Judge Demands Information About Missing White House Emails 209
Lucas123 writes "A District Court judge has ordered the Executive Office of the President to tell the court by May 5 whether any e-mail server backup tapes were kept for a period from March to October 2003 to cover controversial issues such as reasons for starting the war in Iraq, the release of a former CIA operative's name and the US Department of Justice's actions. The White House has been working for months trying to fend off a lawsuit filed last May in federal court in Washington by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics. The judge cited what he called an apparent contradiction by White House CIO Theresa Payton as to whether backup tapes had been preserved. He also recommended that White House employees be ordered to turn over any flash drives or other portable media that may contain e-mails. The White House missing email scandal has been developing for some time now."
ask TT&T and the NSA... they got everythig! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ask TT&T and the NSA... they got everythig! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bush administration's deliberate use of the RNC e-mail system, and the amazing coincidence that the White House allowed the e-mail records to get overwritten (or at least claims they have).
It's a blatant coverup not unlike Nixon's 18 minute gap in a tape recorded conversation between him and H.R. Haldeman.
The American people need to demand Bush surrender all evidence or that he and his administration be held in contempt of court.
Re: (Score:2)
That's so cute! Naiveté of that magnitude is so refreshing in this day and age and I congratulate you sir!
--MAB
Re: (Score:2)
Why couldn't he have just had a nice sex scandal. They could have impeached him for lying about the sex. That would have been so neat and easy. Noooo, he had to go and do all this "God told me to" stuff and lie about WMD in Iraq and lie about Al Quaeda and Iraq relations. He had to get us in this illegitimate war (Saddam was a very bad man, but the reasons were lies). Heck, if he had just been honest about why, I would not be so indignant about his leadership today. But, his is a house of lies, and on
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that the senate dems (the same ones that has obama and clinton) granted the telco's immunity for allowing NSA/FBI spying PRIOR to 9/11.
Re: (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:ask TT&T and the NSA... they got everythig! (Score:4, Insightful)
And how did that last debate turn out?
45+ minutes of retarded 'gotcha' questions. He isn't "afraid" to debate Clinton, he just has nothing to gain by it. Another debate would just rehash the same right wing talking points about his former Pastor and some guy he met when he was 8 years old.
Hillary on the other hand has everything to gain. She can go on the offensive and be as nasty as she wants. Sure, some of it will bounce, but as we've seen, negative adds will stick, if she (and the republican party) continues to repeat them long enough. But since Obama is taking the "high" road (err, only needing muck boots instead of waders to walk down), if he gets nasty and offensive, he loses the good guy appeal.
In any case, for the vast majority of Americans, a vote for Hilary (NAFTA) or McCain (Bush tax cuts) is a vote against their financial best interests.
The difference between Obama's "uhms" and Bushes is simple. Obama is THINKING of what he is about to say while Bush is trying to REMEMBER what he was told to say. Really, taking a second to collect your thoughts while talking where any 5 word phrase taken completely out of context can sink the future of your career seems like a pretty acceptable thing to do IMO.
And Obama's elect-ability issues aren't that big. The only reason that it looks so bad at the moment is because he has both the Republican party AND the Clintons firing against him. And he isn't getting all that negative on Hillary. The Republicans have 20 years of dirt on her, and they have the money to put it on every open advertising space that can from June to November. I am far far more worried about Hillary's elect-ability than I am Obama's.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can the Bush administration invade countries and kill innocent civilians (shock and awe) and not see it as terrorism?
What is the difference between a bunch of idiots crashing planes into buildings and another bunch of idiots sending bombers, fighters, tanks, and troops into a country to demolish their buildings
Re:ask TT&T and the NSA... they got everythig! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121004A.shtml [truthout.org]
Here you are, there is just one of BILLIONS of examples of why this make sense, and why there is a big difference between the two.
Oh and in case you were wondering, Dick and Bush have nothing to do with any of these companies getting billion dollar contracts. Anyone who tells you that is a democratic heathen.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Uh, yeah, sure. It's nothing but irony that Halliburton and the Carlyle Group are neck deep in Iraq?
And of course it's nothing but sound and patriotic business sense that Halliburton has been shown over and over to be supplying our troops with unsanitary water, food that isn't edible, or when it is edible and safe, overch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if Europeans say it then it has no point, or is critcism now only allowed from 'fellow Americans'?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Europe too and whilst there is general disgust at the whole WMD/Iraq nonsense in general America still comes just below France on the ridicule scale, much like it always has done.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're a leader of a nation, you don't feel like you should be held responsible for the commands you issue? What is being a leader then, why even have one?
