Comments (99)

Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 9:33 AM:

Looks like Waxman and Schumer finally struck a nerve.

Those e-mails likely hold a lot of secrets. Maybe we're ready for some whistleblowers now?

Rove was ingenious in trying to stash the e-mails at the RNC. A backup to the backup, so to speak.

But what he can't necessarily count on is the stonewall holding. You've already got ex-Administration people talking about the system. About Rove's e-mailing habits. And the servers aren't located on RNC property.

It's not done.

And the fact that CREW yesterday revealed that 5 million e-mails from the official White House server (not the RNC e-mails, these are different ones) also went missing...

It's not done.

Punchy wrote on April 13, 2007 9:40 AM:

Welcome to the next 21 months. Every single investigation will go this route: deny Congress the evidence, deny them again, demand a court decide, and in the meantime relish the 2-3 extra months spent eliminating all traces of said evidence.

I'm also envisioning--and who really can't at this point--the WH simply ignoring a judge's order anyways, calling it "national security" and "Article II" and such. What would happen if they ignored a judge's order? I'm guessing nothing.

couser wrote on April 13, 2007 9:41 AM:

'It's not done.'

yet

'So it goes.'

bordersmuggler wrote on April 13, 2007 9:41 AM:

Adding to the pressure, the MSM is finally giving top coverage to the events. The concealing of evidence never plays well on Main Street.

JEP wrote on April 13, 2007 9:42 AM:

For everyone who thinks we are heading for a constitutinsl crisis, don't forget Gore V. Bush. We have been IN a Constitutional Crisis since that day, the entire Bush tenure has been enacted under that cloud.

This is just one more step in the process toend that crisis. Leahy and Schumer need to keep the pressure on and heat this up, Rove's minions are all squirming, and eventually ONE of them will crack.

MarkC wrote on April 13, 2007 9:42 AM:

Every one of us should start a water cooler conversation about the idea that executive privilege applies to the RNC. We really could bring about a groundswell of criticism of this imperial gambit -- my instinct is that almost no one I know of any political stripe would support this idea. And if congress could get access to those servers without a White House filter, we could finally get to the bottom of a whole set of issues.

code word: attack (really!)

GSD wrote on April 13, 2007 9:42 AM:

But, but Hillary Clinton's Rose Law Firm notes dissappeared! That was an outrage...This is George W. Bush's perogrative dammit.

-GSD

Drits'n'Dravy wrote on April 13, 2007 9:43 AM:

What kind of sanctions could the RNC be subject to if they just handed over the e-mails to Fielding and refused to cooperate with Conyers? Is it obstruction of justice if the underlying investigation is not (yet) criminal? Ideas, y'all?

JEP wrote on April 13, 2007 9:44 AM:

Rove is lawless, he will do whatever it takes to continue his subterfuge unpunished. He's probably already reserved a palm frond in Dubai...

profmarcus wrote on April 13, 2007 9:44 AM:

dear fred,

please take your "unified offer" and carefully and firmly insert it in that very special spot where the sun does not shine...

respectfully,

profmarcus

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

BBoro wrote on April 13, 2007 9:44 AM:

Stall, stall, stall. All they have to do is stall.

Tempus Fugit.

starwheel wrote on April 13, 2007 9:46 AM:

I concur with what Sam Seder just said. This is the beginning of the end for this administration.

I am just waiting for the corporate media talking heads like Andrea Mitchell, Norah O'Donnell and David Brooks, etc. to start reciting the "Americans just don't care about this that much" meme.

KR's Unexplained Personal Wealth wrote on April 13, 2007 9:49 AM:

You just have to keep going after Rove. It's really time for people to look at his personal finances and ask questions. Some of his personal transactions have been way too ethically questionable to pass the government employee's smell test.

Take, for example, his real estate holdings:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/2/10177/11404

wondering wrote on April 13, 2007 9:50 AM:

I'm wondering if this is like Rosemary Woods erasing the tapes or Oliver North and his paper shredder?

It's really hard keeping track of all the ways they can continue to hide their activities.

Doc wrote on April 13, 2007 9:50 AM:

"Every one of us should start a water cooler conversation about the idea that executive privilege applies to the RNC ...my instinct is that almost no one I know of any political stripe would support this idea."

Obviously, you don't work for an oil and gas company in Houston, Texas. Such a conversation would make my life extraordinarily difficult. But I do relish watching the MSM finally wake up to the unbridled authoritarianism of this administration. The next few months will no doubt be dramatic and historical.

rex applegate wrote on April 13, 2007 9:50 AM:

There is one very fishy RNC response to Rove's e-mail problem. They say a system was devised in 2005 in order for Rove's e-mails to be archived (because he had previously been deleting them,) but they go on to say that he kept on deleting them anyways, therefore they are probably "lost." If they had really developed a system, Rove would not have been able to delete e-mails from RNC servers. It is like taking someone off a multiple signature checking account and that person goes right on signing checks!

r€nato wrote on April 13, 2007 9:51 AM:

if this president doesn't deserve impeachment, then we might as well remove that clause from the Constitution because clearly nothing short of a blow job is worthy of it.

