Comments (39)

Crust wrote on April 11, 2007 6:41 PM:

Well, maybe if we can get a Democratic president their membership in the Republican National Lawyers Association can be a legitimate wedge to push them out of career positions at DoJ that are supposed to be non-partisan.

Dr. Wu wrote on April 11, 2007 6:52 PM:

Yep. Rove went double-or-nothing on the bet that there would never be another Democratic President. Once grownups take over the White House again, the wingnuts are going to be pretty easy to spot and purge.

RicK wrote on April 11, 2007 6:54 PM:

It's all about the elections. From the RLNA membership application:

Please answer the following questions. Your answers are not published.

Yes No Are you affiliated with the Republican Party?

Yes No Are you interested in volunteering on Election Day?

Yes No Do you have experience in election law?

Yes No Do you have experience in post-election recounts?

Yes No Are you willing to relocate to another state on or before election days?

Yes No Are you willing to assist preparing campaign position papers in areas of your expertise?

Yes No Are you interested in providing leadership to RNLA activities or chapters?

Yes No Are you willing to serve as advisor to a RNLA law school chapter?

Yes No Are you interested in either beginning or advanced election law training?

Yes No Would your firm or business consider becoming an RNLA sponsor?

Yes No Are you willing to speak, expenses reimbursed, before Republican Party groups?

Yes No Is all the information you have provided in this application true and accurate?

I agree with the RNLA Mission Statement.

justthetruth wrote on April 11, 2007 7:04 PM:

Nice piece but I don't believe that there is anything unlawful. Indeed, I don't believe there is even a question of ethics.

Something more substantive about wrongdoing is required before the Republican machines can be dismantled.

Theo wrote on April 11, 2007 7:26 PM:

"Justice Department lawyer Del Wright Jr. said he didn't see any problem with listing his work phone number on the [RNLA] Web site."

The only thing I find disturbing are those who don't see or acknowledge the potential conflict of interest issues raised by it.

Someone who can't recognize the problem is far more likely to cross the line to partisanship, whether intentionally or not.

Dabb wrote on April 11, 2007 7:27 PM:

You may be right, justthetruth. But it sure doesn't sound good...more like a conflict of interest under the present circumstances. Perhaps a "nonpartisan approach" would be better served by a mixture of Republican and Democrat writers. Bet there are no Democrats working at the DOJ.

PeeJ wrote on April 11, 2007 7:27 PM:

Why are you reporting this? They just fired a white bigot nobody watched at MSNBC. Get your priorities straight.

blogenfreude wrote on April 11, 2007 8:06 PM:

Very simple - make bar complaints to each and every state where they are a member.

Terri wrote on April 11, 2007 8:07 PM:

I am so angry, I can't see straight!!! This is the most corrupt and incompetent administration of all time. It is all politics and lies all the time.

THEY MUST BE IMPEACHED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peter Principle wrote on April 11, 2007 8:26 PM:

The Bush Justice Department, the Republican National Lawyers Association...who can tell the difference?

The Soviet Union and the Communist Party had much the same problem. (Now you know where Rove gets all his good ideas.)

DC Pol Sci wrote on April 11, 2007 8:33 PM:

Well, would you lookie here...

It appears that a "J. Christian Adams" is one of the attorneys on U.S. v. Ike Brown and Noxubee County, the case where the infamous Voting Section is suing to protect the voting rights of white people.

Anonymous wrote on April 11, 2007 8:34 PM:

Well, would you lookie here...

It appears that a "J. Christian Adams" is one of the attorneys on U.S. v. Ike Brown and Noxubee County, the case where the infamous Voting Section is suing to protect the voting rights of white people.

DC Pol Sci wrote on April 11, 2007 8:39 PM:

Sorry...the link didn't make it: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/brown.php

His name is on all the recent documents.

Slippery Slope wrote on April 11, 2007 8:42 PM:

Sorry...the link didn't make it: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/brown.php

*************

The link fails. Do you have another?

Slipper Slope wrote on April 11, 2007 8:45 PM:

Oh, sorry. Second attempt worked.

TheraP wrote on April 11, 2007 8:57 PM:

Some irony here - or would be if, under a Dem president, they simply continue the tradition - keeping Dem attorneys at the Republican National Lawyers Assoc. It's only fair!

Slippery Slope wrote on April 11, 2007 9:01 PM:

How many of the above reported 25 members who are employed by the DoJ are sitting USAs? And, how many sitting USAs or DoJ political appointees are former members of RNLA?

Ok… now going deeper. How many of the reported 150, or so, DoJ employees that are Regent University alumni are members of RNLA?

I’m sure there is no correlation.

PeeJ wrote on April 11, 2007 9:11 PM:

What gives the "bribe taker", Armstrong Williams the right to comment on morality?

Peace!

George wrote on April 11, 2007 9:26 PM:

Fire the lot of these traitors.

JD21 wrote on April 11, 2007 9:34 PM:

White House burying emails!

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/11/rnc-claims-it-lost-white-house-emails/#comment-3672059

WE HAVE GOT TO GET THOSE EMAILS. THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE COVERUP IS WORSE THAN THE CRIME. THE REPUBLICANS ARE TERRIFIED. THINK OF THE SERVERS WHERE THEY MAY STILL BE TEMPORARILY STORED OR BACKED UP! THINK THINK THINK!

ES wrote on April 11, 2007 9:54 PM:

Re: White House burying e-mails - Josh has a short post up on this now, with a link to the AP story.

Did the White House actually concede that the lost e-mails dealt with official White House business, or is that AP's gloss on the White House's statement? If this is what the White House actually said, I am alarmed that the administration would rather confess that some of its correspondence (which was, most unfortunately, I'm sure, "lost") was not kept in accordance with the Presidential Records Act than release those documents to any sort of scrutiny. This is, at the very least, an admission of significant sloppiness (dare I say, incompetence?) on the administration's part. I'm also alarmed that they would rather admit to being sloppy and incompetent about preserving those records, particularly after being instructed explicitly to handle them with care, than release them for scrutiny. One cannot help wondering: what in heaven's name are these guys hiding? Has this administration, which never makes mistakes actually admitted to two instances of incompetence in this one matter? There must have been some hot stuff in those memos!

One final question: who actually administers these accounts - the White House or the Republican Party? Is there any chance of recovering these e-mails by other means that don't depend on the White House? Perhaps Congress should check with the NSA or the FBI to see if they have copies?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 11, 2007 10:20 PM:

Quietly get the membership list and submitt everyone on it to the appropriate bar associations and get them all disbarred. This is more than a hobby.

Buck wrote on April 11, 2007 10:48 PM:

Just remember. Email doesn't disappear.
It hops to it's destination.

Just in time for spring and the hopping bunnies.

Fluffy wrote on April 11, 2007 11:12 PM:

I have enjoyed TPM's coverage of the Justice Department scandal, but you're overreaching here.

Personally, I would be more surprised by a lawyer seeking employment in government who did NOT belong to a professional organization associated with a party. Any party. Democrat, Republican, minor party. If you've got a law degree but are so totally nonpolitical that you don't belong to any partisan organization, and want to be employed in government, I think we need to check and make sure you weren't brainwashed by North Koreans after they caught you and Frank Sinatra during that patrol.

fatkat wrote on April 11, 2007 11:41 PM:

Josh...
U asked your readers to search for any news regarding the artical you wrote on TPM today, well I found something interesting...

This dates back to 2000...I am a legal researcher and when you want information you have to go back wards to go forward! I know you know this, but just wanted to state it! I will post more when I find it.

More options Mar 23 2000, 1:00 am
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
From: Bill Nalty
Date: 2000/03/23
Subject: Justice Department Begins Inquiry Into White House E-Mail: NYT
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/032400wh-email.html

The New York Times
March 24, 2000

Justice Department Begins Inquiry Into White House E-Mail

By DAVID JOHNSTON and MARC LACEY

ASHINGTON, March 23 -- The Justice Department has begun a criminal
investigation into whether White House officials illegally suppressed
large numbers of e-mail messages subpoenaed in investigations of Clinton
administration campaign fund-raising and other activities, documents
filed in Federal court disclosed today.

