Still Hating America.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
god bless. but start with the end. okay, bush himself directed the firings for purely political reasons. What are you going to do about it?

Good point. Its not like he jizzed on some chick's dress . . . or told demonstrable falsehoods (under oath).

S_A_M

eta: Of course, the real answer is that we call him lots of bad names, and maybe win a few extra seats in Congress in 2008.

That's what he gets for fucking up in Iraq and losing the Congress.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
wp, p.

S_A_M

I never thought I'd see Hank speaking for Move On.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

• In a startling new revelation, CREW has also learned through two confidential sources that the Executive Office of the President (EOP) has lost over five million emails generated between March 2003 and October 2005. The White House counsel's office was advised of these problems in 2005 and CREW has been told that the White House was given a plan of action to recover these emails, but to date nothing has been done to rectify this significant loss of records.
  
  Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said today, "It's clear that the White House has been willfully violating the law, the only question now is to what extent? The ever changing excuses offered by the administration Ð that they didn't want to violate the Hatch Act, that staff wasn't clear on the law Ð are patently ridiculous. Very convenient that embarrassing Ð and potentially incriminating Ð emails have gone missing. It's the Nixon White House all over again."

Oops.

Has CREW learned what percentage of those 5m emails in fact were required to be kept under PRA? Having recently dealt with a comparable issue, I'm pretty damn sure about 90% or emails (if not 99%) do not contain evidence of anything more than lunch plans, happy hour plans, acknowledgements of receipt, and so forth.

(not to mention that these dates well precede the earliest point at which an issue even arises regarding teh USAs)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by andViolins
I'm not sure I follow you. From my experience, it is a LOT more expensive to try to pull data out of a back-up tape than it would be to do a forensic search of a hard drive.

In addition, there is not much of a reason as to why you would have to leave a person with a copy of a hard-drive and take the original. When imaging the drive, the forensic analyst will create an MD-5 hash for the drive data for chain of custody issues. Original stays with Hank.

aV

That's my experience. A client of mine is paying for such an analysis right now. Already proved perjury by the other side's President, CEO and named inventor. hehehe.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Now, race has a different status than political affiliation under the Fourteenth Amendment, granted.

especially for political appointments.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Has CREW learned what percentage of those 5m emails in fact were required to be kept under PRA? Having recently dealt with a comparable issue, I'm pretty damn sure about 90% or emails (if not 99%) do not contain evidence of anything more than lunch plans, happy hour plans, acknowledgements of receipt, and so forth.

(not to mention that these dates well precede the earliest point at which an issue even arises regarding teh USAs)

I'll be interested to find out what they were. The issue apparently came up as part of the Plame investigation. In a letter from Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyer, Fitzgerald wrote:

• We are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libby which has been destroyed. In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002997.php

So, apparently, these are emails that should have been archived, but are inexplicably "missing."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

So, apparently, these are emails that should have been archived, but are inexplicably "missing."

How to you get there?

From the articles it appears that the WH approach is as follows (at least as intended):

1) Save all emails.
2) Go through those emails at some later point to determine whether they need to be retained pursuant to PRA.

There's no way there are 5 million emails that actually have to be preserved under even the broadest reading of the statute. They may get preserved because it's easier to save them all than to cull them. But that doesn't mean they've been tossing substantive stuff.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How to you get there?

From the articles it appears that the WH approach is as follows (at least as intended):

1) Save all emails.
2) Go through those emails at some later point to determine whether they need to be retained pursuant to PRA.

There's no way there are 5 million emails that actually have to be preserved under even the broadest reading of the statute. They may get preserved because it's easier to save them all than to cull them. But that doesn't mean they've been tossing substantive stuff.

And there was probably nothing substantive in the 18 1/2 minute gap in the tape, either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
especially for political appointments.

Actually, the Equal Protection Clause doesn't say anything about political appointments.

I guess I'm not clear where Burger's point goes. I would suggest that there are situations where a President's decision to fire a political appointee could justifiably be the basis for impeachment. So I don't get why calling the decision "political" should end Congress's inquiry.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And there was probably nothing substantive in the 18 1/2 minute gap in the tape, either.

Judging from the other tapes, I'm guessing 17 minutes of it was Nixon offering racial-slur-based opinions of his cabinet.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I guess I'm not clear where Burger's point goes. I would suggest that there are situations where a President's decision to fire a political appointee could justifiably be the basis for impeachment. So I don't get why calling the decision "political" should end Congress's inquiry.

I'm questioning the efforts to make these decisions into legal violations as opposed to political judgments on which reasonable minds (or members of each party) may disagree. The usual basis for determining who is "right" is through the ballot box.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Actually, the Equal Protection Clause doesn't say anything about political appointments.

I guess I'm not clear where Burger's point goes. I would suggest that there are situations where a President's decision to fire a political appointee could justifiably be the basis for impeachment. So I don't get why calling the decision "political" should end Congress's inquiry.

Nixon got in hot water for firing Richardson, so 2. but the basis there was that the firing was because the political appointee wouldn't help hide a crime- here at most you're saying he fired political guys for political reasons. he could have not appointed them for political reasons, couldn't he have?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Judging from the other tapes, I'm guessing 17 minutes of it was Nixon offering racial-slur-based opinions of his cabinet.

he was explaining the Kennedy assasination cover up.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Nixon got in hot water for firing Richardson, so 2. but the basis there was that the firing was because the political appointee wouldn't help hide a crime- here at most you're saying he fired political guys for political reasons. he could have not appointed them for political reasons, couldn't he have?

Why was Lam fired?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Why was Lam fired?

is he black?