Any amount of lives lost is a lot if the reasons for a conflict aren't valid. The only conflict was between the US and th
Re:ask TT&T and the NSA... they got everythig! (Score:4, Insightful)
OBL did want the US out of Saudi Arabia but he stated in a letter to the US that 911 was revenge for "US bombs raining on Lebanon" in the 80's. OBL had no connection at all to Iraq nor has it been shown that Iraq sponsered terrorists, however it is well known the CIA sponsered OBL and many other tinpot warlords to push the soviets out of Afghanistan.
Also if you want to be pedantic about the definition of words let's not be one sided, Iraqis attacking US troops are not terrorists they are a resistance force (ie: irregulars who's aim is to get the occupation to leave).
"On the other hand, there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the USA since then. Of course, correlation & causation are different things..."
Yes they are, here in Oz we haven't had a single Polar Bear attack since we sent troops to Iraq to stop Saudi born terrorists from attacking the US out of Afghanistan. OTOH we now have something I never thought I would see in Australia, a political prisoner [wikipedia.org] who's 'crime' was to break a retrospective law that was written after he had already spent five years in Gitmo.
I'm pretty sure there aren't any copies (Score:2)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=85392&title=server-crossfire&to=2 [thedailyshow.com]
Greg Palast? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So first, you prove they're crooks. Then it's much easier to show the extent of their criminality, although this might involve. That's how the Valerie Plame case should have gone, but Scooter willingly took the fall, and Congress wasn't willing to take the next step an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An "official" is simply a person empowered to exercise judgment in some set of public matters. "Civil" has many definitions, but one of them is "in contradistinction to military or ecclesiastical". So in theory, a "civil official" should anybody who has power over public matters and is not an officer of the military or church.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia note
no problem (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is absolutely true- only about 1% of the emails were treasonous.
Data retention acts (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Data retention acts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Executive just put forth people it wanted and the Congress went along (still is in my opinion even thought the Democratic party nominally controls it) with the nominations and general incompetence).\\
The unfortunate bit is that those parts of government run by the Executive (FDA, Federal Reserve, FEMA, Department of Justice and such) have a rather fundamental impact on our l
Re: (Score:2)
For some cases, I think the onus of proof should be on the individuals responsable(to show they showed due diligence, at least).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's getting to the point that it is the entire US government that's the problem. Where are the congressional hearings about this, demanding answers as to why laws are not being followed? Where are motions to at the very least censure the Bush admin for failing to follow the Presidential Records act? As far as I know, only Kucinich has publicaly mentioned the impeachment process (Only to table the idea a few months ago)
Our 3 sections of government are supposed to watchdog each other. When one of them mess
Re: (Score:2)
Reading this, I realized how the government is very much like Diebold. Diebold is great at making ATM machines, and they never lose a penny. But voting machines, they leak like a sieve.
The government has its IRS, which does a great job of keeping track of every penny (well, we round, so every dollar); whereas the White House e
Re:Data retention acts (Score:5, Interesting)
The Social Security has administration costs less than 10% of the average retirement fund. Yes, the government is 10 times better than private practice. Also, schools (when you exclude administration and things private schools don't do like transportation) are more efficient than private schools. The USPS will get my letter cross country for less than any other option. The organizations made by the government and falling under the government that are insulated from elections and such are quite efficient. It's when you have politicians involved that the government fails (elected school boards make problems, not solve them). If you could find a way to govern a democracy without elected officials messing it up, then you will have found the perfect government. But don't blame "government" for the problems that politicians make.
Furthermore (Score:2)
Blaming government is ultimately blaming its people.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Social Security isn't really investing your money in anything. They're just taking money received from current workers and redistributing it to retired workers. If a private company could "manage" a retirement fund without having to mess with the whole business of actually researching, buying, and selling stock and bonds, heck yeah it could
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's a lie. Well, or maybe you were hoodwinked by liars to where you think that's the truth, but it isn't. They take in money, invest it, and pay out some. They take in more than they pay out. They have all the functions of a mutual fund, plus some, and function below the cost of a mutual fund. There is no shorfall in Social S
Re:Data retention acts (Score:4, Interesting)
The reality is that the bulk of the money goes to pay current recipients, and only the leftover invested (and prior to the government separating it from the general fund, it wasn't even invested, it was simply used for other purposes with an IOU left in its place). If it were all held and invested, it'd be impossible for it to go into a shortfall -- after all, the original money plus interest would still be there. The only reason it's set to become a problem is because it's mostly not invested, it's used to pay current recipients. And when the payments to recipients exceeds the receipts from current workers, the system starts to fall apart.
