White House Tells Democrats No Deal on Rove Testimony or E-mails

[Back]

White House Tells Democrats No Deal on Rove Testimony or E-mails (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0407/White_House_Tells_Democrats_No_Deal_on_Rove_Testim ony_or_Emails.html)


White House Counsel Fred Fielding, in a letter today, told Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, that the White House has not budged in its refusal to allow the panels to question several White House aides, including Karl Rove, about what they know regarding the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, moving the two sides closer to a constitutional battle over the scandal.

Fielding also appears to be trying to head off an attempt by Conyers to obtain e-mails and documents from the Republican National Committee regarding the firings. Roughly 50 White House officials, including 22 curent aides, used e-mail accounts controlled by the RNC to send messages, including some related to the prosecutor firings, and Conyers asked RNC Chairman Mike Duncan to turn over those records today

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

If you have nothing to hide, you would not hide anything.

[Gan]

There is no law requiring the RNC to retain their emails. Much like the DNC.

Perhaps a voluntary offering of the DNC's emails would help the RNC be more cooperative... ;)

[Gan]

And the claims of foul play by the Dem's on destroying documents makes me laugh since Sandy Berger still goes unpunished.

[Parkbandit]

You spelled Burglar wrong.

I don't blame the Democrats for him though.. it was bungled at the place of the crime by idiots who thought they could play Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys.

It amazes me that this Nappy Headed Hos comment is receiving TONS of press coverage.. and Sandy Burglar's documented theft received so little.

[Tenzle]

There is no law requiring the RNC to retain their emails. Much like the DNC.

There are several laws about saving emails, and any inner white house communication. Any and all emails sent within the white house are part of the public record, and therefor protected as such. There are also laws against sending emails regarding white house business on non-secure servers (which would allow for them to be deleted).

[Gan]

There are several laws about saving emails, and any inner white house communication.
Correct


Any and all emails sent within the white house are part of the public record, and therefor protected as such.
Cite your source please.



There are also laws against sending emails regarding white house business on non-secure servers (which would allow for them to be deleted).
Again, this is not a law compelling the RNC to turn over the emails on their servers. It is a law citing the use of non-official email servers utilized for official white house business.

[Seran]

Not /all/ the emails sent within the White House are public record, unless of course you pay attention to something called the Presidential Records Act.

President Reagan went a step further to detail steps in which Government agencies could determine whether executive privilege could be claimed by a former president, and overrule if relevant.

But then, for you conspiracy nuts out there, go ahead and read up on Executive Order 13233 and note that Mr. G W Bush declared that he and his Vice President and any following would have the right to choose whether such records would /ever/ be allowed viewable to anyone but the (then) acting President. He further revoked Reagan's executive order.

Now this EO was passed Nov. 2001, shortly after the infamous September 11th bombings. What's our current administration got to hide but it's own culpability?

[Seran]

And Ganalon, you might want to read up the the Freedom of Information Act and see as to why Tenzle said what he did. They're not public record per se, but they are susceptible to FOIA requests.

That is why not only President Bush's Executive Order 13233 are so un-belivable, but also it's plainly obvious why he's threatened to veto Congress's bills regarding transparency of government records and timeliness (not ignoring) FOIA requests.

See H.R. 1309, H.R. 1254, H.R. 1255 if you need some info.

[Back]

Some people in America seem to be fine with the idea of a dictatorship. Its very troublesome.

[Artha]

If you have nothing to hide, you would not hide anything.
How do you feel about the patriot act again?

[Back]

How do you feel about the patriot act again?

The same as I always have. My life is not an open book for anyone but myself and the people I let into it. I am a private citizen and not a publicly appointed servant to the people.

[Latrinsorm]

It didn't strike anyone else as odd to refer to the 9/11 attacks as "bombings"?
Some people in America seem to be fine with the idea of a dictatorship.What was that about divisive partisanship? :no:

[Back]

It didn't strike anyone else as odd to refer to the 9/11 attacks as "bombings"?

What was that about divisive partisanship? :no:

Seems like the thread is about White House covering up something. You brought up 9/11.

Divisive partisanship? Do you even understand what that phrase means?

[Latrinsorm]

Seran, actually.

I reckon a fellow ascribing dictatorial leanings to a group of dudes is pretty divisive: if you support them you support a dictator, there's not a lot of middle ground there. The partisanship is derived from your posting tendencies.

[Gan]

And Ganalon, you might want to read up the the Freedom of Information Act and see as to why Tenzle said what he did. They're not public record per se, but they are susceptible to FOIA requests.

That is why not only President Bush's Executive Order 13233 are so un-belivable, but also it's plainly obvious why he's threatened to veto Congress's bills regarding transparency of government records and timeliness (not ignoring) FOIA requests.

See H.R. 1309, H.R. 1254, H.R. 1255 if you need some info.


H.R. 1309 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01309:): Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007- passed by the house, not signed by the senate nor the president. (ie. not a law)

H.R. 1254 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01254:): Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007 - passed by the house, not signed by the senate nor by the president. (ie. not a law)

H.R. 1255 (http://http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01255:): Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 - passed by the house, not signed by the senate nor by the president. (ie. not a law)

EO 13233 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13233.htm)- limits access to the records of former presidents. Not current presidents.

And lastly, the FOIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States))only applies to federal agencies. The RNC is not a federal agency.

Ergo, there is no compelling law that requires the RNC to divulge any emails or information held therein to Congress. Period.

[Seran]

In my post there was no mention whatsoever about the RNC, as I was was not referring tot hem in my post.

And yes, those are the three bills that Bush has threatened to veto should they make it through the Senate and onto his desk. If you had read my post, you would have grasped that somewhat better. Point being, I think the current ruler of the West Wing has alot to hide, and it all started after the 9/11 attack.

Be it an attack, or an orchestrated demolition, you decide.

[Gan]

In my post there was no mention whatsoever about the RNC, as I was was not referring tot hem in my post.
Considering thats the topic of this thread, the relation was inferred by your participation. Perhaps you should have been clearer in your original post since it was responding to my posts - which had everything to do with the RNC.



And yes, those are the three bills that Bush has threatened to veto should they make it through the Senate and onto his desk. If you had read my post, you would have grasped that somewhat better. Point being, I think the current ruler of the West Wing has alot to hide, and it all started after the 9/11 attack.

Be it an attack, or an orchestrated demolition, you decide.

Excuse me whilest I get my conspiracy hat out again. :lol:

[Seran]

All the clarity in the world would not be able to pull the wool from over your eyes Ganalon. Enjoy your life as a sheep. /end

[Gan]

All the clarity in the world would not be able to pull the wool from over your eyes Ganalon. Enjoy your life as a sheep. /end

Excellent rebuttal. My point stands.

[TheEschaton]

Seran is a female?

Hey there...How you doin'? <flirt>

-TheE-

[Back]

This is particularly disturbing in that this administration has led the call for more surveillance on the public (ie. patriot act, unwarranted phone taps, bank records, etc.) while at the same time removes itself from those same standards.

[Back]

Seran, actually.

I reckon a fellow ascribing dictatorial leanings to a group of dudes is pretty divisive: if you support them you support a dictator, there's not a lot of middle ground there. The partisanship is derived from your posting tendencies.

If I had said “the republicans” or “the conservatives” or “the right”*want to live under a dictatorship, you might have a point. I don’t believe this administration is any of those things.

[Gan]

If I had said “the republicans” or “the conservatives” or “the right”*want to live under a dictatorship, you might have a point. I don’t believe this administration is any of those things.


OK, I'll bite. What do you believe this administration is if its not 'republican', 'conservative', or from the political 'right'?

(This ought to be interesting)

[Back]

OK, I'll bite. What do you believe this administration is if its not 'republican', 'conservative', or from the political 'right'?

(This ought to be interesting)

What do you call an Executive branch trying to undermine the checks and balances of the Constitution in favor of expanding it own power?

I would not call that republican, conservative, or right-wing by any stretch.

[Gan]

What do you call an Executive branch trying to undermine the checks and balances of the Constitution in favor of expanding it own power?

I would not call that republican, conservative, or right-wing by any stretch.

Somehow, I expected something more.... flavorful from you.

<yawn>

[Seran]

This is particularly disturbing in that this administration has led the call for more surveillance on the public (ie. patriot act, unwarranted phone taps, bank records, etc.) while at the same time removes itself from those same standards.

The irony is lost to the owner of this thread and I'd advise not bothering to debate with someone who feels his own lack of understanding of an argument is reason enough to dismiss it. Besides, there will be another thread soon enough as soon as Sean Hennedy tells him about something else.

Well said however.

[Back]

The irony is lost to the owner of this thread and I'd advise not bothering to debate with someone who feels his own lack of understanding of an argument is reason enough to dismiss it. Besides, there will be another thread soon enough as soon as Sean Hennedy tells him about something else.

Well said however.

Yeah, usually any rebuttal to logic is some kind of personal attack. You know how it goes.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, usually any rebuttal to logic is some kind of personal attack. You know how it goes.


You'll take this as a personal attack... but actually I'm pointing out how much of a hypocrite you are. Don't make me cut/paste all of your personal attacks here chump. I'm embarrassed for you.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/hypocrite-1.jpg

[Back]

Aw, don’t cry PB. Its never been my intent. But I do admit to being reactionary. To a fault. And at fault for not being reactionary enough.

That fault being that if I don’t respond to every single attack on my character (which is nearly impossible) everyone will believe the attacks on my character. Then again, I get faulted for even trying.

So whatever.

Youve been PWND!!!11! ONE !!1!!

LAWLSZORS!!!!@

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, usually any rebuttal to logic is some kind of personal attack. You know how it goes.


Aw, don’t cry PB.

You can't even go 3 posts before proving my point.

Grats.

[Back]

You can't even go 3 posts before proving my point.

Grats.

Well, I guess you need to post all my unwarranted attacks without ZINGS to prove it.

Better get cracking, Sparky.

Youve been PWNED!!!1!! ONE !!!1

LOLSZORSZ!!!!!!1!!

[Goretawn]

Seran is a female?

Hey there...How you doin'? <flirt>

-TheE-


:rofl: Thanks for spicing up an otherwise boring conversation.

[Gan]

The irony is lost to the owner of this thread and I'd advise not bothering to debate with someone who feels his own lack of understanding of an argument is reason enough to dismiss it. Besides, there will be another thread soon enough as soon as Sean Hennedy tells him about something else.

Well said however.

The real irony is that you are confused as to who the 'owner' of this thread really is.

Lets look at a few things since you're having difficulty following the order of discussion. You'll thank me for it, I promise. ;)

1. The thread's topic was the White House's refusal to allow Rove to testify or to allow the emails from the RNC to be handed over to Waxman.

2. I responded iterating that there was no law compelling the RNC to turn over emails residing on its servers because it was not a federal agency.

3. Tenzle rebutted otherwise. To which I responded with a query of source for his citation.

4. (Pay attention, this is important) This is where you (Seran) entered into the discussion and stated:

Not /all/ the emails sent within the White House are public record, unless of course you pay attention to something called the Presidential Records Act.

5. You (Seran) then added:

And Ganalon, you might want to read up the the Freedom of Information Act and see as to why Tenzle said what he did. They're not public record per se, but they are susceptible to FOIA requests.

That is why not only President Bush's Executive Order 13233 are so un-belivable, but also it's plainly obvious why he's threatened to veto Congress's bills regarding transparency of government records and timeliness (not ignoring) FOIA requests.

See H.R. 1309, H.R. 1254, H.R. 1255 if you need some info.

6. I then followed up with a rebuttal giving detail of FOIA, EO 13233, and HRs 1309, 1254, 1255 and demonstrated where none of them were applicable in compelling an non-governmental agency to relinquish private information.

7. (Pay attention here) Lacking any further credible argument, you responded with obsfucation and diversion:

In my post there was no mention whatsoever about the RNC, as I was was not referring tot hem in my post.

And yet the line of thought in the discussion was completely evident that we (you and I, and Tenzle) were discussing the RNC and the emails. How can you fail not to see that? Wait, dont answer that. I'll just leave you with your next reply when I called you on it.


All the clarity in the world would not be able to pull the wool from over your eyes Ganalon. Enjoy your life as a sheep. /end

Outstanding work. Really. :clap: