Comments (146)

Sholom wrote on April 17, 2007 4:48 PM:

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?

The Confidence Man wrote on April 17, 2007 4:50 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?

Kevin wrote on April 17, 2007 4:50 PM:

The "executive privilege" ploy is weak... I'd love to see them defend that one in court (actually not - that would just mean they'd drag this whole sorry charade out for the next 2+ years). Just goes to show how desperate things are... and just what does Karl have on folks that he must be "protected at all costs"?

Brooklynite wrote on April 17, 2007 4:55 PM:

And what basis in law is there for an "executive branch interest"?

I'm at a "loss" (security word) for words.

freepatriot wrote on April 17, 2007 4:56 PM:

what happens next ???

the r n c gets to decide if they work for george bush or the American people

george's "midas touch" just turned the r n c into a piece of shite

and the perfect record continues ...

security code; butter, as in What gonzo's gonna melt like

beemer wrote on April 17, 2007 4:59 PM:

Well, I think we already knew that the RNC both: works for GWB instead of the American people, and is a piece of shite.

Redshift wrote on April 17, 2007 5:04 PM:

It's certainly true that they have an "interest" in the emails. What they don't have is any *right* to keep them from Congress.

Talk about being hoist on their own petard!

kis wrote on April 17, 2007 5:04 PM:

Intriguing that they used the term "Executive Branch interest" instead of 'privelege'. They know they don't have a leg to stand on there, and it would put them in violation of Hatch. What basis in law is there for protecting their 'interest'? None. Conyers needs to call them on this bullsh*t hard and fast...

VJB wrote on April 17, 2007 5:08 PM:

"And today, in a letter to the RNC, the White House made their position clear: you have to give them to us first. There "exists a clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest" in the emails on the RNC-issued accounts, wrote Emmet Flood, Special Counsel to the President."

In other words: Well, duh, if you hand the emails directly over to the committee, they'll hand us our ass.

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 5:08 PM:

Is it Article I, Section 3 that details the "clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest" in the Constitution.

No, that's right, there is NO "clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest" clause.

So who can the White House roll out to defend their claim. Alberto? Karl? POTUS? Not a whole lot of credible faces out there. And we certainly can't take a White House LAWYER'S word for it. Especially since that lawyer, Emmett Flood, was a Clinton impeachment lawyer who was on the team that COMPELLED the DNC to give over it's emails.

Emperor has no clothes, folks.

Clay wrote on April 17, 2007 5:09 PM:

Sure, give the White House copies. But give Congress copies as well since they have a Constitutional duty to provide oversight.

anon wrote on April 17, 2007 5:16 PM:

Well, yes, I'm sure that there "exists a clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest" in those e-mails. A speck of truth, at last. Isn't the WH's involvement here a _very clear_ conflict of interest, obstruction of justice, and just plain illegal. Well, I'm sure the GOP will do the right thing. And if anything goes wrong, I'm sure the DoJ will take care of it.

Abby Kelleyite wrote on April 17, 2007 5:19 PM:

Note that the White House claims an "interest" not a "privilege" in the RNC docs. Given that they can have no basis for claiming a reasonable expectation of privacy in the RNC-controlled materials, there is no legitimate argument that the material is privileged in any way. Having an interest does not allow an opposing party to deny third party discovery. At most, they can seek to influence the RNC (properly or improperly) in making decisions as to responsiveness and in redacting non-responsive confidential portions of responsive documents. I expect Congress will now remind the RNC of its legal responsibilities to produce all responsive documents sunject to subpoena.

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 5:20 PM:

Where's the conflict? Maybe the WH really doesn't understand that the RNC isn't governmental, or even quasi-governmental, therefore they don't enjoy any special status. Damn, this country is deteriorating into a banana republic at lightening speed.

What's next? Does the RNC have a deadline to provide the documents, as required by law.

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 5:30 PM:

France, please do us a favor and hack into the RNC's computers. Download the files and send to john.conyers@mail.house.gov.

We'll all be better off for it.

Merci beaucoup.

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 5:32 PM:

Japan, Netherlands, Denmark, feel free as well.

tekel wrote on April 17, 2007 5:34 PM:

BURN THE TAPES! BURN THE TAPES!

Sorry, I was having a flashback for a minute there.

Thinkerton wrote on April 17, 2007 5:36 PM:

I hope the MSM -- or at least a vocal majority of the blogosphere -- pick this up and expose the White House for the weasels that they are. This kind of thing goes unnoticed too much. The best possible scenario would be Conyers loudly and publicly mocking them for it. I remain stunned by what they attempt to get away with -- moreso with every new day, it seems.

Kathy wrote on April 17, 2007 5:36 PM:

It is past time for a lot of impeachments: the DOJ, many judges (including the Supreme Court), members of the cabinet such as Condi, and of course the President & VP. Congress might consider laying-off any Gov't worker in a position of influence who has been hired in the last seven years. Then they can re-apply for their job, a'la Circuit CIty (or was it some other company?)

negativequity wrote on April 17, 2007 5:37 PM:

This is absurd. All of this. I cannot believe this is happening like this. And Justice for All... LOL - In order to "walk" the left foot must move in front of the right foot. With this said - no matter what side you are on, the left and the right are headed in the same direction. Wake Up America. Nieither side wants the absolute truth to come out. This would incriminate both sides.

Security Code: "wheel" - as in; they are going to run this until the "wheels" fall off...

bushllit wrote on April 17, 2007 5:38 PM:

I don't think this is funny, or confusing, or a stall tactic, it seems to be much scarier than that, and may final be the straw that breaks the admin's back and bring an end to this democracy they have spent the last 6(-60) years gutting

kiki wrote on April 17, 2007 5:46 PM:

How insane. This is just so absolutely absurd it defies reason. Let's face it folks: We're witnessing the final throes of the Bushie insurgency in its fight against our democracy.

kiki wrote on April 17, 2007 5:47 PM:

Let me reiterate: This is such a surreal argument being pushed by the White House that it's as if DC is stuck in a Salvador Dali painting. Watch out for the melting clocks folks. It's getting downright kooky in the beltway.

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 5:53 PM:

The folks at the RNC are asking themselves, again and again, do we want to have a do-over on Nixon?

Problem is, Karl's got dirt on everyone there.

jdw wrote on April 17, 2007 5:54 PM:

"What happens next? I don't know."

Issue a subpeona. If one's already been issued, then when it's clock has run out, then litigate this.

It's pretty clear that the Administration is going to stonewall everything. Not just the USAG story, but literally everything that Waxie or someone else issues a SDT on. At some point, Congress needs to show the stones to litigate the issue.