Investigators are also looking into accusations that White House
officials threatened employees of a non-government contractor if they
disclosed that the message were missing, according to the court papers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Another inquiry for a beleaguered White House.
------------------------------------------------------------------

The inquiry by the Justice Department's campaign finance unit started
after Republicans accused the White House of concealing private
electronic communications being sought by investigators in Congress, the
Justice Department, and the Independent Counsel's Office. The
investigators had sought White House e-mail messages dealing with
campaign fund-raising, Monica S. Lewinsky and other matters. The
attempts to obtain the electronic messages date as far back as 1996 in
some cases.

The Justice Department's filing in Federal District Court here, which
declared the department's intentions of carrying out the investigation,
said nothing about the e-mail messages. But in the court papers the
department contends a criminal investigation is justified because of the
possibility that some of the e-mail messages may have been relevant to
the investigations and may have been deliberately concealed.

The papers also refer to earlier documents filed in a civil suit in
which employees of Northrup Grumman, the company hired to maintain the
system, say that had been been pressured to remain silent about the
missing messages.

Two computer specialists working for Northrupt Grumman have testified
before Congress and said in depositions that they were threatened with
jail by White House officials if they disclosed d a glitch in the system
that would make it difficult, if not impossible, to ever retrieve any
messages.

The two workers said the threats were made in June 1998 amid the furor
of the Lewinsky case.

White House officials have denied there was any attempt to avoid
compliance with subpoenas and said that the problem was an inadvertent
computer glitch caused by malfunctioning systems that failed to properly
store all electronic messages written to presidential aides from outside
the White House.

"No one attempted to hide responsive information from this committee or
any other investigative body," Beth Nolan, the White House counsel, said
a prepared statement she had been scheduled to deliver today at a
hearing on the e-mail controversy before the House Government Reform and
Oversight Committee. Her appearance was postponed until next week.

The White House also denied threatening anyone in connection with the
e-mail messages but acknowledged an effort to keep the problem of the
missing communication from becoming public.

Although it had been known for weeks that the e-mail messages were
missing, today's opening of a criminal inquiry raised the seriousness of
the issue. It quickly spread into the presidential campaign, where Vice
President Al . Gore has already come under attack by Gov. George W. Bush
of Texas for his campaign fund-raising tactics. The content of the
missing messages related to Mr. Gore is unknown, but White House
officials that said the computer server in Mr. Gore's office had a
separate problem that might have caused e-mail messages there not to be
recorded properly.

In Florida for a fund-raising reception, Mr. Bush commented on the
e-mail controversy."This is a White House that needs to let the sun
shine in when it comes to campaign funding allegations," he said.

"I look forward to seeing where these e-mails are, what was in those
e-mails."

It remains unclear what, if any, sensitive information is contained in
the thousands of e-mail messages in question. One of contractor's
workers on the computer system, Betty Lambuth, has testified that a
colleague told her they were full of evidence dealing with the Lewinsky
controversy and a variety of other investigations, including Mr. Gore's
fund-raising. But the colleague, Robert Haas, denied today at a hearing
of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee that he had any idea
what was on the e-mail messages. The chairman of the committee is
Representative Dan Burton, Republican of Indiana.

Mr. Haas said he did search the e-mail accounts of several White House
aides to determine whether any messages from Miss Lewinsky had not been
stored properly. He said he found numerous such e-mail messages, which
he turned over to superiors, but White House officials said all of them
had been discovered by other means and sent along to the office of
Kenneth W. Starr, then the Independent Counsel.

The Justice Department review was disclosed today in legal documents
filed by the Justice Department's civil division, which is defending the
White House in the lawsuit over the e-mail. The suit was filed by a
frequent White House antagonist, Judicial Watch. The civil division has
asked Judge Royce C. Lambeth of Federal District Court to postpone
consideration of the civil case pending the outcome of the criminal
inquiry.

Robert Ray, who replaced Mr. Starr as the Independent Counsel, agreed
with the Justice Department's request.