TheraP wrote on April 13, 2007 9:51 AM:

We need a witness protection program. So the one who cracks will not fall victim to an "unfortunate accident."

wmcq wrote on April 13, 2007 9:52 AM:

I'm surprised no one has asked the WH whether, as part of their abundance of caution about the RNC e-mail, the 50 high level staffers took leave or 'flex-ed out' to do this RNC work. If they were on duty status when they did RNC business, they owe us some money. In fact, if you take enough leave without pay, your health insurance is supposed to be terminated too. Maybe Karl owes his health plan for that last kidney stone?

The need to account for political time is why it is illegal to conduct political business on government property (there are some exceptions for the residential part of the WH.) They can't say they don't know about this, since they spent years attacking Al Gore for alledgedly doing the same thing. Conyers needs to asking for pay records too, I'm sure they can't lose those.

Mark F. wrote on April 13, 2007 9:55 AM:

I sincerely believe the quickest, easiest and least painful way to clear all of this up would be through a simple impeachment. Let's save everyone a whole lot of time and energy and get 'er done.

mayan wrote on April 13, 2007 9:56 AM:

It's not done? It hasn't even started. Opening Day is April 17, 2007, when abu Gonzo gets called in for oversight.

I think -or at least I hope- that Congress has been amassing evidence from the private interviews they've been holding, from their six years in exile during the Reign of Rubberstampers, and from hordes of governmental careerists who have been cowering in cubicles, waiting for daylight in order to come forward.
In addition, I would not be surprised if there weren't CIA and military people passing along tidbits.

In short, I think there are MANY people who are as sickened and horrified by the last seven years as those of us in the Bloggosphere. Some of them are very, VERY powerful and I would imagine they haven't been sitting on their hands. Congressional investigations have just really started and there has been much going on behind closed doors. I think with Congress back in session and with the eyes of the country beginning to be focused on the RICO conspiracy that ate our country, next week should be kicking things off with a bang.

Security word "keep" - as in keep the faith, baby.

C 92 wrote on April 13, 2007 9:56 AM:

At minimum, this is also an opportunity for Congress to strengthen the Hatch Act -- since clearly there are some deficiencies.

Rove's people claim the e-mail system was set up "in an abundance of caution" to make sure the White House was complying with Hatch.

Of course we know this is bunk, since Rove and his deputy were regularly holding political strategy sessions at Agencies (Lurita Doan, GSA, let's help "our team") -- which is a textbook violation of the Hatch Act.

Since the White House is so afeared of the Hatch Act, let's update it and give it even more teeth.

Barbara wrote on April 13, 2007 9:59 AM:

Antoher reason to install Bushies as US Attorneys and Judges--it actually worries me that the whole judicial system is so corrupt that there is a chance they can get away with it. All I can say is thank God for Josh and Co. doing real reporting.

Our major hope seems to be that even most die-hard Repblicans don't like corrupt government and some of them are beginning to wake up.

ShorelineCT wrote on April 13, 2007 9:59 AM:

Dem's need to hire some of the fired USA's to help write up the laundry list of charges. They all must be having a hard time finding a real job with those "poor job performance" issues.

Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 10:00 AM:

I just looked at Hillary and Obamas web sites, and they are full swing on the Imus BS.

Perhaps it's time for our TPM netroots community to PUSH them on **US Attorney Purge** is the REAL issue to bring down the Republicans's (and get the MSM to report it).

wmcq wrote on April 13, 2007 10:03 AM:

For the math challenged, 5 million e-mail for 50 staff members, over 2 years, averages 100,000 e-mail a piece, 50,000 a year and 962 (they thought they were political) e-mails a week, 192 a day, 24 an hour, and 1 email every 2.5 minutes!

MAG wrote on April 13, 2007 10:04 AM:

The Bush White House has no ethics.

rEnato is right.

Bush, Cheney et al MUST! be impeached!
Conact Congress.

Tomm wrote on April 13, 2007 10:08 AM:

Sidney Blumenthal on salon.com reminds people of the way these traitors have fundamentally corrupted and undermined our constitutional structure of this nation while they have been in office. He quotes John DiIulio, the first Bushie more loyal to principle than to Beloved Leader, as saying, "On social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking." Specifically:

"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything -- and I mean everything -- being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

The way in which the police functions of the State have been turned into an arm of God's Own Perps makes it clear that Bush was not kidding when he said it would be easier if this country were a dictatorship-- so long as HE was the dictator-- any more than he was kidding when he identifed his base as the "haves and the have mores."

Someone needs to order the marshals to march over to the RNC and physically seize and physically carry off every computer and laptop in the place or associated with the place, and every laptop and portable used by White House staffers to acces their RNC or other outside accounts, and have them analyzed with the fury of Jack Bauer on steroids so that all the filth can come out, impeachment procedures can commence, criminal trials can begin, and major traitors can go to jail where their name can become a byword to frighten children, their faces mounted on dart boards, and their places secured in history's special hell until the end of time.

THEN, after the sunshine, the reign will end, the Bush police state will be repudiated, and with no alibi, no pardons, no more spin and no more coverup, the healing can begin.

gorillagogo wrote on April 13, 2007 10:13 AM:

I always get a good laugh out of how Administration spokespeople frame their refusal to cooperate as some sort of great deal. Here we have Fielding saying that Democrats don't acknowledge "the extraordinary nature" of the White House's offer. The only thing extraordinary about it is the arrogance with which it was delivered.

Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 10:13 AM:

I may be wrong, but one way to find damaging e-mails would be if those who recd the mails handed them over to congress. I am sure there are people out there with incriminating mails from Rove and friends who under the right circumsatnces (immunity?) can spill the beans.

RandyR wrote on April 13, 2007 10:15 AM:

Carefully read the letter from Fielding. In it he says that it will lead to issues that they don't want to talk about. Well duh. When you commit criminal activity to documents you wouldn't want to talk about them later

When I read it it sounds like their taking the 5th amendment as a defense to release of the papers.

I know that this stalling is hard on everybody's nerves but this just doesn't go fast. If the White House had gone quickly the RNC emails would have never become an issue, but now the longer they stall the more dirt comes out. So be patient and salve the wounds of the last six years. I don't think that this is going away for a long while.

What I would like to see is how these recent emails will show how they broke the public trust in Iraq. Cause there is a lot of blood on a lot of hands over that.

rlasater wrote on April 13, 2007 10:15 AM:

Borrowing from Village Voice's Dan Savage I would like to say in regards to W, ITMFA... Impeach The M_F_ Already. code = turn, as in worm.

budfox wrote on April 13, 2007 10:18 AM:

If this constituitional crisis ends up in the lap of the SCOTUS, does the "unitary executive" become the law of the land?

....I'm not optimistic about democracy's chances in that venue.

Dungheap wrote on April 13, 2007 10:19 AM:

Dear Fred,

It wasn't a suggestion, it was a demand.

Yours,

Congress

p.s. Don't bother with the RNC documents. We'll get them ourselves.

fatkat wrote on April 13, 2007 10:20 AM:

Gee, gosh, will-nelly, well'-all-be-dam!
I'm going to go watch old "ma and Pa - Kettle movies!
Maybe watching them will sound better than seeing what this administration has done and SAID.
This movie has me screaming at the tv, computer, Ipod so much my health is shot! :)

Agjobs wrote on April 13, 2007 10:21 AM:

Doesn't Rove have a Top Secret National Security Clearance? I would think that an investigation for National Security violations by the Senate Intelligence Committe would be in order. After all the Whitehouse Email system should be secure but I doubt if the same can be said for the RNC. Any political stratagy regarding the GWOT that went over the RNC network could be hacked by our enemies that "hate our freedoms" and would give them information that could get our troops killed. All we have heard for the last 6 years is that we are at war. If the Whitehouse claims privalage over the RNC emails then they are admitting that they have been the possible cause of a security breach.

Man where do you get these codewords. This one is SNAKE as in the administration is full of them.

green heron wrote on April 13, 2007 10:21 AM:

I think there's a very good chance they will get away with it. They'll continue to claim executive privilege, try to run out the clock, and hope the right wing courts back them. The better approach, in my opinion, is to offer immunity to key underlings. If one staffer speaks the truth in public, the media might finally wake up.

John in Erie wrote on April 13, 2007 10:21 AM:

Since when did Fred Fielding become counsel for the RNC? I thought he was a WH attorney. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't this a conflict of interest?

DallasNE wrote on April 13, 2007 10:25 AM:

What is the difference between Executive Priviledge and pleading the 5th Amendment?

Fielding, speaking on behalf of Rove, is saying the same thing Monica Goodling's attorney said on her behalf. The Constitution protects against self-incrimination.

So why doesn't Congress issue a search warrant and take the RNC computers like the Justice Department did with Congressman Jefferson?

shrubsy wrote on April 13, 2007 10:31 AM:

And Fieldings says "it was and remains our intention to collect e-mails and documents from those [RNC-controlled] accounts."

Meaning they haven't yet collected or collated or prepared any specific set of files for a dump...but that it is their intention to try to collect them at some future time. Which means nothing. Like standing next to a leaking dike and claiming you 'might' put your finger in it...if everybody does just what you want.

More aptly, say a baby is kidnapped. These guys might know who has her. Might tell you who. Might even put a call in to the right people and get her released. Or they might do nothing and let the savage escape without a trace or kill her. Might not ever tell you what they knew...who it was....what happened to her.

But I think it is important that his statement implies, no matter how important these emails now are...that they don't necessarily KNOW where they are or who might scrape them together, or if they are being burned as we speak...they don't "have" them but will attempt to get them if you play ball.

That is not tampering with evidence, or even with-holding evidence, it is saying we prob. have a lot of evidence but we are ambivalent about it...we may not collect it...maybe the dog will eat it....yeah it's there but no-one is guarding it or watching it.

We all know if Karl Rove wanted YOUR emails he would have them by the end of the day. Why cannot our own NSA and carnivore crew get these for us? Are there not a bunch of laws being broken, aren't political crimes and unlawful behavior...stemming from the white house and abusing it's communications in order to thwart our constitution and basic rights... a National Security Matter?

umbelievable...security word : screw

cjop wrote on April 13, 2007 10:32 AM:

It seems to me that if the Bush administration would spend less time trying to f@#k with democracy they would have been able to keep from f#@king up the country.

PA citizen wrote on April 13, 2007 10:35 AM:

Senator Arlen Specter, whose insertion of the Patriot Act provision preciptated the USA firing scandal, should be called on to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his involvement in the conspiracy.

mayan wrote on April 13, 2007 10:36 AM:

I was not a believer in impeachment because I didn't think there was a chance in hell of it happening politically...despite every cell in my body vibrating with the urgent desire to see it happen (and war crimes tribunals after that.) I'm beginning to come around. I believe that Conyers, Waxman and Leahy are methodically laying out the foundations for impeachment. While before, I would have been happy with containment...keeping them on the defensive...I now think that is not practical. They are way too powerful and way too criminal.

While the Shrubtator's judicial appointments scare me...so does not knowing the unvarnished truth about whether this country has become (at least for a time) an entirely totalitarian endeavor. Personally, I still believe that the Court, though very conservative, will not allow claims of Executive Privilege to trump clear-cut instances of high crimes. So, bring it on. Now. We are running out of time.

Code word="shame" - self-explanatory

Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 10:38 AM:

I think there's a very good chance they will get away with it. They'll continue to claim executive privilege, try to run out the clock, and hope the right wing courts back them. The better approach, in my opinion, is to offer immunity to key underlings. If one staffer speaks the truth in public, the media might finally wake up.
Posted by: green heron

I'm afraid I agree. They will run out the clock and when it's time for the election they will say, "What have the Democrats to show for all these investigations. NOTHING except a waste of taxpayer money." The way the Dems are pussyfooting around I'm starting to think they are more interested in scoring political points than having justice served. Rove/Bush/Cheney have zero respect for the laws of this country- they obviously feel the law should not apply to them and they have a "Justice" Department that agrees with them. Americans should be outraged but all people give a shit about is Imus/Oprah/JesseJackson/AlSharpton. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

JEP wrote on April 13, 2007 10:41 AM:

Any news yet on the much anticipated, upcoming Friday docudump???

Jack Neefus wrote on April 13, 2007 10:50 AM:

Wouldn't the Carnivore program (or whatever it's called these days) have copies of all this? It's supposed to sift through all email correspondence.

Maybe there's too much material and most of it is never retained. All I know is that there are copies, backups, and archives everywhere. Once the email addresses are known, I would think that a lot of research could be done to find them on the web.

fatkat wrote on April 13, 2007 10:54 AM:

Well, the more the Administration has the appearance of hiding something, the more the opinion of ling goes way up in the American eyes, (even through this administration does not care what American's think nor want.

Fred is not the RNC's counsel, he can not speak on their behave. Unless, they retain his firm, which may raise conflict of interest clauses. When he spoke, he was referring to the email's, so lets get to the inter bowels for this...

He is trying to maintain that any email is executive privilege...so, in my view his attack on what Congress is asking HIM and HIS response is implying GUILT on behalf of the White house!
The reason the cross association of Watergate and what is happing is education to the public!

Rhetoric will become fact real soon! But hey, its Friday the 13! Somethings gotta happen!!!

bordersmuggler wrote on April 13, 2007 10:54 AM:

Unrelated subject, but what are the chances that Condi Rice appears before Waxman's committee on Wednesday to answer questions about the Niger forgeries?

steambomb wrote on April 13, 2007 10:58 AM:

Just start slapping them with subpeonas. They dont deserve any deferrence any longer.

HSal wrote on April 13, 2007 11:00 AM:

Just as in Libby's case, this administration is more likely to stall and lie about everything, including destroying evidence. They would rather cop to obstruction or the lesser crimes than the ones they are covering up.

Meanwhile, they will fight tooth and nail not to give a single shred that implicates them.

Justice (the real kind) needs to take them to the mat hard, not interact like this administration can be dealt with in an honorable manner.

Angered Taxpayer wrote on April 13, 2007 11:14 AM:

"Dear Fred,
It wasn't a suggestion, it was a demand.
Yours,
Congress
p.s. Don't bother with the RNC documents. We'll get them ourselves."

Dungheap, you should run for Congress.

Robert Benjamin wrote on April 13, 2007 11:15 AM:

The withholding of email traffic on the RNC funded servers, the possible deliberate destruction of many, and the negligent loss of the 5M messages on the White House email system may be the final evidence needed to tip honest Congressional Republicans over into serious consideration of impeachment.

I have heard repeated comments from lawyers on the MSM that impeachment can only cover statutory crimes, some of which are now coming to light. But when I started researching the actual meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors", I found that they are usually NOT statutory crimes. They are POLITICAL crimes against the constitutional order.

Whether or not they have committed statutory crimes, I think it is clear that George Bush and Dick Cheney have committed a string of political crimes, going back to the election of 2000, that would make Richard Nixon look saintly.

Here is what the Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment Report said in 1974. This report was prepared by the staff of the Impeachment Inquiry against Nixon. It is available online at
http://hematite.com/impeachment/standards/rpt10.html. Judge for yourselves.

__________

CONCLUSION

Impeachment is a constitutional remedy addressed to serious offenses against the system of government. The purpose of impeachment under the Constitution is indicated by the limited scope of the remedy (removal from office and possible disqualification from future office) and by the stated grounds for impeachment (treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors). It is not controlling whether treason and bribery are criminal. More important, they are constitutional wrongs that subvert the structure of government, or undermine the integrity of office and even the Constitution itself, and thus are "high" offenses in the sense that word was used in English impeachments.

The framers of our Constitutional conspicuously adopted a particular phrase from the English practice to help define the consitutional grounds for removal. The content of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" for the framers is to be related to what the framers knew, on the whole, about the English practice-- the broad sweep of English constitutional history and the vital role impeachment had played in the limitation of royal prerogative and the control of abuses of ministerial and judicial power.