The e-mail on RNC servers appears to be the perfect one to litigagte. It has the issue of not just WH-to-DOJ comminucations being outside Executive Priv, but also the win-win issues of Hatch vs. Presidential Records Act. If you have to pick a test case to fight the Admin on, this is pretty much the perfect one.

Security Code: linen, as in dirty

Punchy wrote on April 17, 2007 6:01 PM:

The question becomes...who litigates this for Congress?

If it's the USA from DC, we're screwed. Taylor is their operative (I cannot believe I'm discussing a DOJ employee based on his party affiliation...). I cannot see him finding the WH in contempt of anything, no matter what the precedent, what the evidence, or what the argument.

bobh wrote on April 17, 2007 6:04 PM:

Okay...back to the old days...inherent contempt of congress

Arrest and lock up the WHOLE RNC organization until they agree to hand over the tapes, i mean e-mails.

Boom. Done, no need for litigation. Quit fucking-about Dems.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 17, 2007 6:08 PM:

Off-track Spock Thought:

We should be having this coversation in full public view . . .

Okay, Right Wing Media view . . .

Say one email to FOX or CNN a day or a phone call to Rush or O'Reily or a letter to WSJ or their BBS . . .

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 6:10 PM:

"...If it's the USA from DC, we're screwed. Taylor is their operative..."

Exactly as Karl wanted it. A backup plan, to a backup plan, to a backup plan. I bet he never thought it would come to this, but it did.

Especially compelling since it was Karl's handpicked deputy who re-spilled the beans on the RNC system with his gwb43.com e-mails to the DOJ. This time (unlike the Abramoff ones) it was noticed.

The quadra triple backup backup of course is the Supreme Court. And it will come to that.

carollt wrote on April 17, 2007 6:11 PM:

The Congress is going to have to start playing some real hardball and start putting some folks in the jailhouse.

Obstruction of justice is a jailable offense and Congress needs to remind all involved that jail is not just for poor folks and Democrats.

jdw wrote on April 17, 2007 6:32 PM:

The question becomes... who litigates this for Congress?

If it's the USA from DC, we're screwed. Taylor is their operative (I cannot believe I'm discussing a DOJ employee based on his party affiliation...). I cannot see him finding the WH in contempt of anything, no matter what the precedent, what the evidence, or what the argument.

---------------------------

Taylor is an interim USAG put in office under the Patriot Act proovision. Conflict, anyone?

The current Special Counsel is Patrick Fitzgerald. Pretty much the entire DOJ might need to recuse itself from this. Even Fitz is tagged under the USA scandal.

Likely need to get a Special Counsel outside the DOJ.

DF wrote on April 17, 2007 6:41 PM:

Someone over in the RNC was about to wet themselves over having to hand these things over so Emmet T Flood Esq. sent Robert Kelner Esq. a letter. Now they have an excuse not to comply.

Robert Kelner is the Chair of Covington’s Election and Political Law Practice Group. His practice includes defense against government investigations, including white collar criminal and congressional investigations. Mr. Kelner regularly defends clients in investigations by the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Visit his web site: http://www.cov.com/biographies/detail.aspx?attorney=11446&morepubs=true

Lets all get lawyered up.

Node of Evil wrote on April 17, 2007 6:49 PM:

I wonder how long it will be before President Push pleads for immunity so he can rat on Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales...

Node of Evil wrote on April 17, 2007 6:51 PM:

Er, I meant "President Bush", but "President Push" is somehow fitting...

DF wrote on April 17, 2007 6:56 PM:

Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, denied any attempt to evade record-keeping rules, telling the Associated Press on Friday that Rove's "understanding starting very, very early in the administration was that those e-mails were being archived."

But Robert K. Kelner, a lawyer for the RNC, said in an interview with The Times that the RNC had a policy of automatically deleting e-mails through middle or late 2004 and that there was not an understanding that White House-generated documents would be preserved.

"The RNC is not directed by law to administer the Presidential Records Act," Kelner said. "That's an authority given to the president. The treatment of these e-mail accounts by the RNC has been based on the RNC's own internal document preservation policies."

Easy boys, were all on the same team here.

looseheadprop wrote on April 17, 2007 7:06 PM:

Great catch.

WH does not have a le to stand on.

BTW, There is precedent for having the House Sgt. at Arms enforce Congressional subpeonas when the AG won't

JEP wrote on April 17, 2007 7:40 PM:

IMPEACH EM'!!!

suds wrote on April 17, 2007 7:49 PM:

If anybody actually thinks the White House isn't already vetting the RNC emails (after having tried to delete them), thenI gotta bridge you might be interested in...

goldberry wrote on April 17, 2007 7:52 PM:

Wait a sec, how can you claim executive privelege on RNC email servers if you were only doing party business to avoid violating the Hatch Act? You can only claim executive privelege if you were NOT doing party business on the RNC servers. And if you were NOT doing party business on the RNC servers but were instead doing WH business, then you are in violation of the Presidential Records acts.
I'm sorry, why do they think they can get away with this?
They sure do sound worried.

EdNSted wrote on April 17, 2007 7:52 PM:

looseheadprop,

I'm not sure I undertsand. Maybe I'm just being dense here but could you elaborate please? Thanks.

tbhull wrote on April 17, 2007 7:53 PM:

Though a court may pass saying this is a political question (the judicial doctrine), Conyers and his Committee should immediately seek an injunction whereby the Court would issue an order restraining the WH from obstructing the Constitutional investigatory actions of Congress. Of course impeachment is an option of the Congress feels the WH is obstructing their investigation.

Suds wrote on April 17, 2007 7:53 PM:

ANd on the Senate side, wasn't there a negotiation going on about a mutually agreed forensic computer tech attempting recovery of email on the servers and computers? What happened to that? Can you recover stuff and vet it at the same time? Just how would that work if the WH is going to claim executive privilege over the contents?

Explosive Logorrhea wrote on April 17, 2007 8:01 PM:

TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 6 > § 192

§ 192. Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

alabama wrote on April 17, 2007 8:05 PM:

I thought the emails didn't exist. Tech advice to those trying to recover emails. Just so you know the two web sites in question georgewbush.com and gwb43.com are located on two servers 10 mailscan 1.smartechcorp.net and 10 mailscan 2.smartechcorp.net. The Ip address for the two servers are 64.203.97.101 and 64.203.98.245 respectively. Because they both have 10 10 priority this means they back each other up. So Karl not only would you have had to erase twice from your computer you would have also have hade to have the ablity to erase twice because these two servers back each other up. So four time erasing could that be an accident. I don't think so

Kimberly wrote on April 17, 2007 8:06 PM:

WaPo had this story today about Dem presidential candidate and US Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who sent a letter to his Democratic House colleagues this morning saying that he plans to file articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/04/articles_of_impeachment_to_be.html

We need to impeach both at once, so we don't have to deal with Cheney's replacement until the end of Bush's term.

MobiusKlein wrote on April 17, 2007 8:07 PM:

Any action to subpeona the inner records of a political party should undertaken with great caution. A similar action to get emails from the DNC would be viewed with justified skeptisism.

It's sad (and wrong) that the White House has so muddied the waters, and conducted so much business off the books that the only way to find out the truth is to go deep into RNC computers.

(but looks like we'll have to do it.)

Explosive Logorrhea wrote on April 17, 2007 8:10 PM:

Anderson v. Dunn

Citation: 19 U.S. 204 (1821)

Oral Argument: Tuesday, February 20, 1821
Decision: Friday, March 2, 1821

Facts of the Case:

Anderson attempted to bribe a member of Congress to receive favorable treatment from the government. The House order its sergeant-at-arms (Dunn) to arrest Anderson and bring him to the House where he was reprimanded by the Speaker for his contempt of Congress. Anderson then brought an action against Dunn for assault and battery and false imprisonment, claiming that the Constitution did not vest in Congress the power to punish for contempt.

Question:

Does the Congress have the power to punish nonmembers for contempt?

Conclusion:

Yes. Though the contempt power will not be found in the Constitution in plain terms, necessity compels it. The power is inherent in the structure and purpose of Congress. The absence of such power would lead to a total loss of power, exposing the Congress "to every indignity."

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_2/

Rusty Austin wrote on April 17, 2007 8:15 PM:

The only way these creeps are ever going to be brought to justice is if the Democrats put on a full court press, and IMPEACH. They are not going to cooperate in any way, shape, or form.

DallasNE wrote on April 17, 2007 8:15 PM:

So what will the RNC do? The Conyers letter requests the data to be turned over. Conyers can demand the data via subpeona, which I presume he will do if anything is withheld.

Note that this is not a request for all e-mail, just those related to the US Attorney issue. These e-mail's, of course, should have been on Whitehouse e-mail and protected by the 1978 law on retention of presidential papers. Is there any wonder the Whitehouse wants to block Conyers and avoid possible criminal indictment.

As a last resort I would have Conyer seek a search warrant and take physical custody of the RNC computers should the RNC not cooperate.

What leg does the Whitehouse have to stand on? This is quickly becoming a criminal investigation. If the Republicans come away bloody, so be it.

montycantsin wrote on April 17, 2007 8:15 PM:

The White House's "objection" here reminds me of a similar objection that I heard as a 1L, a first year law student. In Evidence class, the professor introduced a hypothetical that included a particularly damning piece of evidence. She picked out my classmate and asked, "Mr. _____, what objection would you make to try to get the judge to exclude this evidence?" His reply, "I'd say 'Your Honor, you must exclude the evidence because, if you do not, my client WILL LOSE!'"

That got a good round of laughter from the prof, and the classroom. Even as 1Ls, we knew that the objection was a joke.

The White House's objection here deserves the same fate.

Digustibus wrote on April 17, 2007 8:16 PM:

I haven't had so much fun watching his unfold since we pushed my grandma down the stairs.

Now I can't wait until we have a Dem in the WH.
Damned, this is fun.

buck turgidson wrote on April 17, 2007 8:16 PM:

They can ask for a copy to be furnished simultaneously, but there is no legal basis for the "executive interest" for all the reasons people cited above. They either have very bad lawyers (they do, just usually not the ones defending them) or they still think they can get away with bullying witnesses as they have been doing for the past 8 years.

Can you imagine the RNC being held in contempt? This would be fun!

Code: vaselin--Gonzo will need a lot of it.

Dabb wrote on April 17, 2007 8:17 PM:

It's all quite simple. Any emails with Executive Branch interest shouldn't have been on the RNC server in the first place. Seems to me it's now fair game.

C Turner Joy wrote on April 17, 2007 8:17 PM:

Alabama said:

"Because they both have 10 10 priority this means they back each other up."

What? That would be cool if it were true. It would be an easy way to accompish disaster recovery. But it's not. That MX record priority isn't doing what you think it is. Google MX record.

MobiusKlein wrote on April 17, 2007 8:19 PM:

They have the right to all the germane emails, but the hard part is sorting out which are germane without reading all of them.

Who would be trusted by both the WH and Congress to do the sorting?

Brad wrote on April 17, 2007 8:28 PM:

If communications are subject to a privilege, they must be kept confidential, or the privilege is waived. I can't go around telling third parties what my attorney said, then claim a the information I've spread around is somehow confidential and privileged. Same thing with executive privilege. You can't forward everything to the RNC and then claim that it can't be disclosed to Congress because it's confidential, sacrosanct executive branch information. Once you knowingly disclose it to the RNC, you have by that act destroyed its confidentiality and waived the privilege.

Angry Taxpayer wrote on April 17, 2007 8:30 PM:

Thanks, Explosive Logorrhea...

Now all I ask for is the minimum punishment of $100 and one month...

...for each of the 5,000,000 emails deleted.

(How long is 5 million months?)

Tim wrote on April 17, 2007 8:32 PM:

There can be no executive branch interest in RNC emails, by definition.

If there was an executive branch interest in the content of those emails, then those emails should have been sent on the executive branch email system.

If they were emails dealing with political interest, then sending them on RNC system makes sense in an almost perverse sort of way.

But this, then also makes sense: If the issue is whether the firings of USAtty was a function of politics, then it is proper for Congress to have those RNC emails in its search for evidence regarding the issue.

No doubt they will be damning of the executive branch, and they will go down in flames. That's not an executive branch interest, that's a public interest, to which they are supposed to be beholden.

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 8:34 PM:

Hey, I've got a clear and indisputable interest in these emails too, send them along.

What an amazing web they've got there. I think the only thing that may have saved us (assuming the democracy is still here for the next inauguration) is their incompetence. Had they been very competent, we'd already be sunk.

Code: nose the nose knows?
what smells?
as clear as the nose on my face?

Rayne wrote on April 17, 2007 8:34 PM:

Commenter Kevin at 04:50 PM asks: "...and just what does Karl have on folks that he must be "protected at all costs"?"

How about two (or more) manipulated elections?

I don't think that most non-techie folks in the progressive blogosphere have really caught on yet as to what's in the servers a.k.a. "gwb43.com" and "rnchq.org". Read luaptifer's work on Mike Coulter and the GWB43.com server over at ePluribus Media -- and you'll see that not only was a RNC operative-contractor working on content INSIDE Congress's firewall, but that OH election data was running in/out of the same servers.

Ahem.

The White House is not going to give up those emails without a real nasty fight because those emails are only the tip of the iceberg.

Hank Essay wrote on April 17, 2007 8:35 PM:

I actually agree with the White House that there "exists a clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest."

