Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Communications Government Politics IT

Thousands of White House E-mails Deleted 799

kidcharles writes "The Washington Post reports that in the midst of an investigation by the U.S. Congress into the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the Department of Justice, numerous White House e-mails have been lost. Among them are communications from presidential adviser Karl Rove. Parallels are being drawn with the infamous '18 minutes' missing from the Nixon Watergate tapes. Also at issue is the use of Republican National Committee e-mail domains (such as and rather than the official White House domain. This is a violation of the Presidential Records Act."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Thousands of White House E-mails Deleted

Comments Filter:
  • Does this... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jaysyn ( 203771 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @03:57PM (#18707327) Homepage Journal
    ... really come to anyone as a surprise by now?
    • Re:Does this... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @05:30PM (#18709237) Homepage Journal
      I'll be surprised if they are deleted beyond the recall of reasonably simple forensic techniques.

      If they do manage to hide those emails, that'll be a first for The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight.

      Their consistent MO has been to spout brazen nonsense, then rely on the sheer effrontery to keep the truth hidden until it is covered in a pile of bullshit so deep it will never be brought to light. And the damned thing is that it worked -- a least for a while. Seriously, who has time to think about the truth behind the Iraq WMD lie? It's buried in a strata of crap so deep you'd need a team of archaeologists to find it.

      I think the reason this works is that regular people, the people who vote, have no way to know directly whether something is true or not. That's the power vacuum in which money is supreme. Then these guys blew it by telling two big lies that the public could see for itself were lies: that the Iraq war is succeeding and that they cared what happened to the victims of Katrina. Katrina was the watershed event. Before you could get away with lying if you were glib enough. Afterward it was much more dangerious.

      But they're still doing it.

      Take the US attorney firing. I'm not a lawyer, but even I know enough never to tell an easily refuted lie when you can get by with a uselessly vague truth. I'd have been saying things like "It was time for new blood." or "David Iglesias did a fine job, but a shakeup will keep everybody on their toes, and Larry Gomez deserves his chance to show us what he can do."

      Instead they concocted a pile of utter horseshit that is easy to disprove and which by the way impugns the reputation and service of a group of people who happen to be -- wait for it -- high power lawyers. Don't they even watch TV? The way prosecutors get you is they let you talk and talk until you've buried yourself in your own crap and you'll do anything they ask if they'll just please, please throw you a rope? It's a wonder these guys can make it from the shower to the breakfast table in the morning without being indicted.

      It's never been a surprise these guys are liars. I knew they were liars before they even came in -- and I don't say that lightly. I don't think people are evil because they disagree with me. I don't see eye to eye with Bob Dole, but he would have been a strong and honorable president. But this guy was obviously a pathetic liar from the start. They didn't exactly try to hide the fact they ran a whisper campaign against John McCain in South Carolina. Anybody with even a whisp of decency would had the person responsible fired in disgrace. It's a disgrace to the Republican party they didn't kick W out right then and there.

      It goes to show you there are worse things than losing.
      • by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @06:34PM (#18710255)
        All emails were first printed, shredded then burnt. You are not going to get any more deleted than that!
      • by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:50PM (#18711351) Homepage Journal
        Their consistent MO has been to spout brazen nonsense, then rely on the sheer effrontery to keep the truth hidden until it is covered in a pile of bullshit so deep it will never be brought to light. And the damned thing is that it worked -- a least for a while. Seriously, who has time to think about the truth behind the Iraq WMD lie?

        Actually, if you go back to early 2003 and look at the propaganda leading up to the invasion of Iraq, you'll see that the Bush gang pretty much gave up on the WMD argument during the last month or so. The reason was that it had been so thoroughly debunked by so many people that they realized they needed a new pretext. They had pretty much run through all that were even remotely credible, so they pulled out their trump card: They had to stage a pre-emptive attack to prevent whatever Saddam's government might do in the future.

        This pretty much stopped the attempts to debunk their arguments, because this one can't be debunked. Unless you are blind, deaf and quadraplegic, you could be planning an attack on anyone, no matter who you are or how peaceful you've been in the past. It's a challenge-proof excuse for attacking anyone anywhere anytime.

        This is still remembered by a fair number of people in the world. It became clear that the people running the US government weren't joking when they used the phrase "sole remaining super-power". They did consider themselves in charge of the world, and they were prepared to attack anyone who challenged them. Or even people who didn't challenge them. They don't need evidence; all they need is to think that you might attack them.

        A lot of us still remember this. And we remember that roughly half of the Americans who bothered to vote in 2004 voted to give these people four more years.

        (The WMD concept does keep rearing its ugly head, of course. This is partly because of the discovery that, despite several more years of debunking, around half the voting American population still believes it. But it's also routinely used by American comedians, so it's not so good as a theme song any more. The real future is in worrying about what you and I might do in the future if we're not stopped now.)
  • Oh come now (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12, 2007 @03:58PM (#18707345)
    We all know e-mails are never really deleted. They just hide a little bit harder.
  • Miraculously.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zyl0x ( 987342 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @03:59PM (#18707375)
    ..Bush will still be allowed continue on this rampage without being impeached. Incredible.
    • Re:Miraculously.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by k_187 ( 61692 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:00PM (#18707387) Journal
      Right, because who's next in line is so much better.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        That might be just the reason why is he still alive.
      • Re:Miraculously.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:05PM (#18707517) Journal
        Unless we could impeach Cheney at the same time, the best argument against impeaching Bush is "President Cheney".
        • by gallwapa ( 909389 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:15PM (#18707751) Homepage
          Where have you been the past 5 years? Cheney has been President for years. To quote Robin Williams: "Ever notice that W doesn't speak when Cheney is drinking water?"

        • the best argument against impeaching Bush is "President Cheney".

          Hell no, and I'll tell you why: He just doesn' have the patience (or stupidity, take your pick) for the job. As a "go-to" guy who operates behind the scenes and gets shit done, he's probably the best in the world.

          But, doing press conferences, diplomatic trips, all the usual banal crap the Prez has to do on a daily basis, I think would either drive him towards his final heart attack or a murder spree in the West Wing.

          So yeah,bring on President Dick. He'll stab an intern through the heart with a fork before his first week is done.
        • by Bearpaw ( 13080 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @05:28PM (#18709189)
          If it looked like Bush was at real risk of being impeached, Repubs would take down Cheney first. Having Junior around their necks for the run-up to November 2008 will be a bad enough anchor. But "President Cheney" would be an anchor like they use for aircraft carriers. If he doesn't offer to resign -- "for health reasons" -- they'll coordinate a political hit on him like you wouldn't believe.

          All the Dems would have to do is watch (and laugh).

      • Re:Miraculously.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by flaknugget ( 938238 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:12PM (#18707675)

        It's not a question of impeachment in order to replace this guy.

        Impeachment should be used to combat reckless use of power, it ensures The People still control its government and not the other way around.

        Anytime someone even suggests the word 'impeachment', things quickly descend into a partisan hate orgy.

        I understand why people are sensitive about the issue, but really, accountability in a democratic government shouldn't be a political football, it is supposed to be what defines DEMOCRACY as a system.

      • Re:Miraculously.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by twifosp ( 532320 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:17PM (#18707793)
        I don't think it matters who's next in line. Even if Cheney would be worse, impeaching Bush would show that the separation of powers can still be applied.

        Besides, impeaching Bush does not automatically mean he is removed from office. I remind you that Clinton was impeached for similar reasons (perjury) and remained in office.

        At this point I don't even think it matters whether or not the White House is being honest with the investigation committee. If they are being honest, then they are incredibly inept and don't deserve to run this country. If they aren't being honest they are a bunch of filthly liars who don't deserve to run this country. Same thing with all the intelligence goofs with the Iraq invasion. It doesn't matter much if they were lying about the intelligence or intentionally misleading the Senate. Either way, they are either dishonest or inept.

        Choosing not to impeach and seek justice based on the "next guy" is incredibly silly and un-American. Even if the decision is made to remove Bush from office, let Cheney be the President and let him be under the same scrutiny I say. This administration should not get away with being inept or dishonest, and they certainly shouldn't get away with being inept at being dishonest.