Impeachment was not a remote subject for the framers. Even as they labored in Philadelphia, the impeachment trial of Warren Hastings, Governor-General of India, was pending in London, a fact to which George Mason made explicit reference in the Convention. Whatever may be said on the merits of Hastings' conduct, the charges against him exemplified the central aspect of impeachment-- the parliamentary effort to reach grave abuses of governmental power.

The framers understood quite clearly that the constitutional system they were creating must include some ultimate check on the conduct of the executive, particularly as they came to reject the suggested plural executive. While insistent that balance between the executive and legislative branches be maintained so that the executive would not become the creature of the legislature, dismissible at tits will, the framers also recognized that some means would be needed to deal with excesses by the executive. Impeachment was familiar to them. They understood its essential constitutional functions and perceived its adaptability to the American contest.

While it may be argued that some articles of impeachment have charged conduct that constituted crime and thus that criminality is an essential ingredient, or that some have charged conduct that was not criminal and thus that criminality is not essential, the fact remains that in the English practice and in several of the American impeachments the criminality issue was not raised at all. The emphasis has been on the significant effects of the conduct-- undermining the integrity of office, disregard of constitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse impact on the system of government. Clearly, these effects can be brought about in ways not anticipated by the criminal law. Criminal standards and crimnial courts were established to control individual conduct. Impeachment was evolved by Parliament to cope with both the inadequacy of criminal standards and the impotence of courts to deal with the conduct of great public figures. It would be anomalous if the framers, having barred criminal sanctions from the impeachment remedy and limited it to removal and possible disqualification from office, intended to restrict the grounds for impeachment to conduct that was criminal.

The longing for precise criteria is understandable; advance, precise definition of objective limits would seemingly serve both to direct future conduct and to inhibit arbitrary reaction to past conduct. In private affairs the objective is the control of personal behavior, in part through the punishment of misbehavior. In general, advance definition of standards respecting private conduct works reasonably well. However, where the issue is presidential compliance with the constitutional requirements and limitations on the presidency, the crucial factor is not the intrinsic quality of behavior but the significance of its effect upon our constitutional system or the functioning of our government.

It is useful to note three major presidential duties of broad scope that are explicity recited in the Constitution: "to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. The first is directly imposed by the Constitution; the second and third are included in the constitutionally prescribed oath that the President is required to take before he enters upon the execution of his office and are, therefore, also expressly imposed by the Constitution.

The duty to take care is affirmative. So is the duty faithfully to execute the office. A Presidenta must carry out the obligations of his office diligently and in good faith. The elective character and political role of a President make it difficult to define faithful exercise of his powers in the abstract. A President must make policy and exercise discretion. This discretion necessarily is broad, especially in emergency situations, but the constitutional duties of a President impose limitations on its exercise.

The "take care" duty emphasizes the responsibility of a President for the overall conduct of the executive branch, which the Constitution vests in him alone. He must take crae that the executive is so organized and operated that this duty is performed.

The duty of a President is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" to the best of his ability includes the duty not to abuse his powers or transgress their limits-- not to violate the rights of citizens, such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and not to act in derogation of powers elsewhere by the Constitution.

Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. There is a further requirement-- substantiality. In deciding whether this further requirement has been met, the facts must be considered as a whole in the context of the office, not in terms of separate or isolated events. Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.

Angered Taxpayer wrote on April 13, 2007 11:17 AM:

Jack Neefus asked:
"Wouldn't the Carnivore program (or whatever it's called these days) have copies of all this? It's supposed to sift through all email correspondence."

It could except that you know they would NEVER spy on themselves.

Mellifluous wrote on April 13, 2007 11:19 AM:

wondering:

Don't forget Fawn Hall and her boots.

Code "dress". Couldn't have done much better...

RT wrote on April 13, 2007 11:20 AM:

Wonder what Ruth Marcus thinks of Fielding's letter? (Wonder if Ruth Marcus thinks?)

Linda wrote on April 13, 2007 11:21 AM:

Security code: Flag The flag of the United States is being desecrated by the Bush administration. So, what can the citizens of this country do now, to demand that the White House stand aside and that those emails be turned over directly from the RNC. This is enraging beyond words. How much longer are We, the People, going to allow this administration to get away with so blatantly disregarding the law?

RandyR wrote on April 13, 2007 11:22 AM:

Back at the bottom of the Blog again.

I did some looking about Executive Privilge and found an interesting quote from Tony Snow.

": Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 3/29/1998

Your right Tony we want no part of this president

Thrackazog wrote on April 13, 2007 11:24 AM:

Congress should take the "unified offer"--and then just put "signing statements" on the parts they don't like. Voila, Leahy, Conyers, and their posses get everything they want! Sauce for the goose...

abbymac wrote on April 13, 2007 11:27 AM:

It seems to me that Fred Fielding's statement that the WH is going to "collect" the e-mails from the RNC is a tacit acknowledgment that those e-mails were not generated for RNC purposes, but rather involved WH business. This raises the question then of major security violations by Karl Rove et al, as well as the potential claim of obstruction of justice against Rove for having deliberately deleted them in violation of existing law. They can't have it both ways. If the WH is going to try and argue Executive Privilege (even if it is a phony argument) over these e-mails, then the same e-mails were subject to the federal law requiring their preservation and they were subject to Fitzgerald's investigatory demands.

