Still Hating America.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
and starts using an obscure provision of the Patriot Act to install US Attorneys without Senate confirmation

Are you saying the president should not get to make appointments in accordance with a law duly passed by Congress and signed by the president?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
If there is a subpoena out there, or even the possibility of a subpoena, they may have an obligation to preserve it.

Sure. If. All I'm saying is that the controversy is over emails from a couple of years ago and that it's like that by now any server on which the email once was stored has probably overwritten the deleted email.

Don't any of your employers force you to clear out your deleted items box every so often? If not, why the fuck not?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you saying the president should not get to make appointments in accordance with a law duly passed by Congress and signed by the president?

I'm saying that Congress should investigate the implementation of its laws to determine if any corrections need to be made.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

And when the WH officials implementing this using their non-WH email addresses in what looks like an attempt to avoid potential disclosure, I think that warrants investigation as well. The president's office shouldn't be run like an insider trading ring.

Having Jack Abramoff state that an email should have gone to a non-WH account is hardly evidence of systematic effort to avoid having the emails kept in WH records.

And keep in mind that these emails ordinarily would not be disclosed. They might have to be retained to document a decision. Might (and, yes, I have spent time studying what the federal record keeping requirements are--they are opaque and vague).

I'll give all you all credit, though. This is Ken Starr-like chasing down the rabbit hole to see what non-germane issues have taken place. None of this has anything to do with the merits of whether the prosecutors were fired for "political" reasons. What are the emails going to show? That they were fired for political reasons, which is a conclusion everyone has already reached?

[Shape Shifter]

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?

as to the "looks like" part of your paranoi, did you even read the article you cite? People doing political work have non-government email because of the Hatch act. that sounds proper.

that you want to investigate lots of stuff doesn't mean the Act requires these emails be preserved.

If the President is going for an out-and-out power grab by completely politicizing USAs, he has the power to do so. But let's get it all out in the open so we all know how the game is being played now and so you can't cry foul when your ilk no longer have the executive branch.

The WH has a duty to preserve records of deliberations. Just because they got cute with their email use does not relieve them of that responsibility.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure. If. All I'm saying is that the controversy is over emails from a couple of years ago and that it's like that by now any server on which the email once was stored has probably overwritten the deleted email.

Don't any of your employers force you to clear out your deleted items box every so often? If not, why the fuck not?

I'm guessing the firm's lose prevention partner recognized that anything Adder creates has too high a liklihood of becoming discoverable in a malpractice suit to be properly destroyable, even pre-suit.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Having Jack Abramoff state that an email should have gone to a non-WH account is hardly evidence of systematic effort to avoid having the emails kept in WH records.

And keep in mind that these emails ordinarily would not be disclosed. They might have to be retained to document a decision. Might (and, yes, I have spent time studying what the federal record keeping requirements are--they are opaque and vague).

I'll give all you all credit, though. This is Ken Starr-like chasing down the rabbit hole to see what non-germane issues have taken place. None of this has anything to do with the merits of whether the prosecutors were fired for "political" reasons. What are the emails going to show? That they were fired for political reasons, which is a conclusion everyone has already reached?

Karl Rove is the president's Chief Domestic Policy Advisor. Reportedly, 95% of his email is on RNC addresses. What's going on here?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If the President is going for an out-and-out power grab by completely politicizing USAs, he has the power to do so. But let's get it all out in the open so we all know how the game is being played now and so you can't cry foul when your ilk no longer have the executive branch.

The WH has a duty to preserve records of deliberations. Just because they got cute with their email use does not relieve them of that responsibility.

again, you aren't a statute. the statute is what i linked to. it sounds like stuff below the President (or Veep) is not covered. If I can be shown to be wrong, please feel free. but it seems to me not all deliberations are covered.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure. If. All I'm saying is that the controversy is over emails from a couple of years ago and that it's like that by now any server on which the email once was stored has probably overwritten the deleted email.

Right. The only spoiliation question I see is the timing of the deletion.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
again, you aren't a statute. the statute is what i linked to. it sounds like stuff below the President (or Veep) is not covered. If I can be shown to be wrong, please feel free. but it seems to me not all deliberations are covered.

Did you read the statute?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm saying that Congress should investigate the implementation of its laws to determine if any corrections need to be made.

Well, sure. And it has. But if there's a scandal on this part, Congress should look at itself and its procedures whereby a provision they don't like is allowed to be slipped in.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That they were fired for political reasons, which is a conclusion everyone has already reached?

Isn't there a huge difference between firing people because you want to give someone else a chance, and firing people because they decline to press spurious criminal charges against members of the opposition party in order to influence an election?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Karl Rove is the president's Chief Domestic Policy Advisor. Reportedly, 95% of his email is on RNC addresses. What's going on here?

Are you saying Rove is less than 95% partisan hack?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Congress should look at itself and its procedures whereby a provision they don't like is allowed to be slipped in.

2

Although the voters have already taken some steps to address that sort of thing.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you saying Rove is less than 95% partisan hack?

I think he has authority and exercises powers that are administrative and not just political.

This is fun, like the plan sponsor hat and the plan administrator hat!