    • much has to happen before impeachment proceedings? He is clearly at least as deserving as any former president, and probably far more. If you can have people impeaching you over a blowjob - which I know is a very tired statement, but bear with me - then bush's long, long list of offenses surely must qualify. As if I needed any further proof that the Democrats and Republicans are all part of the same gang...
      • Nonononono (Score:5, Funny)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:06PM (#18707521)
        He didn't get a blowjob. He needs one direly, but he didn't get one. No blowjob, no impeachment.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by hansamurai ( 907719 )
        Not to counter one tired statement with another, but he wasn't impeached for receiving a blowjob, he was impeached (by the House) because he lied under oath (committed perjury).
        • Not to counter one tired statement with another, but he wasn't impeached for receiving a blowjob, he was impeached (by the House) because he lied under oath (committed perjury).

          Just to be clear on this, let's make sure we're all on the same page. Clinton was asked by a grand jury about consensual activities between two adults who are considered legally capable of making their own decisions.

          The question had no bearing whatsoever on his ability to do his job as president. In fact, the vast majority of people who complain about Clinton are opposed to him not because of his activities, but because they think he's a bad person. And not just because he lied, but because of his sexual proclivities!

          The simple fact is that he never should have been asked the question, because it had no bearing on anything. And because it was in front of a grand jury, he was denied his fifth amendment rights. So he did what any responsible man would do - he lied. Personally, I would simply refuse to answer, even though you're not permitted to do that, but either way you would be in trouble. I don't see that it makes much of a difference either way.

          Finally, we expect our politicians to lie. It's why we hire them. Studies have shown that we elect presidents on the basis of whether we like their face and voice or not, not based on the issues, or party affiliations (although many if not most people do vote blindly along party lines - but that simply makes them predictable.)

          Am I defending Clinton's lie? You bet. Do I think lying is wrong? Sure. But I think it's less wrong than asking him the question in the first place, and confronted with his situation, I don't think it was an unreasonable decision. The fact that we all expect politicians to lie from both sides of their mouth, but then we are willing to take someone to task for lying about a question of a personal nature that should never have been asked, is just the typical paradoxical bullshit that most people are willing to handwave away. I would rather wave my hands in other directions.

          The ultimate wrong done here, of course, is the fact that there is any situation in which you can be denied your constitutional rights. But then, we are regularly denied them, so I guess people are simply used to that, too.

          • I agree that although it wasn't good to lie to a grand jury he did what any person in a marriage would do who wanted protect the marriage. Anyone married knows that if you make the error of fooling around but still love your partner and want to preserve the relationship the best thing to do is bury it as deep as possible. Your partner doesn't really want to know about this, particularly if it was just a short term slip and didn't lead you to question your commitment to the relationship.

            Additionally he has
      • Look, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. It's fine if you want to ignore both history and what is going on around you, that's your prerogative and one engaged in frequently by the majority of the population of the USA. But the simple fact is that our current president has a worse record in every way than any former president! The deficit has been swelled more than ever before, and the pretext under which we went to war was a lie. (They later tried to foist the blame for the belief that Saddam was si

        • The Democrats don't really want to impeach Bush. They LOVE the idea of having him still in office during the 2008 election. Although, one would think President Cheney could be just as awful.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:00PM (#18707381)
    From Crooks And Liars []:

    This one's a no-brainer.

    The NSA has been monitoring and logging all US domestic phone and email traffic for a few years now, thanks to Bush and Cheney.

    So subpoena the "lost" WH emails from the NSA. Put the domestic spying operation to some practical use.

    If they don't have the emails, they aren't doing their job, and it will be time to get rid of the NSA.
    Annoyed Canuck | 04.12.07 - 3:57 pm | #

    I hope this helps the Federal criminal prosecution of the world's largest crime syndicate [].