Fielding may have just opened a very big door here.

(By the way, if e-mails on the RNC server are supposed to be covered by executive privilege, does that same argument go to the staffer's AOL account? Where does the privilege end???)

C92 wrote on April 13, 2007 11:34 AM:

A little wrinkle to the whole "get the RNC servers" argument. RNC e-mail servers are actually down in Chattanooga, TN run by a private company called SmarTech.

SmarTech is the host for the gwb43.com e-mail servers as well as many others (rnchq.com - the one Susan Ralston used). As an e-mail server host, they would have the hardware that stores records for e-mails in and out of gwb43.com. The owner of SmarTech, Jeff Averbeck, is also an RNC supporter and donor.

As Averbeck said in an article promoting his work on the 2004 GOP/NYC Convention - "The world will view everything from Chattanooga; that’s the best way to think about it." The article is on his website: http://www.smartechcorp.net/index.php?page=news&sub=story&id=68

Is SmarTech is the real home of the "lost" RNC emails (since the servers appaear to be located in Chattanooga, not in DC)?

C92 wrote on April 13, 2007 11:36 AM:

Also, some interesting links between SmarTech and GovTech, a federal government contractor, owned by a GOP operative that was brought onboard by Tom DeLay & co to set up computer systems and websites for Congress and the Federal Government.

"GovTech Solutions" - an Akron, OH/Washington, DC company is listed as a "related company" to New Media Communications.

http://www.technomania.com/RelatedCompanies.asp

On this page link above, GovTech claims to have handled "complex internet communications projects for the White House, key Congressional Committees, Members of Congress and state governments."

GovTech is owned by Heather Connell, wife of Mike Connell. Mike is owner of New Media Communications and a GOP online designer/operative.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/consultants/default.aspx?act=profiles&pid=10

I'm wondering what those White House "complex internet communications projects" were?

Rick Cass wrote on April 13, 2007 11:37 AM:

It's time to impeach Kark Rove, and place him on trial in the Senate. Then, there would be no issue about executive "privelege". Then he could be indicted and tried in a court of law, as well as sued in civil court. The discovery process would be a cleansing process, like cleaning a supporating wound with disinfectant.

United We Stand, United We Fall... wrote on April 13, 2007 11:37 AM:

WAKE UP AMERICA. I am very concerned that these people (Rove, Bush, Cheney - New World Order's) - These thug's are backed into a corner, and I have to believe, that the attention needs to be redirected. There is no doubt in my mind another 9/11 attack is coming. The Subprime Lending Scandal that has yet to bubble, EmailGate, PlameGate, IraqGate, NSA SpyGate, all of the scandle's are just to much. Wall Street and Main street are falling apart. The country is divided. I cannot believe this is real. You think you are free because you can buy a house, or pick the color of your next car. Freedom is an illusion. And even that illusion is about to go away. I pray for you my brothers and sisters. Vigilance. How can this be, the land of the free and the home of the brave? A war on the wrong guy after planes collide? Death by a million cuts. As Bush 41 said on Sept 11 1991 - Now we can see a new world coming into view. A NEW WORLD ORDER... Wake Up America. We have not got to this point by accident. Both sides are in it. WAKE UP AMERICA.

"We are controlled by a small group of dominate men. The worst ruled and most completely controlled government in the civilized world. Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something. They know that there is a power, so organized, so subtle, so interlocked, so complete that they had better not speak above their breath, when they speak in condemnation of it." -- Woodrow Wilson

Security word: crime - as in BUSH CRIME FAMILY...

C92 wrote on April 13, 2007 11:37 AM:

I'm also wondering if GovTech's Congressional websites are managed from Chattanooga, if they are still in place after the changeover from GOP to Dems and if GovTech's GOP operatives are "monitoring" what's going on in these Congressional sites (ie spying on Democrats).

cevrero wrote on April 13, 2007 11:38 AM:

Did you guys see that line in the letter...."respect and protect the constitutional perogatives of the president"....is that a fancy way of saying: look I'm the president and only the president gets to decide when to give information(exec privelege), so just let us do our job.
The American people no longer trust the white house in almost every policy aspect that come out of their lips because so many times that exact opposite has unraveled before our very own eyes. That why repubs lost the election.
Aren't we at a point where it's almost a sure shot implication of guilt when this Administration denies or stonewalls. I mean how many Democrats actually believed that Clinton wasn't getting any from Monica during that investigation. We all knew he was trying to hide/avoid the obvious.

cugel wrote on April 13, 2007 11:52 AM:

There's simply no way they will get away with this. The model for dealing with a scandal is NOT to drag it out over the next two years, but to get it out of the way early and then say "that's old news" when anybody brings it up later!

See how that works? It doesn't matter how terrible the crimes that were committed, once it has been revealed the media treat everything as "old news": Accusation: "You sent the Jews to Auschwitz?!"

Media Bobble-heads: "That's old news! The Democrats are beating a dead horse with all this stuff. Clearly the Democrats are going to suffer a drop in support from their constant carping on the past. The public isn't interested in the boring details of who did or didn't ship the Jews off in cattle cars. That happened LAST month!

Republican Mouthpiece: Yes, that's right Bob, this is old news that the Democrats keep harping on. The President has already issued a statement of his regret if any Jews may have inadvertently been executed. We're focused now on the future."