However, the way I see it, the "clear and indisputable interest" is TO PROTECT THEIR ASSES.

-

Brad wrote on April 17, 2007 8:36 PM:

By the way, so much more is going to come out in these emails than material relating to the attorney firings. Rove was engaging in much more than targetting non-Bushie attorneys. None of these emails is privileged, and the administration will be hoisted on its own petard. Too clever for their own good. Trying to circumvent the Hatch Act in this way was the stupidist move they could have made. Anyone taking five minutes to consider the implications would have known it was a bad idea. I think they were just counting on a permanent, compliant Republican majority in Congress, Republican control of the courts, etc., to cover them. They miscalculated badly.

Wild West wrote on April 17, 2007 8:41 PM:

Didn't someone advice the Bushies that if they conducted White House business on RNC websites they would be vulnerable to just this type of problem?

Maybe they really are incompentent.

Gandhi wrote on April 17, 2007 8:43 PM:

The White House can't give up these e-mails because they don't have them.

And Execute Privilege doesn't work because they didn't use the proper e-mail channels.

If the RNC hands over the e-mails to the WH criminals obstruction of justice is committed.

But since the Republican party is a criminal organization you never know what they'll do.

tbhull wrote on April 17, 2007 8:45 PM:

I have a interest in my e-mails. Do you think the NSA gives a shit?

Our country has turned on its head, with government enjoying secrecy at every move and every writing and breath an innocent citizen makes being subject to the snooping eyes and ears of government.

John Latimer wrote on April 17, 2007 8:46 PM:

This presidency will end just where it began.....at the Supreme Court.

Claiming Executive interest is a prelude to claiming executive privilege... as the final paragraph of the letter foreshadows.

A resolution will necessarily involve the highest court.

It will be a long process, unless one side decides to surrender.

If Monica Goodling is granted immunity, that is still a possibility. But I wouldn't bet on any side surrendering.

The Cheney/Rove administration will play their cards, as long as they can. And as long as the Fox News/Limbaugh/Hannity clan carry their Kool-Aid bucket,that will be a long time.

This has always been an administration of self -interest, that extends well beyond party interest --- and of course, national interest.

p.s. has anybody seen Scooter Libby?

Candyce wrote on April 17, 2007 8:52 PM:

Security Code: fear

If they have nothing to fear, it's all above board and what not, then what's the problem? Isn't that what they told us when they decided to spy on us?

Arlington Acid wrote on April 17, 2007 8:53 PM:

Those emails contain evidence of their crimes in the election of 2000, 9/11, the start of the Iraq invasion, the election of 2004, etc, etc, etc. No wonder they're acting the way they are about them.

ricardo wrote on April 17, 2007 8:56 PM:

To get the e-mails -- you have to think like a Republican; think like Tom DeLay. What would he do? Use the FAA to find them? Nah--not in this case, but he'd do something dastardly. Can the dems get the US Attorney for Tennessee to investigate the company that provides the servers for gwb.com? All he or she needs is a little trumped up charge--sheesh, look what they did in Milwaukee. . .

EH wrote on April 17, 2007 9:03 PM:

This is awesome, it is pretty much an admission by the WH that there is incriminating material there. You know, if I were going to jump to a conclusion.

"Didn't someone advice the Bushies that if they conducted White House business on RNC websites they would be vulnerable to just this type of problem?"

Maybe, but Karl Rove told everyone it was going to be one-party Republican rule from here on out and they believed him.

C Turner Joy wrote on April 17, 2007 9:06 PM:

John Latimer said:

"This presidency will end just where it began.....at the Supreme Court."

Good point. Can you think of how this would help them in '08?

I'm wondering if it isn't to get *everything* they can into the courts to blur another contested election.

code: idea As in what's the big?

mbbsdphil wrote on April 17, 2007 9:14 PM:

An interesting dilemma.

I don't see how, short of a valid claim of executive privilege, the WH could keep the RNC from complying with a valid order from Congress to deliver up e-mail and hard copy data on this electronic correspondence.

The RNC's own e-mails would have never been protected by executive privilege. Any WH e-mails to which privilege would apply, but which were sent to the RNC, would be shorn of their executive privilege. That is, unless the RNC were merely an IT services provider bound by the usual stringent written terms.

I doubt it there is a written contract. If there is, let's see the electronic version, too, just in case the meta-data reveals that it was created last week. If not, I think the WH's goose is cooked.

postxian wrote on April 17, 2007 9:15 PM:

If they used the RNC email accounts to avoid violation of the Hatch Act, and then did business on them that is covered by executive privilege, then they are in violation, at least, of the Federal law requiring preservation of White House electronic communiciations. They have really painted themselves into a corner. It must suck to be Republican these days.

ahem wrote on April 17, 2007 9:17 PM:

Fielding wants to bless RNC-mail with the magic holy water of executive privilege.

No fucking dice. If you wanted them within the White House comms zone, you should have kept them there.

Time to subpoena the contents of those servers, and get the Archivist's office to determine what are 'presidential records', under a NDA if necessary. Because *that's what the bloody law says*.

bubba wrote on April 17, 2007 9:23 PM:

I think the Dems really need to start saying over and over and over again that the White House clearly appears to be trying to cover up something. They should also include statements that if they have done nothing wrong then they have nothing to hide. These aren't White House documents--they are documents that were delivered outside of the White House, with the knowledge of the White House personnel, to locations where they could be viewed by many, many people. It is clear executive privilege does not apply. So the only alternative is a cover up.

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 9:24 PM:

RICO looks more like the appropriate statute every day.

Someone at the RNC might realize the jeopardy they're in, but I wouldn't bet a paycheck on it.

Code: "smile" for your mugshot!

El Borba wrote on April 17, 2007 9:28 PM:

I wouldn’t go placing too much hope in the Supreme Court in this matter (although some of the dissenting opinions might be interesting). Recall that this court is not too different (and possibly worse if you actually believe that SDO was a moderate) than the court that turned the 14th Amendment on its head in Bush vs. Gore. Any group that could find irreparable harm to W if all the votes in Florida were counted can certainly twist the Hatch Act and the Presidential Records Act into the Klein bottle or Mobius strip equivalent of a pretzel.

Code: “snake&sdquo; as in King Rattler.

mbbsdphil wrote on April 17, 2007 9:28 PM:

If the RNC administered these e-mails as ordinary traffic, the RNC was not acting as a government IT services provider, but as a party in interest. Consequently, the WH lost any executive privilege in electronic documents under its control.

