Redstate

Those particular officials, and their RNC accounts, are required by the Hatch Act.

As usual, your facts are screwy and skewed.

Do us all a favor, take off your shoes and chain yourself in the kitchen.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

...the RNC emails were used to conduct federal governmental business, as opposed to partisan politics?

In fact, should governmental business be conducted on RNC or outside email accounts at all?

and govt phones. RNC business on RNC email and phones.

Take it up with Al "no controlling legal authority" Gore.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

is said to use the RNC account for 95% of his email correspondence. Is 95% of his job RNC business?

____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

What do you think ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

He doesn't work for the RNC. He's a government employee. He has government business that by law has to be corresponded on the White House email system. If official government business, regardless of the RNC, was corresponded outside of the official WH channels, that is a violation of the law. And as 95% of his emails are on the RNC server, I'd say there is a pretty good chance those emails contain government business.

You should try out for the supreme court. Assuming the conclusion makes proof so much easier.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"Federal law requires the preservation of electronic communications sent or received by White House staff," says the handbook that all staffers are given and expected to read and comply with. [...]

As a result, personnel working on behalf of the EOP [Executive Office of the President] are expected to only use government-provided e-mail services for all official communication.

The handbook further explains: "The official EOP e-mail system is designed to automatically comply with records management requirements."

as per WH spokesman Scott Stanzel.

Sounds pretty clear to me.

I can play the same game. The RNC is not part of the whitehouse or the government thus any mail through its accounts is by definition not government mail. Therefor is not subject to the above.

Its pretty easy when you have already reached a conclusion.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you claiming that
"RNC is by definition a non-governmental entity, therefore no governmental matters were discussed in its system?"

I am trying to make the point that if you are willing to reach a conclusion and let nothing deter you, you will get there.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

if it was indeed governent business being discussed on the private email accounts. You can get some pretty good arguments about whether something should, in fact, have been done on the government system and thus subject to government rules. If I were looking to nail somebody for it, I'd just say "account be damned, your fingers were on a government keyboard" and go from there.

From the outset, I've said that this scheme was just plain dumb. Yes, I could defend it, at least somewhat, but at what price politically?
In Vino Veritas

I thought his title was Deputy Chief of Staff.

1. Rove is primarily a political adviser, so, yes, 95% sounds ok with me.

2. Even so, 95% of his email does not necessarily translate into 95% of his job. Rove's office is at or near the White House. He has regular face-to-face meetings with the President and the rest of his team there. He has less face-to-face time with others in the RNC so more need for email.

95% seems a bit high. But I'll reserve judgment until we find out definitively what was contained in the emails. And judging from Sen. Leahy today, it shouldn't take long. I'm just saying it looks a little fishy.

...but the question behind all this is, was government business conducted on RNC email?

If it was, you see the problem with that, right? Especially when the White House says that emails pertaining to the issue have been lost/accidentally deleted, and so therefore the question will remain unanswered.

Well, unless some enterprising techy can find the emails somewhere on a server.

Given that the USAs at the center of this stupidity ALL serve at the pleasure of the President, this whole issue is moot. Leahy is simply an idiot looking for front page space at the NYT.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

The suggestion of governmental business being conducted on RNC email is not a good thing. The fact that said emails are announced lost so that no innocence can be proven is also not a good thing.

I think that this story is twisting away from the USAs story into something potentially more damaging to the administration.

The USAs were but a window into the WH and DOJ operations.

Does your post come with a window into its meaning ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I think that he's saying the same thing as me. The USAs story may have accidentally uncovered a bigger/genuine problem.

the Attorney purge is not the biggest offense that (potentially) occurred over the last however many months. The discrepancies of explanations regarding the firings opened the door to investigate the Executive's use of its power and, subsequently, is uncovering many of the Administration's actions and policies, not just firing attorneys.

Just like Leahy, neither of you have any evidence. It is all pure speculation. All of you are fishing.

...See my link below; there is already examples of RNC email being used for official government business as opposed to private/party correspondance.

about Woodward and Bernstein.

...but W&B may end up being remembered mostly for their role in preventing the United States from adopting a universal health care system.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

So you don't deny it.

This may very well end up being a "fishing expedition", but given how this scandal has snowballed over the past 4 months and is continuing to do so, I'd say not.

If they have nothing to hide, then what are you worried about?!? Isn't that the rationalization for the erosion of civil liberties under the Patriot Act? If they can't play by the rules then why are they making them?!?

And you guys are the ones worried about Bush peaking at your library list? This is typical. If you want to find out what liberals will do in the future, just look at what they accuse Republicans of doing. What is next, Leahy going through Bush's sock drawer?

The next time the PATRIOT ACT comes before congress ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Keep cranking the wrack until the converso confesses ?