Works for everything: Stole the 2000 election through massive fraud? Old news (by the time we find out about all the details). Cheney lets oil companies write the energy policy? Old news. Katrina? Old news. Hookers and drug binges for Republicans at the Watergate? Old news. Corrupt practices and Haliburton bribery in Iraq? Old news.

But, as long as the White House keeps stonewalling this the scandal will continue. That's what brought Nixon down, the death of a thousand cuts.

Republicans are heading for a titdal wave in 2008 if this continues that will make 2006 look like a Sunday school picnic.

And Republican congressmen know it and aren't happy. There's NO way the Republicans in Congress can continue to stand with the White House oer some abstract principle like "Executive Privilege."

It just sounds to the American people like they're covering up something. And the more they fight and argue over it, the more it will be in the news the more people will become convinced they are covering up serious illegal behavior (which of course they are).

shrubsy wrote on April 13, 2007 11:53 AM:

wonder what goes on in the server sector of our government. Hiding and destroying of all Rightwinger emails, but handing over all the emails of Leftwingers? How about your emails to senators, representatives, using their government emails? How about all of Ted Kennedy's correpondence and Leahy's being sent straight to Karls Karnivores?
hasn't proof of that already come to life, where they were virtually bugging Democrats by raiding THEIR servers and plundering their documents?

Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 12:02 PM:

Justice (the real kind) needs to take them to the mat hard, not interact like this administration can be dealt with in an honorable manner.
Posted by: HSal

Amen Brother! Anyone who thinks you can deal with these crooks in good faith is delusional. They will delay, delay, delay. Take 'em to the mat!

Granite Yankee wrote on April 13, 2007 12:13 PM:

I think by now we can accept the delaying tactics of the republic party as a given. This could actually be advantageous. This gives us plenty of time to reinforce in the public mind exactly how corrupt and dishonest this bunch of losers is.

By all means, we must keep up the pressure and never accept any so-called "deals".

Let this and all the other scandals fester until November 2008.

31 Tudor wrote on April 13, 2007 12:18 PM:

Rove is the most powerful man on the earth. G.W. will be gone in a year and a half, but Rove will control the RNC until he is dead.
Every Republican knows that Rove must be protected at all cost.

Michael wrote on April 13, 2007 12:30 PM:

I originally posted this on Huffington, but they seem to be suffering from a massive troll infestation at the moment:

Relying as it does on standard Internet technologies such as TCP/IP and standard operating system and email services, Internet forensics is already an advanced discipline. There are tens of thousands of technologists with the experience necessary to identify individual devices (i.e, IP addresses) and to track the various communications of those devices to other devices. Once telephony is included in the mix, it becomes possible to find and retrieve almost any message. Especially given the Blackberry piece.

The excuse is disingenuous at the least.

"What we have done has been forthcoming, honest," spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We are trying to understand to the best of our ability the universe of the e-mails that were potentially lost, and we are taking steps to make sure that we use the forensics that are available to retrieve any of those that are lost," could (and perhaps should) be translated into "What we have done has been to buy as much time as possible. We are trying to understand to the best of our ability the universe of the e-mails that were in violation of law and ethical conduct in that order, and we are taking steps to make sure that we use the forensics that are available to locate and destroy as many of them as we can."

Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 12:37 PM:

Is it a coincedence that the current White House internet director, David Almacy, used to work for a GOP activist's internet company, GovTech?

www.whitehouse.gov/government/almacy-bio.html
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4686-2005Apr20.html

Is it also a coincedence that that same company, GovTech, hosts its mail with the same company where the gwb43.com and rhchq.com e-mails were stored and are now missing?

www.robtex.com/dns/govtechsolutions.com.html

Is it also a coincedence that GovTech claims to have handled "complex communications projects for the White House"? Did ex-employee Almacy help them get those projects?

JEP wrote on April 13, 2007 12:48 PM:

Page 9 of section 2 (after many blank or blotched pages) is a real eye-opener, we have heard about this one before (I don’t know if they know this, but some of their black-ed out passages can still be read, at least in part…)

first line from the second blacked-out paragraph on page 6 of the 2nd set, “none of the above obstacles are insurmountable”
I’ll see if I can find those obstacles hiding in the shades…

first blacked-out paragraph, page 6, “replacement a task often complicated if the outgoing U.S. attorney remains in office (eifht?) senate must confirm the replacement” followed by that “not insurmountable” redacted
paragraph…

Henry wrote on April 13, 2007 1:07 PM:

Abbymac—
I have to disagree with you as to "opening the door." It is a well-established rule in civil litigation that the party responding to a document request must not only turn over documents that it has in its control but also those that its agents (accountants, lawyers, etc.) have AND to make a reasonably diligent effort to ask others with whom it has any sort of relationship (contractors, former employees, etc.) to produce those documents. In this case, since W is the leader of the Republic Party, he can't very well claim that the NC won't give him the documents that the House and Senate are asking for; put another way, he has to produce RNC records. So no imputation of improper purpose applies here just because he said he would.

I agree with the rest of your message, however. Fielding's bogus privilege response illustrates the rule that if you make too broad a claim of privilege you may end up losing more than if you were more careful in the first instance. So Fielding may buy a few months of wrangling, but only make the issue that much more concrete for the public at large: they won't turn over documents --> they can't find the documents --> they destroyed the documents --> they're all criminals.

Alex wrote on April 13, 2007 1:21 PM:

Thank god the hammer is finally falling. It was gratifying to vote for Waxman last November, it's the first time I felt proud supporting a politician.

G.I. wrote on April 13, 2007 1:28 PM:

If Senate Dems can manage to get hold of some of those emails outside of the official WH ones despite BushCo's obstructionism, and these emails discuss state business rather than RNC business, there'll also be a stronger case that what they've been doing has compromised national security. Once that insght enters the public sphere it ought to weaken the BushCo/Neocon hand a bit further.

Henry Clay wrote on April 13, 2007 2:30 PM:

It wasn't Gore vs. Bush, as an earlier diary entry said. It was Bush vs. Gore.

Big difference. It should have tipped us off back in Nov. 2000 to what extent these bastards will go to attain and maintain power. The Repugs, who claim to hate lawyers, dragooned an army of lawyers into Florida the morning after the election to guarantee the theft.

They filed the lawsuit. They took it to state court. They took it to the Supreme Court. They'll do anything and everything.

By the way, current FL Gov. Crist said on CNN yesterday, when asked by Blitzer if Jeb might run for president next year, "Anything's possible, Wolf."

Like I said, they'll do anything to attain and maintain power.

PacificCoaster wrote on April 13, 2007 3:18 PM:

It appears that the RNC is not willing to break the laws quite as much as Karl Rove. If they put a stop to his deleting emails after Fitzgerald got involved, then they are more likely to cooperate with Congress. Its the first time I've seen referenced anywhere that someone stood up to Rove.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 13, 2007 3:45 PM:

Silly Willy Nilly o' Bears:

We have all forgotten that this is Clinton's fault . . .

I grow tired of being swamped daily by a fresh list of atroscities and crave the comfort of the meaningless right-wingnut cunnards from the past.

I do look forward to Bastille Day tbough.

lestatdelc wrote on April 13, 2007 3:48 PM:

So why doesn't Congress issue a search warrant and take the RNC computers like the Justice Department did with Congressman Jefferson?

Becuase they can't. Search warrants are issued by the courts when the DoJ (or state level attorney's and law enforcement agenices) ask fo rthem. Congress has no enforcement mechanisms. It (Congress) relies of the DoJ (Bush) or the courts (almost Bush) who themselves rely on the US Marshalls to enforce.

Rick wrote on April 13, 2007 4:37 PM:

The only thing the Republicans learned from Watergate...Burn The Tapes....
And then Ford pardoned Nixon....
Then there was Iran-Contra....
And then Bush1 pardoned the criminals....
And now...what have we learned? 30 years later, the escapees from the Watergate Whitehouse and 20 years after the Iran Contra Whitehouse, they are back...Cheney, Rumsfelt, Rove, Elliot Abrahms and on and on.
Authoratarian, anti-democratic, criminal, Extremist Republicans have been populating each R Scandal for the last 39 years. The culture of corruption is a Republican fact of life.
THIS time, WE must purge the American system of these repeat offenders....impeachment, prison, shame and no participation in political life ...EVER. And no pardons. They are felons and must remain so in the public mind and in history.

Or else the American experiment has already failed.

whidbeygrl wrote on April 13, 2007 4:50 PM:

I just sent the following to John Edwards web page:
Will Mr. Edwards be publicly commenting on the Bush. Admin. obstruction of justice and other illegal acts being now exposed by the Sen. Jud. Comm. oversight?
AKA "Attorneygate".

Please review Josh Marshall's
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
as his blog site was key in breaking this story since Feb.
(Fortunately we still have the Internet to find real news)

I know Global Warming and the War are so key to having a future..
but..Bush's in your face refusal to be bound by laws and his effrts to expand his regime are terrifying also.
thank you...

Father O'KC wrote on April 13, 2007 11:06 PM:

Say it with me folks:

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Testify under oath in public.

centavo wrote on April 14, 2007 4:35 AM:

@Rick:

"THIS time, WE must purge the American system of these repeat offenders....impeachment, prison, shame and no participation in political life ...EVER. And no pardons. They are felons and must remain so in the public mind and in history."

Maybe they should all be consigned to Jeb Bush's Florida, where convicted felons, even those who have served their time, can't vote.

tjallen wrote on April 15, 2007 12:07 AM:

If any of you slogged through 800 pages of Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor Walsh's book Firewall, the final lessons of his experience were that her had been entirely too deferential. He concludes that he should have supoenaed Weinberger's personal notes and many other documents immediately, very early on in the investigation, as soon as he learned of their existence. Instead he was patient, deferred to the executive, took things as they gave them to him. He was way too slow, and Bush I ran out the clock on him.

So the lesson and code word is
HURRY, DON'T DELAY!

witney@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 11:37 AM:

effective penis enlargement

tom@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 9:54 AM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

tom@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 9:54 AM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

tom@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 9:54 AM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

jimmy@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 11:17 PM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

rose@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 1:54 PM:

hello

clar@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 2:39 AM:

hello

bill@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 12:58 PM:

hello

bill@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 12:59 PM:

hello

bill@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 12:59 PM:

hello

jennifire@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 2:01 AM:

hello

yellow@aol.com wrote on May 22, 2007 4:38 PM:

viagra

brtney@aol.com wrote on May 23, 2007 10:07 AM:

cialis forum

porn wrote on August 9, 2007 4:28 PM: