What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
91 Comments
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+169Yeah, those dern liberals in Congress think they have the right to read the private emails of the White House staff. I mean, come on, it's not like there's an actual law that says Congress has the right to subpoena official communications of White House personnel even when they're not on the official White House servers...
Oh wait... There is.
That pesky Presidential Records Act section 2206 part 2! http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002205----000-.html - JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+92dewhead,
They wouldn't be in this mess if not for the fact that White House staffers were using political email accounts specifically to try to hide them from Congress. Too bad for them the country found out. - flernk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+69Close, but no cigar.
Section (a)1 doesn't apply because there was never an Executive order (or any order of any kind) pertaining to the RNC emails. Further, the White House insists that nothing classified or that might jeopardize national security was discussed in these insecure emails (which would be illegal), so issuing an Executive order would expose more than it solves.
Section (a)2 doesn't apply because the information can't be restricted after the fact. They can't now simply pick and choose which information can and can't be released under subpoena. Also, the RNC emails share none of the inherent privilege of the White House emails. If the information was intended to be kept private, it would have been sent through the White House systems where the Presidential Records Act could have kept them secret.
Section (a)3 doesn't apply because no statue exists.
Section (a)4 simply doesn't apply to this case.
Section (a)5 doesn't apply because RNC emails can't be considered "confidential." The RNC emails were deliberately used by White House staff because it is a public, not a private, service.
Section (a)6 also simply doesn't apply to this case.
None of Section (b) applies because the Archivist was never given access to these records (which is why they were using the emails addresses to begin with and why these emails are now subject to subpoena).
Again, Section (c) doesn't apply because the Archivist was never given copies of the emails.
Section (d) doesn't apply because President Bush is alive and well.
Section (e) doesn't apply because President Bush is still the President.
I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch, but I'm pretty sure the Administration is in what they call "hot water." We wouldn't even be talking about this if they had simply followed the rules to begin with and used the White House email instead of trying to circumvent the law by using the RNC emails.
By the way, what, exactly, will Democrats lose if they "tread lightly?" - Hillsfar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+56HYPOCRITES
The White House said the RNC accounts were being used to separate political activity from official White House activity. They even made a big honkin' deal about why they had separate e-mail systems: to be complaint with the Hatch Act.
Now the White House is saying that it wants the RNC e-mails first. That there "exists a clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest." They're practically invoking the big gun of Executive Privilege here.
Except RNC e-mails can't really fall under Executive Privilege if it was being used to comply with the Hatch Act, can it? If you want more details, look at flernk's reply to dewhead below, in "Close, but no cigar."
Let's just say they want to hide e-mails - or at least be prepared to spin e-mails - before Congress gets them. - airwalkery2k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51There is a clear indication that Karl Rove was actively seeking penis enlargement pills--as a wide variety of people were sending him different ways to do so.
- davewashere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+49Some good points there, flernk.
The White House is really caught in a catch-22. If they release the emails, they will likely reveal something the WH did not want everybody to know. Maybe even some illegal or impeachable activity. If they claim that releasing the emails is a national security risk, or something to that effect, then they are admitting that they were using RNC email accounts for sensitive official matters. The only option they have is to claim that the RNC email accounts were not used for any official business. The evidence clearly shows that is not the case, which is why they were subpoenaed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38The ***** is your problem? You know damn well if the tables were turned the same event would unfold.
Its a clear sign of the times that this administration hides a ***** of information and ***** they shouldn't be getting away with. - flernk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31The tables were turned, and they chose to impeach the President (and are still talking about it... it was their shining moment after all). When conservatives do it, it's "oversight." When liberals do it, it's "a fishing expedition."
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30This is BS. The White House lost the right to invoke executive privilege when they went outside government channels to hide what they were doing. Congress has every right to demand access to emails on RNC servers, the RNC in this case is just another service provider, they should get no special consideration.
- Jerim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29What I don't understand is why there is isn't more outrage. I was on Bush's side up until a year ago, at which point is just suddenly became clear that this man has no respect for the rule of law in this nation. Bush basically gets to do what he wants to do and isn't afraid to admit it. Yet nothing happens. True, he won't be in power much longer so most probably just figure it is best to not rock the boat; but honestly, how much can a president get away with? I was a conservative Republican during the Clinton years, and I was one of the ones believing that Clinton should resign. I now long for the days when the worst thing the president did was have sex in the oval office.
This president literally doesn't give a crap about your or me, or anyone in America. If he did, he would fight to protect our individual rights, and the constitution. Yet, he does none of that. Seriously, what has Bush done on the domestic agenda? Has he addressed affordable insurance? Has he done anything about off shoring jobs? Has he done anything about the widening gap between the rich and the poor? Has he done anything on immigration? No. He basically just fights his war which I am not against, and says to hell with the rest of the nation. I am just saddened to see a president who so clearly has no sense of duty to his fellow citizens get away with what he is doing. Not only get away with it, but who goes to great lengths to get away with it, and not a single person or entity ever challenges him on it. - lunasunshine, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32@ dewhead
you can not seriously believe that... can you? - Dustin00, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Give copies to BOTH at the same time.
- Caffeinate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Liberals? Oh wow, is it only "liberals" pushing this issue? Arlen Specter...I thought he was a Republican, and he has repeatedly, before the "liberals" took office, said that there needs to be oversight of the president by Congress.
Wow, and Arlen Specter, a Republican, had his name at the bottom of the subpoena, and at the bottom of the order questioning the loss of the email (which apparently isn't lost anymore, I guess?).
Okay, so what is a liberal? I've heard people complaining about Nancy Pelosi as "the liberal" that went to Syria, and she had three Republicans with her. I guess they were liberals, too?
I thought when people talked about liberals, that they meant Democrats. I guess now they just mean anybody that tries to fulfill their duties in their elected positions to Congress to provide a check and balance to the Executive Branch, and anyone that supports members of Congress doing their Constitutional duty. It sounds like this whole country was founded on "liberal" politics! - NotAChickenHawk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23I agree with you, but remember that we're talking with the same Whitehouse that ignores the truth whenever it suits them. Iraq still has something to do with 9/11, the Mission has been accomplished, we're winning, Gonzales did nothing wrong, Brownie's doing a heckuva job, and on and on it goes. These guys could say with a straight face that water is dry and then get away with it.
So when you use logic to say that either they used the RNC email accounts for official business and therefore violated some law, or they didn't use those email accounts for official business and therefore executive priv. doesn't extend to those accounts, there is a third possibility. Granted, this possibility exists only in the never-never land reality that Bush & co. exist within. And, it is a possibility that, in their minds at least, lets them completely off the hook, that they will insist is valid no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, and they'll probably get away with it.
I hate what they've done to my country. - mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25The solution is DON'T LIE IN THE FIRST PLACE, then you won't get caught lying.
Additionally, NOTHING in the Constitution or Amendments grant anyone the authority to lie.
This is why I, in some small way, feel sorry for Monica Goodling. Here she is, a Jesus Freak who really BELIEVES, getting caught up in the rock-and-roll lifestyle of the professional political whore, and ends up breaking the law.
Must really suck when you *learn* that you're nothing but another Political Whore, and you've sold out your personal religious beliefs... - eangel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Yes dewhead, it is a ploy. A ***** ploy to GET THE WHITE HOUSE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW that flernk stated.. It's unfortunate that the white house doesn't believe in laws, and that these "ploys" are necessary. Sorry for shouting.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19b b but clinton!
- Rsulliv1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Some people call it a fact-finding expedition
- MrFlesh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Gee this doesn't look like ann act of guilt or anything does it? The white house says they lost them...OOPS!!! Silly us. Then they go to the RNC for server records and now the White House wants to see them first? If that doesn't scream "we're trying to cover our tracks" Nothing does. Why don't they court order the records and then get the white house on obstruction of justice?
- Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21FWIW: I've voted both ways, and generally conservative.
I absolutely believe the emails should be examined properly. What's the point of oversight if it just drives everyone to other servers or communication methods? - flernk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Well that's a refreshing change of pace. In an attempt to be "funny," you just admitted (or at least implied) that the RNC broke the law. Good on ya, mate. I agree!
- byronm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Thanks for sharing your real opinion. While i'm no republican i gave you a hands up because we need more people like you. The few good things from the Bush administration (and i mean FEW) do not excuse the insurmountable pile of bile they have yuked all over the country. I'm all for lower taxes, improving things, streamlining things, making adjustments, trying out different ways to solve our problems but the only thing the Bush administration has done is made more problems to begin with.
Still borrowing from SS without the means to pay back, still inflating the cost of oil for profit, still fighting a war with no plan, still ignoring local social/economical issues and claiming everything is fine. (yes, the economy is fine if your wealthy or don't mind siting on half a million dollars of debt float)
oh well. i'll just agreee with you on the simple fact you recognize a problem when you see it and just because you carry the redcard doesn't mean you have to pretend your oblivious to your own problems as well :) - bigturns, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14These two, posts found at the bottom of the orig link, nailed it...
OK - lemme see if I can get this straight:
Congress: we want to see your emails
White House: no, executive privelege
C: we see that some emails were RNC
WH: that was to avoid the Hatch Act, so people could do political, non-govt work
C: OK, then let's see the RNC emails
WH: no, there "exists a clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest"
Do I have that straight?
Posted by: Sholom
Date: April 17, 2007 04:48 PM
Uh, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if the WH is claiming "a clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest" in the emails, then doesn't that amount to a de facto admission of violation of the Hatch Act?
That is, if the RNC emails *weren't* constitutive of off-the-books policy transactions or political activity on WH time, then they wouldn't be of any material WH interest, right?
Posted by: The Confidence Man
Date: April 17, 2007 04:50 PM - physphd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Sorry, bud, the White House has already stated that no offical business was conducted in these emails, so what right do they have to see them first now? Further, if they don't intend to redact or withold any info, why do they need to see them first? If they do get them, how can they possibly inspect millions of messages in a timely manner? This is only an attempt to stall until the elections.
Stop mindless partinsan fanboyism and respect the rule of law. - LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15The current government in the USA is pissing me off quite a bit:
"You can do whatever you want but we'll confiscate, veto, and use executive priviledge to stop you from learning anything wrong we've done".
Why allow investigations to even begin when you tamper it so much that conconclusions cannot be made? What next, bringing this into court? "Oh ya, that uhh... evidence you have? We'll need to look at it first. *looks at it* Ya this won't be allowed, ashamge your case rested on it, got anything else? We'll need to see that too" - physphd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Of course, thcobbs, it's called discovery and must be given to ALL parties in as timely a manner as possible. The defense does not get to control dissemination of evidence the prosecution has already discovered exists. "Sure, just let me wipe off my fingerprints and I'll let you see it." Come on, son.
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Oh, Charlotte. You're always wrong. It's awesome.
First, although they will issue a subpoena (to use the force of law to make sure the White House complies), Congress is not required to issue a subpoena just to request documents. They are allowed access to these files as part of their ongoing investigation. They are lawmakers. They can do this.
Second, Bush and his administration have made it quite clear that they won't even comply with a legal subpoena. Case in point: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003027.php . By law, these emails must be turned over to Congress. Their stalling tactics are only digging a deeper hole.
You can be proud of Bush all you want, but the law is clear and he's trying to break it. - InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15[quote]The RNC should contact Sandy Burglur, he is very skilled at making documents disappear.[/quote]
Nice try, but Sandy Burger was caught taking *copies* of the documents from the national archives. He left the originals in place. He was later charged and convicted of mishandling classified data.
If you're going to try to justify Bush's corruption by screaming "b.b.b.but Clinton!", you need to get your facts straight first.
[quote]They don't have to. They already have an expert from the Nixon Administration, Cheney, to help them out with that.[/quote]
Don't forget Karl Rove was there too. - Caffeinate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15"The RNC should contact Sandy Burglur, he is very skilled at making documents disappear." -KDX200Rider
They don't have to. They already have an expert from the Nixon Administration, Cheney, to help them out with that. - shm1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Sheesh - the US is now visibly as corrupt as the "third world" countries that the US govt. wants to "educate."
- Caffeinate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Even my ultra-conservative family members don't believe a thing Bush&Co says anymore, are suspicious of everything the White House does, and they voted for him!
Sorry to let the Bush apologists know this, but whatever credibility the White House had is long gone, even among staunch Republicans. There has been way too much smoke coming from the White House for there not to be a fire. The Bush PR machine must have some interesting meetings these days, trying to somehow keep public focus off of the presidency while trying to garner support. They have to know that the attempts at stalling and of diverting attention aren't working anymore; Bush, Cheney and every one of them are complete failures. The public is tired of them making a spectacle of our country.
I'd bet that if they introduced impeachment next month, while the staunch Republicans may not vote for it, most of them wouldn't object or vote against it, either. Bush&Co have nearly finished the USA off, and it's time for them to go. - PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15if you by tread lightly, you mean don't investigate in case you want to go nutz when you're in power and do whatever they hell you want without fear of oversight or thoughts of morality, i don't think you have anything to worry about....behaviour like this in the upper levels of government will be an isolated incident.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11No criminal charges have been filed yet, so there are no defendants. So they can't claim the right of discovery.