The only way to fix it is for the government put in enough new money into it to offset all the people who got paid out of it without paying into it (complete and partial). At that point the system would have zero past debt and the money you put into it would be held for your retirement. Unless you do that, you're essentially shuffling $1000/mo into a savings account then immediately cashing out $900 of it to pay past debts, all so you can claim "I'm putting aside $1000/mo for retirement."There are some issues with the random nature of death and uncertainty of duration of payout, but as you say those are tweaks. I don't have a problem with a socialized retirement net per se, but it's in no way comparable to a fully privatized personal retirement account in how it's administrated.
Re: (Score:2)
That's correct. That doesn't mean it's a pyramid scheme. Did the first people make more than the next people? No, they made less. Did they make more as more people started paying in? No on that too. So how is it a pyramid? It isn't, no matter how you
Re: (Score:2)
The organizations made by the government and falling under the government that are insulated from elections and such are quite efficient. It's when you have politicians involved that the government fails (elected school boards make problems, not solve them). If you could find a way to govern a democracy without elected officials messing it up, then you will have found the perfect government. But don't blame "government" for the problems that politicians make.
Bush is trying to prevent the "elected officials" from messing up his government. I'm not a fan of this type of efficiency. I think that I prefer a little waste and fumbling around rather than give too much authority to someone so sure of what he is doing and so unwilling to listen to anyone else.
Your examples of efficient government are from departments that are not growing, changing and suffering from "mission creep". Why don't we put the DOD budget under a microscope and see how efficient it
Re:Data retention acts (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you seriously comparing the stupid Clinton "Filegate" scandal to the Bush Administration's abuses of the justice system, which includes selective prosecution and actual imprisonment of people based on their political alignments? Even as Bush listens to your phone calls, monitors your financial activity, and records every web page you visit, with your open acquiescence?
I personally dislike the Clintons but the Whitewater Independent Counsel found in 2000 that there was no evidence of criminal activity or impropriety in "Filegate", nor was there evidence that anyone in the White House had actually requested any of the files. There was no hit on Vince Foster either.
Huh? It's the government! Do you really expect gov't to be efficient or do things correctly?
I guess we should just shut the government down if you idiots are too ideologically handicapped to run it.
Re:Data retention acts (Score:5, Insightful)
The sickening party lie, that somehow it is acceptable today because someone from another political party did it a decade ago but not quite so bad is just a disingenuous lie.
All those absolutely corrupt idiots who fail to demonise any corrupt official often have their snout right in the trough with them.
Quailty government is all about the continual audit and review of every action of government and where applicable, the public disclosure of those actions so that htye can be publicly debated and based upon those debates, far more sensible choice about who you should elect.
It is the standard lie of the politically corrupt to claim all politicians are corrupt whilst they and the slimy cronies cook elections to ensure the worst and most criminally politicians of the lot get elected. So why mod idiots who say do nothing, idiots who look at failures a decade ago while ignoring what is going on today, or disingenuous idiots who would allow their own country to fail as long as they profit.
Re: (Score:2)
You sure like to repeat yourself a lot.
Anyway, nobody ever suggested it was ok. I just find it amusing, seing as how 90% of the complaints we hear are motivated only by the political ideology of the person doing the complaining. When democrats are in power, republicans demonize them while the democrats stay silent, or make half-a
Re:Data retention acts (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that, or they don't buy the "But they did it too!" argument you typically hear from children on the playground.
Re: (Score:2)
others are just close. i cant think of one that was worse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Without having the emails, it's not possible to know what's there, it might be incriminating evidence or it might be nothing at all. The point of the records requirement is that if you have all of it, you can go through and see what's there.
One really does have to suspect that they're hiding something with the "losses." They had a system set up which backed up
Re: (Score:2)
Public information? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the Future... (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, what can we do to ensure this doesn't happen again? One obvious method would be to have each branch of government actually run the backup for another branch. For example, the Judicial would backup the Legislature, the legislature would backup the Executive, and the Executive the Judicial.
I know this has flaws; how do we keep everybody from peeking into the backups, for example. I'm sure the Legislative branch wouldn't want the Executive branch to be flipping through its emails, and vice-vice-versa for the other branches.
In any backup scenario, those that could be incriminated by the backups, should NEVER be allowed to manage them. An independent organization should be tasked with managing the IT behind the scenes, it should not be left in the hands of the administration. Someone like the library of congress, the secret service or some agency that is not directly under each branch's control would be vastly superior.
Let's figure out which scape-goat will be ritually sacrificed for this screw up, then move on to a real solution that makes this sort of thing a whole lot more difficult in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is, who runs the independent organization?
Anything in government is susceptable to private interests. Let's say you get a guy who is secretly pro-PETA heading the thing. For all we know, he could be trolling through the backup tapes looking for evidence of animal rights violations in the U.S. government.
The best way is a divided trust scheme. During the Berlin Wall days, the guards were sent in patrols of three - it made it harder for guards to escape or let people escape. (It's ea
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I like it! Guy finds evidence of some official beating on a kitty cat. It makes it to Oprah. She says,, "4,000 American soldiers and 80,000 Iraqis is one thing, but this is going too far!" Guy gets popped, hung out to dry by the administration. He turns states evidence and unloads a shitload of backups...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For instance if the FBI(executive) was investigating senators(Legislative) takeing bribes would you want the senate to know when they were getting to close?
As soon as that happens everyone will be saying each branch should handle their own data backups.
Don't anybody suggest encrypting all the backups because th
Re: (Score:2)
Encyption, with the keys put in a special location only available under special orders, and to be passed on to the presidential successor?
Or just have them done by a neutral third-party... unfortunately when politics and money are involved, neutral (and being trustworthy enough not to leak the data to a third-party) is a pretty hard thing to find.
Perhaps an arrangement with another country? Maybe the US/Canadian governments
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
We could disincentivise future crimes of this type by classifying them as treason; employing "non-torture enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding in investigating said crimes; and establishing a compulsory minimum sentence of death.
The problem with the president's crimes is he can block investigations under national security rules and pardon people in the unlikely event their crimes are proven. In other words, there is no n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, emails should be "backed up" straight to the web for anyone to see a copy. Classified or sensitive information could be backed up by the other branches as mentioned (encrypted and requiring two branches to decrypt).
Re: (Score:2)
IT Infrastructure at the Gov (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Tapes rot on shelves, so does WORM disk, so does paper. You don't want to get caught with your pants down because you don't have something you policy says you should, especially if your a public company, it would be a SARBOX violation.
Data should be kept for as long as you one need it, and two can reliably keep it. At the end of that period it should be destroyed because you don't want to waste engery trying to cont
Re:IT Infrastructure at the Gov (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell me what the official policy is on dara recovery? If the servers with email on them were to explode, is the stance that "those emails are lost"? Or is there a backup strategy in which tapes with data are kept? If these tapes are kept, and an email is subsequently deleted, it could be recovered from these tapes. The email undelete policy is irrelevant to the questions being asked here. The court isn't saying "as long as it's within your policy to undelete, please undelete the messages we want. They are saying "we know you back up your servers, produce those backups now." To which the response is "against our policy, those tapes were destroyed. We don't know when, by whom or how, but we can't produce that which we, by policy and law, are required to have." Do you understand the issue now? Your limited experience with one company's undelete policy is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
No company in their right mind will retain emails unless for those reasons stated.
Most companies in their right mind keep email backups for 7 years as documentation in case of specific audit types that can go back 7 years. To delete them if they stored documents or contained specific information is illegal, and most people that play in the corporate IT world know this.
"Regulated Industry" (Score:3, Informative)
You know, you make this point as if it actually validates your post. Bit of a sad thing that it actually doesn't.
The government is as much a 'regulated industry' as for example the financial world (in which you *have* to keep 7 years of backups of ALL your data, including email, RTPs, databases and everything pertaining to your functioning). This is not optio
Re: (Score:2)
And who enforces this all-powerful data retention policy?
I work for one of the largest businesses in the world, with more layers of corporate management this, division that, and subsidiary the other than I can count even for the tiny part I work in. We have so many corporate rules and regs that I don't even know what we have them for, never mind what they say. I suspect we have such a policy on data retention as well, but I bet if you asked around my office, no more than two people would actually know whe
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if you understand that you are describing a criminal conspiracy here? On the face of it, from your description this is a criminal enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
LTO WORM is a good, relatively inexpensive solution. Yes it is erasable but not rewritable, besides a good furnace will erase anything, and that is why the Navy uses a furnace to destroy media at end of life. WORM LTO3 cartridges handle 400GB raw and cost about $80 each and the drive will run around $1500.
You might be looking for something that isn't magnetic though, and for that I suggest DVD-R. It can't be rewritten, the media itself can't, not just due to the drivers. You did mention inexpensive, but if
public records? (Score:2)
Dig deep enough and maybe the honesty of 9/11 ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Hint: Wrongful World Stock Market Manipulation [pbs.org]
Follow the money winners and losers, Dot com boom and bust, worldcom, enron, etc..
9/11 WTC building #7 containing SEC investigation evidence..... Building #7 intentionally destroyed.
Re:Dig deep enough and maybe the honesty of 9/11 . (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dig deep enough and maybe the honesty of 9/11 . (Score:3, Informative)
Butwhat's wring about being honest about is, instead of coming up with lame excuses like "terrorism", "W's of MD" or "suffering people".
Just say "Hey, we need to get rid of Sadam because we need his oil and he wouldn't let us have it". I'm sure we'll understand and see the reason in that.
After all. Camels don't run on oil, so why would they need it
Re: (Score:2)
As a counter to terrorism.... knowledge begets knowledge and specific knowledge begets its own with tunnel vision
What the World Wants [unesco.org] and from this we can pretty much knopw that its some fraction of a percent of the population on this planet that are in positions of abusing the rest of us with positions of power and dishonest use of that power.
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh* I can perfectly understand ignorant people believing such silly assertions. What I can't understand is someone like you stating it, and then linking to an article which all but disproves your statement. You're effectively saying:
"Afghanistam was all about the oil! So here's a link which talks about a natural gas pipel
Re:Dig deep enough and maybe the honesty of 9/11 . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dig deep enough and maybe the honesty of 9/11 . (Score:4, Insightful)
If there really was a conspiracy to destroy a whole bunch of documents, you're seriously telling me the simplest, easiest plan they could come up with was "Let's find and finance a bunch of nutjobs to fly planes into buildings - and make sure that two of those buildings are the towers of the WTC"?
Re:Dig deep enough and maybe the honesty of 9/11 . (Score:4, Interesting)
First you start with manipulating the world stock market and you proceed with draining southeast Asia, including 88% Muslim populated Indonesia.
you have put together a deal that requires investors to put in 1 billion just to get in and they have to stay in for 3 years.
Once you start having a very draining effect on the south east Asia economy and persistently ignore any effort of communication on those you are draining from and finally get a sign that you have drained them as much as you can via formula comming up wrong persistantly, and then offered them interest bearing loans thru the world bank whioch only pissed them off more.....and they make one attempt to take down the WTC but fail...
You have managed to set up the "loopy conspiracy"
Of course there are American investor losers in the deal too, such as enron worldcom and some califorina power company....etc...and this helps take suspicion off of your conspiracy motives. But you then buy the WTC with its asbestos sickness and insure it from terrorist attacks for way more then you are paying for it. And as you proceed to remove the deteriorating asbestos you also plant demolition explosives in the main shaft. As you know that there will be another attack, as the NSA has told you and its agreed upon to have the military not available during this inevitable attack. To of course let it happen.
Of course the SEC is investigating the dealing of this world stock market manipulation deal and ironically have the documentation under investigation in building seven. So the attack happens and damages some building worse than others but the worse continue to stand where the less damaged building seven was evacuated and intentionally taken down.
In summary and in full support of your "loopy conspiracy theory" It really was all about destroying some paperwork. And of course the paperwork had to first be created.
So it wasn't about a trillion dollars or draining south east asia economically or even about indonesia being by CIA reports 88% Muslim, but all about distroying some paperwork. For the sake of creating a "loopy conspiracy"
But that doesn't explain why the pentagon was hit and what some think was also a target "The White house"
There is no way it could all be based upon human greed, simple human greed.
I suppose the anthrax was a much bigger conspiracy, as it certainly couldn't have been done by some one person with enough authority and knowledge to access the anthrax store without being questioned and do this themselves. One person doesn't qualify as a conspiracy, but any fool could easily guess how the political parties would respond to this. But that doesn't support conspiracy theories, certainly not your loopy one.
