnati City Council in 1974 after admitting to paying a prostitute with a personal check, which was found in a police raid on a massage parlor.

Guy Hamilton Jones, Sr. - Democrat -Arkansas State Senate. Convicted on federal tax charges and expelled from the Arkansas Senate.

Daniel Flood - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1945 to 1947, 1949 to 1953 and 1955 to 1980. Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving payoffs and sentenced to probation.

Otto Kerner, Jr - Democrat - Governor of Illinois from 1961 to 1968. While serving as Governor, he and another official made a gain of over $300,000 in a stock deal. Convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury, and related charges. Sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000.

George Crockett, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan. Served four months in federal prison for contempt of court following his defense of a Communist leader on trial for advocating the overthrow of the government.

Cornelius Edward Gallagher - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1959 to 1973. Indicted on federal charges of income tax evasion, conspiracy, and perjury

Mark B. Jimenez - Democrat fundraiser - sentenced to 27 months in prison on charges of tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit election financing offenses.

Bobby Lee Rush - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois. As a Black Panther, spent six months in prison on a weapons charge.

Bolley ''Bo'' Johnson - Democrat - Former Florida House Speaker - received a two-year term for tax evasion.

Roger L. Green - Democrat - Brooklyn Democrat Assemblyman. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for accepting travel reimbursement for trips he did not pay for and was sentenced to fines and probation.

Gloria Davis - Democrat - Bronx assemblywoman. Pleaded guilty to second-degree bribe-taking.

google is cool http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm

Dang, you didnt even mention Reid or Kerry

Birdzeye

04-13-2007, 04:48 PM

glockmail

04-13-2007, 04:49 PM

Karl Rove has been deleting his email. .... Didn't have email when the law was written. :poke:

manu1959

04-13-2007, 04:49 PM

Dang, you didnt even mention Reid or Kerry

didn't want to steal your thunder

manu1959

04-13-2007, 04:50 PM

Sheesh, I got a whole load of grief for mentioning Ted Kennedy's incident, but when Manu does it it's ok. Go figure.

I'll have to look for that list of GOP bad boys, but I'm afraid that might dwarf Manu's post.

it is the messenger.....it may well do so....should make ya think twice about defending a politician

Samantha

04-13-2007, 05:09 PM

William Jefferson Clinton...............

google is cool http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm(deleted long ass old news list from a biased right wing site) Do you ever read credible news sites? Or is reality too much for you? Care to discuss current events?

Didn't have email when the law was written. :poke:The law is about documents. Emails are documents.

stephanie

04-13-2007, 05:12 PM

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/2irpzr6.gif

manu1959

04-13-2007, 05:21 PM

(deleted long ass old news list from a biased right wing site) Do you ever read credible news sites? Or is reality too much for you? Care to discuss current events?

The law is about documents. Emails are documents.

what is with the insults? do you actully expect me to be polite when you are being a bitch?

so none of those things happened? how is egypt?

e-mails are not by definition documents...till ya print them....pull his hard drive...get copies from whomever he sent them to.....please tell me you are not chasing documents you belive exist but have no proof existed ....

you all should really focus....maybe if you played tag or dodge ball or kept score or got grades

.... oh and i am done trying to be polite to you

Gunny

04-13-2007, 06:18 PM

Sheesh, I got a whole load of grief for mentioning Ted Kennedy's incident, but when Manu does it it's ok. Go figure.

I'll have to look for that list of GOP bad boys, but I'm afraid that might dwarf Manu's post.

It's okay because it is indirect response to an accusation. I chose not to respond to yours and hold you strictly to the topic.

You can't see the difference?

Samantha

04-14-2007, 10:41 AM

do you actually belive you can convince me to agree with you by insulting me....how do you know it was not an accident? how do you know what they e-mails were about....have you read the article?I don't have any fantasies about convincing you of anything. If reality has not already convinced you by now, you'll probably continue to believe what your right wing biased websites and news entertainers tell you.

Gunny

04-14-2007, 10:47 AM

I don't have any fantasies about convincing you of anything. If reality has not already convinced you by now, you'll probably continue to believe what your right wing biased websites and news entertainers tell you.

There was nothign right wing about what he said. I think he asked how you can presume to know documents existed if they don't exist?

Samantha

04-14-2007, 10:57 AM

There was nothign right wing about what he said. I think he asked how you can presume to know documents existed if they don't exist?It comes from reading the news (google news) and listening to the news (NPR) and watching the news. It comes from watching the White House Press Secretary on C-Span talking about the emails that have been deleted from the RNC server by Rove and 22 others. If you would like to learn about it, you can do the same ;) If you don't want to find out about what's going on, keep watching FOX talk about Imus and Anna Nicole, keep reading right wing biased websites like the one manu posted.

But then don't complain when folks like me, who spend the time to post the interesting stuff, get impatient with folks like you who don't read it, but post in the thread asking questions that are answered in the opening posts.

Gunny

04-14-2007, 11:20 AM

It comes from reading the news (google news) and listening to the news (NPR) and watching the news. It comes from watching the White House Press Secretary on C-Span talking about the emails that have been deleted from the RNC server by Rove and 22 others. If you would like to learn about it, you can do the same ;) If you don't want to find out about what's going on, keep watching FOX talk about Imus and Anna Nicole, keep reading right wing biased websites like the one manu posted.

But then don't complain when folks like me, who spend the time to post the interesting stuff, get impatient with folks like you who don't read it, but post in the thread asking questions that are answered in the opening posts.

You're right. It's much better to just listen to whatever left-wingnut biased crap you put out here and take it as gospel because witchhunting Democrats who were out of their bounds to begin with say so.

Before you presume to chastise me thinking you sound all cool, perhaps you should take the time to look at what I posted. I merely clarified for you want Manu posted since apparently your learning disorder rendered you incapable of absorbing any information that doesn't fit neatly into your programmed soundbyte.

If people like you WOULD post something interesting instead of the usual left-wingnut rhetoric, people like me who've seen and heard all the same crap over and over wouldn't get impatient with people like you who buy whatever the left sells hook, line and sinker.

You may not know me, but I've read enough of your posts elsewhere and I got you pegged for what you are. If you wish to debate, we can. If you want to play the nasty, condescending bitch, I've got a rude awakening for you.

manu1959

04-14-2007, 11:22 AM

It comes from reading the news (google news) and listening to the news (NPR) and watching the news. It comes from watching the White House Press Secretary on C-Span talking about the emails that have been deleted from the RNC server by Rove and 22 others. If you would like to learn about it, you can do the same ;) If you don't want to find out about what's going on, keep watching FOX talk about Imus and Anna Nicole, keep reading right wing biased websites like the one manu posted.

But then don't complain when folks like me, who spend the time to post the interesting stuff, get impatient with folks like you who don't read it, but post in the thread asking questions that are answered in the opening posts.

your presumtions that people like gunny and I do not have the same facts as you, do not read the same documents and sources as well as the ones you do not read or watch is arrogant and presumptious....

all i did was ask you a simple question....if they know what e-mails they all deleted that would mean they have copies and the fact that he deleted e-mails is tilting at windmills.....if they do not have copies....then how do they know he deleted anything.....if he admited to deleting them thinking someone was filing them as that is standard practice then it was an accident....

you have yet to prove intent.....intent is wadding up original documents and stuffing them in your shorts....

if you don't want what you say questioned or you logic challenged then don't respond to me...

Samantha

04-14-2007, 11:34 AM

Do you believe the White House spokeswoman? Is she a left wing site? LOL!

White House: Millions of e-mails may be missing

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Millions of White House e-mails may be missing, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino acknowledged Friday.

"I wouldn't rule out that there were a potential 5 million e-mails lost," Perino told reporters.

The administration was already facing sharp questions about whether top presidential advisers including Karl Rove improperly used Republican National Committee e-mail that the White House said later disappeared.

This is what I mean. If you guys don't want to know this stuff, why are you on a political discussion board? I post it for you. You deny it. Why are you here? You don't even need to wait for me to post it. You can go to google, click news and see it for yourself! But instead, you'd rather pretend it isn't happening?

White House: 'We screwed up'
Perino's disclosure about the White House e-mail comes a day after she admitted that the White House "screwed up" by not requiring e-mails from Republican Party and campaign accounts to be saved and was also trying to recover those e-mails.

Perino said 22 aides in the political arm of the president's office use party or campaign e-mail accounts, which were issued to separate official business from political work. Some of those accounts were used to discuss the December firings of eight federal prosecutors, a shake-up that has triggered a spreading controversy on Capitol Hill.

Congressional investigators have questioned whether White House aides used e-mail accounts from the Republican Party and President Bush's re-election campaign for official government business to avoid scrutiny of those dealings.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused the White House of trying to hide messages on the Republican Party system related to the firing of the U.S. attorneys, which has stirred up a hornet's nest on Capitol Hill.