BTW: It's amusing that you cite the right of the defendant to know the charges and evidence against him when Bush has gone out of his way to decimate those very same rights. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11wow, the White House really dug its own grave this this time... Hopefully they stay in it!
- Hillsfar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Re: HYPOCRITES post
Ugh, I meant "compliant" with the Hatch Act, not "complaint." - eangel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11dewhead: "but this whole email thing is about the firing of US Attorneys which is perfectly okay to whether it was politically motivated or not"
This is where the Bush apologists fall flat. Just because it may have been legal does not make it okay. This sort of action is still highly unethical, which is why the House and Senate just voted overwhelmingly (329-78 and 94-2 respectively) to make these sort of firings illegal without Senate approval, back to the way things were before the "Patriot" Act. Using and pressuring the law enforcement to attack your political enemies is tyrannical.. i can't say it any nicer than that. These attorneys prosecuted over 200 Democrats and but only under 40 Republicans, yet they still weren't loyal enough to Bush. Following the firings, the AG, the man heading the Justice Dept., the man who is OUR prosecutor, not Bush's prosecutor, lied about the reasons for the firings. Now we are to understand the the White House did not comply with the Presidential Records Act, a law passed in response to Nixon's missing 18 1/2 min of tape, to make sure such a travesty never occurs again.
I'm sorry that Bush and his apologists have completely abandoned such obvious and basic ethics, and as a result have no understanding of these egregious attacks on the United States. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Indeed. There also exists a clear and indisputable public interest in the emails and the ***** they're trying to pull with this.
- zestyhedgehog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8What kind of "Executive Branch interest" may exist outside of the executive branch's communication system? Sorry, but from the moment you logged in to your RNC email account you lose all of your executive branch privileges.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Oh wow Geoffy, you must not have been alive when Newt Gingrich was still an important person.
- toastertester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7this is truly ridiculous...
Hopefully the mainstream media takes note of this and brings it to the forefront. So far, there is hardly even anything online about this. - dingxisxgood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9All bow before King Cheney and Queen Rove. All laugh at Court Jester Bush.
- ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7charlotte you are great, i swear it is so much fun arguing with you
i dont think anyone said anything about not having a supena and if congress wants it they can and will get it
this is about bush saying
BUSH and co. : we ummm lost somewhere around 100 emails a day for 3 years
CONGRESS: no you didnt, they are on some server somewhere, we will supena all servers that might have the info we want to get
Bush and co. : UMMM well, since i guess maybe we didnt lose it, eventhough we thought we did heh heh heh but yeah we want to have access to these files before you do (so we can put up the black tape)
thats how its going down
educate yourself - okaroleo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8They'll just loose them again. lol
- Caffeinate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I too, wish that sex in the Oval Office was the worst crime committed. It's small potatoes compared to robbing us of our rights, ignoring the Constitution and violating the Geneva convention.
I think there hasn't been as much outrage because the media hasn't covered it. People don't know half of the things that Bush has done and gotten away with, because it hasn't been shown. Once people know the facts, presented in a non-partisan straightforward manner, they start to realize just how damaging this administration has been to our country. The fact that they are Republicans doesn't even matter, as many of the Republicans in Congress are beginning to wake up, too.
We, as the people of the USA, need to send a message to the world and to every politician that runs for office is that this behavior is unacceptable. If we let them get away with the crimes they have committed against our country and our Constitution, we are just asking for someone else to do it again, but worse the next time. - lopla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is another Bush scandal that will be investigated by his own henchmen and deemed innocent. All hail the King!
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Executive Privilege, National Security, Plausible Deniability, the list goes on with no end in sight.
- BlueIndependent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They don't want to fulfill the request because if they do, half the administration will be brought up on charges, including at least No. 2. They cooked with gas and fire, and they knew it. And now that the truth is out and reality has come to roost, their air is running out.
Scoundrels deserve what they get, BushCo included. They've had no sympathy for the American system of government and justice. I shall not feel sympathy for them as they are fed the bitterest of humble pies. - squirpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah well don't get you're hopes up. There is a very good chance that they will grant her immunity in exchange for her testimony. But IMO that is a good thing. There are much larger fish to fry.
- dawg109, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If there is nothing to hide turn them over and let the chips fall where they may.
- stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Bad talking point.... too easy. They are screwed and now obstructing justice.
-
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is