P.S. I love that the attorney purge is an offense in this context.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

That's the point. If somebody serves at the pleasure of the president, then the president has the authority and prerogative to fire them at any time for any reason he sees fit. If he doesn't like the clothes they wear, he can fire them for it.

I think you need to understand that the executive branch, in and of itself, is one of the world's foremost autocracies. The president cannot fire the Vice President for constitutional reasons. And many of the appointments are subject to Senate approval on the way in. But, once they're in, any of them (save the VP) can be fired at any time, for any reason.

That doesn't necessarily mean it'll look good or otherwise be politically harmless. But you're using the word "offenses" here to insinuate that something illicit took place WRT the USAs.

It didn't. It couldn't have -- by simple logic.

but the explanation given to Congress was surely an offense. Even if it was an honest mistake, Congress has the prerogative to investigate when it has been lied to. It's the only way to provide effective oversight.

Congress has the prerogative to investigate when it has been lied to.

If it's an honest mistake, by definition, Congress was not lied to.

Note again that the American system of government is composed of three co-equal branches of government.

And unless and until Congress can show, beyond mere speculation, that the law was clearly broken with regard to the firings of those eight prosecutors - and that is not possible, they do not have the prerogative to demand internal White House documents.

Co-equal branches of government means that the Executive Branch cannot unilaterally raid and cart away Legislative or Judicial Branch internal documents, the Legislative cannot do the same to the Executive or Judiciary and the Judiciary cannot demand the internal documents of either the Executive or Legislative Branches.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

the line, when the justice department, with actual, real live, judge aproved warrants searched Jefferson's congressional offices for evidence (and yes both liberals and republicans jumped on that dumb bandwagon).

But I would like to hear how judge aproved warrants mean a breach of the executive, when demands to read emails without any kind of subpeano or warrant would be a breach of congressional authority.

Really bad stinky precedent is being set here, and fishing expeditions from any branch into the actions of another branch shouldn't be tolerated.

No - just keep fishing until you find something then. In fact - a lack of evidence just means Waxman needs to dig more or so his logic goes.

Your scenario is wrong. the White House folks had both WH and RNC accounts because they were 'dual-hatted', a practice that was also used during the Clinton administration.
Multiple email accounts are a business reality these days. I am a consultant for two different companies and have a office, phones, and email accounts at both. You better believe I don't mix them up..(remember to check outgoing sender as..).
Ever since Ollie North got to see his PROFS notes again at trial - government and military folks have been more conscious of what is sent via official government messaging systems. It is all archived as well it should be.

I guess your point is that you assume something sinister even though it's common practice today. Government messaging systems are "for official use only", I used to use my Yahoo account for private communications when I was in the military - nothing sinister about it.

====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

"any evidence that the email accounts were improperly used?"

Here:

"The use of non-government e-mails first became an issue about four weeks ago, when some of the e-mails turned over in a congressional investigation of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys showed that Rove deputy Scott Jennings repeatedly used an RNC e-mail address (sjennings@gwb43.com) in his official communications. One e-mail to Rove was sent to a kr@georgewbush.com address."

Government business on RNC email account, not private communications.

nt.

I guess we haven't seen anything yet. As I recall, we spent more than $80 million for Janet Reno, Ken Starr, and 4 other independent counsels trying to make hay out of travelgate, filegate, whitewhatergate, and Lewinski. Of course, that took more than 4.5 years.

Business-as-usual.

--
Authentic learning ends where faith begins.

====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

Maybe we need a Document Czar

Two things.

First, when linking to a hate site, even one that has a Triune poster, you will provide a warning to your fellow commenters. This is not optional.

Second, just so you'll realize, using the phrase "the Bushies" makes those of us tasked with keeping the locals in line sit up and pay attention, and not in a way you'd like if you want to keep commenting here.

We cool?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Thomas,

Looks like I ruffled a feather or two; I apologize for using the forbidden moniker. I'm just tired of the hypocrisy and shifting stories coming from the administration.

I wasn't aware that Greenwald's blog was a "hate site." Maybe you refer to Salon as a whole. I'll provide that disclaimer next time.

They're simply irrelevant.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

One of Greenwald's minions here.

Why is it that you term Glenn's place a "hate site"?

I cant Imagine why
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

But not really expecting one. Have you got anything besides ad hominem?

I often find Glenn to have substantive opinions, raising serious points, yet you dismiss him as a "hate site".

Why should I not take Greenwald seriously? Convince me.

...But would you say that there's something wrong with using the RNC account for governmental business?

Dan Froomkin (not exactly an objective non-partisan source) does not even bother to prove that governmental business was being conducted on RNC accounts - he just begins from the premise that they are and knowing his readers, expected them to go along with him in assuming they are.

And second, where exactly is the nexus between politics and governmental business? Are they not inextricably intertwined?

So at what point would it become unacceptable for a political operative at the White House to talk about, let's say a Supreme Court nomination with his counterpart at the RNC (or DNC) using his private/party e-mail account? There's both politics and government involved.

Like I said, this is primarily all about scandal-mongering; getting headlines and having a political opponent's name dragged through the mud so he gets that new title to add to his name "Embattled."

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Should take on the moment they are elected. It would save time and put them in the proper frame of mind.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

and demands Rove testifies and Gonzales resigns.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-ex-poll10apr10,1,57525...

"Most Americans (53%) believe Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales should resign because of the controversy over his office's firing of federal prosecutors, and a big majority want White House aides to testify under oath about the issue, the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll has found.[...]

Senate and House Democratic leaders have asked White House aides to testify under oath about the firings, in part to answer questions about the roles of Gonzales and Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist. Bush has rejected those requests, but the poll found that 74% of the public believes his aides, including Rove, should comply."

So either the public is being duped by this great Democratic spin machine, or they see through the Administrations games.

First off, nothing was done wrong. There is absolutely no proof to cause this search. It is a fishing expedetion.

Secondly, and more importantly, this is a blatant abuse of power by Leahy and Waxman. They are trying to pry into sensative GOP email. No doubt they will find information on information ranging from political tactics to donors.

Like I said before, Leahy couldnt find anything, so he is lying his rear off to justify a fishing expedition into waters which he doesnt and shouldnt belong in.

How would Democrats like for Republicans to have unfettered access into DNC and moveon.org email accounts, eh?

Lastly, this little bit about polls has nothing to do with what is legally or morally right. Most people probably do not understand the concept of Seperation of Powers. Something this congress apparently doesnt understand either - between these fishing expeditions made for NYT front page and Pelosi trying to play CIC and Secretary of state.

has Leahy broken?

but more to the point this is a major seperation of powers issue and abuse of power.

Maybe if/when the GOP returns to power they will get to sift through DNC emails.

Otherwise the putz would have been dead and eaten along time ago.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Even when a subpoena gets access to certain emails on an email server, the subpoena doesn't give them the right to ALL of the emails on the server. So there is not scenario I can imagine where any congressional committee would get to scan the entire message store and message history. Search utilities are used to extract the relevant emails. If you remember in the Plame affair, the lawyer for Rove had a different search done and found some relevant emails that had previously not been supplied. This led to a quick trip to Mr. Fitzgerald to supply the missing emails and an explanation about why they weren't found before.

If no crime was committed, there should be no right for Leahy and Democrats to be able and sift through the GOP's emails at their pleasure.

Leahy already has access to over 3,000 emails. Since nothing was found, though, he wants access to emails which they have no right to.

First of all, there is a gap bet. Nov. and December, in a period that 7 of the firings occured.

Wouldn't you be curious to learn what those emails in this key period said?

Those 3,000 e-mails do not even include White House internal emails; The Washington Post reported that, "The Justice Department also released thousands of pages of internal agency documents -- though not internal White House records." They are only e-mails from WH officials to "third parties".

I do not understand why some say that because of this partial selection of evidence (the 3,000 emails) did not turn up anything nefarious, it can be inferred that nothing wrong occured.

Plus let's differentiate between the partially selected e-mails and the RNC emails. The 3,000 emails were supposed to be in the White House. The RNC emails in which official matters were discussed were not supposed to be in the RNC.

This constitutes very probable cause to search those emails.

Thats like trying to prove a negative.

First there has to be a law broke for there to be probably cause. There is none. Nothing. Zip.

The whole thing is a fishing expedition whose sole intent is to try and bring the Bush administration down. Period. End of story.

Democrats didnt find what they wanted. It doesnt mean its being hid, nor does it mean they have a right to everything to try and find it.

Who exactly said that there has to be a law broken in order for an investigative committee to subpoena documents?

You learn something new every day.

Unless its sole purpose is political, to which the ends do not serve the public but only to raise the stature of the prosecuting caucus.

The committee is investigating whether a law was broken or not. How can we know that a law was broken if evidence is not gathered first?

It's like saying that detectives should not investigate whether a murder has been committed because they don't yet know if it was committed. Of course they don't know yet, because they are trying to get to the bottom of everything. They have to investigate the matter first. They will investigate if the gov. obstructed justice by firing attorneys due to their pursue of indictments against Republicans, which if true would constitute obstruction of justice.

Only a jury ultimately decides whether a law was broken or not. Does it make sense to have a trial, a verdict, and then an investigation?

and the fishing expedition begins.

To this point the judicial committee cannot find squat. As a result, they want to keep digging until they find something - anything.

They have done their investigation and have found nothing, zilch, nadda to indicate any wrong doing happened.

So what does Leahy and Democrats do? Demand more documentation and looking into places where they do not belong and have no right to access in an unprecedented fishing expedition.

You say, "they have done their investigation". No they haven't. They want more than the 3000 partially selected emails.

You have to have a dead body. Then the detectives "investigate" to determine if it was murder, suicide, or natural causes that caused the demise.

In this case there is no dead body so the detectives can't just randonly foam through your house trying to find out if you broke the law.

The President has the right to fire and and all USAg's and ANY time.

Because he can do that, there is no need to investigate anything about how or why it was done.

That won't stop the PONI's (Party Of No Ideas) though.

doh!

The committee is investigating whether a law was broken or not. How can we know that a law was broken if evidence is not gathered first?

I want to investigate whether or not you are child molester. Now note I don't know whether or not you are a child molester, but how can I know for sure if I don't gather evidence?

Therefore I need access to your house, your mail, your computers both at home and at work. I also need access to your diaries, filofaxes, journals, credit report, etc. and also to do a full top to bottom search of your home.

They will investigate if the gov. obstructed justice by firing attorneys due to their pursue of indictments against Republicans, which if true would constitute obstruction of justice.

Yet there is no evidence that this is true. Were any of the fired Attorneys investigating Republicans at the moment? No. So where the hell is this rotten allegation coming from?

All we have is loud speculation that this could have happened by partisan liberal groups, journalists and Democrats - even while they concede that the President has every right to fire U.S. Attorneys at any time. That's not enough to justify Waxman's demand for access to White House internal documents.

By that logic, you could be a pedophile. I've found no evidence to suggest it. But your neighbor thinks it's possible, so I need to investigate. So submit yourself tomorrow for a penile plethysmograph and polygraph test ...

Does that sound reasonable to you ...?

Does it make sense to have a trial, a verdict, and then an investigation?

What is interesting is that you think there must be a trial and a verdict.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

indicating there was foul play. They already know that there were no ongoing investigations being interfered with or interrrupted. End of investigation, because even if the firings were for no other reason than the president did not like their politics,it is within the President's rights to hire and fire the attorneys at will.

Frankly, I am tired of hearing about the non-scandal scandal. I think people are getting tired of seeing Patrick Leahy's face and hearing his voice. I wonder how many are tiring of all the Dems faces and annoying voices?

...of this thread, who argued that nothing was found in 3,000 emails, therefore Leahy has no business inquiring about the others.

I was arguing against his attempt to prove a negative.
This is an investigation and all evidence must be seen and analyzed. Give it up. there is nothing to hide. Or is there?

If Dems cannot find anything, like they have so far, then they keep demanding documents which either do not exist and keep fishing to make sure the headline stays atop the fold.. among other more nefarious items.

Exactly how does this refute what I said anyway?

Anyway, I'd bet that less than 2 out of 10 of the 53% who are "demanding" that Rove and Gonzales resign, actually can tell you with any accuracy (other than it's "bad") what these two supposedly have done wrong.

Give me control of one of the networks and let me just restaff it so that the ratio of conservative/Republican to liberal/Democrat is exactly the same as it is now, only in reverse.

The amount of "controversy" and "scandals" Democrats would find themselves involved in would automatically skyrocket.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

You make me laugh with your never ending polls. What do polls have to do with this? I swear, is there anything on this earth that you guys haven't ran a poll on?

With Nixon there was a break in- probable cause. With this case there is nothing. No wrong doing.

If there is any similarity between Nixon and this case it is the desire of one party to get the head of another.. or additionally, for Democrats to try and legally steal Republican strategies and so forth contained within the RNC emails.

It is a power grab by Democrats and Republican Senators need to band together and put the clamps down the situation, or it will just get worse. If Senators believe that throwing Bush to the Democrats will satisfy their lust for power and control, they are sadly mistaken.

All one needs to do is look over the past six months.

So instead of automatically deleting e-mails after 30 days the RNC unilaterally decided to store them starting in 2004. But Rove does not have any messages stored from prior to 2005.

This clearly warrants a full investigation and obliges the White House to abase itself before Congress.

So because Rove may have deleted e-mails from prior to 2005, Waxman therefore is asserting a right to rifle through all the e-mails in the RNC's mail server.

But notice that at no point is Waxman's letter asserting that any of Karl Rove's supposedly nefariously deleted messages are legally covered by the Presidential Records Act - he's just speculating that they are.

{sarcasm}"raise serious concerns" ... {/sarcasm}

Indeed.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Again.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.