If any of these e-mails involves the conduct of government business, and they were not secured in compliance with the PRA, then we have multiple serial violations of the PRA. Who proves it, and who pays for it? Seems like it's long past time for appointment of a special/independent prosecutor.

ahem wrote on April 17, 2007 9:35 PM:

And yes, the White House is screwed. The only way they win this in the courts is if they pay off the judges. Hence 'interest', because claiming a privilege fucks them, and not claiming a privilege fucks them.

whizkid wrote on April 17, 2007 9:37 PM:

And who specifically at the WH is throwing this junk to the plate now? Fielding? I doubt it. This has the smell of good old Turd Blossom himself still calling signals - and he no more gives a flying F about the consequences for anyone there anymore than he ever has for our great nation.
Its all about HIM. Always has been.
Christ, he'll deprive Chimpy of any shot at being a martyr even, thank God.

ahem wrote on April 17, 2007 9:37 PM:

And let's be clear about this: the only way that Fielding transforms 'interest' into privilege is by getting the White House to review the emails. It's like racing to the state line to evade justice.

mbbsdphil wrote on April 17, 2007 9:44 PM:

Isn't the WH still using this RNC e-mail set-up? Consequences? Continuing violations of the PRA? Waiver if Congress doesn't object?

These waters are deep and swirling. This is a tempest, without the teapot, no matter how the WH or MSM attempts to downplay it.

tbhull wrote on April 17, 2007 9:45 PM:

It is subject to executive privilege because drunken king daddy pants says so after hearing the same from God. Amen goes the WH staff.

steambomb wrote on April 17, 2007 9:51 PM:

Issue the subpeonas and have federal marshalls execute a warrant if they fail to comply. The RNC doesn't have any standing to obstruct and the whitehouse doesn't have any jurisdiction. Nuff said. The key word is screw.

DF wrote on April 17, 2007 9:52 PM:

mbbsdphil is right. Appointment a special prosecutor. I nominate David Iglesias.

mbbsdphil wrote on April 17, 2007 9:54 PM:

Racing to the state line? I imagine Congress as Sheriff Gillespie, and Shrub as Harry Oberst running across the bridge to Arkansas. As I recall, Gillepspie [sic] got him half way across.

whizkid wrote on April 17, 2007 10:00 PM:

I imagine Shrub as Charles Starkweather. I mean, from his days signing autographs at Rangers games till this day, he looks like a drunkin killah.

tbhull wrote on April 17, 2007 10:03 PM:

Posted by: DF
Date: April 17, 2007 09:52 PM

No chance. He could be called as a witness. I nominate Rosie O'Donnell after she gets an honorary law degree from Regents U after swearing off women like Ted Haggard swore off men and boys.

Mark F. wrote on April 17, 2007 10:05 PM:

How can the White House simultaneously claim that these emails are outside the jurisdiction of the Records Act while being within the realm of executive privilege? They can't--that's how. This is "gumming the issue to death".

I believe mpeachment will eventually be found to be the the ONLY way to stop the corruption in the White House. George W. Bush is a malignant tumor on the soft underbelly of democracy.

C Turner Joy wrote on April 17, 2007 10:12 PM:

Special Prosecutor? Be careful what you ask for. I can totally see these guys finally agreeing to that. And then naming Ken Starr. Really. Can't you?

code: waste Too many choices. Readers pick.

starwheel wrote on April 17, 2007 10:14 PM:

Posted by: steambomb
Date: April 17, 2007 09:51 PM
-----------------------------------------
Nice summary of the next step.

And no negotiation. Period.

If they fail to abide by the court order, arrest the RNC leadership. Show the American people the leaders of one of their two political parties are willing to commit a crime in order to cover up the secretive activities of Bush administration.

That should play well with the American people.

tbhull wrote on April 17, 2007 10:17 PM:

Posted by: C Turner Joy
Date: April 17, 2007 10:12 PM

Without a Special Prosecutor Congress has no enforcement power, assuming DC US Attorney/DOJ is hopelessly corrupt, conflicted and impotent.

Without a Special Prosecutor how does Congress effectively enforce its various subpoenas?

paddynoons wrote on April 17, 2007 10:19 PM:

If DOJ declines to execute the warrants against the RNC, can Conyers order Capitol Police to do it? I highly, highly doubt that this will ever happen. But it's an intriguing dream...

tbhull wrote on April 17, 2007 10:22 PM:

Posted by: starwheel
Date: April 17, 2007 10:14 PM

Quit fooling yourself. Congress does not have the power to arrest; otherwise, the Republican yahoos would have arrested Bill Clinton. Congress needs to rely on a prosecutor, usually the US Attorney, to bring a case to the Courts. The executive branch enfoprces the laws and controls the US Marshalls, FBI, etc.. Congress has the power of impeachment , the power of the purse and oversight, but not enforcement measures like arrest.

bobh wrote on April 17, 2007 10:25 PM:

tbhull

look up INHERENT CONTEMPT on wikipedia

Congress HAS THE POWER TO JAIL ANYONE IF THEY SO CHOOSE

see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

Inherent Contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years.

C Turner Joy wrote on April 17, 2007 10:27 PM:

Posted by: tbhull
Date: April 17, 2007 10:17 PM

I think that we can consider Jeffrey Taylor "tainted".

There is no provision on the books for Congress to name a Special. So the AG is the one that names him, right? Think Mr. Gonzales is going to name Fitz? Me either.

Keeping with their past behavior it'll be Ken Starr. And we can go Cheney ourselves if we don't like it.

Gary wrote on April 17, 2007 10:28 PM:

Fasten your seat belts boys and girls, it's going to be a bumpy ride for the next 20 months. These assholes are going to try to run out the clock. It's their only option!

bobh wrote on April 17, 2007 10:28 PM:

No point. Just start arresting the RNC employees until they play ball with Congress. See INHERENT CONTEMPT.

Read a little people, they CAN do it...

C Turner Joy wrote on April 17, 2007 10:33 PM:

I don't think inherent contempt is going to fly. It'd seem a little too much like a coup. That would play into the Banana Republicans hands.

I do think that they are going to tie this up in the courts. They almost have to. But as I asked upstream, what does that gain them in '08?

To a degree they are playing defense right now. But they are always playing offense. I wonder what they are aiming for?

freepatriot wrote on April 17, 2007 10:34 PM:

I read the Constitution REAL GOOD, and I didn't see "Executive Interest" enumerated

but I DID see THIS enumerated:

Amendment 10; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

so I think the right of the INTERESTS of WE THE PEOPLE take prescedent here

don'tchathink ???

tbhull wrote on April 17, 2007 10:41 PM:

Posted by: bobh
Date: April 17, 2007 10:25 PM

So does the Sergeant-at-Arms' jurisdiction expand beyond DC? You can bet the RNC says f*** you to any attempts by Congress when the WH is telling them no, no matter how unjustified the WH is in its position.

Do you really believe Congress can jail individuals at the RNC? If so for how long until charges are brought? What jailis used? Congress would be usurping not only an executive role but a judicial role as well, on what basis? A cite to wikipedia. Again, this is all wishful thinking and those that believe this will occur are fooling themselve in my opinion.

If the Sergeant-at-Arms tries to jail someone on the "inherent contempt" argument Congress will lose the Constitutional high ground by taking a dump on the concept of the sepeartion of powers and disrespecting the concept of 3 co-equal branches of government.

One good thing that would come if the Sergeant-at- Arms tried to arrest someone relying solely on the "inherent contempt" concept would be the full reinstatement of the writ of habeas corpus.

C Turner Joy wrote on April 17, 2007 10:52 PM:

"One good thing that would come if the Sergeant-at- Arms tried to arrest someone relying solely on the "inherent contempt" concept would be the full reinstatement of the writ of habeas corpus." -tbhull

Outstanding!

Inherent contempt is not the path to follow. Anyone know how and why it was used previously?

It looks like we've got very limited options. It goes into the courts, right?

anon, too wrote on April 17, 2007 10:57 PM:

I didn't think that a privilege attached to a crinimal enterprise. I know that an attorney cannot claim privilege on behalf of a client if he has been advising the client during an ongoing criminal act. Any attorneys advising these administration people on how to destroy stuff that is required to be preserved under the Presidental Records Act, or hide discoverable information, or fail or refuse to provide a meaningful response to a legal subpeona better be careful that they don't end up going down with them, cause it sure seems like an ongoing criminal enterprise to me.

As for the administration having an "clear an indisputable Executive Branch interest" in the emails, hell, they wrote 'em, so they already know what they say. The only interest they could possibly have is in hiding what they said in 'em.

RW wrote on April 17, 2007 11:08 PM:

Interesting crossroads....RNC is in survival mode, as each turns their base gets smaller, money is going to the left (in record numbers), and now the Senate is quietly looking at NM Senator, and then there is the Congressman still under investigation...and protecting the guys who are putting them in this position...

My best guess is that they will find a way to be forced into giving up the emails and still look like they are protecting their guys, yes that's the ticket another good idea

The Oracle wrote on April 17, 2007 11:13 PM:

Conyers and the Democrats in Congress should immediately send U.S. Marshals over to RNC headquarters and seize all the equipment containing these "non-executive privilege" emails.

Hey, fair is fair. Remember when the Bush administration ordered the seizure of documents in Rep. Jefferson's Capitol office, thus violating the separation of powers part of the U.S. Constitution?

The RNC, at least at last word, isn't an official, constitutional part of the executive branch, so Conyers and the Democrats shouldn't have any separation of powers questions arise...once the U.S. Marshals storm the RNC headquarters, to make sure emails and disk drives aren't being shredded in an attempt to obstruct justice. Or send the Capitol police. Think of it as a field trip.

jimbo wrote on April 17, 2007 11:47 PM:

I would appeal to the concept of honor. You can't expect Rove, Bush, Cheney to act honorably; the record shows they aren't, and they will never be thought of as such. Others of this administration may wish to act honorably, but to do what may be considered an honorable act in regard to these issues may be difficult, because of the short term punishment they can expect from the administration. In the long run, however, if we survive this evil empire, these folks will be judged on their actions now. Any who choose to not act honorably now may have short careers in government. Code: lock, as in lock up the POS.

Steve H wrote on April 17, 2007 11:57 PM:

Not to spoil the party, but isn't anyone concerned about the precedent of Congress demanding to see internal communications by the opposition political party?

If Congress can subpoena opposition party e-mails without strict limits, they would basically be in a position to do what the Watergate burglars tried to do -- obtain internal strategy communications of another political party.

But anyway, that claim would belong to the RNC itself, not the White House, and the RNC could bring that up in court.

Robert Earle wrote on April 18, 2007 12:02 AM:

Am I wrong about this?

When I am issued a subpoena, I have but two choices - I comply, or I go to a court of law and try to have the subpoena quashed. Getting my West Wing buddies to throw chop blocks? NOT an option.

Jane wrote on April 18, 2007 12:02 AM:

The White House request to the RNC to retain the emails under a phony "PresidentiaL interest" already IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. The RNC only commits obstruction if they comply.

It is high to to impeach.

Who personally at the RNC is responsible for custody of those emails and a risk of a year in jail?

Security Code: when as in when will we ever learn

markg8 wrote on April 18, 2007 12:10 AM:

Anybody remember how Republicans howled when Gore made a few political phonecalls from his office?

Steve H this is a communications system used to bypass the offical WH communications system in order to politicize government business they never should have politicized.

tbhull wrote on April 18, 2007 12:18 AM:

Posted by: Jane
Date: April 18, 2007 12:02 AM

I think that is the best approach. Why mess with "inherent contempt" to try to punish some putz at the RNC when it is the WH that is causing the problems by thwarting Congress' legitimate power to investigate a corrupt executive branch.

Now we are on to something that has legs. The WH's blatant obstruction on this constitutionally permitted and expected Congressional investigation based on nothing more than the executive privilege argument, which is weaker than a popcorn fart, is worthy of impeachment, especially when compared to the US Attorney scandal standing along.

Congress should maintain the presuure and set the course toward impeachment imo if the WH continues to play hardball with nothing more than the bullshit executive privilege argument.

steambomb wrote on April 18, 2007 12:38 AM:

----Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)-----

What is absolutely hilarious is that this is exactly what the American Public wants to see. The majority of people voted for action in Nov 06. Since Bush is not taking actions to remove us from this war then Congress could fill that void with action of their own. Americans love action they crave it. If there isn't any action going on they get pretty bored.

Karen Johnson wrote on April 18, 2007 12:39 AM:

What Congress Gets to Know-http://www.slate.com/id/2161448?nav=tap3

Gonzales has read this; In his letter to Congess in reponse to the subpeona he quoted the definition of impropriety...but not the solution to it! How selective is his understanding?!

ewastud wrote on April 18, 2007 1:58 AM:

The White House expects the RNC to read between the lines about the "clear Executive Branch interest." They mean to imply that if the RNC gives the email to the Democrats in Congress they (the GOP and Bish/Cheney) will be royally screwed -- all their criminality will be exposed to the light of day.

Anna S. wrote on April 18, 2007 2:54 AM:

The odd thing about this is that the WH must have known that they'd screwed the pooch on this one. It's obvious to us, you bet it was obvious to their legal counsel.

Which leads to the question "Why give that statement to the RNC?" It really makes no sense at all, giving a statement about some vague 'Executive Branch interest' (people have noted that he's not exerting Executive Privilage yet, but notice also how he's not even asserting *Executive* interest. It's Executive *Branch* interest, which may be a brand new way of claiming possible protections) when whether or not you give that statement you're between a rock and a hard place.

Why give a statement to the RNC if all that statement does is make you look *more* suspicious? The RNC is already going to be reluctant to turn over any Repub email correspondance (and rightly so; I'd expect the DNC to be equally resistant if subpoenaed), so telling them to be more reluctant seemingly doesn't gain you anything. There's no upside to this statement if you're the WH, it doesn't tell the RNC anything they won't already be thinking, and there are lots of downsides, namely, that it makes you look really bad in public and it encourages Congress to keep digging.

I suppose that the puzzling thing about it here is that I know there are astute political strategists at the WH, and this doesn't look AT ALL like astute political strategy. Either somebody fucked up royally in giving this statement (and if that's the case I bet heads will quietly roll for making the WH look even more suspicious than it already did), or there's something going on that we're not seeing.

parrot wrote on April 18, 2007 3:40 AM:

From a grayhat:

"smartech? Ah, wasn't that the same service using NSA generated code to tap into other internet pipes and block them...like TPMmuckraker and talkingpointsmemo last year? I coulda sworn the traces showed...no, wait, I can't know that information...so I'm just guessing..."

Let your paranoia be your guide...since treason and subversion are such fun games to play. Fortunately, the respect for law was, up until a few years ago, so ingrained into our system of government, that there seems to have been a reticence and a need for secrecy for this sort of crap. Now? Your guess is as good as mine.

TheraP wrote on April 18, 2007 3:44 AM:

Anna S.

Good thinking. I'm wondering if what is happening is the shrinking of the group that is able to come up with strategies anymore. After all, at this point you have a very few people trying to protect themselves and the potential for anyone outside that inner circle to betray them at every turn.

Also, since they have obviously been up to no good, it's got to be hard to try to come up with explanations and strategies, while pretending to run a government as if nothing is really wrong.

The word is "fire" and yes, the white house is on fire. But they can't call any firemen to help them fight it. Instead they are busy pretending there is no fire and asserting the right to keep the evidence (of "no fire") to themselves.

Here WE are - even in the middle of the night - all putting our minds to the grindstone, turning the issues this way and that, working together and with nothing to fear - except the continuance of this organized crime family that's taken over the government. Whereas they, the ever-shrinking inner circle have no troops to call on. How can they reveal their dastardly crimes and expect cover at the same time? So no help is forthcoming to them. And they are bound to stumble. As you so rightly point out.

buckheaddad wrote on April 18, 2007 3:45 AM:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

This whole thing comes down to $$$$$$$$.

WHY NOT GIVE SOMEONE AT THE RNC A BAG OF $, AND IMMUNITY, AND GET THE EMAILS?

buckheaddad wrote on April 18, 2007 3:52 AM:

FURTHERMORE and just GENERALLY SPEAKING:

George and Dickie are just like spoiled children!

Until FORCED, they'll continue to play their game.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Put their "nuts" in a vice, and give it a couple of EXTRA TURNS (beyond where they say "OK") . .
get'em up on their toes.

Even a psychotic like George will be able to understand that.

buckheaddad wrote on April 18, 2007 3:57 AM:

The Dictionary describes George so accurately:

The American Heritage Science Dictionary - Cite This Source psychosis (sī-kō'sĭs) Pronunciation Key
Plural psychoses (sī-kō'sēz)
A mental state caused by psychiatric or organic illness, characterized by a loss of contact with reality and an inability to think rationally. A psychotic person often behaves inappropriately and is incapable of normal social functioning.

Sharon A wrote on April 18, 2007 3:59 AM:

Rep. Conyers is heating up the handles on this fine kettle o' fish. All these young upstart legal beagles onboard with Team Bush -- are they really going to risk their careers by going down on a sinking ship?

I wonder if we will be seeing any of the layers and layers of happy locksteppers to begin pealing away in the coming days.

Dumbya likes to pick fights and then go hide behind the big guys.

Consider this: He is running our military to the ground while expecting more and more from them. At some point there is just no intersection between reality and expectations.

There's always been people to clean up after him throughout his life. This may well be one of those times when he finds no one behind him to "fix" things.

Johann wrote on April 18, 2007 7:01 AM:

"There "exists a clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest" in the emails on the RNC-issued accounts, wrote Emmet Flood, Special Counsel to the President."

This is getting close to the idea that these E-Mails represent a "Clear and Present Danger" to this Republican administration.

Isn't that when the gloves come off and the bombs start falling?

auel wrote on April 18, 2007 7:43 AM:

Two Secret Service guys shot each other today at the White House when Bush was at VA Tech. The link is on Citizens for A Legitimate Government to an MSM site.

Supposedly an accident and minor shrapnel wounds to one Secret Service Agent.

Would sure like to know what really happened!

"Past" time for Impeachment!

Steve H wrote on April 18, 2007 8:47 AM:

Markg8: Obviously SOME of the RNC's e-mails were used for government business, and to circumvent federal law. But not all of them.

Like I said, people should just be thinking about how radical it is for the government to demand the opposition's internal communications, and tread carefully.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 8:54 AM:

A member of Congress already has access to these emails and could force the RNC to release them immediately. Talk to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) who is the General Chairman of the RNC. Chances are he's even had a chance to review them.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 8:56 AM:

I believe there is a bit of advice contained in an 18th century document, that is known to some as a "declaration of independence", that may be utilized by citizens to change the course of a floundering shipe of state.

Unless a citizen is too hypnotized by coarse electronic entertainment, petro-chemical recreation or whether "this vortex makes my butt look big", we may have reached the appropriate historical moment for those who give a shit to hit the streets.

Anonymous wrote on April 18, 2007 9:16 AM:

"...Not to spoil the party, but isn't anyone concerned about the precedent of Congress demanding to see internal communications by the opposition political party?..."

Rich, Dems had to hand over thousands of pages from the DNC for the various Clinton investigations by Dan Burton. I would be curious if the Clinton administration reviewed those documents first.

conscriptor wrote on April 18, 2007 10:00 AM:

conyers - what a WEAK, WEAK, WEAK answer. come on - put some spine into your reply and call it what it is: a tacit admission of a violation of the hatch act, an illegal act.

burro wrote on April 18, 2007 10:43 AM:

and just what does Karl have on folks that he must be "protected at all costs"?
Posted by: Kevin

How about everything?

Slippery Slope wrote on April 18, 2007 11:05 AM:

Markg8: Obviously SOME of the RNC's e-mails were used for government business, and to circumvent federal law. But not all of them.

Like I said, people should just be thinking about how radical it is for the government to demand the opposition's internal communications, and tread carefully.