There is no way it could possible be a retaliation of a wrongful world stock market manipulation that would backed by politically controlled military where our own NSA knew enough to assist by not doing anything to circumvent it. Greed figures out how to make a profit in loss they know will happen.
I have the information (Score:5, Insightful)
a) We short circuited the whitehouse email by using GOP addresses
b) There was stuff we didn't want anyone to know in there
c) We deleted it all and trashed the server storage just in case
Does that answer your question?
It has happened before, and they didn't learn (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It has happened before, and they didn't learn (Score:4, Informative)
That was actually a system problem that, rather importantly, did not ultimately result in any lost email.
Read it carefully, it says the backup wasn't storing email 'properly', whatever that means. I suspect format problems, the email system at the time was using a VAX. So they couldn't just 'restore' the email, they had to munge it to make it usable in whatever format Congress thought it was supposed to be in.
But in the end, all the email was recovered after a few months.
It is rather funny to read Republican complaints about a delay of months in turning over email in an investigation about Hillary Clinton possibly lying about firing people in the WH travel office, who are part of the WH staff and can be fired at will.
The WH claimed there were financial irregularities and that the FBI confirmed it, the people were quite correctly fired. The right claimed the Clintons made it up so family friends could take over or some really stupid nonsense, and used the FBI 'improperly'. The whole investigation was a precursor to Blowjobgate, where the Republicans do a bunch of investigating, throw wild accusations around, found nothing wrong, and finally get someone (Hillary, in this case) to state something (That she didn't have a lot to do with it.) and then investigate her for perjury. At worse, it was a little bit of attempted nepotism and then denial of said attempted nepotism...that showed up after it was realized that the WH travel office had been 'skimming'. Along with a bit of an overreaction of mass firing by the Clinton administration, which it corrected by rehiring the innocent people.
Yet the GOP is now blithely accepting the total loss of emails in an investigation of the politicalization of the justice department, which is, if not illegal, at least worth investigating, unlike some supposed issues in the WH travel office. And constantly refusing to investigate anyone for lying to Congress, which the Bush WH has done so repeatedly. (The most obvious, but not only, time is in the lead-up to Iraq, and it's worth noting lying during the State of the Union counts as lying to Congress.) And refusing to investigate nepotism and conflicts of interests, of which the current Administration has a lot more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you can't follow and buy into this clear chain of logic, you must be a liberal treasonous traitor.
What's really scary
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current email scandal is several orders of magnitude worse than Travelgate. Comparing the two is just silly, like saying Warren Buffet and I are the same because we both own stock...
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you were hoping nobody would click through you "supporting" links.
The actual article Headlines:
Hillary escapes 'Travelgate' charges
Clinton Aide Vows to Provide Subpoenaed E-Mail Soon
I guess you meant to say "remember when the Clinton administration was cleared of these allegations".
Copies of emails proliferate (Score:4, Insightful)
You can, however, wipe the server and make the "Backup Tape" go away, and then try to keep people focused on that.
No, the rabbit really isn't in the magician's hat, and no, the rabbit didn't really disappear.
The current backups (Score:2)
And, if not, why not?
Crimes against the system (Score:2)
For any crime where someone uses their position of public trust to further their crime they should pay a much higher penalty for reducing the trust the public has in the position and the government in general.
To facilitate identifying such crimes there should be extensive whistle blower provisio
UK: Perversion of justice (Score:2)
In the US, contempt of court can get you jailed indefinitely - one schmoe has been in jail for his divorce for 15 years.
I Hope .... (Score:2)
... the judge hand-carries his order over there.
I've heard that the Whitehouse has been having problems with its e-mail lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possible contempt charges against certain officials I'd think. Which they'll ignore. The real fun is going to happen when this president leaves office, and all those who participated in various illegal acts are still on the hook, but without anyone in the executive branch willing to protect them. I honestly think a lot of them are Monica Goodling types, naive flunkies who don't realize that their actions could have very personal consequences to them individually down the road. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002201----000-.html [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
*snip*
This would presumaly include election fundraising.
That is a pretty big presumption. I don't know it is cynical, or insightful, or both.
However, to get back to the OP, it is illegal for a religious group to hold a fund raiser since it conflicts with their tax free status.
So either Gore went to the temple event in an official / ceremonial capacity, in which case the records should have been kept (but weren
Re: (Score:2)
After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's law firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980's.
Federal and Congressional investigators have issued subpoenas for the documents since 1994, and the White House has said it did not have them. The originals