    Patriotically as always,
    Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.
  • Typical outcome (Score:5, Insightful)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:01PM (#18707391)

    This is a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

    And, as usual, no one will be held accountable for it. If it looks like someone may, they will claim "National Security" and halt all proceedings. It would seem that "Slick Willy" has some competition.
    • Re:Typical outcome (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KaiserSoze ( 154044 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:11PM (#18707643) Homepage
      Ah yes, except instead of "blowjob," we instead are dealing with the rigging of elections via bogus "voter fraud" cases and U.S. attorneys more loyal to the GOP than they are to the country. And WMD lies that led us into a now-four year war. But yeah, exactly the same as Clinton.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by _Sharp'r_ ( 649297 )
      Staffers who work at the White House and also for the RNC and Bush's campaign have a potential conflict. The Presidential Records Act requires them to only use government email for White House work, but the Hatch Act requires them to never use government email for anything campaign or fundraising related.

      There are no personal consequences in the law for violating the Presidential Records Act, but you can get a big personal fine or go to jail for violating the Hatch Act.

      If there is any question of whether an
      • Re:Typical outcome (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SL Baur ( 19540 ) <> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:55PM (#18711421) Homepage Journal

        Now when you've got a Blackberry (which they were all issued by the RNC) and are using that to talk to other people in the White House about campaign/fundraising issues, when you need to communicate with those same people about something else, how many real people are going to bother to wait until they can get to their government email account and how many are going to just hit reply on the Blackberry?
        This isn't the standard they hold defense contractors to. When I worked for a defense contractor I was basically forbidden to even talk to coworkers in certain projects (fixed cost ones were the stickiest) without an Internal Work Authorization for that project. The color of money is a strict issue when working with the government. This is along the same lines.

        Sounds to me like this is just human nature and some badly written laws coming together.
        No, this about the government not holding themselves to the same standards they hold others to. This was one of the planks of the Platform for America that we voted for in 1994 and I certainly expect a Republican administration to respect it.
  • by tglx ( 664015 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:01PM (#18707401) and domains are marked as spam domains. Would you keep copies of spam mails ?
  • I seriously doubt the server people in charge of email for the White House would not be keeping both full and incremental backups in addition to major redundancy. After all, they'd want to CYA for actions they did take more than actions they didn't take. Of course, this IS the government, so anything can happen!
    • The problem here is that the emails were not on White House government email accounts but rather Republican Party email accounts. So technically it was a third party email system that the White House does not control. There is an issue whether the 22 aides should have used those accounts instead of their government accounts. The Republicans have countered that federal rules forbid the use of government email for anything other than government business.
  • so... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:03PM (#18707451) Homepage Journal
    The US presidental office is run by a gang of criminals. What else is new?
  • Nixon (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:03PM (#18707471)
    Wow. Nixon had NOTHING on the current thugs in the White House administration. It's patently absurd that these people haven't been impeached, fired, and tried for treason at this point.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by HangingChad ( 677530 )

      Nixon had NOTHING on the current thugs in the White House administration.

      If it gets any worse we're going to have to dig up Nixon and apologize. He's starting to look almost saintly by comparison.

  • by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:04PM (#18707491)
    I'm generally a conservative -- very pro-gun, willing to try the "surge" in Iraq, generally favor Republican policies over Democratic ones -- but I'm to the point now where I think the Bush administration (which I've never really felt comfortable with) has demonstrated that it is entirely corrupt -- lying to get into Iraq, lying about Plame, and now the total fix/lie-fest of the US Attorney mess.

    Bush needs to hang Rove out to dry -- let a special prosecutor send that guy to a Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, can Gonzalez and seal the door to Cheney's office.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I find it interesting that you aren't considering that Bush is part of the problem. After all, he could have gotten rid of Rove or Gonzalez at a word, but didn't. So either he doesn't know what the people he's appointed are doing, or he knows about it and approves. Either way he isn't fit to be president.

    • The Republicans stood (when I was young and carefree) for freedom. No coddling and pampering from the state, take your life in your own hands or perish! Be strong, grasp the opportunities and you will succeed! Lean state, lean government and as little regulation as possible, the freedom of market and people as the principal goal to achive.

      How does this match a government that limits and restricts every kind of freedom the US used to have? How does this sync with more and more laws, more and more regulations
  • Tradition (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tancred ( 3904 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:05PM (#18707519)
    It's a traditional thing, much like the 18.5 minute gap in Nixon's tapes or the shredding of Enron documents: [] _scandal []

  • by mrseigen ( 518390 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:08PM (#18707569) Homepage Journal
    Wouldn't it be ironic if their ISP was retaining their email?
  • by daigu ( 111684 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:11PM (#18707655) Journal
    Let's see:
    1. conducts war of aggression
    2. implements policies of torture in violatation of international treaties
    3. creates network of secret prisons
    4. "authorizes" the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens outside the oversight of the law
    5. got Republican legislators to suspend habeas corpus
    6. politicised D.A. prosecution focus toward political ends
    7. etc.

    Given these facts, you're surprised he thinks the Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to him? You're joking right? You think these people want to be held accountable 5-10 years from now? Put it in the memory hole, so we can have one of those swell state funerals like they had for Ronald Reagan, put on the rose-colored glasses and talk about how greatness of this catastrophy of a President. America wins the war on intelligence!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by owlnation ( 858981 )
      You forgot...

      8. ???
      9. Profit!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by CodeBuster ( 516420 )
      Say what you want about Bush, but Ronald Reagan [] was a patriot and a great American. In fact, a substantial portion of the American public considers Reagan to be among the best five presidents thus far and perhaps the greatest to serve within their living memory. You tarnish the legacy of a great and noble man when you use him as a pawn in your petty arguments.
      • by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:53PM (#18708549)
        A huge number of people think the universe was created by an invisible, alternately compassionate and vengeful, space fairy. A very large fraction of Americans believe the world was inundated with water and a man sailed around in a boat full of animals. Quite a lot of people think Baywatch is a good TV show.
      • by daigu ( 111684 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @05:51PM (#18709593) Journal

        The war on terror began with Ronald Reagan. Want to know the best part? It was Ronald Reagan that normalized relations with Iraq, took them off the list of state sponsored terror, and sold them the "weapons of mass destruction" and other munitions. The irony? People in the current administration did it.

        Let's look at an abbreviated list shall we?

        1. Donald Rumsfield: Previous Defense Secretary. During Reagan's time he was Special Envoy to the Middle East who helped normalize relations with Iraq - personally meeting with Saddam around when they were using chemical weapons on Iran.
        2. Robert Gates: Currently, Defense Secretary. Nominated to run the CIA under Reagan (despite some evidence of his involvement in Iran-Contra) and there is evidence that he personally approved the sale of chemical agents, cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq prior to the atrocities Saddam was accused of.
        3. John Negroponte: Currently, he is Deputy Secretary of State. Before, Ambassador of Iraq. During Ronald Reagan's time he ran the CIA operations out of Honduras that supported death squads in Nicaragua.
        4. Elliot Abrams: Currently, assistant to the US President national security advisor. Also involved in death squads in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Convicted of lying to Congress and pardoned by the first Bush.

        Want further irony? It was also Ronald Reagan that trained and funded bin Laden.

        Now let's do a thought experiment - how would the majority of American's feel about Ronald Reagan and these people that worked both for him and the current administration if they knew a little bit more about them? The reason why most people think that Reagan was a patriot and a great American is because they know very little about what the Reagan administration was responsible for and the concrete ways it is impacting us today.

        Another thing: can you identify what exactly is petty in my argument? The fact that I pointed out that the state sponsored funeral for Ronald Reagan was an elaborate stage show for the current administration? I don't even like Reagan and what he stood for, but I think it was a tragedy that he was used as a set piece for a political play for sentiment and support by the Bush administration.

  • by sharp-bang ( 311928 ) <sharp DOT bang D ... AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:12PM (#18707685) Homepage
    Also at issue is the use of Republican National Committee e-mail domains (such as and rather than the official White House domain.

    On the plus side, I bet it will be tough to claim executive privilege on those e-mails.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mapmaker ( 140036 )
      I bet it will be tough to claim executive privilege on those e-mails.

      Hence their disappearance.

  • Here is what Scott Stanzel, White House spokesman, said this morning at the [...]Stanzel: Well, as I indicated, the guidance at the White House prior to this point has been very clear that you should avoid inadvertent violations of the Hatch Act. And so some employees, it seems clear, out of an abundance of caution, or sometimes out of logistical reasons, have communicated about official business on those political email accounts. And so I can't speak to the motivations of any individual on why they sent one email one way. I don't know that. But the White House guidance, what we've been working on is trying to make sure that it's more clear so people understand their obligations under both the Hatch Act and the Presidential Records Act.[...]

    Yesterday he said this:

    "I can say that historically the White House didn't give enough guidance to staff on how to avoid violating the Hatch Act while following the Records Act. We didn't do a good enough job."

    Here are the specifics of what is required by the Hatch Act []. It is clear that

    A) Politicization (partisan activities) within certain Federal Agencies, such as the CIA or the Justice Department, is a felony.

    B) All records relating to government business MUST be retained for investigative purposes, and later historical preservation. To destroy these documents is a felony.

    This law is clear, has been on the books since the 1930s, and has passed several Supreme Court affirmations. There's no wiggle room here. This is a clear violation of the law. And note A) in relation to the Federal US Attorney firings. To fire is legal; to fire with even just partisan intent -- never mind apparent Obstruction of Justice -- is a clear felony.

    We're walking right into another constitutional crisis. Comparisons to Nixon's firing of Archibold Cox (The Saturday Night Massacre) are spot on.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Deadplant ( 212273 )
      So if the attorney firings were partisan political actions then it WAS appropriate to use personal email accounts! ;)
  • Troll? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mongoose ( 8480 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:42PM (#18708333) Homepage
    It's not a violation of the act. You have to use separate phones/email for "political purposes" ask Al Gore about his hearing for using the White House phone to drum up donations. Get your facts right. You can't force the White House to use government owned systems for that -- THAT is illegal. They could have stored copies of of the off-site system sure... but they have no law forcing them to do that. I hate to break it to you but you also can't force staff members to turn over their home answering machines either. What a weak troll. Even if you hate Bush you shouldn't stand for the power grab the Congress is going for lately. There is a reason we have a separation of powers. If you keep heading down this road the president becomes a figurehead, and soon the people that write the laws will be enforcing them as well. More likely not enforcing them and building bridges to nowhere.
    • Re:Troll? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tfoss ( 203340 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @05:53PM (#18709621)
      Sorry to double reply, but I forgot to address this:
        Even if you hate Bush you shouldn't stand for the power grab the Congress is going for lately. There is a reason we have a separation of powers. If you keep heading down this road the president becomes a figurehead, and soon the people that write the laws will be enforcing them as well.

      Are you seriously worried about the legislative branch running wild over the executive?!? Don't you have that completely and totally backwards? The current administration has evidenced a wildly outrageous interpretation of a supreme and nearly unchecked executive branch (energy policy secrecy, war, torture, rendition, signing statements, FEMA, FISA, domestic wiretapping, habeas corpus, scientific report "editing" us attorney purge, etc etc []). Whether you like Bush or not, you are deluded to think the executive is in danger of becoming too powerless. The "power grab" you bemoan is the first inkling of actual checks and balances that we've seen in 6 years, and it is not only legal, but is also the way our government is intended to run. Congress has the responsibility [] for oversight, and the recent reversion to it is nothing but welcome.
  • by twifosp ( 532320 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:45PM (#18708371)
    I'm getting really sick of all the comments that are pointing out previous occurances that are similar. Things went missing during the whitewatever investigation. Ok, we get it. Clinton fired his attorney's. Yup. Big deal, he did so and actually got senate confirmation like he's supposed to.

    A past precident does not excuse current mistakes! If I walk up to you and punch you in the face and I get away with it, that doesn't make it right for me to walk up again and kick you in the stomach. Wrong is wrong. I'm disgusted by the lack of a sense of justice around here.

  • by brit74 ( 831798 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:55PM (#18708597)
    Fox News: "It's been recently discovered that, in fact, the Clinton Administration had deleted Bush's emails during their second term. The Democrats, as usual, are to blame and need to be held accountable."


    On a similar note, I read this quote today by Lee Iacocca regarding the Bush administration:
    "Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

    Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

    You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

    I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have."
  • by rewinn ( 647614 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @05:04PM (#18708765) Homepage
    It's sheer poetry []

    in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch
    ...covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact...
    Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or both."

MESSAGE ACKNOWLEDGED -- The Pershing II missiles have been launched.