Posted by: Steve H
Date: April 18, 2007 08:47 AM

***********************************************
So, what do we do about the FBI going into a congressional office and not allowing the Sgt. of Arms to review files first? The hyperbole; clearly this is a separation of powers issue - the Executive branch raided a Congressional offices.

Steve H, I would hope you had this same objection back then.

Treading carefully is a good thing. Stomping on the constitution cannot be allowed.

Congressional oversight of a co-equal branch is appropriate and expected. The RNC is not a co-equal branch. It is a group of "like-minded" people who wish to be elected to one of our constitutionally defined co-equal branches. They do not "enjoy" Executive privilege or an option of obstructing a legitimate inquiry into the potential malfeasance of the Executive branch.

pre-Amerikkkan wrote on April 18, 2007 12:36 PM:

This is NO surprise. They are reading every word that has been written about the Nixon attempt to circumvent the law in his cover-up. THIS time the criminal administration has stacked the supreme deck with scalia, ginsberg, thomas, AND many judgeships and many legal positions throughout gov't. There is NO hope! Code: Story as in end of.

yes, this infuriates me!

Joe dauz wrote on April 18, 2007 1:16 PM:

Now if i understand correctly the story in ePluribus, the actual emails are all in congress hands already.

If the server or backup servers were/are behind the congressional firewall, the fbi has to give congress direct access to there own hardware?

I think dems have access to the data already and are letting the GOP and the white house flay in the wind for a while.

kahner wrote on April 18, 2007 2:25 PM:

Aren't there any liberal hackers nerds around here who can just go in, get the emails and leak them to the press? I would venture to guess that this incompetent assholes have pretty shitty security. Plus, it would be a fun project.

Don Buer wrote on April 18, 2007 2:28 PM:

This whole mess looks like the Democrats trying to Watergate the Republican's campaign strategies. Instead of breaking into Republican offices in the middle of the night, they're masquerading as a legal investigation trying to get hold of Republican campaign emails. Looks like we're going to have to impeach the entire Democratic party of the House and Senate just the way they did Nixon.
The Democrats have already admitted there is no scandal about the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys, just like they found out that no one in the administration leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press (even though it was legal to do so).
When will the Democrats stop creating phony scandals and get down to the business of legislating? I'm going back to voting Republican.

derr dee derr wrote on April 18, 2007 2:34 PM:

IMPEACH THAT HAYSEED!!!

Isaac Strycker wrote on April 18, 2007 3:24 PM:

Yeah, there is an "indisputable interest" for the White House and Congress... there's a whole lot more corruption and lies documented in those emails than just what applies to this case...

Wacer wrote on April 18, 2007 4:55 PM:

President says "Rove push that delete button quicker so can get our boys to do a data wipe of the free space on the hard drive"

makesenseofit wrote on April 18, 2007 5:05 PM:

Start the impeachment process immediately if not sooner ...

Frances wrote on April 18, 2007 7:50 PM:

So, it seems obvious that the White House would like to stop a legitimate investigation into its actions. Clearly the Democrats would have to be several kinds of stupid to allow that to happen. If you look at the absurd and obscene lengths Ken Starr went to just to try and pin something on Clinton for a stupid blowjob [which was a embarrassment to his wife and daughter indeed], then they should go twice as hard after the White House staff's use of this system that was clearly intended to circumvent legitimate oversight. That simple fact alone should make the alarm bells ring.

The caution that not every mail will have been related to White House business is justified and those mails should be judiciously excluded from scrutiny. However, there are going to be a whole slew of mails that are worthy of scrutiny and of which the White House has -no claim whatsoever- against them becoming the subject of Congressional oversight.

I like the 'we accidentally erased them'. Rove, just how much of an idiot do you really think I am?
Besides that, there is another ace we can play: Echelon, or whatever it's called these days, keeps a record of all email that's sent in the world. Surely they have a copy of it. Did people forget about the fact that the NSA is keeping tabs on all email and phone trafic? Ask them for a copy, I'm sure they will have complete records. How would you go about subpoenaing those from the NSA? Who actually has that power to ask for a hardcopy version of some of the stuff they have on file? Interesting question...

It is high time that the White House is called to justify its actions. It has acted with impunity for the last 6 months while the public was sleeping and being afraid of the terrorists [fine land of the free we have here, Abdullah] and the press was just a ludicrous bunch of rabble with a pre-canned opinion handed down from the White House press room. It's time America woke up and said, in no uncertain terms: 'now wait one god damn minute. What the hell do you think you're doing'. It's an attitude that's long overdue.

Whistler wrote on April 18, 2007 8:31 PM:

A wonderfully apt quote from Richard Nixon:

"I don't give a shit what happens. I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up or anything else, if it'll save it, save this plan. That's the whole point. We're going to protect our people if we can." -- (to Haldeman, re: tapes ordered released for the trial of Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Mitchell)

Plenty of other Nixonian gems to be found at ...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

...and probably other good stuff, over at the "Wiki Quote" home page:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Main_Page

Jimmy wrote on April 19, 2007 1:30 PM:

From: This whole mess looks like the Democrats trying to Watergate the Republican's campaign strategies. Instead of breaking into Republican offices in the middle of the night, they're masquerading as a legal investigation trying to get hold of Republican campaign emails. Looks like we're going to have to impeach the entire Democratic party of the House and Senate just the way they did Nixon.

How is there not a scandal when you fire based on political hacks needing resume fattening and other republicans getting fired for following the law. hello doj office. if there was no issue on firing why did the senator catch them in a lie on reasons for firing. We fired for this reason dispite getting a commendatoin on review for prosecuting for the same reason. hmm doesn't sound like any political games to me.

Guy wrote on April 19, 2007 4:14 PM:

This whole mess looks like the Democrats trying to Watergate the Republican's campaign strategies. Instead of breaking into Republican offices in the middle of the night, they're masquerading as a legal investigation trying to get hold of Republican campaign emails. Looks like we're going to have to impeach the entire Democratic party of the House and Senate just the way they did Nixon.
The Democrats have already admitted there is no scandal about the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys, just like they found out that no one in the administration leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press (even though it was legal to do so).
When will the Democrats stop creating phony scandals and get down to the business of legislating? I'm going back to voting Republican.
Posted by: Don Buer

Sure based on your business as A Bush Enabler - ie GOV Contractor - the answer is always ...

Look the other way.

Karla wrote on April 19, 2007 5:05 PM:

As the cronies in the White House say: " If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about right? "

Motorcycle Guy wrote on April 27, 2007 9:09 PM:

This whole ordeal is just plain embarrassing.

dar wrote on June 18, 2007 12:38 PM:

send me

iautqol bcdkxo wrote on September 13, 2007 7:18 PM:

foxamwgk zalyckdhs waelhdr kpxhewv qctu cbtdjufsa bctflxg