"You can't erase e-mails, not today," said Leahy, D-Vermont. "They've gone through too many servers. They can't say they've been lost. That's like saying, 'The dog ate my homework.' " (Watch Leahy compare e-mails to Nixon tapes )

Leahy said the e-mails would have remained on party or campaign computer servers, and he compared the situation to the famous 18½-minute gap in one of the Watergate tapes.

"They're there," he said. "They know they're there, and we'll subpoena them, if necessary, and we'll have them."

Perino told reporters that the e-mails from those accounts should have been saved, but said policy has not kept pace with technology. She said computer experts were trying to retrieve any records that have been deleted.

"We screwed up, and we're trying to fix it," she told reporters.http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/

Samantha

04-14-2007, 11:36 AM

The Dog Ate My Homework (http://edition.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/politics/2007/04/12/sot.leahy.missing.email.cnn&wm=10)

manu1959

04-14-2007, 11:40 AM

Do you believe the White House spokeswoman? Is she a left wing site? LOL!

This is what I mean. If you guys don't want to know this stuff, why are you on a political discussion board? I post it for you. You deny it. Why are you here? You don't even need to wait for me to post it. You can go to google, click news and see it for yourself! But instead, you'd rather pretend it isn't happening?

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/

you didn't read a word i wrote.....gunny's analysis of you is spot on....

she said "may" have lost and they made a mistake...that they were trying to recover the e-mails....why don't you wait and see what they can and can not revover.....and find the intent to purposley destroy things....then you can have your witch burning party.....you worry too much....politicians always deliver themselves....they can't help it.....hell name one that hasn't been guilty of something stupid in the last 100 years....

Gunny

04-14-2007, 11:41 AM

Do you believe the White House spokeswoman? Is she a left wing site? LOL!

This is what I mean. If you guys don't want to know this stuff, why are you on a political discussion board? I post it for you. You deny it. Why are you here? You don't even need to wait for me to post it. You can go to google, click news and see it for yourself! But instead, you'd rather pretend it isn't happening?

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/

Aren't you the one that called the Pelosi thing a "non-issue?"

This rates right below it. It would rate right below it if it happened while Clinton was President.

You, as are the Dems and left in general, trying to make mountains out of molehills.

Why do you post on a political message board? You aren't trying to discuss anything. You're merely attemtping to pile on perpetuating the extreme left myth that any and everything President Bush and each an devery person in his administration can do no right, and each and ever thought and action is for nefarious reasons.

It's a load of horseshit. Simple as that.

Samantha

04-14-2007, 11:55 AM

manu1959

04-14-2007, 12:04 PM

Gunny

04-14-2007, 12:08 PM

Manu asks how I know emails are missing. I post a story about the White House spokeswoman saying millions of emails are missing.

Emails regarding the Plame investigation. Emails regarding the Gonzales hearings.

Emails that are supposed to be kept as government documents, by law, are missing. Just like those 18 minutes of Nixon tape were missing...and we all know how that ended.

But it's OK if you want to cover your eyes and ears and pretend it isn't happening. That won't make it stop. I'll keep paying attention as many other Americans and people from all over the world will.

You don't have to learn about what's going on, but you should at least be honest and admit it's happening.

Going to continue the condescending bitch routine, huh? I got news for you, if a partisan hack like you told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside and look before I believed you.

The woman said the White House -- meaning the admin folks in the White House -- screwed up with improper recordkeeping. Let's hang them, shall we?

I'm not pretending it isn't happening. I'm putting it in proper perspective of what is and is not actually important. Watching you left-wingnuts attempt to blame this on Bush by implication which over time you will attempt to pass off as fact is just the same old-same old. Y'all just jump from overly-sensationalized, fabricated turmoil to the next.

What REAL impact does an administrative error of this nature have on the future of the US? None. Wht impact does this administrative error have on partisan politics? Depends on what it looks like when y'all get done twisting it around.

CockySOB

04-14-2007, 01:13 PM

While this post is not specific to the PRA of 1978, it does relate to the type of information technology functions which could allow e-mail to be deleted whether on purpose, or by accident.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/13/us_gov_security_audit/

Frankly, the article highlights the fact that the IT practices in the government are only marginally passable, something I agree with wholeheartedly. What I find hypocritical is that our government demands that citizens and businesses adhere to standards of practice which the government won't or can't hold itself to. BTW, this was one of my arguments against Sarbanes-Oxley. The technology exists in the commercial sector to handle this type of high-volume document management, but it requires proper implementation and adoption of practices enterprise-wide, and some means of ensuring that the practices are enforced.

CockySOB

04-14-2007, 01:15 PM

Kathianne

04-14-2007, 01:16 PM

Karl Rove has been deleting his email. There are 18 days of missing emails in the Gonzales attorney firing case. Karl Rove's lawyer says he didn't mean to delete the emails.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/13/ap3610452.html

Like we believe anything Karl Rove says. LOL!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3037893&page=1

Karl Rove's ability to delete his emails was officially shut off in 2005 during the Fitzgerald investigation into the CIA agent leak.

Now all of their emails are officially stopped from being deleted. It's about time. These crooked bastards need to be uncovered.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301022_3.html

Wow, this sounds a lot like the Berger/Clinton problem, the one with socks, scissors, paper.

Both are wrong, as was the 18 minutes of Rosemary Woods erasing tape...

manu1959

04-14-2007, 02:22 PM

Samantha

04-14-2007, 02:27 PM

manu1959

04-14-2007, 02:30 PM

this is an interesting read...http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2007/030107relyea.pdf

100 says....bush and co say they have recovered all the documents ... then claim executive privledge and the 12 year rule ..... so in the end it will make no difference if the y did or did not delete them .... now were are those notes to monica..............

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 02:34 PM

What REAL impact does an administrative error of this nature have on the future of the US? None. Wht impact does this administrative error have on partisan politics? Depends on what it looks like when y'all get done twisting it around.

Actually LOTS,

Most rational people will suspect that it wasn't administrative error but obstruction of justice that caused critical evidence to be "lost".

Esp since it was against the law to lose it.

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 02:39 PM

I'm also curious, has anyone ever been prosecuted for violating the Presidential Records Act? I only ask because that was the line of defense some chose to use when discussing Pelosi's trip to the ME.

Cute CSOB.

The Logan act was a 1799 act that has never been used in 208 years. It was drug out to fabricate an excuse for finding Pelosi guilty while she did something that is a common practice.

The presidential records act was drafted in the 70's specifically to keep presidents from shredding evidence of their crimes.

It was based on that exact scenario just having occured.

We have evidence of white house crimes, we have top level WH appointments guilty of obstruction of justice and lying to grand juries.

We have 16 days of critical e-mails "missing".

What are people to think? That that was just an accident?

Esp when losing the records was against the law?

Libby lied and said he "forgot".

The e-mails were "lost" do you see a pattern here?

Samantha

04-14-2007, 02:42 PM

manu1959

04-14-2007, 02:43 PM

Cute CSOB.

The Logan act was a 1799 act that has never been used in 208 years. It was drug out to fabricate an excuse for finding Pelosi guilty while she did something that is a common practice.

The presidential records act was drafted in the 70's specifically to keep presidents from shredding evidence of their crimes.

It was based on that exact scenario just having occured.

We have evidence of white house crimes, we have top level WH appointments guilty of obstruction of justice and lying to grand juries.

We have 16 days of critical e-mails "missing".

What are people to think? That that was just an accident?

Esp when losing the records was against the law?

Libby lied and said he "forgot".

The e-mails were "lost" do you see a pattern here?

actually the logan act was explored several diffent times with several differnet people but no charges have ever been bought against anyone....presidential papers are not evidenec and can be protected under executive priveledge, nation security etc....go read the two links i posted....if w doesn't want ya to have them...after he finds them of course...you won't get them.....

manu1959

04-14-2007, 02:45 PM

Can we see a source for your claim that Bush and co say they have recovered all of the documents?

how you get that from this continues to explain quite a bit....

100 says....bush and co say they have recovered all the documents...

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 02:47 PM

actually the logan act was explored several diffent times with several differnet people but no charges have ever been bought against anyone....presidential papers are not evidenec and can be protected under executive priveledge, nation security etc....go read the two links i posted....if w doesn't want ya to have them...after he finds them of course...you won't get them.....

Don't count on Executive priviledge holding up.

It isn't in the constitution, it has never been upheld by the Supreme court and has no basis in law at this time.

Oh, and the last president who tried was Nixon in an almost identical situation and he lost.

If Bush really does claim exec priviledge his presidency is headed right for impeachment.

Kathianne

04-14-2007, 02:50 PM

Cute CSOB.

The Logan act was a 1799 act that has never been used in 208 years. It was drug out to fabricate an excuse for finding Pelosi guilty while she did something that is a common practice.

The presidential records act was drafted in the 70's specifically to keep presidents from shredding evidence of their crimes.

It was based on that exact scenario just having occured.

We have evidence of white house crimes, we have top level WH appointments guilty of obstruction of justice and lying to grand juries.

We have 16 days of critical e-mails "missing".

What are people to think? That that was just an accident?

Esp when losing the records was against the law?

Libby lied and said he "forgot".

The e-mails were "lost" do you see a pattern here?

I don't usually do this, but in this case it was like nails on chalkboard. I couldn't even read for content:

http://www.grammarerrors.com/grammar.html

drug/dragged

Drug is often used as the past tense of drag, as in the following example:

Example: I drug myself out of bed this morning.

The past tense of drag is actually dragged, not drug. This error is particularly common in speech. Even Bill Clinton once made this blunder on national television, returning to bad habits he developed as a youth growing up in Arkansas.

Remember that the word drug should never be associated with any kind of pulling action. It should only be used when referring to some type of medicinal substance.

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 02:53 PM

I don't usually do this, but in this case it was like nails on chalkboard. I couldn't even read for content:

http://www.grammarerrors.com/grammar.html

You feel better now?

manu1959

04-14-2007, 02:53 PM

Don't count on Executive priviledge holding up.

It isn't in the constitution, it has never been upheld by the Supreme court and has no basis in law at this time.

Oh, and the last president who tried was Nixon in an almost identical situation and he lost.

If Bush really does claim exec priviledge his presidency is headed right for impeachment.

the documents are not required to be turned over to the archives till after he leaves office not before....and i recall there is a tweleve year grace period and there are a list of documents he is not required to turn over and .... you didn't read the law or the congressional testimony form 02 did you?

Kathianne

04-14-2007, 02:55 PM

You feel better now?

and will you refrain from such breaches now? Good lord!

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 02:55 PM

the documents are not required to be turned over to the archives till after he leaves office not before....and i recall there is a tweleve year grace period and there are a list of documents he is not required to turn over and .... you didn't read the law or the congressional testimony form 02 did you?

The documents were subpoenaed by CONGRESS Manu.

This has nothing to do with archives.

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 02:56 PM

and will you refrain from such breaches now? Good lord!

I have forgotten at least half of what I once knew about grammar. I can't help myself.

Samantha

04-14-2007, 02:59 PM

manu1959

04-14-2007, 03:04 PM

The documents were subpoenaed by CONGRESS Manu.

This has nothing to do with archives.

...under what law are they being subpoenaed under? and for what case?

manu1959

04-14-2007, 03:07 PM

Nevermind loosecannon, manu isn't comprehending the issue at all apparently.

It seems he refuses to take the time to read the news articles I've posted. He's off in another world of archives.

:rolleyes:

insults again....all yall are such a polite group....

what documents are you after from the pres.....under what statute are you entitled to them.....which court has confirmed your right to the documents you request ....

tell you what ... turn over the famous cigar and i will help you get what you are after....

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 03:09 PM

...under what law are they being subpoenaed under? and for what case?

The case is the congressional oversight of the Judiciary committees into firing of US prosecutors for political purposes.

You really want me to find the constitutional phrase that authorizes Congressional oversight?

What do I win for doing your foot work and being right?

The allegagtion is that the WH lost documents it is supposed to keep based on a 1970's law.

The WH admits to having broken the law "accidentally".

Are you just trying to jerk my chain Manu, or are you a little lost?

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 03:12 PM

insults again....all yall are such a polite group....

what documents are you after from the pres.....under what statute are you entitled to them.....which court has confirmed your right to the documents you request ....

tell you what ... turn over the famous cigar and i will help you get what you are after....

Manu, you should probably be made aware that the WH already delivered most of the subpoenaed documents weeks ago but failed to deliver a few weeks worth spanning Thankgiving.

So apparently the WH already believed that they are obligated to turn them over.

They are probably just stalling until after Gonzo testifies.

More obstruction of justice (dept).

Samantha

04-14-2007, 03:12 PM

Kathianne

04-14-2007, 03:13 PM

Funny how libs lack nuance when it's not in their favor.

Gunny

04-14-2007, 03:24 PM

Actually LOTS,

Most rational people will suspect that it wasn't administrative error but obstruction of justice that caused critical evidence to be "lost".

Esp since it was against the law to lose it.

Au contrare .... most rational people who know anything about US government bureaucracy would suspect that some lazy-ass, bureaucratic lifer suckin gup on government pay was doing his/her usually barely-marginal best to punch a clock and collect a check.

You are also in err in calling e-mails concerning firings that have never been questioned before "critical evidence." Until the Dem witchhunt decided to once again attempt to usurp the authority of the executive branch and stick its nose in where it doesn't belong, it was just more paper stacking up somewhere that some lazy-ass files clerk decided losing was much easier than filing.

Have had the misfortune of being "rewarded" for a successful tour on the drill field and incarcerated in DC for a couple of years, I saw shit like that every day.

And that was when Clinton was President.

manu1959

04-14-2007, 03:27 PM

He's lost.

Nevermind.

I post lots of information and he comes back with strange posts about stuff that has nothing to do with it and then he asks questions that are already answered by the news stories.

I think it's a tactic to hijack the thread because he doesn't want to discuss the Republican corruption.

i can read the news stories....i asked both of you a simple logic question...i asked you your opinion....all you ever do is parrot back news stories and draw conclusions i can't make....when i ask you insult me....can you both not see that if and or when your party holds the house senate and pres....this type of behaviour will not push you all much above 51%...you may be in charge but the country will still be split 51% - 49% .....

as for gonzales...he is an idiot...should be fired....

bush...can't listen to him speak....

chenny....that dude is cool in my book...but he should have stayed in the private sector....

rove...dr evil.....but so was that twit that was with clinton that is now trying to bury hillary because she called him a jew....

if you want to convince people that you percive are less inteeligent than you you should really change your tactics

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 03:29 PM

Au contrare .... most rational people who know anything about US government bureaucracy would suspect that some lazy-ass, bureaucratic lifer suckin gup on government pay was doing his/her usually barely-marginal best to punch a clock and collect a check.

You are also in err in calling e-mails concerning firings that have never been questioned before "critical evidence." Until the Dem witchhunt decided to once again attempt to usurp the authority of the executive branch and stick its nose in where it doesn't belong, it was just more paper stacking up somewhere that some lazy-ass files clerk decided losing was much easier than filing.

Have had the misfortune of being "rewarded" for a successful tour on the drill field and incarcerated in DC for a couple of years, I saw shit like that every day.

And that was when Clinton was President.

Except for a few things Gunny.

It only happened to Rove's e-mail, and it happened while Rove's e0mail was illegally routed thru a served owned by the GOP.

They are going down, take my word on it. Rove is burnt toast.

manu1959

04-14-2007, 03:31 PM

The case is the congressional oversight of the Judiciary committees into firing of US prosecutors for political purposes.

You really want me to find the constitutional phrase that authorizes Congressional oversight?

What do I win for doing your foot work and being right?

The allegagtion is that the WH lost documents it is supposed to keep based on a 1970's law.

The WH admits to having broken the law "accidentally".

Are you just trying to jerk my chain Manu, or are you a little lost?

excellent post i will pos rep you as soon as i can...

Samantha

04-14-2007, 03:32 PM

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 03:34 PM

i can read the news stories....i asked both of you a simple logic question...i asked you your opinion....all you ever do is parrot back news stories and draw conclusions i can't make....when i ask you insult me....can you both not see that if and or when your party holds the house senate and pres....this type of behaviour will not push you all much above 51%...you may be in charge but the country will still be split 51% - 49% .....

as for gonzales...he is an idiot...should be fired....

bush...can't listen to him speak....

chenny....that dude is cool in my book...but he should have stayed in the private sector....

rove...dr evil.....but so was that twit that was with clinton that is now trying to bury hillary because she called him a jew....

if you want to convince people that you percive are less inteeligent than you you should really change your tactics

Interesting.

Well I have stated my opinions and what the news has been reporting for weeks,

what matters is the law and the courts and the committees in Congress.

Watch the Congress and learn. Bush is now officially wading into the deep shit.

manu1959

04-14-2007, 03:43 PM

Interesting.

Well I have stated my opinions and what the news has been reporting for weeks,

what matters is the law and the courts and the committees in Congress.

Watch the Congress and learn. Bush is now officially wading into the deep shit.

bush will escape....the rest of his folks are toast.....congress is smart enough to know that if they take out the pres in a time of war ..... then we are well and truely fucked .... because it will just be 51 49 the other way .... someone needs to eliminate both ends so it can be 10 80 10 ... either that or get used to this shit

manu1959

04-14-2007, 04:14 PM

sam + loose...here is an interesting tidbit from one of your articles...

" The dual e-mail system has been put in place to avoid any violations of the Hatch Act which prohibits the use of government assets for certain political activities. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3037893&page=1

this would seem to be SOP....clinton would have had to have had a dual system as well or they would have been in violation of the hatch act...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

at least on the dual email system looks like bush an co are guilty of complying with the law....

they may only be found guilty of bad filing.....at least on the document preservation thing

CockySOB

04-14-2007, 04:31 PM

Pelosi's diplomatic trip had something to do with record keeping? I think you are confused.

Don't be dense. Please, do try for me just this once.

I was drawing a comparison in perceived violations of the Logan Act and the Presidential Records Act. What is interesting, is that while specific penalties for violating the Logan Act are directly enumerated in the Act, no such enumeration of penalties exist for the Presidential Records Act. And I find it interesting that the same people who tried to dismiss Pelosi's violation of the Logan Act on the basis that no one had ever been indicted or convicted under the act are the ones now clamoring that GWB violated the Presidential Records Act and should be punished (or some such crapola).

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 05:46 PM

Don't be dense. Please, do try for me just this once.

I was drawing a comparison in perceived violations of the Logan Act and the Presidential Records Act. What is interesting, is that while specific penalties for violating the Logan Act are directly enumerated in the Act, no such enumeration of penalties exist for the Presidential Records Act. And I find it interesting that the same people who tried to dismiss Pelosi's violation of the Logan Act on the basis that no one had ever been indicted or convicted under the act are the ones now clamoring that GWB violated the Presidential Records Act and should be punished (or some such crapola).

CSOB,

When Nixon was subpoenaed by Congress for the WH tapes he refused. He invoked exec priviledge and a compromise was reached that he would hand over the tapes.

When he did they were heavily redacted and there were 18 minutes missing. So Congress sued the president to get the case heard by the SC.

Nixon said he would honor whatever decision the SC made as long as it was 'definitive".

So the judges heard the case and found for the senate, but it would have been a 5-4 decision which the court feared would not send a definitive message and a constitutional crisis would ensue.

The court made a unanimous ruling to avoid that and a few years later Congress passed a law to prevent the pres from ever again being in a position to lose, shred, redact, or just plain refuse to allow Congress to examine WH records when an investigation is warranted.

That is the background to this law.

This is the first time a pres has failed to deliver subpoenaed doc since the law was passed.

The Logan act has never been enforced even tho to varying degrees it has probably been broken dozens of times. NEVER in 208 years.

The analogy is weak.

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 05:57 PM

CockySOB

04-14-2007, 06:11 PM

CSOB,

When Nixon was subpoenaed by Congress for the WH tapes he refused. He invoked exec priviledge and a compromise was reached that he would hand over the tapes.

When he did they were heavily redacted and there were 18 minutes missing. So Congress sued the president to get the case heard by the SC.

Nixon said he would honor whatever decision the SC made as long as it was 'definitive".

So the judges heard the case and found for the senate, but it would have been a 5-4 decision which the court feared would not send a definitive message and a constitutional crisis would ensue.

The court made a unanimous ruling to avoid that and a few years later Congress passed a law to prevent the pres from ever again being in a position to lose, shred, redact, or just plain refuse to allow Congress to examine WH records when an investigation is warranted.

That is the background to this law.

This is the first time a pres has failed to deliver subpoenaed doc since the law was passed.

The Logan act has never been enforced even tho to varying degrees it has probably been broken dozens of times. NEVER in 208 years.

The analogy is weak.

A good post to be sure, loosecannon. That the kind of reasonable response that I can respect.

But I think your analysis of my analogy may be incomplete. While you did elaborate on the background of the Presidential Records Act, there is a similar background for the Logan Act which could be used to support the allegation that Pelosi violated law.

Again, thanks for the reasoned response. I tried to rep you, but I gotta spread it around first.

Gunny

04-14-2007, 06:15 PM

CSOB,

When Nixon was subpoenaed by Congress for the WH tapes he refused. He invoked exec priviledge and a compromise was reached that he would hand over the tapes.

When he did they were heavily redacted and there were 18 minutes missing. So Congress sued the president to get the case heard by the SC.

Nixon said he would honor whatever decision the SC made as long as it was 'definitive".

So the judges heard the case and found for the senate, but it would have been a 5-4 decision which the court feared would not send a definitive message and a constitutional crisis would ensue.

The court made a unanimous ruling to avoid that and a few years later Congress passed a law to prevent the pres from ever again being in a position to lose, shred, redact, or just plain refuse to allow Congress to examine WH records when an investigation is warranted.

That is the background to this law.

This is the first time a pres has failed to deliver subpoenaed doc since the law was passed.

The Logan act has never been enforced even tho to varying degrees it has probably been broken dozens of times. NEVER in 208 years.

The analogy is weak.

Really? Forgotten what this is all about have we? It's about Congress questioning the Cheif Executives right to hire/fire attorneys for whatever reason he chooses for the first time in 208 years.

Nailing someone for poor recordkeeping as a result is called throwing shit against the wall and seeing if it sticks.

The double-standard you have allpied in this thread compared to the Pelosi thread is obvious, and Cocky's nailed you dead to rights.

Funny thing ...y'all have been after Rove for this or that for 6 years. Nobody escapes the loony-lefy witch hunt once targetted, but who really cares? He'll just be relpaced by someone you probably hate more.

Gunny

04-14-2007, 06:18 PM

You're probably right manu. I just get very frustrated when it seems like people are posting stuff that has nothing to do with the issue and doesn't make any sense. I'm not patient enough. I admit that.

I'm also so fucking outraged about our corrupt government, it puts me in a bad mood. Maybe I should go dig in the garden for a while.

Cheers.

You couldn't possibly be more frustrated than I am with partisan witch hunting. Nothing more, nothing less. And people like you are the ones fanningthe flames.

When it's Pelosi, it's a "non-issue." When it's a Republican, "get the rope."

Sickening.

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 06:20 PM

Really? Forgotten what this is all about have we? It's about Congress questioning the Cheif Executives right to hire/fire attorneys for whatever reason he chooses for the first time in 208 years.

Nailing someone for poor recordkeeping as a result is called throwing shit against the wall and seeing if it sticks.

The double-standard you have allpied in this thread compared to the Pelosi thread is obvious, and Cocky's nailed you dead to rights.

Funny thing ...y'all have been after Rove for this or that for 6 years. Nobody escapes the loony-lefy witch hunt once targetted, but who really cares? He'll just be relpaced by someone you probably hate more.

It is about the presidents admin keeping a record of WH communique according to law.

And it is about the Congress's expectation that when they subpoena that info it will be delivered, according to law.

Gunny

04-14-2007, 06:35 PM

It is about the presidents admin keeping a record of WH communique according to law.

And it is about the Congress's expectation that when they subpoena that info it will be delivered, according to law.

Oh, you mean like is about the President stating Syria would not be negotiated with byt the US government until it met certain terms; which, the Speaker of the House, having no authority, took it upon herself to violate?

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that from all appearances so far, it looks like the WH admin screwed up.

I'm disagreeing with the artificially-inflated importance it's being given by the left. I'd like to go through the entire bureaucratic nightmare within the Ring Around the Congo and fire each and every bureaucrat/politician that is incompetent, but then, DC would look like Camp Matthews in SD, CA if I did.

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 08:58 PM

Oh, you mean like is about the President stating Syria would not be negotiated with byt the US government until it met certain terms; which, the Speaker of the House, having no authority, took it upon herself to violate?

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that from all appearances so far, it looks like the WH admin screwed up.

I'm disagreeing with the artificially-inflated importance it's being given by the left. I'd like to go through the entire bureaucratic nightmare within the Ring Around the Congo and fire each and every bureaucrat/politician that is incompetent, but then, DC would look like Camp Matthews in SD, CA if I did.

Look Gunny, whatever importance you may feel that the left is pumping into this you are probablly projecting your own feelings rather than really knowing what the left is doing.

Speaking for myself. I want those e-mails delivered because I want Bushco impeached asap for the good of the nation.

That is my sincere feeling.

I know Rove is dirty as sewer rat, we just need access to documents to prove it.

And it really IS NOT about parties.

It is about Bushco and the latest cadre of GOP power brokers being the most crooked, most destructive public officials in my life time.

Let us investigate and I guarantee you, within two years you will agree.

Dilloduck

04-14-2007, 09:17 PM

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 09:23 PM

Aren't YOU the one projecting your feelings a bit here? All you need is---proof? That should even sound a alarm to you.

No all I want is access to the data.

It has been well known for 4 years that Bush's team is dirty, but the GOP congress wouldn't do their job.

The Libby investigation got hamstrung by the DOJ (who serves at the pleasure of Bush) and the WH has stonewalled on releasing subpoenaed documents.

Access to the evidence, not prooof. We already know they are guilty beyond compare.

CockySOB

04-14-2007, 09:28 PM

CockySOB

04-14-2007, 09:29 PM

No all I want is access to the data.

It has been well known for 4 years that Bush's team is dirty, but the GOP congress wouldn't do their job.

The Libby investigation got hamstrung by the DOJ (who serves at the pleasure of Bush) and the WH has stonewalled on releasing subpoenaed documents.

Access to the evidence, not prooof. We already know they are guilty beyond compare.

:rolleyes:

Samantha

04-14-2007, 09:36 PM

A good post to be sure, loosecannon. That the kind of reasonable response that I can respect.

But I think your analysis of my analogy may be incomplete. While you did elaborate on the background of the Presidential Records Act, there is a similar background for the Logan Act which could be used to support the allegation that Pelosi violated law.

Again, thanks for the reasoned response. I tried to rep you, but I gotta spread it around first.Good post to you too. I'm glad to see there CAN be good discussion here. I'm interested in the background of the Logan Act, have you posted it in the Pelosi thread? If so, would you link me to it? She said she reiterated the Bush Admin's policy in Syria.

Really? Forgotten what this is all about have we? It's about Congress questioning the Cheif Executives right to hire/fire attorneys for whatever reason he chooses for the first time in 208 years.

Nailing someone for poor recordkeeping as a result is called throwing shit against the wall and seeing if it sticks.

The double-standard you have allpied in this thread compared to the Pelosi thread is obvious, and Cocky's nailed you dead to rights.

Funny thing ...y'all have been after Rove for this or that for 6 years. Nobody escapes the loony-lefy witch hunt once targetted, but who really cares? He'll just be relpaced by someone you probably hate more.

It's about the courts being independent of the government for the good of America's freedom. Al Qaeda wins if we lose our freedom. It's about throwing sand in the umpires eyes as Fitzgerald said Libby did by lying under oath. It's about throwing sand in the umpires eyes if the White House destroyed the emails.

Aren't YOU the one projecting your feelings a bit here? All you need is---proof? That should even sound a alarm to you.Everyone knows Rove's history as an underhanded dirty trick player.

There are lots of stories of his dishonesty. He stole letterhead and invited the homeless to an opponent's dinner party. He spread a rumor that Texas Governor Ann Richards was a lesbian. He outted a CIA agent's identity. Bush calls him Turd Blossom, a Texas term for a flower that grows from cow shit. When you know someone is guilty of a crime, you gather evidence to convict him. That is what investigations and hearings are for. That's what I will be watching on Tuesday night on C-Span.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1165126,00.html

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 09:53 PM

You seem to know something which hasn't been proven despite the GWB administration being under a microscope for how many years?

three months

Seriously, re-read what you posted and tell me you aren't assuming facts not in evidence.

Yes, the evidence has been kept out of the hands of congressional committees but news of the crimes has filled the news channels for 5 years. It actually began with the 2000 election.

Trust me or don't trust me at your expense: when the documentation and memoirs are all finally exposed the proof will be far more than beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Samantha

04-14-2007, 10:22 PM

Three months under the microscope is right! Cocky seems to have forgotten the Democrats inability to hold hearings and issue subpeonas during the past 6 years. They had meetings in small basement rooms with witnesses squeezed in and barely any room for cameras and press. Now they have the power to actually do some oversite.

Some people don't want to admit what's going on right before their eyes. The Bush admin is self destructing under the weight of deceit, greed and criminal activity.

CockySOB

04-14-2007, 10:37 PM

Samantha

04-14-2007, 10:41 PM

Actually, I was referring to Fitzpatrick's investigation of the Plame kerfluffle. So they've been under investigation for quite a bit longer than three months. Unless of course, you want to assert that Fitzpatrick was a "Bush-bot."I'll just assert what Fitzgerald asserted, that Libby's lies were like someone throwing sand in the umpire's eyes.

How can the umpire make the call with sand in his eyes?

It's a big cover up.

loosecannon

04-14-2007, 11:42 PM

Actually, I was referring to Fitzgerald's investigation of the Plame kerfluffle. So they've been under investigation for quite a bit longer than three months. Unless of course, you want to assert that Fitzgerald was a "Bush-bot."

You assert whatever you want about the plame kerfuffle if you give me the same liberty with the Kenneth starr investigation.

Here are some facts:

Fitzpatriot was appointed to the prosecution position by the Bush DOJ.

The scope of the investigation was set by the Bush DOJ

The investigation found Libby guilty of obstruction and lying

ALL of the principals in the trials were under gag order except the defendants, their lawyers and the witnesses. The Judges, jurists and prosecutors were all prohibited from speaking publicly about the investigation and trial.

Therefore the accused and the reporters involved in the leak had exclusive access to the media to make disclosures that those in the know were prohibited from contradicting

The gag order was so strictly enforced that during the press conference in which FitzPatriot announced the charges against Libby, his first public statement, there was literally a DOJ referee in the crowd giving him nods yes and nods no what questions he could and could not answer. It is in the transcripts of his public statement that he was actually asking that DOJ official for clarification about what he was permitted to say

Tack on the jury statements and you have a hamstrung investigation.

Now compare that to Kenneth Starr and compare the results.

Kenneth starr had no limits on his investigation, a $50 million budget, two years to conduct his investigation, full cooperation with the investigation and all they found was Clinton lying about a bj with a consenting adult of the opposite sex.

Libby lied to a GJ and the FBI about committing a felony.

Gunny

04-15-2007, 12:36 PM

Look Gunny, whatever importance you may feel that the left is pumping into this you are probablly projecting your own feelings rather than really knowing what the left is doing.

Speaking for myself. I want those e-mails delivered because I want Bushco impeached asap for the good of the nation.

That is my sincere feeling.

I know Rove is dirty as sewer rat, we just need access to documents to prove it.

And it really IS NOT about parties.

It is about Bushco and the latest cadre of GOP power brokers being the most crooked, most destructive public officials in my life time.

Let us investigate and I guarantee you, within two years you will agree.

Yeah, it's hard to figure out what the left is doing. Why is it EVERY time someone disagrees with you, it's that person's intellect that comes into question and not your obviously, extremist viewpoints?

If you think Bush & Co are the most corrupt, destructive officials in your lifetime, I'd have to guess you were born after the year 2000.

I won't agree with you for the basic reason that no matter how stupid or corrupt I believe the GOP to be, the DNC is a hundred times over worse, and it's agenda FAR more destructive than anything the GOP has done.

You need to bear in mind one simple fact when dealing with me .... the only political party I ever belonged to was the Democrat Party. I watched it destroy itself, and try to take this Nation down with it, an agenda it still clings to.

The "conservative" values I embrace used to be called "liberal." The idels haven't changes, just the label. Mostly, it just amounts to common sense and logic tempered with moderation. None of which do I see coming from the extremes of either side of the political spectrum.

Difference being, the Republican party is split right now necause moderate conservatives don't buy off on extremism. Liberals will put people like Pelosi and Reid in office, and Hillary in the White House just to grab power. The power is more important to y'all than any ideals.

And your statement it isn't about partisanship would be far more credible minus that bogus argument you made about Pelosi.

Kathianne

04-15-2007, 12:37 PM

Yeah, it's hard to figure out what the left is doing. Why is it EVERY time someone disagrees with you, it's that person's intellect that comes into question and not your obviously, extremist viewpoints?

If you think Bush & Co are the most corrupt, destructive officials in your lifetime, I'd have to guess you were born after the year 2000.

I won't agree with you for the basic reason that no matter how stupid or corrupt I believe the GOP to be, the DNC is a hundred times over worse, and it's agenda FAR more destructive than anything the GOP has done.

You need to bear in mind one simple fact when dealing with me .... the only political party I ever belonged to was the Democrat Party. I watched it destroy itself, and try to take this Nation down with it, an agenda it still clings to.

The "conservative" values I embrace used to be called "liberal." The idels haven't changes, just the label. Mostly, it just amounts to common sense and logic tempered with moderation. None of which do I see coming from the extremes of either side of the political spectrum.

Difference being, the Republican party is split right now necause moderate conservatives don't buy off on extremism. Liberals will put people like Pelosi and Reid in office, and Hillary in the White House just to grab power. The power is more important to y'all than any ideals.

And your statement it isn't about partisanship would be far more credible minus that bogus argument you made about Pelosi.

I'd rep you if I could!

loosecannon

04-15-2007, 12:41 PM

Gunny

04-15-2007, 01:00 PM

Excuse me Gunny but I didn't mention anybodies intellect in that post.

I stand corrected. You questioned by ability to observe objectively and correctly interpret what I have observed.

Look Gunny, whatever importance you may feel that the left is pumping into this you are probablly projecting your own feelings rather than really knowing what the left is doing.

loosecannon

04-15-2007, 01:06 PM

I stand corrected. You questioned by ability to observe objectively and correctly interpret what I have observed.

EXCUSE me, NOT.

I questioned your ability to discern the intents and relationship other posters have to "pumping up the importance of the topic".

You aren't God. Your assumptions about others intentions and investment in an issue are just your own wild assed guesses.

If you are gonna run around taking offense everytime somebody doesn't accept your perception of their internal relationship to the topic than you only have yourself to blame, get off the pity trip and drop the false accusations.

Mr. P

04-15-2007, 01:10 PM

I'd rep you if I could!

done

Gunny

04-15-2007, 01:33 PM

EXCUSE me, NOT.

I questioned your ability to discern the intents and relationship other posters have to "pumping up the importance of the topic".

You aren't God. Your assumptions about others intentions and investment in an issue are just your own wild assed guesses.

If you are gonna run around taking offense everytime somebody doesn't accept your perception of their internal relationship to the topic than you only have yourself to blame, get off the pity trip and drop the false accusations.

Perhaps you need to step back and make use of the oxygen for a few minutes?:laugh2:

I expressed my opinion as being nothing other than my opinion, and my asssumptions as nothing more than assumptions. If you think I have any emotion invested in some politically-driven extremism over-sensationalizing something stupid besides complete and utter contempt, then I would say your judgement of people is about as good as your judgement of politics.

glockmail

04-15-2007, 02:11 PM

....

The law is about documents. Emails are documents. Not necessarily, and not unless specifically mentioned.

manu1959

04-15-2007, 02:15 PM

Not necessarily, and not unless specifically mentioned.

link at post 53

§ 2201. Definitions

As used in this chapter--
(1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memorandums, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio, audiovisual, or other electronic or mechanical recordations.

e-mails are covered....

Kathianne

04-15-2007, 02:15 PM

done

Thank you!

loosecannon

04-15-2007, 02:26 PM

Perhaps you need to step back and make use of the oxygen for a few minutes?:laugh2:

I expressed my opinion as being nothing other than my opinion, and my asssumptions as nothing more than assumptions. If you think I have any emotion invested in some politically-driven extremism over-sensationalizing something stupid besides complete and utter contempt, then I would say your judgement of people is about as good as your judgement of politics.

You do not have a right to project that other people are impuning your intelligence because you assume the ability to discern their intents.

Got that Gunny?

IOW you were presenting another fallacious argument. And you got busted again.

Gunny

04-15-2007, 02:59 PM

You do not have a right to project that other people are impuning your intelligence because you assume the ability to discern their intents.

Got that Gunny?

IOW you were presenting another fallacious argument. And you got busted again.

I have the right to think and say whatever the Hell I want and you can go suck eggs for all you can do about it.

Got THAT?

As I have previously stated elsewhere on the board where you continue to attempt to justify your intellectual dishonesty, obvious intent speaks for itself. Attempting to deny something is what it is is where the bullshit factor comes into play.

manu1959

04-15-2007, 02:59 PM

You do not have a right to project that other people are impuning your intelligence because you assume the ability to discern their intents.

you do not not have the right to tell me what my response to your words can be .... words have meaning ....

i get to pick my response .... you chose the words ... live with the response you get .... if you do not like the response pick different words ..... but don't call me a stupid fuck and then tell me your intent was to be something other than an eltist prick

manu1959

04-15-2007, 03:03 PM

I have the right to think and say whatever the Hell I want and you can go suck eggs for all you can do about it.

Got THAT?

As I have previously stated elsewhere on the board where you continue to attempt to justify your intellectual dishonesty, obvious intent speaks for itself. Attempting to deny something is what it is is where the bullshit factor comes into play.

no shit .... "kerry klowns" ... they call you bushbots ... tell you to keep up ... then claim you don't understand nuance and intent .... all becasue they believe they are part of the master race from the land of "intelligencia" ...then they are agast when everyone does not bow down and fall in line .... who wants to follow an arrogant rude leader

glockmail

04-15-2007, 08:35 PM

manu1959

04-15-2007, 08:36 PM

Hey- I'm playing the liberal game here!

It doesn't say email. :laugh2:

yes one could argue electronic recordings are not e-mails....

glockmail

04-15-2007, 08:56 PM

yes one could argue electronic recordings are not e-mails....
It depends on what the meaning of "is", is. :coffee:

Samantha

04-15-2007, 09:05 PM

Kathianne

04-15-2007, 09:06 PM

Good catch, well done.

That's not the liberal game, that's the neocon game. Dishonesty.

The last is your interpretation, some might disagree.

Samantha

04-15-2007, 09:11 PM

The last is your interpretation, some might disagree.Someone disagrees that neocons are dishonest? LOL! After Rummy, Gonzales, Libby, Rove, Bush, Cheney, Abramoff, Delay....and on and on.....who claims that? HAHA!!!

Kathianne

04-15-2007, 09:19 PM

Someone disagrees that neocons are dishonest? LOL! After Rummy, Gonzales, Libby, Rove, Bush, Cheney, Abramoff, Delay....and on and on.....who claims that? HAHA!!!

Well in context: Carter, Clinton, Berger, Dianne S. Carter, John E. Burkett, William Elco Carter, Henry G. Cisneros, Mike Espy, Billy R. Dale..ha, ha, ha!

glockmail

04-16-2007, 07:34 AM

....

That's not the liberal game, that's the neocon game. Dishonesty. That's not been my experience. Liberals constantly move the goal posts, demand all kinds of proof, and then still never admit they are wrong. Case in point" Al Sharpton and the Duke lacrosse players.

loosecannon

04-16-2007, 10:11 AM

CREW is releasing stories that indicate the WH lost over 5 million e-mails between 03 and 05.

And they are claiming that the WH deliberately violated the records act.

Promises by the WH to recover the lost docs have so far not been honored.

The clock is ticking on this admin.

Gunny

04-16-2007, 10:34 AM

manu1959

04-16-2007, 10:36 AM

Samantha

04-16-2007, 10:51 AM

Well in context: Carter, Clinton, Berger, Dianne S. Carter, John E. Burkett, William Elco Carter, Henry G. Cisneros, Mike Espy, Billy R. Dale..ha, ha, ha!I don't even know who half of those people are. They must not have been in high ranking positions as the ones in the Bush admin are.

glockmail

04-16-2007, 10:53 AM

Samantha

04-16-2007, 11:02 AM

That's not been my experience. Liberals constantly move the goal posts, demand all kinds of proof, and then still never admit they are wrong. Case in point" Al Sharpton and the Duke lacrosse players.Speaking of never admitting they were wrong, there are more powerful people doing just that and they are all neocons.

glockmail

04-16-2007, 11:09 AM

.....neocons. Didn't get the memo on that. :dunno:

Samantha

04-16-2007, 11:09 AM

Didn't get the memo on that. :dunno:Do you need a memo to watch the news?

loosecannon

04-16-2007, 12:05 PM

So they get 5000 emails/ day and you expect them to keep every one? :slap:

The law says they must.

loosecannon

04-16-2007, 12:07 PM

what are they basing that claim on?

I dunno Manu, since the story just broke yesterday I am waiting for it to get fleshed out by more news outlets.

But the gist of what i get from the first report is a consistent pattern of violating the law.

Baron Von Esslingen

04-16-2007, 01:12 PM

what are they basing that claim on?

By the fact that most of the communications that members of this WH did concerning gov't business was not done on the WH email system but rather the RNC email system and they did not keep the records required by law. The RNC system was intended to be used for personal communication. Bush officials used it for business which is against the law covering the records. ALL communication done on behalf of the government has to be saved. Don't tell me that Rove, et al, were not aware of that stipulation. It won't float.

glockmail

04-16-2007, 01:57 PM

Do you need a memo to watch the news? Apparently this neocon army that you envision lurking under your house does.

glockmail

04-16-2007, 01:57 PM

The law says they must. We have already established that's not true.

loosecannon

04-16-2007, 10:40 PM

We have already established that's not true.

False

Samantha

04-17-2007, 12:37 AM

Apparently this neocon army that you envision lurking under your house does.They are not under my house, they are in OUR White House.

We have already established that's not true. The Presidential records act requires that they keep all coorespondance. Rove violated that act by deleting his emails.

manu1959

04-17-2007, 01:20 AM

They are not under my house, they are in OUR White House.

The Presidential records act requires that they keep all coorespondance. Rove violated that act by deleting his emails.

rove calims sop was the were being copied and filed so it was not intentional....that is his claim anyway....someone will need to find the smoking gun e-mail that tells everyone to delete everything...

my question is this...what is the penalty for this?

manu1959

04-17-2007, 01:22 AM

By the fact that most of the communications that members of this WH did concerning gov't business was not done on the WH email system but rather the RNC email system and they did not keep the records required by law. The RNC system was intended to be used for personal communication. Bush officials used it for business which is against the law covering the records. ALL communication done on behalf of the government has to be saved. Don't tell me that Rove, et al, were not aware of that stipulation. It won't float.

you are aware that they are required, by law, to have two systems due to campaign contribution laws

Baron Von Esslingen

04-17-2007, 03:10 AM

you are aware that they are required, by law, to have two systems due to campaign contribution laws

...and you are aware that ALL communications are to be achived and kept and if they are not then a violation of the law has occurred? Rove will undoubtedly get some pimply-faced kid at the RNC to fall on the sword this time around for failing to save his communications just like Libby did in Plamegate. Hey, whatever.

glockmail

04-17-2007, 10:26 AM

....

The Presidential records act requires that they keep all coorespondance. Rove violated that act by deleting his emails.

link at post 53

§ 2201. Definitions

As used in this chapter--
(1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memorandums, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio, audiovisual, or other electronic or mechanical recordations.

e-mails are not covered....

CockySOB

04-17-2007, 10:36 AM

link at post 53

§ 2201. Definitions

As used in this chapter--
(1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memorandums, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio, audiovisual, or other electronic or mechanical recordations.

e-mails are not covered....

E-mail could fall under either "correspondence" or "documents" especially with the clarification of "electronic...recordations" later in the definition. However the law was written before the Internet can into prominence and e-mail with it. Other laws have required amending to cover new technology, and to be honest I would expect that this law should also be updated to clarify intent against modern and developing technologies.

What I'm saying is that the wording can be argued ably from both standpoints, and without either a SCOTUS ruling or amending legislation from Congress, there is no clear-cut answer.

glockmail

04-17-2007, 10:47 AM

E-mail could fall under either "correspondence" or "documents" especially with the clarification of "electronic...recordations" later in the definition. However the law was written before the Internet can into prominence and e-mail with it. Other laws have required amending to cover new technology, and to be honest I would expect that this law should also be updated to clarify intent against modern and developing technologies.

What I'm saying is that the wording can be argued ably from both standpoints, and without either a SCOTUS ruling or amending legislation from Congress, there is no clear-cut answer. Exactly. And with one poster pointing out that the WH gets over a million/ year, most of which are obviously junk, and the technology did not exist to store all that crap until recently, and if you could, would it be considered "retrievable"? There's a lot of issues and the WH should get the benefit of doubt afforded any defendant. That is, unless you are a Liberal hack intent on "getting" Karl Rove any way possible.

Hey Libs: why not have some balls, and go after the guy with a 9mm handgun? :laugh2:

CockySOB

04-17-2007, 10:51 AM

Exactly. And with one poster pointing out that the WH gets over a million/ year, most of which are obviously junk, and the technology did not exist to store all that crap until recently, and if you could, would it be considered "retrievable"? There's a lot of issues and the WH should get the benefit of doubt afforded any defendant. That is, unless you are a Liberal hack intent on "getting" Karl Rove any way possible.

Hey Libs: why not have some balls, and go after the guy with a 9mm handgun? :laugh2:

Another clarification to the Presidential Records Act should be a section detailing penalties for violating the act, something which is conspicuously absent.

glockmail

04-17-2007, 11:34 AM

Another clarification to the Presidential Records Act should be a section detailing penalties for violating the act, something which is conspicuously absent. If Liberal, look the other way. If Karl Rove: crucify!

Baron Von Esslingen

04-18-2007, 01:49 AM

glockmail

04-18-2007, 07:40 AM

What do you think emails are if not electronic recordations? When the law was written "electronic recordation" referred to tapes. Algore hadn't yet invented email. :laugh2:

Baron Von Esslingen

04-18-2007, 09:04 AM

glockmail

04-18-2007, 09:10 AM

and you missed the part that said "but not limited to" in addition to electronic recordations....how? They go together and it means emails, just like it meant it for Clinton. If this administration is THAT stupid to not realize that, they deserve everything they get."One poster point[ed] out that the WH gets over a million/ year, most of which are obviously junk, and the technology did not exist to store all that crap until recently, and if you could, would it be considered "retrievable"? There's a lot of issues and the WH should get the benefit of doubt afforded any defendant. That is, unless you are a Liberal hack intent on "getting" Karl Rove any way possible." :laugh2:

loosecannon

04-18-2007, 11:16 AM

When the law was written "electronic recordation" referred to tapes. Algore hadn't yet invented email. :laugh2:

So what, the laws clear intent is to catch all and it does specifically mention electronic recordations.

There is no loop hole.

Sure it should be shored up. But if you bet your ass that a court will not uphold it's inclusiveness of e-mails you will never be able to sit down again.

This is pretty cut and dry.

loosecannon

04-18-2007, 11:19 AM

"One poster point[ed] out that the WH gets over a million/ year, most of which are obviously junk, and the technology did not exist to store all that crap until recently, and if you could, would it be considered "retrievable"? There's a lot of issues and the WH should get the benefit of doubt afforded any defendant. That is, unless you are a Liberal hack intent on "getting" Karl Rove any way possible." :laugh2:

Look BONEHEAD. The God damned law wasn't written so that it could be broken just because some admin was too incompetent, disinterested, or crafty to honor it.

It's the damned law fur christ sakes.

The BA either follows it for once or they get rectified. (nice pun)

manu1959

04-18-2007, 11:21 AM

So what, the laws clear intent is to catch all and it does specifically mention electronic recordations.

There is no loop hole.

Sure it should be shored up. But if you bet your ass that a court will not uphold it's inclusiveness of e-mails you will never be able to sit down again.

This is pretty cut and dry.

eletronic mail is different than electronic recordings...a simple google search will prove that....

my questions is this .... what is the penalty for not keeping records? .... also are you required to keep records from the required paralle e-mail account relating to GOP issues...as you can not use white house 'funds" for political things....forget what the act is (found it...hatch act) but it casued the two systems to be in place

Baron Von Esslingen

04-18-2007, 12:35 PM

"One poster point[ed] out that the WH gets over a million/ year, most of which are obviously junk, and the technology did not exist to store all that crap until recently, and if you could, would it be considered "retrievable"? There's a lot of issues and the WH should get the benefit of doubt afforded any defendant. That is, unless you are a Liberal hack intent on "getting" Karl Rove any way possible." :laugh2:

Paranoia runs deep over on the right side lately...

This isn't about Rove. It's about the emails used in the firings of the eight USAs. The fact that Rove hasn't made sure his emails have been saved merely adds to a fire already going. Had he kept his emails the way the law said he was supposed to, none of this would have happened. It's his own fault and I hope they DO hang him out to dry for it, It will teach the next bunch to be better stewards of their jobs.

manu1959

04-18-2007, 02:15 PM

Paranoia runs deep over on the right side lately...

This isn't about Rove. It's about the emails used in the firings of the eight USAs. The fact that Rove hasn't made sure his emails have been saved merely adds to a fire already going. Had he kept his emails the way the law said he was supposed to, none of this would have happened. It's his own fault and I hope they DO hang him out to dry for it, It will teach the next bunch to be better stewards of their jobs.

the law does not say one must save your emails...it says you need to presrve documents relating to the running of the country....he belived that the admin staff was saving these e-mails and filing them same as previous administrations.....they will hang not him....

glockmail

04-18-2007, 03:57 PM

glockmail

04-18-2007, 03:58 PM

Look BONEHEAD.... It appears that you have lost the argument, having resorted to name calling. :laugh2:

glockmail

04-18-2007, 04:00 PM

Paranoia runs deep over on the right side lately...

This isn't about Rove. It's about the emails used in the firings of the eight USAs. The fact that Rove hasn't made sure his emails have been saved merely adds to a fire already going. Had he kept his emails the way the law said he was supposed to, none of this would have happened. It's his own fault and I hope they DO hang him out to dry for it, It will teach the next bunch to be better stewards of their jobs.

Clinton fired ALL his USAs, which is fine 'cuz they serve at his pleasure.

The law does not require emails to be saved.

CockySOB

04-18-2007, 08:03 PM

Look BONEHEAD. The God damned law wasn't written so that it could be broken just because some admin was too incompetent, disinterested, or crafty to honor it.

It's the damned law fur christ sakes.

The BA either follows it for once or they get rectified. (nice pun)

Just curious, but what was your reasoning that the Logan Act wouldn't be applied to Pelosi's trip? Wasn't your reasoning that it wouldn't be applied because it had never been applied before in over what... since it's creation? Why was the Logan Act written if not to be enforced?

See, this is the kind of double-speak mentality which screams "partisan!" And yes, Glock is partisan in some of his reasoning (just as we all are to some degree). But, that doesn't explain what I see as obviously contradictory opinions coming from you?

Side note: while comparing the two laws and the individual actions which contravene those laws, we should also look at the laws themselves and notice that one law (Logan Act) includes specific penalties for violating the law while the other (Presidential Records Act) does NOT include any specific penalties. The conclusion I draw is that violating the Logan Act is to be considered a more serious offense than a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

CockySOB

04-18-2007, 08:05 PM

the law does not say one must save your emails...it says you need to presrve documents relating to the running of the country....he belived that the admin staff was saving these e-mails and filing them same as previous administrations.....they will hang not him....

But someone in his administration, or perhaps in the Whitehouse IT department could be royally screwed here.

loosecannon

04-18-2007, 08:13 PM

The intent of a law means relatively nothing, as it is open to interpretation. Words matter. There is a lot of gray.

The intent of the law is actually very important and persuasive to courts. Esp higher courts.

The law says electronic communication. No gray area there.

Bewsides your argument was based on intent, you said that the law was written with respect to taped communications. (it may not have been you who said that, if I am mistaken my apology)

loosecannon

04-18-2007, 08:14 PM

It appears that you have lost the argument, having resorted to name calling. :laugh2:

Appearances can be decieving

loosecannon

04-18-2007, 08:20 PM

Just curious, but what was your reasoning that the Logan Act wouldn't be applied to Pelosi's trip? Wasn't your reasoning that it wouldn't be applied because it had never been applied before in over what... since it's creation? Why was the Logan Act written if not to be enforced?

See, this is the kind of double-speak mentality which screams "partisan!" And yes, Glock is partisan in some of his reasoning (just as we all are to some degree). But, that doesn't explain what I see as obviously contradictory opinions coming from you?

Side note: while comparing the two laws and the individual actions which contravene those laws, we should also look at the laws themselves and notice that one law (Logan Act) includes specific penalties for violating the law while the other (Presidential Records Act) does NOT include any specific penalties. The conclusion I draw is that violating the Logan Act is to be considered a more serious offense than a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

First off only the WH or perhaps the president can violate the records act.

Which means they can not be punished at all except by impeachment. Which appears to be the exact intention of the law since it was legislated in response to Nixon's initial refusal to honor congressional subpoenas.

The assumption of importance is simply your speculation. Since the pres can not be sentenced any penalty beyond impeachment is moot.

Second the Logan act apparently was an ill crafted law written within a few years of the nations founding.

You can surely apply it to Pelosi if you wish, but please apply it to Reagan and Gingrich and dozens of other congress critters who have violated it.

Pelosi will however NOT be found guilty because she did not violate the Logan act. I brought that point up to demonstrate the partisan desperation of her accusers.

Did you have another question or another insult you wanted to share?

manu1959

04-18-2007, 08:28 PM

Baron Von Esslingen

04-18-2007, 08:28 PM

Clinton fired ALL his USAs, which is fine 'cuz they serve at his pleasure.

And there are laws which must be followed when they are let go. It appears that some of those laws may have been broken by the AG.

The law does not require emails to be saved.

We just showed you a few posts ago that they must because that's what "but not limited to" makes reference to. You will be shocked if someone gets hung out to dry for it, won't you?

loosecannon

04-18-2007, 08:43 PM

look at you .... all polite and stuff and with the absolute opinions and no facts.....

Then challenge one of those opinions and risk being shown up.

manu1959

04-18-2007, 09:09 PM

Then challenge one of those opinions and risk being shown up.

here is your list of claims and opinions back it up with facts.....

1. First off only the WH or perhaps the president can violate the records act.

2.Which means they can not be punished at all except by impeachment. Which appears to be the exact intention of the law since it was legislated in response to Nixon's initial refusal to honor congressional subpoenas.

3. The assumption of importance is simply your speculation. Since the pres can not be sentenced any penalty beyond impeachment is moot.

4. Second the Logan act apparently was an ill crafted law written within a few years of the nations founding.

5. You can surely apply it to Pelosi if you wish, but please apply it to Reagan and Gingrich and dozens of other congress critters who have violated it.

6. Pelosi will however NOT be found guilty because she did not violate the Logan act. I brought that point up to demonstrate the partisan desperation of her accusers.

7. Did you have another question or another insult you wanted to share?

CockySOB

04-18-2007, 09:54 PM

First off only the WH or perhaps the president can violate the records act.

Which means they can not be punished at all except by impeachment. Which appears to be the exact intention of the law since it was legislated in response to Nixon's initial refusal to honor congressional subpoenas.

The assumption of importance is simply your speculation. Since the pres can not be sentenced any penalty beyond impeachment is moot.

Second the Logan act apparently was an ill crafted law written within a few years of the nations founding.

You can surely apply it to Pelosi if you wish, but please apply it to Reagan and Gingrich and dozens of other congress critters who have violated it.

Pelosi will however NOT be found guilty because she did not violate the Logan act. I brought that point up to demonstrate the partisan desperation of her accusers.

Did you have another question or another insult you wanted to share?

Insult? What insult? Not sure what you're talking about there, but it's OK - I mistook another poster's comment for yours and jumped, so if you did the same thing I certainly couldn't hold it against you.

That said, as I read the PRA, the responsibility of the maintenance of the records lies with the POTUS or VPOTUS respectively, while in office. As such if the e-mails qualified as "documentary materials" the ultimate responsibility for the loss of the e-mails would lie with either GWB or Cheney.

I say "if the e-mails qualified" because official records of an agency (as defined in 5 USC 522e) might place those e-mails into the property of the DoJ for archival and maintenance. (Let the blame game commence, eh?) If this is the case, then the DoJ would be responsible for maintaining such records and the e-mails should be retrievable through the DoJ servers. If the DoJ failed in this maintenance, then you've got more ammunition to go after AG Gonzales.

So no matter how it gets cut, this is a problem for GWB administration, either at the POTUS/VPOTUS level, or at the AG/DoJ level.

loosecannon

04-18-2007, 10:14 PM

Insult? What insult? Not sure what you're talking about there, but it's OK - I mistook another poster's comment for yours and jumped, so if you did the same thing I certainly couldn't hold it against you.

That said, as I read the PRA, the responsibility of the maintenance of the records lies with the POTUS or VPOTUS respectively, while in office. As such if the e-mails qualified as "documentary materials" the ultimate responsibility for the loss of the e-mails would lie with either GWB or Cheney.

I say "if the e-mails qualified" because official records of an agency (as defined in 5 USC 522e) might place those e-mails into the property of the DoJ for archival and maintenance. (Let the blame game commence, eh?) If this is the case, then the DoJ would be responsible for maintaining such records and the e-mails should be retrievable through the DoJ servers. If the DoJ failed in this maintenance, then you've got more ammunition to go after AG Gonzales.

So no matter how it gets cut, this is a problem for GWB administration, either at the POTUS/VPOTUS level, or at the AG/DoJ level.

OK, it is messy, the DOJ should not be in this mix. This should fall within WH staff domain.

And the law should be shored up to explicitly state e-mails.

Just between you and me, I think the BA has the means, technical support and energy to fulfill this laws requirements.

I can imagine a reason why they would lax it off while only the GOP is exercising oversight.

I trust the BA like I trust botulism

CockySOB

04-18-2007, 10:27 PM

OK, it is messy, the DOJ should not be in this mix. This should fall within WH staff domain.

And the law should be shored up to explicitly state e-mails.

Just between you and me, I think the BA has the means, technical support and energy to fulfill this laws requirements.

I can imagine a reason why they would lax it off while only the GOP is exercising oversight.

I trust the BA like I trust botulism

Government at large typically fails to adhere to the standards it "requires" from the citizenry. It's not just the GWB administration, but ALL of our government. However, government is the fox guarding the hen-house, and as I've said before - I don't trust ANY of the professional politicians.

Realistically, implementing best industry practices is doable, but with that implementation we would be removing the loopholes which politicos regularly use to get around the "feel-good" laws they implement. And we all know how politicians love their loopholes....

We really need to overhaul our laws and update them for modern technology and changing practicalities. We also should have redundancies in our official communications wherein in the instance that we are talking about communication between two government entities, both entities have the responsibility of maintaining their own archives.

glockmail

04-19-2007, 05:53 AM

The intent of the law is actually very important and persuasive to courts. Esp higher courts.

The law says electronic communication. No gray area there.

Bewsides your argument was based on intent, you said that the law was written with respect to taped communications. (it may not have been you who said that, if I am mistaken my apology) According to you earlier, the law uses the term "electronic recordations". Now you say it staes "electronic communication". Which is it?

glockmail

04-19-2007, 05:54 AM

Appearances can be decieving To the lesser mind, yes. To impartial observers, no.

glockmail

04-19-2007, 05:59 AM

....

We just showed you a few posts ago that they must because that's what "but not limited to" makes reference to. You will be shocked if someone gets hung out to dry for it, won't you? No I won't be shocked. It is par for the course for weak kneed republicans. We Patriots, Conservatives, however, would fight the Liberals much more fervently.