[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
Yes, and committing perjury in front of congress is 100% illegal as well, but you’ll note that Clinton stayed in the Whitehouse just fine.
[/QUOTE]
Clinton didn’t perjure himself in front of Congress. He perjured himself in a deposition of the Paula Jones trial.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Heh, I can sort of picture the administration finding some poor IT guy to take the blame for loosing emails as sort of a modern day equivalent to Rose Mary Woods.
[/QUOTE]
How does an IT person do THIS?
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
How does an IT person do THIS?
[/QUOTE]
You know, I still think, if for nothing else, she should have been indicted just for wearing that dress…
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
Only three items seems pretty hard to prosecute on. Unless they can prove a fairly consistent rerouting around the Whitehouse system, it’s pretty easy for the Whitehouse to say that they forgot to use the system that one time or two times.
[/QUOTE]
Nitpick: “White House” is two words.
[QUOTE=Campion]
3,000 pages is nothing. That’s less than a box of documents. I can blow through that, even with emails where I have to read every page, in a couple hours. (And for the record, in my time doing document reviews, I’ve reviewed thousands of boxes.)
To be clear, in any typical litigation, even one that isn’t at all document intensive, you’ll have a couple boxes of documents. That they’ve produced only 3,000 pages tells me that there is a massive amount of information they’ve withheld.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll second this - I was amazed to see three thousand pages described as “massive.” A document dump is a truck full of documents arriving in the morning, or even being led to a warehouse and told to knock yourself out.
A production of 3,000 pages would raise a huge red flag with me, and would certainly merit a letter asking where the hell the rest of the stuff was.
Heh. I’m so glad that we have the lawyer perspective here…I honestly had no idea that 3000 pages was considered small. One of the reasons that $15.00 a year is small change for this place.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
How does an IT person do THIS?
[/QUOTE]
[hijack]You know I don’t find her position mockable or improbable. There have been many times when I’ve been constantly interrupted by the phone at work while trying to focus on something a bit far away. After the 3rd or 4th time of scooting over to answer the phone you get kind of sick of it and just stretch over to grab it.[/hijack]
The gap between November 15th and December 4th is starting to fill.
Documents highlight Gonzales’ role in the firings of U.S. attorneys:
The decision by Kyle Sampson, Gonzales’ former chief of staff, to testify under oath, must’ve jogged someone’s memory of where they archived these particular emails.
That’s a good thing too, because if word of this meeting came out during next week’s hearings, it’d look really bad for the AG.
Oh, wait, it looks really bad for the AG now.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
How does an IT person do THIS?
[/QUOTE]
Spoken like someone who has never seen me handle a user is locked out call, while on hold with computer supplier tech support to get an RMA, while running five clones, and still trying to get the VP’s Motorola Q to work with Exchange.
And then the fax jams.
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
Only three items seems pretty hard to prosecute on. Unless they can prove a fairly consistent rerouting around the Whitehouse system, it’s pretty easy for the Whitehouse to say that they forgot to use the system that one time or two times.
[/QUOTE]
Waxman Warns RNC, Bush-Cheney ‘04 Campaign: Don’t Delete Your Emails
I don’t see how Bush’s executive privileges can apply to GOP party business.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Waxman Warns RNC, Bush-Cheney ‘04 Campaign: Don’t Delete Your Emails Waxman Wants RNC Emails I don’t see how Bush’s executive privileges can apply to GOP party business.
[/QUOTE]
These guys are looking more like Communists every day, in the sense that the state and the Party are indistinguishable. It goes along with them appointing political commisars to supervise the bureaucracy. Curiouser and curiouser.
Blank post - this reply was oddly misplaced.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
These guys are looking more like Communists every day, in the sense that the state and the Party are indistinguishable. It goes along with them appointing political commisars to supervise the bureaucracy. Curiouser and curiouser.
[/QUOTE]
Have you been following what’s been going on with Waxman’s hearings into the GSA? There were big Republican political rallies on the taxpayer’s dime with presentations about how the GSA can help get more Republicans elected. It sounds more and more like the Republican plan was to turn the entire executive branch into part of their machine. Boss Tweed on a national scale … .
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Have you been following what’s been going on with Waxman’s hearings into the GSA? There were big Republican political rallies on the taxpayer’s dime with presentations about how the GSA can help get more Republicans elected. It sounds more and more like the Republican plan was to turn the entire executive branch into part of their machine. Boss Tweed on a national scale … .
[/QUOTE]
There are quite a number of videos of these hearing circulating, but this one is particularly damning. Lurita Doan’s evasions both defy belief and insult the intelligence of anyone watching them. Kudos to Congressman Braley (D-Iowa) for making the case in simple, clear, easy-to-understand terms that make the evidence of these efforts undeniable.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Have you been following what’s been going on with Waxman’s hearings into the GSA? There were big Republican political rallies on the taxpayer’s dime with presentations about how the GSA can help get more Republicans elected. It sounds more and more like the Republican plan was to turn the entire executive branch into part of their machine. Boss Tweed on a national scale … .
[/QUOTE]