RNC To Waxman: We’ll Only Show You The Emails We Want You To See
RNC To Waxman: We’ll Only Show You The Emails We Want You To See
In a new letter to the Republican National Committee, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman writes that the RNC has provided only minimal information regarding White House officials’ use of RNC e-mail accounts. The purpose of Waxman’s inquiry was in part to determine the extent that White House staff used “non-governmental e-mail accounts to conduct official government business.”
In the new letter, Waxman reveals that the RNC’s response thus far has been to propose that any Congressional requests for emails be filtered through “eight search terms, such as ‘political briefing,’ ‘Hatch Act,’ and ‘2008.’” Waxman notes that these proposed search terms would not have produced the RNC email that transmitted a copy of Karl Rove’s Powerpoint slides that were presented at a General Services Administration meeting. That e-mail read: “Please do not email this out or let people see it. It is a close hold and we’re not supposed to be emailing it around.”
Waxman says that before Congress can agree to the RNC’s proposed “search terms,” the RNC must provide basic information about the extent their email accounts have been used to transact government business:
[T]he Committee needs basic facts about the scope and nature of the e-mails preserved on RNC servers. The Committee staff reasonably requested a meeting tomorrow to discuss these issues, but this request was unreasonably rejected. In fact, the RNC counsel stated that no meeting would occur until the Committee agreed to limiting search terms. This is not an acceptable proposal.
For the reasons outlined above, the Committee requests the following information by noon on Friday, April 20, 2007:
1. The identity of all White House officials who have held RNC e-mail accounts;
2. The total number of e-mails sent by each White House official through an RNC email account during each calendar year;
3. The total number of e-mails received by each White House official through an RNC e-mail account during each calendar year;
4. The total number of e-mails sent by each White House official through an RNC email account to a “.gov” e-mail account during each calendar year; and
5. The total number of e-mails received by each White House official through an RNC e-mail account from a “.gov” e-mail account during each calendar year.
See the full letter here.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Apparently, the RNC is under the guise that anything they do or say (or email) is covered by Executive Privilege. Last time I checked, the RNC is not part of our functioning government. Waxman should send the authorities over there to raid their files-the same as they did with Rep. Jefferson last year.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:44 pmFascist pigs!
April 18th, 2007 at 6:44 pmAnything not covered under Executive Privilege should be turned over.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:45 pmGo for it Henry!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 6:46 pmI agree, raid them. They are obviously hiding something. This could be much worse than it already looks and it looks awful!
Do these people think because they have sucked George W Bush’s a$$hole with a straw means they are immune from the law?
These are domestic enemies folks.
They are trying to infiltrate every nook and cranny of our government with the soul intention of destroying the country form the inside out. George W Bush’s grandfather help get the Nazi party going. The only way they were stopped was by the US to take them out. So, step number two in global domination, get rid of that super power, so you can go back to taking over the world. Patrick1, Jake and the rest of our trolls will be lining up to get their brown shirt uniforms.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:52 pmartiejoe68:
Who is going to present the search warrant to a judge, the Sergeant at Arms? The RNC isn’t “under the guise” that anything they do or say (or email) is covered by Executive Privilege. Do you know that both Washington and Jefferson claimed Executive Privilege?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:53 pmthe “search terms” gambit/trick has been used before-
by the white house
in an effort to thwart patrick fitzgerald’s investigation of karl rove’s role in the plame exposure.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:53 pmThis tit for tat game that the Dems are playing with the WH and the RNC is not going to stop until the Dems wake up and open the flood gates with supeona after supeona followed with obstruction of justice charges.
Enough of this pussyfooting around, the American people want action not words.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:53 pmIf the RNC was covered by executive privilege they would not have had to use seperate computers to keep them from becoming presidential records. As other emails have shown they used these computers to circumvent the records act. Ergo executive privilege, I think, is NOT gonna cover them.
Also I have read that George does NOT use email.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:54 pmEliz/Jakey,
NOTHING under the RNC has ANY executive privilige!!!!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 6:54 pmAdd “Karl Rove” to those search terms and I’d take the deal!
I thought the RNC lost all those e-mails anyway…. What could there possibly be left to search?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:55 pmSorry, but no.
The RNC does not get to dictate terms here. There is no legal basis for them to be able to exercise that sort of censorship.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:00 pmNot that Jefferson, betty……
April 18th, 2007 at 7:03 pmElizabeth sez:
In other words, everything.
When the administration attempted to circumvent the Presidential Records Act by using an unauthorized communications channel, they forfeited any claim to Executive Privilege.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:05 pmCondi has also publicly stated that she doesn’t use e-mail.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:08 pmKind of reminds me when Nixon offered edited transcripts of the White House tapes.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:09 pmTrip, right on. they forfeited any claims of executive privilage.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:11 pmU.S. Presidents since Washington have argued that each branch of government may operate with some degree of freedom from the control or supervision of the others. For example, in 1796, President Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with England. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material. Thomas Jefferson raised the same issue as President when Aaron Burr, on trial for treason, asked the court to issue a subpoena for a letter Jefferson had exonerating Burr.
After hearing several days of argument on the issue, Chief Justice John Marshall issued an order to President Jefferson to produce the letter. Marshall observed that the Sixth Amendment right of an accused to compulsory process contains no exception for the President, nor could such an exception be found in the law of evidence. In response to the government’s suggestion that disclosure of the letter would endanger public safety, Marshall concluded that, if true, this claim could furnish a reason for withholding it, but that the court, rather than the Executive Branch alone, was entitled to make the public safety determination after examining the letter. Jefferson complied with Marshall’s order. However, Jefferson continued to deny the authority of the court to issue it, insisting that his compliance was voluntary.
Way before the advent of e-mail.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:13 pm#5
Funny the left trying to turn the U.S. in to another Europe is exactly what we have been fighting since the LBJ’s BS Great Society.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:13 pmHow long before “elizabeth” resurrects the Ignore Listâ„¢?
Do you think Jake dresses in women’s clothing in order to post as “elizabeth”?
April 18th, 2007 at 7:14 pmTripMaster Monkey:
So, if top secret information revealing the current, on-going surveillance of Osama bin Laden were attached to RNC email, the claim is forfeited?
April 18th, 2007 at 7:16 pmKRank:
I am not Jake. Just ask Raven.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:17 pmWhat does Waxman actually do in Congress beside launch and conduct investigations?
April 18th, 2007 at 7:18 pmApples + oranges = elizabeth
April 18th, 2007 at 7:20 pmSearch term keywords do NOT provide meaning or context.
Go get the chickenhawk bastards Henry !
April 18th, 2007 at 7:24 pm“So, if top secret information revealing the current, on-going surveillance of Osama bin Laden were attached to RNC email, the claim is forfeited?
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 7:16 pm”
YES!!!
By using a PRIVATE server to distribute “secret information” in its self is a CRIME!!!!
Performing a crime to hide a crime is a crime! What part of ILLEGAL do the Republicans have a problem with??????
So what your saying is that the President can walk out in front of the WH and have 100 people lined up and shot at his discression?????
Your stating that he has any and all power that he wants, so would this be illegal and would there be any need to investigate why 100 Americans were shot on the WH lawn?
April 18th, 2007 at 7:24 pmI doubt you could argue successfully that emails on the RNC servers are covered by executive privledge, unless you have stacked the highest court in the land with unamerican partisans.
We have a real problem that is just beginning to manifest itself cleary. All branches and levels of the government stacked with partisan thugs.
Longterm, they can’t win (everyone sooner or later does or wants to do something that the majority does not want to allow) but it will take be a big long violent struggle.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pm“What does Waxman actually do in Congress beside launch and conduct investigations?
Comment by Tracy — April 18, 2007 @ 7:18 pm”
And your problem with oversight is????
I guess your happy with the president or anyone in government doing anything they want without having to answer for thier actions?
I would hate to see the country you envision with that mentality… Oh wait… We are living in it now!!!!
Thank god the Congress is actually doing oversight and finding all the criminal actions this administration has performed……
Why do you HATE our Constitution so much Tracy????
April 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pmKRank:
I am not Jake. Just ask Raven.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Oh, okay. I’m convinced. (rolls eyes)
April 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pmWhat does Waxman actually do in Congress beside launch and conduct investigations? Comment by Tracy — April 18, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
And what do you do here, besides asking st*pid wingnut questions that demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution or the Government. Dum bass.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:28 pmFine. Light a fire under Mel Martinez’s ass, and subpoena him is need be.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:29 pmEven the people in the Justice Dept are getting tired of this…
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Letter_Justice_Dept._had_political_litmus_0418.html
An anonymous group of Justice Department employees wrote to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and accused staff under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales of implementing a political ‘litmus test’ in determining which of the nation’s top law school graduates would be hired as government attorneys.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:29 pmFunny the left trying to turn the U.S. in to another Europe is exactly what we have been fighting since the LBJ’s BS Great Society.
Comment by Tracy — April 18, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
I suspect tracy doesn’t like the Civil Rights or Voting Rights acts.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:31 pmSo, if top secret information revealing the current, on-going surveillance of Osama bin Laden were attached to RNC email, the claim is forfeited?
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Interesting. Elizabeth is employing an absurd hypothetical here to make a point… who else have we seen use this technique to pathetic effect before… I can’t quite place it…
Ah, well, it must be Elizabeth, right? She insists she’s not a 75-year-old Korean war vet. She’s truly a female adoption worker of indeterminate age.
Maybe you can answer this, Elizabeth: If we have “ongoing surveillance” of Osama bin Laden, then we obviously know where the hell he is, right? Then why don’t we just launch an airstrike and take the bastard out?
April 18th, 2007 at 7:31 pmSalmo Clarky:
I’m just asking TripMaster Monkey a question, nothing about fruit at all.
RemoveBush:
I am not saying that the President can walk out in front of the WH and have 100 people lined up and shot at his discretion or that he has any and all power that he wants. If the President violates the law, he can be held to the same criminal standard as you and I, as soon as the Congress impeaches and removes him from office.
m3vega:
I won’t be the one arguing that point of law.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pmRNC: We’ve got nothing to hide. That’s why we won’t give you the e-mails you’re looking for. They’ll prove nothing. Just because we broke the law, that doesn’t mean we did anything wrong. We don’t admit to any wrong doing. Our hands are clean. We are willing to cooperate with the Democrat party, but we won’t give them what they want. We’ve cooperated from the very being. We just haven’t given the anything yet. Our hands are clean. It’s Bill Clinton’s fault.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pmHe doesn’t need to do anything else, he is the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman. It is his job to investigate. If you people would have won in November, you could continue to block the investigations, but America was sick of that and voted you out of majority and in 2008 we will vote you out of power all together.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pm“So, if top secret information revealing the current, on-going surveillance of Osama bin Laden were attached to RNC email, the claim is forfeited?
Comment by Elizabeth”
Umm…yup. That’s the way it works.
Are you saying that you don’t have an issue with top secret information being sent around on the public Internet?
What if bill clinton had sent steamy emails via a democratic-party-email account about his affair with monica? Would he be able to assert exec. privilege to prevent starr from from seeing them?
April 18th, 2007 at 7:35 pmeither the RNC gives the requested emails directly to Congress or Congress files obstruction of justice charges. This is a binary choice. anything else is crap.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:36 pm“So, if top secret information revealing the current, on-going surveillance of Osama bin Laden were attached to RNC email, the claim is forfeited?
Comment by Elizabeth”
Hilarious. As if the white house is actively persuing Bin Laden. I’m sure he’s just really good at hiding, right Elizabeth?
April 18th, 2007 at 7:37 pmElizabeth sez:
Yes.
RNC email is hosted at a commercial hosting company, and is not intended for sensitive communications of this nature. If the administration uses insecure, unauthorized communication channels to transmit sensitive data of this nature, it does not automatically make the entire communication channel covered under Executive Privilege…especially if the purpose of using said insecure, unauthorized communications channel was to circumvent the Presidential Records Act. All the administration does accomplish by doing this is make themselves culpable for the resultant insecurity of the top secret information you mentioned.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pmKRank:
Did you ask Raven? She stated yesterday I was neither Jake nor Patrick1. I don’t think mine was an “absurd” hypothetical, however, since Executive Privilege is strongest under national security grounds. If TripMaster Monkey think it is forfeited for even that, then there’s no way I or anyone else could convince him that RNC email with Rove’s Powerpoint slides were covered.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pmRE: #21
There’s a possibility ’she’ is not “jake”.
However, for a new arrival, she is quite adept at all the usual troll tricks.
I have made a halfhearted attempt to see any new patterns in the last two weeks or so.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pmI am finding a dedicated troll on every hot button thread, for hours on end, every day, completely successful in derailing a normal flow of commentary.
There seems to be a day shift, and a night shift as well.
When one drops off, another appears, using the same techniques of baiting with irrelevancies and non-sequiters, not to mention the vile and sick posts of the more debauched.
I find it hard to imagine that right-wing activists would not enlist, perhaps even for pay, sympathetics to launch a focused attempt to rile, derail, and in general subvert the concept of progressive free speech.
The tone of Think Progress has gotten more shrill in the last month to six weeks. I acknowledge my own contributions to mean and nastiness, and I’m weary of it. For now.
I am aware that there is a lot of shit hitting the fan right now, and more to come, and such could be a large part of the tension.
Sorry, Elizabeth, but I am not going to come to your rescue, you may well not be ‘jake’, but you may as well be. You are simply a little more subtle and sophisticated in your technique.
(You’re welcome)
“What does Waxman actually do in Congress beside launch and conduct investigations?
Comment by Tracy”
This is what happens when six years go by with no oversight, and people have *lots* of unanswered questions about how governmental decisions were made over those years.
Maybe it wouldn’t seem so unusual to you if the last congress had managed to accomplish anything during their disgraceful tenure, instead of doing less work than the infamous “do-nothing congress” of the truman era.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:39 pmFor the record:
I am Elizabeth. I am not this “Jake” of whom you speak. I enjoy being a girl. I wear lacey underthings beneath my bathrobe and it makes me feel sexy. I have a strong feeling you will never hear from this “Jake” person again.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:41 pm“I am not saying that the President can walk out in front of the WH and have 100 people lined up and shot at his discretion or that he has any and all power that he wants. If the President violates the law, he can be held to the same criminal standard as you and I, as soon as the Congress impeaches and removes him from office.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 7:33 pm”
But that IS what your saying……
Your saying that he has Executive Privilege over a Private Server that his administration used to AVOID having a recorded copy in the government system for possible crimes….. This IS a CRIME!!!
No difference between what I gave as an example and this!!!
A crime IS a crime!!! The only question is the LEVEL of the criminal act!
It is CLEAR that Bush in fact tried to avoid the Presidential Records Act!!! A CRIME!!!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 7:42 pm“I am finding a dedicated troll on every hot button thread, for hours on end, every day, completely successful in derailing a normal flow of commentary.
There seems to be a day shift, and a night shift as well.”
101st fighting keyboarders at work…
April 18th, 2007 at 7:42 pmmongo:
Of course I would have an issue with top secret information being sent around via email, but that doesn’t change whether Executive Privilege applies. I believe that President Clinton negotiated the terms under which he appeared before Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s grand jury, rather than answering a subpoena directing him to appear. Are you claiming that steamy emails via a democratic-party-email account about his affair with monica would be official government business?
worst fears:
With WHOM does Congress file obstruction of justice charges? Whoopsie daisies. So much for your binary choice.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:42 pmElizabeth sez:
Actually, since bin Laden’s been dead since December of 2001, it was pretty darned absurd.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:44 pmPretty pathetic trolling today, I think they stink of failure…
April 18th, 2007 at 7:44 pmLet’s see, who else uses this formatting style?
Do these retards realize that it is easy to figure out who they are?
Here, tell me who uses this one?
If you change your screen name, change your formatting style to or we will know who you are.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:45 pmGood luck with that argument, TripMaster Monkey.
And, thanks, Raven. I’ll take whatever I can get.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:46 pmElizabeth,
I never assumed you could argue anything successfully.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:47 pmRE:41
Typical word twisting troll.
I did not STATE you were niether jake or patrick, I asked if you were, and you gave an obtuse answer.
The question was worded exactly thus: Are you ‘jake/patrick’
Now you come back with “Jake” and “Patrick1″
And besides all the quibbly little holes in your persona,
April 18th, 2007 at 7:47 pmI’m a he.
Good luck with your “argument” too, RemoveBush.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:48 pmJake liked to wear lacey underthings to……….
April 18th, 2007 at 7:48 pmElizabeth says “So, if top secret information revealing the current, on-going surveillance of Osama bin Laden were attached to RNC email, the claim is forfeited?”
If they are sloppily discussing pivotal terror war secrets on a private server that seemingly (according to their story) sloppily handles information, then are these the folks you want in charge of the terror war in the first place, Elizabeth??!!
April 18th, 2007 at 7:50 pm“With WHOM does Congress file obstruction of justice charges? Whoopsie daisies. So much for your binary choice.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 7:42 pm”
That would be the In-Justice Department……
Yes there are still a FEW honorable people working there!
Just look at the FBI raide, and the FAX to the Congress from a group of Justice Dept personnel.
So, you don’t think that the Congress can get anyone to deal with the issue????
So what your saying is that our country is OFFICIALY shot? The Congress cannot even get our Justice Dept to perform Justice?
Glad you support this type of Administration that has taken us down the path of Germany of 193x.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:50 pmOkay, who else uses “For the record.” I’ll give you a hint. It starts with a “J” and ends with an “ake.”
Why would this “new” troll say anything like “I have a strong feeling you will never hear from this “Jake†person again.”?
Uh huh, I’m buying it, Jake.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:51 pmRaven, I admire your even-handedness, but I’m not the only one who has come to the conclusion that Elizabeth is the new identity that Jake has settled on.
She employs not only the favored troll tactics you mentioned, but she has a similar rhetorical pattern as Jake’s and the same habit of addressing individual respondents as Jake did before he disappeared (coincidentally, just before Elizabeth’s arrival).
She also takes many almost identical positions (all fairly right-wing, although Jake claimed repeatedly that he was “registered independent”, while Elizabeth takes it one step further and claims to be a Democrat) and rides identical hobby horses, like “Executive Privilege”. The clincher is she tries to make bizarre points with outlandish hypotheticals.
It’s pretty clear.
My question is why Jake doesn’t try to muddy the waters by posting as “Jake”, agreeing with Elizabeth and disappearing again.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:52 pmThe real question is who paid for those non-governmental e-mail accounts? THe taxpayers no doubt.
Can’t Waxman subpoena the isp and get those emails. We know AT&T and the CIA probably have tapped into them anyway.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:53 pm“Elizabeth” sez:
“For the record”??? You must be joking.
I wonder how long before I ask “Elizabeth” a question she’s unable to answer, and she responds by putting me on some sort of list…^_^
April 18th, 2007 at 7:53 pmAnything not covered under Executive Privilege should be turned over.
Comment by Elizabeth
Hi, Jake. Oh my god, don’t even try to deny it. You pattern is exactly what it always has been — except your name is changed.
F*cking coward.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:57 pmLooks like Spudge_Boy picked up on it too…
Well, no one here has ever accused Shakey Jake of intelligence…I believe this would fall under the umbrella of ‘terminal stupidity’, in case you’re wondering, Jakers. ^_^
April 18th, 2007 at 7:58 pmWaxman should subpoena the isp to get the emails
April 18th, 2007 at 7:59 pmIt’s nice to see that JakeOff has finally gone through with that long overdue sex-change operation, and become his inner Elizabeth!
You go girlfriend! More power to the freaky GOP Guuurrrlpower!
Now that you’re a gurl, are ya gonna be a l*sbo, or a gay man in a woman’s body?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:00 pmThanks, folks, for your observations.
I’ve garnered myself plenty of grief over the years by always giving people the benefit of the doubt…
Nice to know the initial intuitions are usually correct.
(What color lacy things have you got on now, lizard?)
April 18th, 2007 at 8:01 pmHi, Jake. Oh my god, don’t even try to deny it. You pattern is exactly what it always has been — except your name is changed.
F*cking coward. Comment by Zooey — April 18, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Yes, but now he’s the woman he always secretly wanted to be! Of course, he’s got some extra junk in his trunk – but hey, that’s the kind of baggage that makes the GOP he-men happy!
April 18th, 2007 at 8:01 pmTo use an RNC email account in the WH means they would have had to install a client on the WH computers for that email account’s provider.
Why doesn’t Waxman subpoena the mail provider? Or doesn’t Waxman understand how email works.
ANd who OK’d the RNC email client to be installed on the WH computers.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:05 pmFrom elizabeth–
“Of course I would have an issue with top secret information being sent around via email, but that doesn’t change whether Executive Privilege applies. ”
You seemed to be implying that executive privilege should apply to the information itself–i.e., the administration says something is “top secret” therefore executive privelege can be asserted. That’s not the way it works.
“I believe that President Clinton negotiated the terms under which he appeared before Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s grand jury, rather than answering a subpoena directing him to appear. Are you claiming that steamy emails via a democratic-party-email account about his affair with monica would be official government business?”
Absolutely not. My point is that, with your “understanding” of how executive privilege should apply (i.e., the information is “top secret” so therefore I can apply executive privilege), clinton would have been able to assert the privilege. I use that example because I’m sure that would offend your sensibilities and show the emptiness of your understanding of exec. privilege.
“worst fears:
With WHOM does Congress file obstruction of justice charges? Whoopsie daisies. So much for your binary choice.”
Is this a reference to the fact that the charges would need to be filed with the US Attorney’s office?
If the US Attorney chose not to pursue the charges it would only reveal even more brightly the partisan institutional corruption established by this administration. This has happened before, with reagan, and it was a black eye for him too.
Waxman’s doing the right thing; there’s a process to all of this, the most important thing to do is execute the process, and the administrations motives and agenda will come out.
And the rethug party will be out of power for a long time.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:05 pm…the RNC’s response thus far has been to propose that any Congressional requests for emails be filtered through “eight search terms, such as ‘political briefing,’ ‘Hatch Act,’ and ‘2008.’â€
What the hell is this, some childish game????? ALL the emails should’ve been in Waxman’s hand last Monday morning 9am. He should charge them with Obstruction of Justice.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:08 pmOnce again another thread is hijacked by Zooey, TPM, et al, trying to find out if Jake is Elizabeth or Valient Venus is Jake, or Jake is me, or I’m you.
Why don’t you guys just stick to the topic of the thread and stop all this childish Who’s Who nonsense. If you don’t want to talk about the topic, go do something else.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:08 pm“To use an RNC email account in the WH means they would have had to install a client on the WH computers for that email account’s provider.
Why doesn’t Waxman subpoena the mail provider? Or doesn’t Waxman understand how email works.
ANd who OK’d the RNC email client to be installed on the WH computers.
Comment by BucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil — April 18, 2007 @ 8:05 pm”
No….. The RNC supplied Laptops for them to use with access to the RNC server…..
There were people using WH and laptops back and forth…..
April 18th, 2007 at 8:10 pmWaxman should subpoena the isp
April 18th, 2007 at 8:10 pm#70 who are you to post that?
;-P
April 18th, 2007 at 8:10 pmEnough already. Subpoena the damn servers and get the state police to confiscate them. This is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
April 18th, 2007 at 8:11 pmWaxman should get the emails from the service provider.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:11 pmThe RNC e-mails are not covered by executive privilege. The RNC is a private organization. This is obstruction pure and simple by a WH that has a lot to obscure. Get the bastards!
April 18th, 2007 at 8:12 pmElizabeth defends her ridiculous Osama hypothetical by saying: …”since Executive Privilege is strongest under national security grounds…”
Wow, that’s taking “exploiting & hiding behind 911″ to a height of sickening I thought couldn’t be reached. Ok, so in your mind, is the administration & RNC immune to any scrutiny because we were attacked 5 and a half years ago? What does the illegal use of emails, obstructing justice & the messes that got us to the point of discovering these crimes possibly have to do with national security? You would be happy living under a dictatorship. Ben Franklin said: ” Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.” Remember when you trolls were telling us “If you have nothing to hide…” about the monitoring of OUR emails & phone calls? Back atcha!
Way to defend the gang that let Osama go.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:14 pmNice to know the initial intuitions are usually correct.
(What color lacy things have you got on now, lizard?)
Comment by Raven
Patterns are very hard to alter. I’ve been catching up on all the lovely comments today, and the pattern hit me right between the eyes. That’s Jake.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:14 pm#70 who are you to post that?
#73
April 18th, 2007 at 8:15 pmI’m me
As I said, Raven, I’ll take whatever I can get. I did not post about lacey underwear. At one point yesterday, however, you did in fact post: “OK, Elizabeth, you pass. You’re not jake/patrick. You can stay. But only until McCain loses the primary, please?”
You thought I was rabidbunny once too. Sorry I called you a “she” and I promise that won’t happen again. Thanks for your kind words and benefit of the doubt.
Thanks, m3vega and bone, for your comments too.
Spudge_Boy and KRank:
I did not post at 7:41 pm.
Zooey:
Other Democrats have claimed Executive Privilege in the past. I mentioned even Washington and Jefferson, so I am not the first to point this out.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:18 pm#67 BucketsofBlood
My understanding is that they had/have RNC provided laptops to access their RNC email accounts.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:19 pmOnce again another thread is hijacked by Zooey, TPM, et al, trying to find out if Jake is Elizabeth or Valient Venus is Jake, or Jake is me, or I’m you.
Comment by BucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil — April 18, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
You have a lot of nerve criticizing ANYONE about hijacking a thread. The last time I saw you here, you harassed me and several others for hundreds of comments over some asinine assuption you made up — even after I refused to respond to you further.
Leave me alone. This is the last time I will address you, other than to tell you to leave me alone.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:19 pmZooey:
Other Democrats have claimed Executive Privilege in the past. I mentioned even Washington and Jefferson, so I am not the first to point this out.
Comment by Elizabeth
So? Did I say anything to you?
I’m on your Ignore List, so please — ignore.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:21 pmZooey
Get over yourself and get on topic, or leave people alone.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:22 pmElizabeth,
You may or maynot be Jake but you are a “Jake”.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:26 pmMy understanding is that they had/have RNC provided laptops to access their RNC email accounts.
m3vega
If that’s true doesn’t that bring up security issues. Who allowed official WH business on RNC laptops. ALso, it means Waxman should have even more authority to subpoena the service provider for emails.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:26 pmZooey
Get over yourself and get on topic, or leave people alone.
Comment by BucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil
I told you to leave me alone. Don’t deny what you did.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:27 pmZooey sez:
I told Shakey that writing styles are like fingerprints, and that his would give him away within a few posts. Predictably, he had to learn the hard way.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:28 pmOther Democrats have claimed Executive Privilege in the past. I mentioned even Washington and Jefferson, so I am not the first to point this out.
Comment by Elizabeth
Look up what the suppreme court said about Executive Privilige when Nixon didnot want to realse the tapes. He lost.
Also the fact that they have violated the Presidential Records Act by using the RNC email servers means someone is going to probably be going to prison. It is up to 20 years, per count, for violation.
That is an impeachable offence by itself, because it is a felony
The Records act was passed after and because of the Watergate fiasco Nixon caused.
Someone in the Bush Administration isin deep doodoo.
The questions need to be “Mr President, what did you know and when did you know it” ( Nixon Redux )
April 18th, 2007 at 8:28 pmZooey
April 18th, 2007 at 8:28 pmLeave people alone. Stop harrassing people. Really. Seriously. Stop.
I think the boys are about to panic. The question of the day is, of course, can they afford to give up Karl Rove. The answer is no. The entire rotten house of cards would fall. Since the RNC is not a governmental agency, they have no right to claim executive privilege or any right to conceal information from an official Congressional inquiry. This position could not have befallen a more worthy bunch of liars and criminals.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pmSince the RNC is not a governmental agency, they have no right to claim executive privilege – Lightning
Exactly
April 18th, 2007 at 8:31 pmBucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil sez:
Indeed. If the administration wants to try to claim executive privilege for these RNC accounts, they then have to answer for exposing sensitive government secrets, on top of everything else. Just one more charge (as if any more charges are necessary).
April 18th, 2007 at 8:33 pmAnd if WH personnel are doing Executive Branch business on RNC laptops, that is a serious breach of security, possibly illegal?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:34 pmZooey:
You DID post to be and claimed I was showing the same pattern as someone named Jake, so I pointed out I am not the first to defend Executive Privilege. But I am not Jake and I have no idea what list you are talking about. Just calm down.
Wayne:
In that case, the Supreme Court acknowledged Executive Privilege is strongest when it comes to national security. That the point I was trying to make above. Of course, whoever violated the Presidential Records Act needs to be prosecuted. The only issue I think I’ve agreed with Bush personally has been Social Security. I even said “Anything not covered under Executive Privilege should be turned over.” Don’t attack me for simply pointing out ALL Presidents have Executive Privilege.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:35 pmZooey
Leave people alone. Stop harrassing people. Really. Seriously. Stop.
Comment by BucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil
WTF is up with you?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:35 pmYou leave Zooey alone.
BucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil and Lightning:
The RNC is not claiming Executive Privilege. It is complying with the President’s request to review emails to see whether there is anything covered by Executive Privilege.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:37 pmZooey sez:
Patterns are very hard to alter. I’ve been catching up on all the lovely comments today, and the pattern hit me right between the eyes. That’s Jake.
I told Shakey that writing styles are like fingerprints, and that his would give him away within a few posts. Predictably, he had to learn the hard way.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Yeah, exactly why we could catch Rachel, the name changer.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:37 pmThe RNC is not claiming Executive Privilege. It is complying with the President’s request to review emails to see whether there is anything covered by Executive Privilege. – Elizabeth sez
Elizabeth – The RNC is not the appropriate party to be deciding what on their laptops comes under executive privilege.
Even by admitting that there might be documents on their laptops that come under Executive Privilege could be admittance of a crime.
It’s like asking the wolf to guard the hen house.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:39 pmThis situation is like a company (company number 1) giving it’s laptops to the employees of another company (Company number 2) to conduct their business on.
Company number 2 (the Congress which represents the American people, whose work is being conducted on the laptops) has every right legallly to demand copies of any of its business that was conducted using the laptops of Company number 1.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:43 pmBucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil:
I agree that the RNC is not the appropriate party to be deciding what on their laptops comes under Executive Privilege. We’ll have to leave it at that.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:44 pm#86 Bucket
We’ll see. IMO Republican Administration have been playing chess and the Democrats think they are playing checkers.
Hope I am underestmating them.
BTW, What’s up with you? Did a girl named Zooey break your heart?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:45 pmLook, people, don’t attack me for simply pointing out that ALL Presidents have Executive Privilege.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:45 pmZooey:
You DID post to be and claimed I was showing the same pattern as someone named Jake, so I pointed out I am not the first to defend Executive Privilege. But I am not Jake and I have no idea what list you are talking about. Just calm down.
Comment by Jake
All I said about EP was “So?”
Don’t tell me what to do, Jake.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:46 pmWTF is up with you?
You leave Zooey alone.
Comment by Wayne
Thank you, Wayne.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:46 pmThe RNC is a political committee. It is NOT a branch of the government. There is no right for the WH to claim “executive privilege” for anything the RNC may have (unless they’re admitting to violating the Hatch Act).
Congress should just seize the RNC’s servers and be done with it.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:50 pmI agree that the RNC is not the appropriate party to be deciding what on their laptops comes under Executive Privilege. We’ll have to leave it at that.
Elizabeth sez
Elizabeth – After discussing this here, I now think Waxman should subpoena the RNC laptops and the email service provider.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:50 pmWaxman should get an injunction and have the police confiscate the RNC laptops.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:52 pmYeah, Lizzy, you got me on the “OK you can stay post”, stating you weren’t jake/patrick.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:53 pmSeeing as how you scrolled all the way back to continue the game of gotcha, you’re pegged now.
No, I did not ever think you were rabidbunny, you threw that one out………
I am somehow disappointed, just the same, you know, the lacy underwear thing and all………
Zooey, I’m pointing out you DID address me even though you claimed to have not and even though you claimed some evidence of a “pattern” that I am someone named Jake. Just read Raven’s post above. He even told me (I don’t know how to link to the McCain Swiftboating thread):
“OK, Elizabeth, you pass.
You’re not jake/patrick.
You can stay.
But only until McCain loses the primary, please?â€
Comment by Raven — April 17, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
April 18th, 2007 at 8:55 pmI’m finding it harder and harder to have patience with the present state of this country. How anyone can sit there and say that this party is not the most corrupt organization is truly delusional? Enough!
The extent of the corruption in this administration and the Republican Party warrants a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act investigation. This administration makes the Nixon administration look like a bunch of carefree kids playing in the park. The moral corruption and the blood sport agenda to taint and destroy anything and anyone that stands in their way is morally appalling.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:56 pmSorry, lm945 and BucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil, but I don’t think that Congress is the appropriate party to be deciding what on the RNC laptops comes under Executive Privilege either.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:58 pmJTitor sez -The extent of the corruption in this administration and the Republican Party warrants a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act investigation.
That’s a fact Jack! RICO
April 18th, 2007 at 8:59 pmJTitor, as much as I disagree with Bush over Iraq and Gonzales, they’ve got nothing when it comes to corruption on what U.S. Grant did. Now THAT will wake you up with cold sweats.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:01 pmElizabeth sez – Sorry, lm945 and BucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil, but I don’t think that Congress is the appropriate party to be deciding what on the RNC laptops comes under Executive Privilege either.
Congress represents the People. Those laptops have the People’s business on them. Therefore, Congress has every right in my opinion, and it has an obligation, to confiscate them and examine what is on them.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:01 pmGah. Nothing like voting yourselves out of government for the next, what?, 8, 16, 24 years, eh, Republicans?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:01 pmHey Tracy and Elizabeth…want to take a stab at this? As usual, it was ignored on another thread.
From Crooksandliars.com:
A month ago today, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Tony Snow if the president might have been directly involved in suggesting the purge of U.S. Attorneys. Snow said, “Anything’s possible … but I don’t think so.†Keep that background in mind when you consider a very interesting item from The Albuquerque Journal that ran over the weekend.
Riddle me this, trolls…
You say that the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and nothing wrong has been done and nothing illegal has been done and Bush can do what he wants to.
If so, why is Bush trying to distance himself from the firings?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:01 pmWC
And why is Gonzales lying and pretending he was not involved?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:02 pm“What does Waxman actually do in Congress beside launch and conduct investigations?
Comment by Tracy — April 18, 2007″
Tracy you IGNORNANT slut!
It’s called “House Oversight and Government Reform Committee” you bitch!
Now run along you whore!
April 18th, 2007 at 9:03 pmWaxman and Congress have a right and an obligation to the American people to confiscate those RNC laptops and examine not just the emails but anything else related to the business of the American people.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:04 pmDon’t ask me, WC. I think Gonzales should be fired regardless. He’s either guilty of incompetent neglect or lying to Congress.
BucketsofBlood:
We are not going to agree on that one.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:07 pm“Elizabeth” sez:
Fortunately, they don’t have to. By deliberately setting up and using an alternate unrecorded channel of communications in an attempt to circumvent the Presidential Records Act, the administration has already made that determination in the negative.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:10 pmLiz sez: “when it comes to corruption on what U.S. Grant did. Now THAT will wake you up with cold sweats”
It’s not the garden-variety corruption that bothers me. God knows, few if any politicians are untainted. It’s the aggressive, systematic blood-sport (to quote JTitor) corrupt manipulation for the stated purpose of creating single-party dominance that scares the shat out of me.
It’s fine for you because you like the culprits, but consider other countries that tried the “single-party” experiment: China, Cuba, Russia, Germany….
April 18th, 2007 at 9:14 pm“Sorry, lm945 and BucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil, but I don’t think that Congress is the appropriate party to be deciding what on the RNC laptops comes under Executive Privilege either.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 8:58 pm”
They are not…. NO ONE IS!!!!
The RNC IS NOT the Government!!!!! The administration has NO CLAIM to “Executive Privilage” since they broke the law to circumvent the law!!!!
You still don’t get it Jake do you????? Even though this has been explained to you over 1,000 times…..
April 18th, 2007 at 9:16 pm#110 – “Elizabeth” aka Jake
You lost Raven. Sorry.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/18/waxman-rnc-search-terms/#comment-3757385
April 18th, 2007 at 9:16 pmIt should have been easy to answer my hypothetical then, TripMaster Monkey, assuming bin Laden’s alive and under surveillance. You are in for quite a shock if (again, hypothetically) the White House finds something on the alternate unrecorded channel of communications and actually does claim Executive Privilege.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:18 pmSection 8 of the COnstitution says –
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
Implied Powers – To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Based on this – the COngress has the obligation to confiscate the RNC laptops on which the business of the US government was conducted.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:19 pmDon’t ask me, WC. I think Gonzales should be fired regardless. He’s either guilty of incompetent neglect or lying to Congress.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
So which is it…you don’t give a damn about the President’s role in the attorney firings, or you just don’t care because, with the 28% of Bush’s supporters, it doesn’t directly affect you?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:20 pmBoy! whoever said: we have seen the enemy and it is us! sure knew what the truth is! Every single branch, department, comittee, structure- their goal is Destruction! If it all can be made to appear as the enemy of the people then they can begin to introduce the concept of the benevolent corporate leadership.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:20 pmI know, this can be considered to be a conspiracy theory,
Just look at the facts. Take the time to examine what has taken place over the last 6 years and then look beck even further to the U of Chicago and what came out of that esteemed organization.
I bet we could all contribute a little in the way of facts. What a list that would make. Hey, lets try it! What say you?
billjpa
bone:
I never said I liked the culprits.
RemoveBush:
I am not Jake.
Zooey:
Thanks for posting the link. How do you do that?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:22 pmThe concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution
It is a privilege not a power
April 18th, 2007 at 9:24 pmGood luck, BucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil, confiscating RNC laptops on which the business of the U.S. government may or may not have been conducted.
WC:
I voted for Gore and Kerry. What are you talking about?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:25 pmYou start, billjpa, what came out of the U of Chicago?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:26 pmZooey:
Thanks for posting the link. How do you do that?
Comment by Elizabeth
Right click on the time of the comment, and copy link location.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:26 pmDon’t ask me, WC. I think Gonzales should be fired regardless. He’s either guilty of incompetent neglect or lying to Congress.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
And…Gonzales was not part of the question I asked. Nice attempt at trying to change the topic of discussion, though. Typical.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:26 pmIn United States v. Nixon, the President’s lawyers claimed that he had an absolute right of executive privilege. Since the power of executive privilege is not expressly stated in the Constitution, there was some controversy over this matter.
For years, Presidents had claimed executive privilege on the grounds that there was a need to protect military, diplomatic, or national security secrets. The prevailing thought was that a president cannot be forced to share with other branches of government certain conversations, actions, or information if sharing that information could place the United States foreign relations at risk. This “state secrets privilege” was generally accepted.
By conducting his business on RNC laptops, Bush’s right to executive privilege there is null and void. He himself placed his business at risk by conducting it on RNC laptops.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:29 pmLiz: “assuming bin Laden’s alive and under surveillance. You are in for quite a shock if (again, hypothetically) the White House finds something on the alternate unrecorded channel of communications and actually does claim Executive Privilege.”
Wow, that’s really out there in Jack Bauer-land. So, a mild-mannered email server cleverly kept in in the RNC headquarters is routing top-secret military surveillance data. And saving it in the same folder as the illegal administration emails? What a reach.
I like trolls for some good debate, but you make it too easy.
Hey, Liz, North Korea & Iraq under Saddam also enjoyed the benefits of single-party rule. Is that what you want for America?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:30 pmElizabeth
Executive privilege only applies to protecting PResidential conversations etc. Bush himself violated his own Executive Privilege by conducting his conversations on non-governmental computer equipment which is now out of his hands.
Bush himself violated Executive Privilege.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:31 pmLiz, Then why are you going to such lengths to defend them?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:33 pmWow, that’s really out there in Jack Bauer-land. So, a mild-mannered email server cleverly kept in in the RNC headquarters is routing top-secret military surveillance data. And saving it in the same folder as the illegal administration emails? What a reach.
THe POINT is BUSH violated Executive Privilege by using the RNC laptops. Where are those laptops now? Who owns those laptops? Bush exposed the secrets of own office.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:33 pmbone:
Typing “yes” or “no” would have been easier.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:35 pmWaxman is actually acting in the interests of Executive Privilege. He is protecting the President’s secret communications.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:35 pm#124, Zooey…
April 18th, 2007 at 9:35 pmI acknowledged such at post #109…:)
Liz, Then why are you going to such lengths to defend them?
Comment by bone
Cuz that’s what Jake does.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:35 pmI voted for Gore and Kerry. What are you talking about?
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Just asking your opinion about Bush’s involvement in all this.
It’s called a “discussion.” That’s what we do here.
You obviously have no opinion of the subject I presented, and I was just curious as to why. That’s all.
As your your voting habits, the fact that you voted for Gore and Kerry doesn’t mean much.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:36 pmYou start, billjpa, what came out of the U of Chicago?
Comment by Elizabeth
Leo Strauss
April 18th, 2007 at 9:37 pm“Elizabeth” sez:
Yes…quite easy….which is why I did answer it. Or did you miss this post?
No, I’m not. Nothing this administration does shocks me anymore.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:38 pmI am NOT defending Bush. I am defending the Office of The President of the United States (which I hope is filled by a Democrat next time around). Executive Privilege applies to Presidential conversations AND those of advisors even if that advice does not reach the President. Why do I have to keep repeating the same thing over and over? Where’s Raven when you need him? He agrees with me on this one point at least.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:38 pmUnless Bush is going to make the argument that those RNC laptops, wherever they may be, come under the title of WH property – which would mean WH property extends however many miles to RNC offices.
THose laptops are not equivalent to the WH tape machines Nixon claimed came under Executive Privilege
April 18th, 2007 at 9:40 pmSorry, TripMaster Monkey, I thought someone else had answered your question “yes”. As I said, if even national security rationale wouldn’t convince you, then nothing will. Glad to hear you won’t be shocked at least.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:41 pmExecutive Privilege applies to Presidential conversations AND those of advisors even if that advice does not reach the President.
But it does not protect conversations conducted on equipment that does not belong to the Executive Office.
Similarly, if the President went to a meeting outside the WH – in an unsecured site and spoke, and his speech was recorded – he could not claim Executive Privilege.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:43 pmAwwwck…
April 18th, 2007 at 9:44 pmQuite the juicy stories today. What a day.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:45 pmBesides Executive Privilege is a privilege – not a power granted in the Consitution. It is subject to much interpretation. And I think in this case it could easily be proved that by the very act of conducting business on the RNC laptops, Executive Privilege is voided.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:45 pmBucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil, we all know that, as you put it “THe POINT is BUSH violated Executive Privilege by using the RNC laptops. Where are those laptops now? Who owns those laptops? Bush exposed the secrets of own office,” and you have made a strong case for it on this thread. To reiterate that point would be redundant and not worth anybody’s time.
but there is a bigger picture to be examined. If I wanted to review what we all already know, I’d be in the news, not the blogs.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:47 pm#124, Zooey…
I acknowledged such at post #109…:)
Comment by Raven
I know. I was informing Jake. :D
April 18th, 2007 at 9:47 pmBucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil:
Congress cannot claim EXECUTIVE Privilege. But thanks for the information. Now I am starting to see where your “opinions” are formed.
Zooey:
I am not Jake.
WC:
I don’t know “Bush’s involvement in all this” other than he refuses to fire Gonzales when it is obvious he should. I thought I’ve made that clear?
JTitor:
You think billjpa was referring to Leo Strauss? Woah. That was out of left field.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:49 pm…new species of Lizard crawled out from the rocks last night, must be spring!
April 18th, 2007 at 9:50 pm#154I
April 18th, 2007 at 9:50 pmIf the Executive Privilege issue is not important to you ignore it
Raven:
Whew! Am I glad you are back. Please tell these people that Executive Privilege applies to Presidential conversations AND those of advisors even if that advice does not reach the President. I hope it was you who agreed with me on that already, because I don’t want to go scrolling for that again too.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:52 pmCongress cannot claim EXECUTIVE Privilege.
Of course not. But Congress has the right to protect the general welfare and the Senate has the power of impeachment.
And in this case, Bush really can’t claim Executive Privilege.
Therefore – Waxman has the obligation to subpoena the laptops – get an injunction and subpoena the service provider.
Take the laptops not just the emails.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:53 pm“Elizabeth” sez:
It wasn’t my question….it was yours. Do try to keep up, “Elizabeth”…
Probably not, as I and others here have aptly demonstrated just how utterly unconvincing your ‘national security rationale’ is.
This corrupt and criminal administration attempting to cover their own culpability with the excuse of ‘executive privilege’ wouldn’t shock me in the least. How shocked will you be when their cheap ploy fails?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:53 pmPlease tell these people that Executive Privilege applies to Presidential conversations AND those of advisors even if that advice does not reach the President.
But not on equipment owned by the RNC it doesn’t
April 18th, 2007 at 9:54 pmZooey:
I am not Jake.
Comment by Jake
Sure you are.
Aren’t you going to thank me for telling you how to link to a comment?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:54 pmLizardbreath…
April 18th, 2007 at 9:55 pmYou only want me when you need someone to help plead your case.
We can’t go on like this.
I feel so used.
#159 . el Lizardbreath:
I’ll sure you do hope it was me,
’cause no one else did last night, sorry, I didn’t either.
I don’t have to scroll back, because I remember very clearly my statement on that issue:
“If and when, and only then, e-mails from or to George W. Bush have executive privilige”
April 18th, 2007 at 10:03 pm“Rove admitted to using the RNC servers for 95% of his correspondence,” Weismann said. “Was Fitzgerald aware of this prior to closing the case? Did [Fitzgerald] know emails were being deleted from the RNC server?”
April 18th, 2007 at 10:03 pmBucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil:
You had me up until “And in this case, Bush really can’t claim Executive Privilege.” Will YOU be shocked when he does?
TripMaster:
Executive Privilege is about the only thing I think Bush has latched on to that is NOT a cheap ploy. I will be upset if the precedent is trashed just because everyone hates Bush.I said I had thought someone else (beside you) had answered your question (meaning the question I asked of you). Try to keep up yourself.
Zooey:
I’m not Jake, and I thought I did thank you for the other information. Maybe it disappeared? If not, thank you.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:04 pmRNC Email used by White House staff is NOT protected by
“Executive Privilege”.
First, if they were using POLITICAL accounts AT the White House, they violate the Hatch Act.
Secondly, if they were doing WHITE HOUSE BUSINESS on RNC emails, they have violated the Presidential Records Act.
Thirdly, once the email leaves the White House servers and travels to OTHER servers on the net, they are FAIR GAME.
What is needed are ALL the KARL ROVE emails, and they can negotiate the REST…
See you in hell “eliazbeth” (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COXUCKER PUNK TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM)
April 18th, 2007 at 10:04 pmFine, Raven. Be that way. I know I got SOMEONE to agree with me that Executive Privilege applies to advisors even if that advice does not directly reach the President. I’ll be back.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:07 pmFirst, if they were using POLITICAL accounts AT the White House, they violate the Hatch Act.
“Rove admitted to using the RNC servers for 95% of his correspondence,” Weismann said. “Was Fitzgerald aware of this prior to closing the case? Did [Fitzgerald] know emails were being deleted from the RNC server?”
April 18th, 2007 at 10:08 pmhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041807A.shtml
Mr. Bush Goes To Hell:
Please review my posts above disagreeing with your legal opinion.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:09 pmHatch Act
Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Participate in Partisan Political Activity
These federal and D.C. employees may not-
-use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
April 18th, 2007 at 10:13 pm-solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
-solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
-be candidates for public office in partisan elections
-engage in political activity while:
on duty
in a government office
wearing an official uniform
using a government vehicle
wear partisan political buttons on duty
Liz sez: “I am defending the Office of The President of the United States (which I hope is filled by a Democrat next time around).”
Ok Liz, I too am thinking of the impact of today’s precedents on future presidents. Grover Norquist calls it the ” Hillary test.” Quite simply, imagine a future president you don’t trust empowered with the new, unprecedented powers granted to the current president today. Say, the ability to milk 911 indefinitely to invoke “executive privelige” to cloak any and all illegal activity. How would that sit with you?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:17 pmI’m not Jake, and I thought I did thank you for the other information. Maybe it disappeared? If not, thank you.
Comment by Elizabeth
You’re welcome, Jake.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:19 pmWaxman needs to get an injunction tonight and tomorrow have the police enter every RNC office across the country and confiscate all computer equipment, then cordon off the areas as crime scenes. – Violating the Hatch Act.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:20 pmI don’t trust THIS President, but there’s still Executive Privilege.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:22 pmZooey:
I’m not Jake
BucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil:
Assuming Waxman “gets an injunction tonight” you think the Capitol Police can enter every RNC office across the country and confiscate all computer equipment, then cordon off the areas as crime scenes? Is that it?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:24 pm“Elizabeth” sez:
Spare me. This administration attempts to establish a parallel channel of communications with the intent of circumventing the Presidential Records Act, and now they attempt to hide their malfeasance by invoking executive privilege. This ploy is beyond cheap…it’s criminal.
If the administration tries to claim executive privilege for any of these communications, they’ll be admitting to compromising government secrets on top of everything else.
Which ‘precedent’ would this be? I don’t recall that ‘precedent’ helping out Nixon very much…
April 18th, 2007 at 10:25 pmBUsh violated Executive Privilege so did Rove
April 18th, 2007 at 10:26 pm“Elizabeth”.
I have seen YOUR OPINIONS and they are just THAT.
Karl Rove is NOT a foreign advisor. He is a POLITICAL OPERATIVE working within the White House while being paid by the US Taxpayers, his BOSSES.
The Congress is doing the work of the US Taxpayers–THEIR bosses as well as Rove’s (and Bush’s!!!).
Your opinion is like YOU—just another azzhole.
And I couldn’t give a flying fvkc about it.
ONLY the LAW, and Rove and Bush have violated at least one of the Hatch and Presidential Records Act.
Probably BOTH.
And Gonzo is going for his ARMAGEDDON tomorrow.
OUT with the BushCrime TRAITORS.
See you in hell “elizabeth” (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
April 18th, 2007 at 10:26 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COXUCKER PUNK TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM)
Liz, executive privilege doesn’t apply in this case. To assert it here successfully would be to open a door of institutionalized abuse of the expanded privilige to future presidents who may potentially be EVEN WORSE than the turkey we have now. Liz, for god’s sake, think about your children and grandchildren.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:30 pmdeer elizerbeth
April 18th, 2007 at 10:32 pmi fownd yo on the aborshun artikl and wan to no if yew can help me hav a baabee. kinyew pleeze ?
deer elizerbeth
i fownd yo on the aborshun artikl and wan to no if yew can help me hav a baabee. kinyew pleeze ?
Comment by edgar
Oy, it’s a mitzvah!
April 18th, 2007 at 10:45 pmLiz sez: “Assuming Waxman “gets an injunction tonight†you think the Capitol Police can enter every RNC office across the country and confiscate all computer equipment, then cordon off the areas as crime scenes? Is that it?”
Such thinking sounds like that of a cornered criminal. Sounds like you already got the “standoff moment” that comes before arrest already imagined. Hope that’s the mentality in the rest of your camp.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:46 pmWC:
I don’t know “Bush’s involvement in all this†other than he refuses to fire Gonzales when it is obvious he should. I thought I’ve made that clear?
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Again…the question I posed was not about Gonzales. The President and his supporters keep saying that the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Tony Snow, if you read what I posted, appears to claim that Bush had no involvement in the firings. Seems to me anyone serving at the pleasure of the President sure as hell should have the attention of the President.
I’m simply asking this: why is Bush trying to distance himself from the firings if the attorneys serve at his pleasure and he can do whatever he wants to, and nobody can stop him? Is he not to be involved at all?
Just asking for your opinion, and once again, you are avoiding it. Which is fine. I’m off to bed.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:32 pmLiz,
my only take on the executive privilege thing, is it has not really been succesfully applied. Both Clinton and Nixon were unable to make it stick, I don’t know of any examples, were the president was able to use it. I may be ignorant though.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:34 pm“I don’t know of any examples, were the president was able to use it. I may be ignorant though.
Comment by Krazny”
Eisenhower used it successfully during the army-mccarthy hearings in 1954.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:18 amComment by BucketsofBloodforBucketsofOil — April 18, 2007 @ 8:08
= fed the fck up from previous threads, another sneaky troll in my opinion. Spudge, do you think so too?
April 19th, 2007 at 3:17 amI don’t think I have ever hated an administration as much as this one.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:03 amWhat does Waxman actually do in Congress beside launch and conduct investigations?
Comment by Tracy —
Are you at all aware that his predecessor as Chairman of the same Committee, Dan Burton (R-Indiana), went absolutely subpoena-crazy when Clinton was president and wasted millions of taxpayer dollars by investigating everything from Clinton’s Christmas card list to his pet cat, Socks, all to no avail? Would you prefer Henry Waxman to indluge in frivolous investigations, such as of WH dog Barney or Laura’s hairdresser, or don’t you think the Congress, as an equal member of government, should be engaging in some oversight?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:20 amBTW, the same Dan Burton, who tried so hard to nail Clinton on anything and everything, later was forced to admit to fostering a child during an adulterous relationship with a state employee. I just love Rethug family values!
#27
I don’t have a problem with oversight I was just wondering what Waxman does besides investigate the opposition party but never calls for investigations into his own party.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:10 am#30
My question had nothing to do with the understanding of the Constitution dickhead.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:11 am#33
Oh, yes I do along with Medicare and Medicaid.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:13 am#37
“He doesn’t need to do anything else, he is the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman.”
BS! His main job is to represent the people of California his SIDE job is charman of the House Oversight committee. BTW he continually sponsored bills in the house before he was chairman that seeked to investigate the Bush administration but not one for the Democratic party especially when it came to the illegal fund raising of Al Gore.
http://www.house.gov/waxman/issues_sponsored.htm
April 19th, 2007 at 11:21 amNo one here but us birds, tracy, we’re all listening to Gonzo squirm, you’re not?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:24 amOops, they’re back, gotta go!
#119
“If so, why is Bush trying to distance himself from the firings?”
Why shouldn’t he? Gonzales screwed up, but that doesn’t mean Bush should take heat for something he had nothing to do with.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:27 am#121
Dude I am not a woman. You are damn lucky you wern’t in the same room with me when you popped off you little mouth.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:29 am#193
Care to answer my question? BTW why do you assume that I was fond of Dan Burton? I agree he wasted millions in tax dollars on irrelevant investigations. You assume too much little girl.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:38 am#198
More like vultures.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:39 amSearch term should be:
Find *.* where *.* = *.*
In other words…give us all your e-mails.
Now.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:09 pm#194 Tracy
I don’t have a problem with oversight I was just wondering what Waxman does besides investigate the opposition party but never calls for investigations into his own party.
He doesn’t investigate the other party. He investigates the Executive Branch. And after six years of non-investigation by the GOP-led non-Oversight Committee, he’s got a lot of catching up to do. Try not to let it upset you.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:08 pmHis role as chairman of the House Oversight Committee is to have oversight over ALL branches of government, not just the executive branch, but thanks for pointing out his blatant political bias and selective investigative protocol.
http://oversight.house.gov/about.asp
April 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pmI hope this all of Waxman’s efforts are leading toward eventual impeachment of Bush and Cheney because he has gotten nothing he has been asking for from anyone in this administration for months! They had better start soon also, because the crooks will stall all the way to next November. That is their plan and they are going to try to get away with anything they can to make it worse while in office. They must be stopped and very soon!
April 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pm“If so, why is Bush trying to distance himself from the firings?â€
Why shouldn’t he? Gonzales screwed up, but that doesn’t mean Bush should take heat for something he had nothing to do with.
Comment by Tracy — April 19, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Nice try, Dick. Bush had nothing to do with the firings? Ha. Ha ha. Stop it…you are killing me.
Other wingnuts don’t seem to follow that same thinking. What a shame. All they do is keep screaming “the attorneys serve at the President’s pleasure. He can do whatever he wants.” Well, apparently not, since be “had nothing to do with the firings.”
April 19th, 2007 at 4:13 pmOh, and Tracy, you didn’t look up the other related info, did you? Here, I did it for you:
As the Journal explained it, Domenici wanted Iglesias to pursue some alleged corruption controversies involving Democrats in New Mexico. Iglesias resisted the pressure. By the spring of 2006, Domenici was fed up and told AG Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out. Gonzales refused and said he’d only take orders from the president.
So, Domenici went over the Attorney General’s head and called Karl Rove, asking him to take his concerns about Iglesias directly to the president. The New Mexico senator and the president reportedly discussed the U.S. Attorney on the phone at some point after the midterm elections but before the Dec. 7 purge.
Gosh. Gonzales only taking orders from the President. Over an attorney firing. But the President wasn’t involved. Yeah.
April 19th, 2007 at 4:21 pm#208
Post your link to the story, because you certainly didn’t write it.
April 19th, 2007 at 4:40 pm#208
Bush had nothing to do with the way the firings were handled is my point. Gonzales is under the microscope for the way he handled them. Don’t try try to spin here.
As far as your story you posted….the issue here is that Waxman is investigating the firings of the USAs as being political motivated, but in the instance you just pointed out Ingelias was called out by Domenici for moving fast enough on cases. It’s basically the Senator’s word against Ingelias’s. Bush administration was not the one who initally brought up Ingelia’s name for removal. Yes Bush was ultimately responsible for firing all eight of the USAs in question as was Clinton when he fired all of the USAs in 1992 despite the fact the many had excellent reviews by the DOJ. Again, Bush is trying to distance himself from the way the firings were handled, because he can’t very well say he had nothing to do with the actual firings for obvious reasons that even you can understand.
April 19th, 2007 at 5:13 pmCare to answer my question? BTW why do you assume that I was fond of Dan Burton? I agree he wasted millions in tax dollars on irrelevant investigations. You assume too much little girl.
Comment by Tracy
You can easily look up on your own what Henry Waxman does. I was only pointing out Dan Burton’s hypocrisy and waste. You are assuming too much, little boy, to assume that I meant you are fond of Burton. And aren’t we being so condescending and sexist, little boy? This isn’t the first time you’ve addressed me as “little girl.” Though I do happen to be small in stature, I am definitely an adult woman, little boy.
April 19th, 2007 at 5:25 pmBS! His(Waxman’s) main job is to represent the people of California his SIDE job is charman of the House Oversight committee.
Comment by Tracy
BTW, he doesn’t represent all the people of California, the most populous state in the Union–just one part of it, mostly around the western part of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. If the people of that area feel misrepresented, let them–not you in Texas–complain (and vote him out, if necessary). However, as someone who used to be represented by Waxman until a bit of redistricting (not Tom Delay-style gerrymandering) following the 2000 census, I think I am in a better position than you to say that for the most part his constituents are quite happy with him.
April 19th, 2007 at 5:32 pmYes Bush was ultimately responsible for firing all eight of the USAs in question as was Clinton when he fired all of the USAs in 1992 despite the fact the many had excellent reviews by the DOJ.
Comment by Tracy
Obviously you are never going to get it into your head that it is not unusual nor suspicious for a new president to fire all the USAs and appoint new ones, just as he picks new Cabinet ministers and ambassad”! Moreover, I already pointed out on a previous thread to you that Clinton, in fact, did not fire all the USAs–that he kept Chertoff (of New Jersey)–the same Michael Chertoff who now heads the Dept. of Homeland Security. You neoCONs certainly don’t like to let facts get in the way of your talking points!
April 19th, 2007 at 11:05 pm#211
“You can easily look up on your own what Henry Waxman does.”
I have and it isn’t much…at least as far as helping the people of California is concerned.
“And aren’t we being so condescending and sexist, little boy?”
Not really considering you don’t seem to know what sexist means apparently.
“This isn’t the first time you’ve addressed me as “little girl.—
And this isn’t first time you have addressed me as a little boy little girl. Your blatant hypocricy is unbelievable considering you started addressing me as such a long time ago.
“Though I do happen to be small in stature, I am definitely an adult woman, little boy.”
Well you posts surely suggest otherwise.
“I think I am in a better position than you to say that for the most part his constituents are quite happy with him.”
I never said his constituents weren’t happy with him, although his prowess in calling for investigations on other federal representatives rather that sponsoring legislation that would help his district says alot about the people he represents and their priorties, which like yours, are pretty low.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:47 am#213
“Obviously you are never going to get it into your head that it is not unusual nor suspicious for a new president to fire all the USAs”
Well obviously you put tradition and precident above what is right, once again reinforcing the fact that your standards are pretty low.
“Moreover, I already pointed out on a previous thread to you that Clinton, in fact, did not fire all the USAs–that he kept Chertoff…”
Oooo, you are on a role….one….you are good.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:52 amNot really considering you don’t seem to know what sexist means apparently.
“This isn’t the first time you’ve addressed me as “little girl.â€â€
And this isn’t first time you have addressed me as a little boy little girl. Your blatant hypocricy(SIC) is unbelievable considering you started addressing me as such a long time ago.
“Though I do happen to be small in stature, I am definitely an adult woman, little boy.â€
Well you(SIC) posts surely suggest otherwise.
Comments by Tracy
No, “little boy,” I absolutely never addressed you as “little boy” until you started calling me “little girl.” And I’m supposed to believe that you, a man, knows better than I what sexist means? Give me a break!
April 20th, 2007 at 5:09 pmConsidering that your spelling is at a child’s level, you’re hardly in the position to make the last comment.
Well obviously you put tradition and precident(SIC) above what is right, once again reinforcing the fact that your standards are pretty low.
“Moreover, I already pointed out on a previous thread to you that Clinton, in fact, did not fire all the USAs–that he kept Chertoff…â€
Oooo, you are on a role(SIC)….one….you are good.
Comment by Tracy
I already wrote in one thread to you that I agreed that all the USAs should not necessarily be fired when a new president takes office. However, that is not the issue here; the timing and suspicious circumstances of those 8 firings are.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:13 pmBTW, what are your supposedly superior priorities?
reinforcing the fact that your standards are pretty low.
Comment by Tracy
Obviously you don’t know the difference between “fact” and your “opinion.”
April 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm#216
“No, “little boy,†I absolutely never addressed you as “little boy†until you started calling me “little girl.—
Check your post again. I didn’t return the favor untill you fired first.
“And I’m supposed to believe that you, a man, knows better than I what sexist means?”
Oh definately. Check the definition and please tell me in what post I have been “sexist”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism
“Considering that your spelling is at a child’s level, you’re hardly in the position to make the last comment.”
Considering I am not concerned in the least with your petty spelling corrections, you can’t cite where I have been “sexist” , no problem.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:00 pm#217
“I already wrote in one thread to you that I agreed that all the USAs should not necessarily be fired when a new president takes office.”
The why are you bringing up, AGAIN,the BS precedent and tradition about incoming administrations getting rid of all of the USAs?
“However, that is not the issue here; the timing and suspicious circumstances of those 8 firings are.”
No that is not the issue. The issue is how Gonzales handled the firings. See post #210.
“BTW, what are your supposedly superior priorities?”
When I look to my elected representatives I want them to address the issues in my distict, not spending all of their time like Waxman does, attempting to investigate the other RNC and Bush administration. If you feel that launching investigations is more important that sponsoring legislation that helps California then that’s your prerogative.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm#218
I am not the one who keeps reiterating a bad precedent for no reason.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 pm#219
Sorry, “definitely”
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:18 pmI am not the one who keeps reiterating a bad precedent for no reason.
Comment by Tracy
You, in fact, are reiterating a bad precedent when you keep on writing “But Clinton fired….” That’s not the issue here, which is what I’ve been trying to point out to you, apparently to no avail.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:02 pmI am no longer one of Waxman’s constituents, but after the last do-nothing GOP-controlled Congress, I am glad to see someone launching investigations into true corruption–not the president’s cat and Christmas cards lists like Dan Burton. (Did you ever protest that, Tracy?) Also, I am glad to see a Congressman who isn’t indluging in pork like Ted Stevens’ “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska. Beverly Hills doesn’t need pork.
I will not be checking any old posts because I know I never started calling you “little boy” until after you addressed me as “little girl.” It’s simply not my style. You may be mixing me up with someone else, and I see that you offer no proof of it. Calling an adult woman you don’t agree with “little girl” is sexist in my book
As usual, you start posting on an almost dead thread, as if you have to have the last word. You have called me a coward for using “Cheney off” instead of the f-word. Maybe I should call you a coward for your habit of posting on threads four or five days after the last comment and when no one else is paying attention
Ps. Tracy,
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 pmI think it’s about time we end this thread unless you have something really important to say–not a repetition of the same excuse or a new insult for me.
#233
“You, in fact, are reiterating a bad precedent when you keep on writing “But Clinton fired….—
Oh, but you haven’t?! LOL!
“Also, I am glad to see a Congressman who isn’t indluging in pork like Ted Stevens’”
“Calling an adult woman you don’t agree with “little girl†is sexist in my book”
OK, I see that you don’t mind making up definitions.
“I will not be checking any old posts because I know I never started calling you “little boy†until after you addressed me as “little girl.†It’s simply not my style.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/18/mtp-iraq-debate/#comments
Oh yes it’s your style…#584…but I can probably guess that the word “little” makes a big difference in your mind. If you have something earlier of mine please post.
“Since you claim to be in CST, isn’t this getting a bit past your bedtime?”
“Also, I am glad to see a Congressman who isn’t indluging in pork like Ted Stevens’ “bridge to nowhere†in Alaska.”
As if Waxman hasn’t attached pork to any of his legislation? Please.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_porkerofthemonth_May03
Not to mention one of many proposed wasteful investigations one of which was one into the cost of Bush’s carrier landing led by Conyer and Waxman…
“These conclusions were verified after Conyers and Waxman demanded that the General Accounting Office (GAO) launch an investigation into the cost of the trip. The head of GAO David Walker said he would not take up their offer since it would take too long and cost more than the trip itself.”
“Maybe I should call you a coward for your habit of posting on threads four or five days after the last comment and when no one else is paying attention”
Well I sorry I have more important things to do that immediately reply. Remember this blog is a side show in my life…unlike yours. BTW YOU are paying attention. BTW please cite some evidence of your BS claim, i.e. that I post specifically, well after the last post, so that I “get the last word”.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 pmSorry, little boy, but I, too, have better things to do in my life than look up something that I know is wrong: your assertion that I started the “little girl/little boy” thing. It’s simply not my style. You started calling me “little girl” in some posts long before the one you just dug up, which is missing the “little” in any case. I remember specifically that I didn’t address you as “man” at the time because it sounds too much like Harlem street slang to me. The question about your bedtime was only in response to a previous thread where you accused me of “staying up all night”–which I didn’t in my own time zone. I think any woman with a bit of self-respect would regard being called “little girl” as sexist regardless of what the dictionary may say. Unlike you, we don’t have to look up the word; we experience it frequently in life.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:21 amI have only reminded you of what you call a bad precedent, because you keep on bringing up what “Clinton did.” Stop bringing up Clinton, and you won’t hear about this again.
Tracy: “Remember this blog is a side show in my life…unlike yours”:
You’re in no position to discuss my life and how I spend it. Unlike you, I don’t try to post on Alterman or other blogs. This is the only one. And I usually don’t post in big spurts like you.
Anyway, as usual, you have tried to get off the discussion with attacks on me. Given the source of the attacks and being a grown woman, this doesn’t particularly bother me. But that’s not supposed to be the purpose of these posts. Meanwhile, you have never managed to persuade anyone here but your fellow trolls about anything. Too bad and goodbye.
#226
“Sorry, little boy, but I, too, have better things to do in my life than look up something that I know is wrong”
Which means you are full of crap and have zero proof otherwise that can prove your assertions about what happened when.
“You started calling me “little girl†in some posts long before the one you just dug up…”
Well since you can seem to remember and the fact that you can’t recall when I did….your word isn’t worth much. The reason I brought up that particular thread is because it WAS the time YOU called me “boy”. From then on you were “little girl” in my book.
“I think any woman with a bit of self-respect would regard being called “little girl†as sexist regardless of what the dictionary may say.”
What does sexist mean to you other than what the definition says? I asked my wife, who has at least as much self respect as you do, what she would think if someone got into an argument with another person and they called her “a little girl”, she came up with the word “condesending”, which I believe you mentioned a while back. Should have stuck with it.
“I remember specifically that I didn’t address you as “man†at the time because it sounds too much like Harlem street slang to me.”
Or, you were just being a jerk.
“Unlike you, we don’t have to look up the word; we experience it frequently in life.”
Well then you are far too sensitive and/or PC, which doesn’t suprise me. You know how to spell, but your knowledge of the meaning of words is lacking or you have your own little personal dictionary.
“I have only reminded you of what you call a bad precedent, because you keep on bringing up what “Clinton did.—
So you don’t think it’s a BAD precedent for an incoming administration to fire the vast majority of the the USAs? Is this some more of your low standards mantra?
“You’re in no position to discuss my life and how I spend it.”
And you are in no postition to incinuate that I was being cowardly by posting days after the last post. Where is your evidence? I have aready posted a long time ago, evidence of you being cowardly by insulting others while standing behind other people’s words.
“Unlike you, I don’t try to post on Alterman or other blogs.”
How do you know where I post? I am just like you, I only post in this blog.
“And I usually don’t post in big spurts like you.”
Oh, whatever!…you hunt around just like the rest of us and post your little comments, but you are right….you rarely DEBATE.
“But that’s not supposed to be the purpose of these posts.”
Well if would answer my question instead of trying to deflect to another congressman then we would have never got off on this tangent…see #194, not to mention your last condesending remark “I just love Rethug family values!” which prompted me to call you “a little girl”. I initially asked…”What does Waxman actually do in Congress beside launch and conduct investigations?” and then you brought up Dan Burton. I asked the question because people here, including yourself, thinks that Waxman doesn’t indulge in pork barrel spending, which he does, as my links factually pointed out. You have yet to refute any of my links.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:45 pmI know myself well enough to know that I would never start calling someone “little boy” unless in retaliation for being called “little girl.” Plain and simple, period. You didn’t recall calling me “bitch” either, did you? I have better things to do than to answer to all the insults of a guy who also ridiculously told me that my “grammer(SIC) sucks.” As far as I’m concerned, you can go Cheney-off, and you have the honor of being the only person I’ve ever said this to twice.
April 24th, 2007 at 6:28 pmUnlike you, I don’t try to post on Alterman or other blogs.â€
How do you know where I post? I am just like you, I only post in this blog.
comment by Tracy
Ps. You complained on one thread–don’t recall which one now–about trying to post on Alterman but being deleted or something like that. I wouldn’t dig up something like that right out of nowhere. That’s all I have to say to you.
April 24th, 2007 at 7:22 pm#228 and #229
“I know myself well enough to know that I would never start calling someone “little boy†unless in retaliation for being called “little girl.†Plain and simple, period. You didn’t recall calling me “bitch†either, did you?”
Yes I didn’t remember and in this case, maybe, just maybe you just don’t remember what you posted when. You infallibility complex is just amazing and at least I have the courage to admit my mistakes.
“I wouldn’t dig up something like that right out of nowhere.”
Neither would I, so either you memory is faulty or mine is.
Again, you don’t think it’s a BAD precedent for an incoming administration to fire the vast majority of the the USAs? I see you don’t have the courage to answer this question.
“As far as I’m concerned, you can go Cheney-off, and you have the honor of being the only person I’ve ever said this to twice.”
Coming from a bitch like you, I take that as a complement.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:43 amComing from a bitch like you, I take that as a complement (SC)
Comment by Tracy —
Can’t even spell “compliment,” can you, Tracy?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:58 pmAre you here to attack repeatedly a woman you’ve never met or make a political statement–something you’ve grossly failed at, with your lame defenses of a ultra-corrupt administration? How pathetic!
Tracy: Again, you don’t think it’s a BAD precedent for an incoming administration to fire the vast majority of the the USAs? I see you don’t have the courage to answer this question.
Lora: I have answered this so many times that I have to wonder about your reading comprehension, or shall I say lack of it? You still don’t get it that firings the USAs at the beginning of an administration and midterm are different things. Like comparing apples to oranges: both are fruit but different.
Tracy: Yes I didn’t remember and in this case, maybe, just maybe you just don’t remember what you posted when. YouSIC) infallibility complex is just amazing and at least I have the courage to admit my mistakes.
You admitted your mistake only after I dug something up to prove it. I know that I don’t use “little boy” even to real little boys, plain and simple. Oh, am I really lacking the courage to admit my mistakes, eh? This from less than a month ago:
April 25th, 2007 at 6:09 pm#115
Sorry: now I do recall a bit of criticism from you of Bush. But my overall impression is of your various defenses of him.
Comment by Lora — March 29, 2007
#231
“Are you here to attack repeatedly a woman you’ve never met or make a political statement”
And here you repeatedly attack a man you have never met and expect me to be honored by you telling me to fuck off. That’s pathetic!
April 26th, 2007 at 11:02 pm#232
“I have only reminded you of what you call a bad precedent, because you keep on bringing up what “Clinton did.”
Why do you say what I am calling a bad precedent? Your statement is basically saying that firing them in the beginning of a term is OK but during the middle of a term it’s not. That’s crap.
“You still don’t get it that firings the USAs at the beginning of an administration and midterm are different things.”
No they aren’t. They are both wrong! The timing is irrelevant. In both cases, in both administrations, they were done for PURE political purposes. You just don’t seem to get it, which is absolutely unbelievable.
“You admitted your mistake only after I dug something up to prove it.”
I dug up the proof, yet you STILL deny it!
“Oh, am I really lacking the courage to admit my mistakes, eh?”
I didn’t even post a link to another thead and you admitted that you were wrong, but in this case I post a link to the exact thread where you called me a “boy”, which was right before I started referring to you as “little girl”, and you still deny it by offering a lame defense that it isn’t your “style”.
“But my overall impression is of your various defenses of him.”
Well that’s because you haven’t read every thing I have posted here….by far.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pm#232
Remember in both cases, one where Clinton fired all of his USAs, except one, at the beginning of his first term and the other where Bush fire eight in the middle of his second term, the motive in BOTH cases was pure politics. BTW there was absolutely nothing criminal about the firing of the eight by Bush which is exactly what Waxman is trying to do, i.e. criminalize Bush’s actions.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:23 pmA few days ago you accused me of having TP as a major part of my life; now you’re complaining that I didn’t read all your posts (as I am supposed to have the time to do so or can stand to wade through your poor spelling and bile).
April 27th, 2007 at 1:45 amYes, Tracy, of course, you are always right about everything: You know what “sexism” means better than a woman who has had to endure it; you know when “grammer”(SIC) sucks; you know better than Waxman about law (even though several Republicans have also expressed opposition to the firings); you know what are high standards (even though you think it’s okay to spend $75 million to build a useless police academy in Iraq that leaks human excrement–I suppose you think the Iraqis will see that as a wonderful sign of American friendship and good intentions); you know that I am a “hyprocite” about grammar (or “grammer”) because I have used “as” to start a sentence (grammatically correct, though perhaps not “grammetically” correct) but don’t find anything hypocritical about the lack of Bush/Cheney family members in the military. Yes, you are always so so right. Satisfied? BTW, calling me names like “bitch” is against TP’s Terms of Use. Try it again, and I will file a complaint about you.
Ps. Tracy, here is a quote from you:
“Eric Alterman on the other hand use to have a blog (LOL! if you wanted to call it one) on MSNBC and I had posted dozens of comments but they obviously went thru a screener first and only the ones the HE wanted to be posted were, i.e. 99.9% of them were those either praising him or they were in line with his left wing politics.”
“Also, several posters here have mentioned being banned from certain other neo-con sites. I tend to believe them; but if you can prove this wrong, I will certainly accept it.â€
LOL! I think if you were truely(SIC) objective that you would demand that the prove their claim about being banned on conservative sites is right! BTW this hypocritical blog has a “terms of use†page that says…
Comment by Tracy December 1, 2006 6:45
Of course, in your book I made up the story about your attempts to post on Alterman, and your memory is sooooo much better than mine (even though you couldn’t remember the original “bitch” statement nor the one above). One of these days I may remember specifically on which posts dating back to last year when you started calling me “little girl,” too.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:04 amTracy,
April 27th, 2007 at 7:18 pmThis thread has been going on for nearly 10 days, which is more than long enough. I will probably not be looking for your reply. I have proven to my satisfaction that you are the one with the faulty memory (couldn’t even remember posting in Alterman’s blog–let alone mentioning it to me, etc.). I have avoided mentioning that I am well known among my circle of friends, acquaintances, former classmates, etc. for my very good (some say “frighteningly good”) memory, because I have been sure that you would make some snide remarks. Go ahead.
But more proof of it is that I can spell and you can’t. I have never had trouble spelling without any practice; I see a word once–at most twice, and I can spell it. By contrast, I tell you that Clinton’s crime is spelled “perjury” not “purgury,” and you get it right for a while but ultimately return posting about “purgury” here. My memory has also helped me in learning foreign languages. I never had any trouble learning French, Spanish, and the Japanese writing system (the grammar and many different levels of politeness were another thing). That doesn’t necessarily mean I am smarter than people with bad memories but who are good at math or at inventing things. It is simply an area where I excel.
I was not the one who started this “little girl/little boy” thing. You were and stop whining about it, little boy.
#236
“Yes, Tracy, of course, you are always right about everything”
I never said that or think that.
“you know better than Waxman about law”
I know for a fact the there was nothing illegal about the firings.
“you know what are high standards (even though you think it’s okay to spend $75 million to build a useless police academy in Iraq that leaks human excrement”
When did I say it was a good investment about that project? Never. Keep making things up and inferring that I am OK with them. I am use to it now.
“I suppose you think the Iraqis will see that as a wonderful sign of American friendship and good intentions”
You suppose a lot of things. I guess it’s just your “style”.
“…but don’t find anything hypocritical about the lack of Bush/Cheney family members in the military”
Nor do I for the majority members of Congress in both the Democratic and Republican parties, or for good ‘ol BJ Clinton. I think that military service is irrelevant when it comes to discussing the war in Iraq.
“BTW, calling me names like “bitch†is against TP’s Terms of Use. Try it again, and I will file a complaint about you.”
I will do it again if you tell me to fuck off again. No problem any time it warrants. Go ahead and do it now, if you have the courage. That’s of course if you think your lame “Cheney off” phrase is OK with TP and that’s also of course if TP isn’t so PC that it doesn’t have the guts to see right thru your crap.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:58 am#237, #238
“Eric Alterman on the other hand use to have a blog….”
“Of course, in your book I made up the story about your attempts to post on Alterman”
Please stop assuming so much. Do you know how long ago that was that I use to post on Alterman’s blog? BTW he doesn’t have the blog anymore, therefore my statement about only posting here is accurate. What is your point?
“One of these days I may remember specifically on which posts dating back to last year when you started calling me “little girl,†too.”
Good luck! LOL!…and when you do find that post in which I called you a “little girl” BEFORE you refered to me a “boy”, which I posted already, you let me know and I will apologize.
“I have proven to my satisfaction that you are the one with the faulty memory…”
Well considering I posted proof that you also have a faulty memory then I guess we both are human. I don’t have a problem with it.
“I have avoided mentioning that I am well known among my circle of friends, acquaintances, former classmates, etc. for my very good (some say “frighteningly goodâ€) memory…”
Same here especially when if comes to arguments with my wife and my co-workers. Good for you…but it isn’t perfect and neither is mine.
“But more proof of it is that I can spell and you can’t.”
Well I am better at math and geometry any day of the week. Not to mention being far more intelligent when it comes to engineering and physics. Why do you need to insult me again when there are dozens of things that I can do better than you?
“It is simply an area where I excel.”
Well that’s great, but if you want to compare resumes and what your skills are worth in the real world compared to mine, then I will have lots of fun doing it. It isn’t even close. As a registered architect/engineer what I do for a living does far more for society as a whole than what you do for a living….hands down.
“I was not the one who started this “little girl/little boy†thing. You were and stop whining about it, little boy.”
Whatever little girl! You go find that post before this thread, but untill then your recollection isn’t worth anything….
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 03/ 18/ mtp-iraq-debate/ #comments
April 28th, 2007 at 1:21 amBTW, I am going to Disney World with my family and I won’t be back untill next Saturday, so do worry about checking in on this thread for a while. Just being courteous.
BTW if you thing I am done with you in this thread, I am just warming up.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:26 amHughesNet Is Your Internet Service Provider Of Choice
If you want the best combination of flexibility, convenience, and reliability in your high speed Internet service, then HughesNet is your Internet service provider of choice. While any company can promise high speeds and great quality service, HughesNe…
March 21st, 2008 at 7:23 pm