Posted by Mark Silva at 10:53 am, updated 3:20 pm CDT
In the congressional investigation of the White House's role in the firing of several federal prosecutors last year, the Justice Department has turned over reams of emails and memos to Congress.
But there may be many more missing emails, it turns out, because many people within the White House have been exchanging emails on a Republican National Committee account using private laptop computers provided by the party for nearly two dozen employees of the president.
The White House maintains that the idea was to keep political business off of government computers. But the record of some public business may have gone missing, the White House acknowledges today. "We screwed up,'' Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino said today, "and we're trying to fix it.''
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, for one, isn't buying it. "That's like saying the dog ate my homework,'' Leahy (D-Vt.) said on the Senate floor today, pledging to subpeona records the White House won't produce. "Now we're learning that off-book communications are being used by these people in the White House by using Republican political email addresses, and they say they have not been preserved. I don't believe that! I don't believe that! You can't erase emails, not today.''
Sen. Leahy: "You can't erase emails, not today.''
Scott Stanzel, an assistant to Press Secretary Tony Snow – who has said that he does not have one of the "G.W. Bush accounts'' that the party has provided – explained the situation to reporters today.
"At the White House, there are approximately 1,700 people who work for the Executive Office of the President,'' Stanzel said. "About a thousand of those are political appointees, which means they are not career employees. Of that 1,000, 22 have RNC-provided email accounts, because they, in their normal course of duties, have to regularly interface with political organizations.''
Perino, the chief deputy press secretary, later elaborated that 22 "current'' White House employees have these accounts -- but that the number would grow to 50 if one counted everyone who had come and gone and had held these party accounts since the start of the Bush administration.
"If you look at the number of people that work at the White House -- almost 2,000 -- to have 22 people, that's -- I mean, that's -- obviously, I grant you, it's a very large handful -- but it's still a relatively small number,'' Perino said, noting that the party-relayed email has been archived since 2004.
That includes the email of people such as Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser and deputy chief of staff. It is "largely'' the Office of Political Affairs at the White House that has the laptops.
And that's not only laptops, but also BlackBerrys, which proliferated in the White House after Sept. 11, 2001. "Most people in the White House did not get BlackBerrys until well after September 11th,'' Perino said. "And that communication has now become ubiquitous... So now you're on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and it seems that you don't ever have a break. And so technology really moves quickly, and the policy should have evolved with it, and it didn't. But we're trying to fix it now. ''
Yet, they are not sure, they say, what may have been lost.
"Let me say it succinctly... some emails dealing with official business have potentially been lost,'' Stanzel said. "That is a mistake that the White House is aggressively working to fix. We will do -- take all reasonable steps to retrieve those messages, and we will certainly ensure that it doesn't happen again.''
The White House had not provided "great enough clarity'' to its staff about the use of the private computers, which was intended to prevent employees from violating the federal Hatch Act, which prohibits the practice of political business on government property, the White House now says.
The White House logs all of the emails sent and collected on its official server. The party purges its emails after a month -- though the White House says employees with party computers have been exlcuded from that automatic purge since 2004.
The president is the one person in the operation who does not use email.
"What we're talking about are emails that deal with official business that may have been sent by those individuals, that 2 percent of individuals of those political appointees at the White House who have these accounts, those emails being sent to other people outside the White House complex,'' Stanzel said.
In the erasure of communications involving public business, however, the White House could be running afoul of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, congressional leaders say.
The White House blames the rapid advance of technology on its inattention to the full custodial requirements of the Presidential Records Act. Critics, of course, say this is a White House prone to secrecy which already has gone a long way toward concealing as much of its record-keeping as possible – with a proliferation of classification of documents unprecedented in previous administrations.
"We live in a new time,'' Stanzel said.
"This is just the second administration who's actually had email,'' he said. "This is the first administration who has dealt with the ubiquity of '24/7' communications in the form of BlackBerrys. So it is always on.
"The White House policy actually has been improved,'' he said. "We've strengthened that in policy, clarified it for staff so they understand how to avoid violations of the Hatch Act, while at the same time adhering to the Presidential Records Act. In the manual previously, White House manual, there was one paragraph about using your official email account for official business. There were two pages of information about making sure that you do not violate the Hatch Act.''
That said, this White House has been in operation for six years now – with BlackBerries and the like in operation from the beginning.
"The White House, overall, could have done a better job in terms of having a clearer policy, in terms of enforcing and overseeing that policy for those individuals who do have political email accounts, and those individuals could have done a better job at adhering to the policy that was in place, however unclear it was,'' Stanzel allowed. "And if they had questions, they could have done a better job of coming to the Counsel's Office with those questions. So, collectively, the White House should have done a better job.'''
What about the question of conducting political business on government time?
"The Office of Political Affairs has been around for more than 25 years,'' Stanzel said. "There's wide recognition that the president, in his role as leader of the party, has certain functions that require him and his staff to interface with political organizations and political parties. So to make sure that we're not in violation, inadvertent violation of the Hatch Act, by using federal equipment, it's important for those individuals who do have to interface with political organizations to have outside resources.''
Since 2004, he says, the RNC has excluded White House staff from its automatic deletion of emails – which occurs every 30 days. Since 2004, White House staff with party email accounts have been excluded from that. Still, however, email users often delete files "cluttering up'' the inbox, he allows. Until a few weeks ago, they could drag files from their inbox to the deleted items folder, right-click it and clear the folder.
The White House Counsel's Office is communicating with the RNC's lawyers to see if any records of official business were lost, and if they can be recovered.
"Wthout knowing how many emails have been sent… you can't say how many have potentially been lost,'' Stanzel said. "What I do know, in terms of the universe, is as I described it -- about a thousand political appointees at the White House, 22 of them have political email accounts. Of the emails that they may have sent that did not touch the White House server -- so they did not communicate with anybody else here at the White House, but those emails may have dealt with official business -- that's what we're looking into.''
.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Why does this sound so familiar? A 15 minute gap.
Huh?
Posted by: bill r. | April 12, 2007 11:10 AM
I wonder what the Republic Swampers would be saying if the Clinton Whitehouse "lost" some
e-mails that were part of an investigation?
Posted by: jethro | April 12, 2007 11:17 AM
Brings to mind that old Yogi Bera quote: Sounds like deja vu, all over again. Can anyone say Watergate?
Posted by: jj | April 12, 2007 11:28 AM
How convenient.
I suppose it's better to spin why evidence is missing then be held accountable for the evidence agianst you.
Posted by: RomanB | April 12, 2007 11:42 AM
Gonzogate is starting to remind of Tricky Dick Nixons erased gaps on his Whitehouse tapes during Watergate.
This is just the tip of the corruption iceberg for Chimpy McFlightsuit.
Oversight is a **** !
Posted by: John E | April 12, 2007 11:44 AM
Government within a government? Sound familiar?
John Poindexter, Ollie North & the rest of the Iran/Contra cabal must be waxing nostalgic.
And Dubya like his hero "Ronbo," he don't know nuthin.
Posted by: Doug Zook | April 12, 2007 11:49 AM
I knew this would happen.
These are the high-tech "Watergate Tapes."
The Democrats better get some IT specialists on board fast.
E-mails are rarely permanently deleted.
There are there, in the servers, on other e-mail systems.....they're there.
Find them, and the entire rotten structure of Bush's crooked administration will come crashing down.
Posted by: Ron | April 12, 2007 12:01 PM
This Gonzo-Gate is getting curiouser and curiouser.
Posted by: Raving Loon | April 12, 2007 12:07 PM
Who in the White House is responsible for ensuring that the White House complies with applicable laws (including the Presidential Records Act) which appear to have been violated by this "shadow" email system? Isn't it the White House Counsel - who for 5 years was none other than our current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales? Does it come as any surprise that Mr. Gonzales failed to live up to his job responsibilities? It appears that Mr. Gonzales has been played the fool by Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney since President Bush took office . . . .
Posted by: Bosco | April 12, 2007 12:34 PM
"This Gonzo-Gate is getting curiouser and curiouser."
You mean sillier and sillier.
You guys are hysterical. Getting mad about the attorney firings and then getting mad about Republican emails.
I wonder what the reaction would be if they were violating the Hatch Act.
That's ok....a lame story like this keeps you guys occupied for a while searching for your "outrage" of the week.
Mabye Sandy Berger has them. You know...the story that lasted 6 hours.
Posted by: JD | April 12, 2007 12:40 PM
The White House and GOP IT people must be served with subpoenas immediately.
Posted by: bb | April 12, 2007 12:40 PM
Doesn't the fact that these accounts were used prove the "political" nature of the firings. The white said themselves that these email accounts and laptops were used to keep political business off of government computers.
Posted by: gottasay | April 12, 2007 12:48 PM
It's what I've come to expect.
Anybody in a position to do so ready to start impeachment hearings NOW?
Posted by: Bummed | April 12, 2007 12:50 PM
Gottasay,
Your point is brilliant, I had never thought of it that way. If the firings weren't political, why would there be any related emails on the system that was reserved for political work?
Posted by: Sam | April 12, 2007 12:58 PM
..."You guys are hysterical. Getting mad about the attorney firings and then getting mad about Republican emails."...
...as opposed to getting mad about a president getting oral sex?...
Posted by: The Original BZ | April 12, 2007 1:03 PM
here we go again. now you see it now you dont. HMMM sounds like buisness as usual for the republicans. Dont forget according to them the fedral deficit is all the democrats fault.
Posted by: HOCUS POCUS | April 12, 2007 1:18 PM
It's not about getting mad JD,it's about getting even!An eye for eye.
Before you say another word,remember,you're the guy that reduced soldier deaths in Iraq down to a percentile.
Posted by: Raving Loon | April 12, 2007 1:31 PM
If Patrick Fitzgerald has some free time, I think we're going to need a special prosecutor here.
Posted by: Tom O | April 12, 2007 1:46 PM
"I've got a teenage kid in my neighborhood that can go get 'em for them," Sen. Patrick Leahy told reporters later.
Leahy's right about that. Email never disappears - ever. It's on the ISP's servers and those are backed up daily. It's on the client computers, both the senders' and receivers'. If subpoenas are issued, the messages can be
retrieved.
Posted by: billyjoe | April 12, 2007 1:50 PM
They must think we're all a bunch of dweebs. everyone knows that all this information can be retrieved even though you deleted it off your system.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | April 12, 2007 2:01 PM
"The president is the one person in the operation who does not use email." it sounds like Paulie the mob boss from Good Fellas who wouldn't use the phone, didn't want anything pinned on him. Hope somebody is going to jail soon.
Posted by: Joe | April 12, 2007 2:02 PM
As any IT person will tell you, emails are never really "lost". Trust me - they WILL be recovered. In the meantime, this just gets worse and worse for the Bushies. Incompetence catches up to you.
Posted by: Gabe | April 12, 2007 2:07 PM
Sounds like Sandy Berger is up to his old tricks again!! I told you he should have gotten jail time. They let him out, and now documents go missing. When are Dem's going to stop giving a free pass to their own kind!
Posted by: Dan | April 12, 2007 2:08 PM
E-mails are never permanently deleted. Any sharp and savy IT/ computer tech should be able to retrieve them. Large corporations have e-mails archived. This sounds like criminal obstruction of justice. Subpoena them (the e-mails and other documentation). Anyone involved in deleting them should be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned. This includes Gonzales, his staffers, and even Turd Blossom. I would not compromise with this illegitimate administration at all.
Yeah JD, maybe Sandy Berger has them. Maybe smarmy Dick Cheney has them at his undisclosed location.
Posted by: Doug R. | April 12, 2007 2:17 PM
I remember when Nixon was in the middle of Watergate and my uncle, the rabid Republican and raving drunk of the family, kept saying that it was all a tempest in a teapot, that it didn't matter what Nixon did because he was our President and just being President made whatever he did right -- AND that Nixon would be remembered as the greatest president in history. Ahhhhh the good old days.
Posted by: John | April 12, 2007 2:34 PM
You might want to update your story. It's now quite a few more White House employees and possibly up to 5 MILLION e-mails. No dog eats that much homework. Will this be the story that finally humiliates the corporate-journalist/flaks into doing their jobs? Let's see. They're probably willing to grovel around until something even more dishonest and damaging to the country pops up, let the bloggers do the majority of the work, then step in at the end and campaign for their Pulitzers.
Posted by: Jeff Elijah | April 12, 2007 2:46 PM
E-Mail can get deleted pretty easily actually.
True, deleting email from the end-user machine doesn't actually delete the email from the server. However, the retention policy of the email server can be just about anything from 0 days to several years depending on how it's configured. Public companies have to save most all communications to be SOX compliant, however private email systems do not.
Trust me, that email can easily be "gone."
Posted by: Rob | April 12, 2007 2:46 PM
I'm channeling various posters' thoughts right now, and the loose translation is something like . . . "Damn that Bill Clinton, hiring his covert right-wing operatives to infiltrate RNC headquarters and delete Rove's emails in order to make it appear they had something to hide! It's his fault we're in Iraq, too!"
Posted by: Jack Armstrong | April 12, 2007 2:56 PM
Hmmm, the president can fire any U.S. Attorney he wants. He got rid of 8 of them. No crime in that. No investigation necessary. Some missing e-mails? Makes no difference, the president can fire Patrick Fitzgerald if he wants. A nonstory about a nonscandal. Actually the real scandal is the Democrats investigation and the media continuing to report on this story that has less significance than who Anna Nicole's baby's daddy is!
Posted by: John D | April 12, 2007 3:07 PM
This administration is beginning to sound a lot like Abbot, and Costello's 'Whose on First' routine. Only problem is no one is laughing.
Posted by: Bears069 | April 12, 2007 3:09 PM
Please,
This is such a load. We all know it, just another coverup. If this was a Democrat email snafu there would be blood in the waters and Ken Starr on the way.
You know how you know its a load? No posting by the Loony Right, what say you loyal Bushies?
You silence speaks volumes on several posts today.
You better bet the Republican tech nerds who are at this minute erasing every automated server backup is wishing that "Dang Al Gore" would have never invented the internet in the first place!
Wake up America. Bold faced cover ups and lies right before your eyes. Support the troops! Stop harrassing the president, hes fighting a war and if you dont support him you will die a fiery terrorist death right in your own hometown!
Be afraid America! Let the bombs do our talking, you just go hide under your desk in case the terrorists follow us home.
Follow us home right through our unprotected borders, smuggle weapons home right through our unguarded ports.
Wake up America
Posted by: erick | April 12, 2007 3:17 PM
John D,
Why do you think it is acceptable for the White House to send DOJ officials to give false statements before Congress? That's what this is about. FYI lying before Congress is perjury.
Posted by: jethro | April 12, 2007 3:31 PM
You libs have such a short memory!! Berger not only stole documents from the national archives, he put them down his pants and then claimed he couldn't remember what he did with them!!! That's a lot worse then saying you accidently hit 'delete' on the emails!! Call a liar a liar and start with calling yourself a hypocrite!
Posted by: jeff | April 12, 2007 3:35 PM
Jeff-
Sandy Berger was convicted of a crime. No one excuse his actions.
Does Sandy Berger's crime mean that all Republicans have a blanket amnesty to commit any crimes they may desire?
Posted by: Tony | April 12, 2007 3:43 PM
Fine Jeff, let's investigate Sandy Berger too. Have at him. Let's get all the crooks, Republicans and Democrats. I'm for equal opportunity prosecution. Patrick Fitzgerald sounds like the right man for the job. I don't know how Mr. Berger could possibly have gotten away with his heinous crime for so long, but I'm sure Fitzgerald will get him...right after he gets done investigating this White House bunch.
Posted by: Tom O | April 12, 2007 4:06 PM
jeff
No one said anything about "accidently hitting delete". It has nothing to do with Berger. It has nothing to do with libs.
John D
The "few" e-mails aren't "missing".
I'd go on, but I don't want my bong water to overboil.
Posted by: RomanB | April 12, 2007 4:09 PM
Jeff please calm down. Mr. Berger was dealt with by the Justice Department. He's sorry and the world is moving on. Let's just look into this current matter and see what's going on with these missing e-mails. I'm sure Rove will find a fall guy for this and King George will be well out of office before they can send him to jail so just relax, your safe from mean old Sandy Berger, it's going to be OK.
Posted by: Joe | April 12, 2007 4:13 PM
Jeff,
I dont have a short memory.
I think Berger was a liar and a pretty poor one at that. Didnt all that go down with a full Republican congress at the helm, July 19, 2004 to be exact. What happened bro? Should have been an easy conviction? Yet he was able to lie his way to a misdemeanor and $50K in fines.
So now that I've called Berger a liar, can we get back to whats happening in America TODAY and stop hiding current problems under the guise of "well it happened before.."?
Do you think theres a lot of scurrying going on right now with the RNC tech nerds? Do you really think 22 people all "accidentally hit delete"?
Hmm, I'd say they are lying just like Berger did, what do you think? 22 guilty pleas?
Response please.
Posted by: erick | April 12, 2007 4:16 PM
Hi JohnD, glad to see you are back from dropping your 8% charity donation off, do you think its not that the president can fire the 8 attorneys but WHY? If he fired them because they weren't following the Republican playbook, wouldn't that be BAD?
Oh and how many other attorneys have been fired in a similar fashion by a Pres, not at the beginning of a term, but right in the middle, firing people he hired in the first place? How many?
Last I checked it was 2, both by Reagan.
William Kennedy (dismissed in 1982)
J. William Petro (in 1984)
DOH!
http://www.buzzflash.com/archives/07/US_attrny_rprt.pdf
Reagan must have been Loony!
Posted by: erick | April 12, 2007 4:18 PM
Does Sandy Berger's crime mean that all Republicans have a blanket amnesty to commit any crimes they may desire?
Posted by: Tony | Apr 12, 2007 3:43:02 PM
Yes Tony, thats exactly what Jeff means. Of course he'll deny that & rant about how I'm twisting his words on him but why else would he bring up Sandy Berger? Didn't you realize its an unwritten rule in politics that for each crime committed by one side, the other side gets a free pass to do the same thing but only if its done on a bigger & grander scale? I thought you kept yourself up to date on this stuff.
Posted by: jj | April 12, 2007 4:41 PM
"Before you say another word,remember,you're the guy that reduced soldier deaths in Iraq down to a percentile."
Loon,
Are you that insecure about your Iraq war arguments that you have to spin what I posted months ago?
How do you reduce soldier deaths down to a percentile?
What does that even mean?
Get over it Loon. Its ok, Al Gore will run and you'll be saved.
Posted by: JD | April 12, 2007 4:46 PM
Please see my old fort I need help Best regards
www.fortesaojose.com
Posted by: Renato | April 12, 2007 5:43 PM
OMG why I bet George W Bush's Dog,Barney ate all
those missing E-mails,as ya'll know how dogs like
to eat Republican E-mails for a midnight snack,
don't you?...So there all you right wing neo con
Bushie Republicans is your pal "Fredo" Crazy
Alberto Gonzales Defense for Gonzogate!..Why
Shame,Shame on you Barney your loyalty to The
Boss is so touchy you naughty dog you!
Posted by: Sandy | April 12, 2007 5:55 PM
Some appointed lawyers who serve at the whim of the president were fired and... so what? Who cares why they were fired. Clinton fired a bunch too and no one made a fuss about that. I just don't get it.
Posted by: Wolf | April 12, 2007 6:06 PM
"Screw up" looks like "cover up" to me.
Posted by: Carl A. Seaward | April 12, 2007 6:38 PM
Stanzel keeps saying only 22 of the thousands have political email accounts, so we shouldn't be concerned. But, WHO are those 22. What do you bet Karl Rove is on the list. He's in the middle of every dirty deed, and this is no exception.
Posted by: Nancy Osborne | April 12, 2007 6:39 PM
DON'T YOU ALL REALIZE THAT CLINTON IS AT FAULT FOR EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING WRONG, EVEN THESE EMAILS. DUBYA IS NOT AT FAULT, NOR HIS ADMINISTRATION!!!!
Posted by: RM | April 12, 2007 7:04 PM
I love all these Republicans who say a lying Attorney General is "nothing to make a fuss about."
Im sorry that you feel that way because most Americans labor under the delusion the head of the Justice department should be an honest individual.
I guess in GOP land its only a crime to lie about sex.
Posted by: Carl | April 12, 2007 7:11 PM
"It's not about getting mad JD,it's about getting even!An eye for eye."
Posted by: Raving Loon | Apr 12, 2007 1:31:02 PM
Babbling Loon,
For the braindead it's all about revenge. For civilized human beings with a higher-than-shoe-size IQ, there is something called justice.
When you express these sort of malignant "ideas" you do no good for anybody, least of all Liberalism -- to which you pretend to have some kind of allegience.
Posted by: Leo T | April 12, 2007 7:56 PM
First of all, The difference between Clinton and Bush is the fact that Clinton fired the attorney's when he took office after a 16 year republican house. I am not saying it was the right thing, and I am not crazy about it either but it was political move. With Bush, he waited 6 years to fire them after he took office and added to that, Gonzales was able to do it without congressional oversight because of a law put in the Patriot Act to allow them to do so. Added to that, they were all republicans. It just stands out fishy especially now we are hearing that thousands of emails are now missing. There is just too much voo doo going on here. And frankly I am worried about the now and what this administration is doing not what Clinton did. We should be concerned with what is right for this country, and that we do have a code of ethics. The minute we start saying he/she did this or that then we have lost our way.
Posted by: Jon K | April 12, 2007 8:44 PM
Anybody check Hillary's billing records?
Posted by: Terry | April 12, 2007 9:02 PM
Every day brings a new surprise from the Bush "Robber Barron's White House"; Today it's missing emails and violations of the Hatch Act by using Government facilities illegally for campaign work. Yesterday It was Wolfowitz paying off his live-in girl friend. Perhaps it's Chaney's turn or Rove's tomorrow. God! Hurry up with 2008 so we can return the presidency back to the people and remove it from the clutches of the special interest nabobs.
History will record this as the worst presidency ever; even exceeding U.S. Grant.
Posted by: J. C. Whitney | April 12, 2007 9:33 PM
If I read it right, the Prez does not use Email??? I mean, I know it hasn't been around for, ohhhh 20 years...but my kid had email when she was 6. Is it that he knows if he had email we would have to keep it, archive it???
Yes, this is a new era...but come on!!! I guess I am too much of a geek to realize that EVERYONE has email.
I guess next he will tell you that he doesn't have keys to the front door of the White House!!!
Posted by: Eric Hv | April 12, 2007 9:35 PM
a Dem ploy to read Rep emails. Naw, they're not that smart. We would like to know who are the 22. I believe if these emails are examined we will find many policy and adminstrative decisions made for political capital. I wonder how much of our Iraq policy was RNC/oil cartel directed. Bet the boat the VP and former Sec Def had laptops.
Posted by: Jerone | April 12, 2007 10:09 PM
Gee. Why does this sound so familiar? Maybe I'm thinking of when achiving was turned off in the Clinton White House for a couple years? I tell you, it's spooky what people forget about!
Let me remind you: 526 white House employees had about four years of their emails never added to the archive and never searched when subpoenas were issued. And the Clinton White House response? They threatened the sysadmins with jail time if they reveiled the lost emails. And somehow Al Gore's entire office was excluded from the archives. $3 million in costs and all the emails delayed until after the election.
http://www.gcn.com/print/vol19_no7/1649-1.html
Posted by: VivianC | April 12, 2007 10:43 PM
Actually,I don't mind saying ,I told you so.And just to reiterate...IMPEACH NOW! And don't forget to hang Bush,Cheney,Wolfowitz,Rove,Gonzalez,Rumsfeld and anyone else who didn't know, didn't do,can't be held accountable because they're not the Decider,etc.,etc.,whatever!
Posted by: being bear | April 12, 2007 10:51 PM
The Bush-Cheney-Rove, Inc. White House did,
in fact, "fix it".
This Repuglicrite cabal fixed it with the
RNC, et al. during the late presidential
transition period in JANUARY 2001.
The do-nothing, lapdog, inside-the-Beltway
print and broadcast media SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED,
THUS, INVESTIGATED THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH
A SECRET POLITICAL COMMUNICATIONS APPARATUS
IN THIS WHITE HOUSE, EARLY ON!!!
Posted by: ABE | April 12, 2007 11:07 PM
"Im sorry that you feel that way because most Americans labor under the delusion the head of the Justice department should be an honest individual."
Yes - this is the most correct statement in the whole chain of rants -- that there are honest people in our government - an oxymoron. And an honest lawyer? Worse yet. (I'm not talking about postal employees, or some rural bureaucrat - but you don't get into mainstream government in this country with honesty.) It doesn't matter what side you are on. Another delusion - is that our justice system is 'just' - it isn't. Until you've spent some time dealing with these people and that system - you are virgins talking about sex.
Posted by: dave | April 13, 2007 1:33 AM
What is there to discuss?
The man has done everything possible to dismantle the Constitution of this United States.
We impeach a guy for getting a blow job in the oval office yet we pussy foot around a know draft dodger while he sends our youth to war. I do not regret swearing to up hold the Constitution of the United States when I signed up but I do regret you generation XYZ for the lack of testicular fortitude to impeach the criminal in office. Utimately there will be a draft. I will come to kiss you good bye and I will be there to help you get medical care after your brains have been scrambled. All in the name of the Patriot Act,,,,,,,,,,,,
Posted by: To the point!!!! | April 13, 2007 5:50 AM
I seem to remember Al Gore getting heat when he was veep for using a phone in the Executive Office Building to fundraise. And an admitted 22 member of Bush's staff had computers and email access IN THE WHITE HOUSE to conduct partisan business? (The 22 are probably only the tip of the iceberg.) Seems to me they have just implicitly admitted violating the Hatch Act.
Throw the whole friggin administration out.
Posted by: athena | April 13, 2007 10:39 AM
The bottom line is that the cuurent AG Alberto Gonzalez is unqualified for his job. His testimony before Congress proves it. He stepped in it all on his own. All he had to say was that we fired the 7 or 8 US Attorneys and we don't need to give you a reason why. But because he still has a semblance of a conscience left he ended up volunteering damaging testimony that was blatantly untrue.
If Alberto was a plumber he probably would start out replacing a faucet washer in the kitchen but end up at a main near the curb.
He should have resigned the day after his bad testimony. But he's probably been getting such glowing reviews from his bosses for so long he figured it would just go away.
Wait till they start reviewing all the death sentence cases in Texas he signed off on.
It's going to be a very, very hot summer in DC.
Posted by: SGK | April 13, 2007 12:14 PM
jon K-
You are wrong. Both Clinton and Bush fired attorneys upon taking office, and Berger stole confidential documents. But all you libs don't get it. Tell me one liberal that begged for a tough conviction for Berger when Berger got caught. Not one of you or any other liberal. And you idiots who think Berger wasn't convicted. He WAS, and was given probation!! You all want jail time and the death sentance for those who delete emails, yet are so passive about Berger's conviction most of you don't even know he's already gotten sentenced!!! Hypocrites, the whole lot of ya.
Now please qoute the section of my post where I state that all republicans should get off and where they didn't do anything.... I'm dismayed at how you all read what you want to hear, did i even imply any of that.
Posted by: jeff | April 13, 2007 3:35 PM
Jeff:
You're becoming unhinged. If you are unwilling to distinguish between the Berger situation and the present coverup, then you are officially as deluded as your beloved Sen. McSleepy. There's a tremendous difference between one person taking (and destroying) one copy of one document (knowing that the originals existed elsewhere), and a concerted effort (conspiracy) by many people attempting to destroy e-mails from ever coming to light, particularly in the context of a hostile Congressional investigation.
Likewise, there's an obvious difference between firing prosecutors upon taking office -- a categorical house-cleaning -- and selectively taking out a few prosecutors in mid-stream, particularly when both direct and circumstantial evidence make very clear that the subject prosecutors were fired for political reasons.
I realize times are tough for Bush apologists. Too bad. You reap what you sow.
Posted by: a blinkin | April 13, 2007 5:44 PM
Jeff,
Glad to see we're on the same side. I'm happy to hear Berger was convicted for his foul deeds, but I agree he got off easy. While I wouldn't necessarily advocate death sentences for Berger or the current batch of criminals in the Bush administration, I'm sure you will agree that government officials like these who violate their public trust should be investigated and prosecuted if they have broken the law.
Posted by: Tom O | April 13, 2007 6:03 PM