In the government's legal papers, Robert J. Conrad Jr., the head of the
Justice Department's campaign finance unit, known internally as the Task
Force, said that prosecutors had recently learned of the accusations by
the contractor related to the malfunctioning automated records system.

"As a result of these allegations," Mr. Conrad said, "the Task Force has
begun an investigation into whether subpoenas issued" to the executive
office of the president by the Task Force "were fully complied with and
whether persons were threatened with retaliation in order to prevent the
existence of the affected e-mails from becoming known to the Task
Force."

Mr. Conrad did not indicate whether prosecutors had reached any
conclusions about the e-mail issue. Other law-enforcement officials said
today that investigators had not determined the content of the missing
e-mail or established whether anyone tried to intentionally suppress it.

At the hearing today before Mr. Burton's committee, a panel of Northrup
Grummond contractors who were hired to maintain the White House computer
system said the problem was caused when a server was mislabeled "MAIL2"
instead of "Mail2." That simple error in capitalization caused e-mail
messages not to be recorded properly for two years.

The contractors said they had fixed the problem so that all incoming
e-mail is now recorded in a form that makes the messages searchable. But
they have yet to find a way of searching through all the e-mail messages
from September 1996 to Nov. 20, 1998.

Daniel Barry, a White House computer specialist, said he first
discovered a problem in January 1998 when he found that some e-mail
messages from Miss Lewinsky, who was working at the Pentagon, to a White
House aide, Ashley Raines, had not been properly recorded by the
computer server. He said he filed a routine incident report.

In June 1998, contractors realized that the problem was more serious.
All the incoming e-mail received by about 500 White House officials were
not being picked up by the Automated Records Management System, which is
the system used to search computer records by code words to determine
whether they comply with subpoenas.

Top White House officials learned of the computer problem almost
immediately. On June 18, 1998, Virginia M. Apuzzo, assistant to the
president for management and administration, wrote a memorandum
describing the glitch to John D. Podesta, who was White House deputy
chief of staff at the time but has since become chief of staff. Charles
Ruff, who was White House counsel at the time, was also notified.

"They basically had two choices," said Mr. Dan Burton."They could face
up to the problem -- tell the Justice Department and Congress what
happened -- and get it fixed. Or they could throw a blanket over the
whole problem, ignore it and hope nobody found out."

The White House says it did not cover up the problem but believed that
it had been resolved without affecting the administration's response to
subpoenas.

Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company

ahem wrote on April 11, 2007 11:49 PM:

"One final question: who actually administers these accounts - the White House or the Republican Party? Is there any chance of recovering these e-mails by other means that don't depend on the White House? "

Images of the hard drives of those with accounts. That's what Conyers wants. And I think he may need to send in people to ensure that hard drives aren't swapped out, wiped and hidden in Dick Cheney's bunker.

Oh, and the Clinton admin's problems were programmatical, not institutional. As John Podesta has noted, it firewalled out access to non eop.gov email servers and banned access to webmail.

fatkat wrote on April 11, 2007 11:59 PM:

ok..this is really good. read it and I posted the link also.

http://kyrepublicanvoice.blogspot.com/2006/10/white-house-looking-for-kentucky-cfos.html

Friday, October 20, 2006
White House Looking for Kentucky CFO's to Appoint to Boards

We are looking for some Chief Financial Officer types to add to our political appointee ranks. If you know folks out there who support the President's agenda, have a desire to serve, and who fit this spec, please pass along their resume. -- Scott Jennings

Candidate should have federal budgeting experience, experience running or working with federal agencies, knowledge of OMB/Approps processes, and the ability to develop, implement and integrate financial systems. Candidate should also be a strong manager, change leader, IT savvy.

CFO has overall responsibilities that include the conduct of the Departments budgetary and financial affairs; the integration of policy and resource decisions; the establishment of recommendations and priorities among competing resource demands; the implementation of internal management controls; and the assurance of organizational, management, and operational efficiency. Must have the ability to oversee the areas of long-range strategic planning and all disbursing, payroll and financial operations for the Department.

Familiarity with reporting requirements of federal compliance/government accounting requirements; strong finance and management background; accounting and auditing experience; and knowledgeable about information technology.

Scott Jennings
SJennings@gwb43.com

posted by Kentucky Republican Voice at 10:57 PM
0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

fatkat wrote on April 12, 2007 12:26 AM:

this is just wrong!
Follow the link. And find the photo of house speaker
and tell me that some one doctored this one up!

http://rendevouswithdestiny.blogspot.com/

Whistler wrote on April 12, 2007 1:19 AM:

Two random comments: first, Wikipedia's entry for Watergate; under subsection "Aftermath":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate#Aftermath

Specifically, this section:

"Since Nixon and many senior officials involved in Watergate were lawyers, the scandal severely tarnished the public image of the legal profession.[4] In order to defuse public demand for direct federal regulation of lawyers (as opposed to leaving it in the hands of state bar associations or supreme courts), the American Bar Association (ABA) launched two major reforms. First, the ABA decided that its existing Model Code of Professional Responsibility (promulgated 1969) was a failure, and replaced it with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in 1983. The MRPC has been adopted in part or in whole by 44 states. Its preamble contains an emphatic reminder to young lawyers that the legal profession can remain self-governing only if lawyers behave properly. Second, the ABA promulgated a requirement that law students at ABA-approved law schools take a course in professional responsibility (which means they must study the MRPC). The requirement remains in effect."

And second, Shakespeake's take on the subject:

http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

Peter Duffy wrote on April 12, 2007 7:16 AM:

While you are on the topic of good non partisan GOP public service lawyers, can anyone report the whereabouts and activities of ex paragons Kyle Sansom and Monica Goodling. Maybe they have assumed into Heaven , away from us ordinary mortals.

Randy wrote on April 12, 2007 9:25 AM:

It would be interesting to see if there was a relationship that could be seen between Goodling's interviews and membership in the RNLA. I wonder if this was an unnamed prerequisite.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 12, 2007 9:27 AM:

Whistler, great Shakespeare link. If only we had a Shakespeare around today to parody the buffoonery of the George II monarchy.

Rambuncle wrote on April 12, 2007 9:57 AM:

fatkat - What was the result of the investigation into the Clinton emails? Considering the number of "serious investigations" against the Clintons that turned up nothing, I would like to know if this is just more noise.

Peter Principle wrote on April 12, 2007 10:12 AM:

"can anyone report the whereabouts and activities of ex paragons Kyle Sansom and Monica Goodling."

I think they've been raptured into the Federal Witness Protection Program. Either that, or their underneath the 50 yard line at the Meadowlands. I'm not sure which.

kc wrote on April 12, 2007 10:20 AM:

Justice Department lawyers are allowed to moonlight?

fatkat wrote on April 12, 2007 1:32 PM:

Rambuncle...

I DO understand the outcome of the Clinton investigations; however, in order to have understanding in what is happing today, one must go back to previous events (cases) to understand the full scope of today. Not that they turn up something or/and do, but its the questions that one asks for the current that was not asked regarding the past cases! Noise...that is something that has to be asked with the questions that reflect todays environment issues regarding the emails on this case.

Yet, this must be done with out bias. Thats why I posted this quote, to have reflection. Nothing more!

Anonymous wrote on April 12, 2007 2:28 PM:

Dr. Wu is right. Rove assumed, either arrogantly or stupidly, probably both, that the next president would be a lockstep Republican. Thankfully, all his evil machinations will easily be undone. Bush and Rove are being forced to remain in the White House they built while it's burning down. A fitting penance for two so unfit to occupy it. Their fate was sealed when they lost the midterms. Isn't it great to shine the illumination of legitimate oversight on two egos so pathetically in need of the spotlight?

Anonymous wrote on April 12, 2007 3:10 PM:

Clean house. This is ridiculous, we are looking third world politically because of this kind of blatant corruption. We let this happen, we have a responsibility to use the little sword, our vote, to cut this cancer out. do it.

screw

George wrote on April 15, 2007 8:28 AM:

An overreaction when one reads the case:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/brown-USAproposedfindings.pdf