Obama administration tries to kill e-mail case

[dixiegrrrrl]

Source: Associated Press

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Pete Yost, Associated Press Writer – 44 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, is trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails.

"The new administration seems no more eager than the last" to deal with the issue, said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the other group that sued the EOP.

The Executive Office of the President includes the president's immediate staff and many White House offices and agencies.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_e_mail

---

I am sure there is more to this, and also sure it bears following.

[jody]

1. The more things change, the more they stay the same. n/t

[L. Coyote]

50. Obama LIED!!!! & CREW filed its opposition to the White House

20 Feb 2009 // Washington, D.C. – Today, CREW filed its opposition to the White House's motion to dismiss CREW’s lawsuit challenging the failure of the White House to recover millions of missing emails and install an effective electronic archiving system. The White House is arguing that because it has re-examined the problem and restored a limited number of emails, CREW's claims should be dismissed. As CREW explained in its opposition, the latest White House analysis does not answer the fundamental questions of how many emails are missing, what caused the problem and whether it has been fixed.

Anne Weismann, CREW's Chief Counsel, stated: "We are disappointed the new administration seems no more eager than the last to recover the missing emails and implement a system that adequately preserves records belonging to the American people."

Read CREW’s opposition in the related documents section on the right.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/37373

[Qutzupalotl]

73. Right now his top priority has to be the economy.

The new administration doesn't have any answers about what the Bush team did with its emails, and Obama doesn't have a lot of revenge motivating his actions. I do believe that their own emails will be retained in accordance with the law.

[girl gone mad]

82. This isn't a matter of revenge.

It's a matter of justice.

Either we are a nation of laws are we aren't.

[Qutzupalotl]

83. Justice can be delayed in an emergency.

That doesn't mean we'll never figure out what happened with Bush's email purge.

I don't see Obama as actively obstructing the investigation here; I think they just have no new information on the whereabouts of Bush's missing emails.

[Hissyspit]

87. Squashing the lawsuit would not result in delayed justice.

It would set a precedent. It would kill the attempt at justice.

A lawsuit could bring out more new information on the whereabouts of Bush's missing emails.

[Qutzupalotl]

192. Why is this WH even a party to the crime of the last one?

The crime occurred on machines run by the previous administration. The people in charge are now out of office. Shouldn't this be re-filed, naming Rove et al?

[JDPriestly]

93. Then they need to find it.

Obama has not yet appointed his own attorneys to the Justice Department. He needs to get to it. He needs attorneys who will identify the crimes of the Bush administration and prosecute them.

[No Elephants]

106. What emergency? The economists are not going to be the ones defending

this case. In fact, the Obama administration really does not have to defend anything. The case is about Bush's emails, not Obama's. The current admin could coast while the plaintiffs subpoena and depose people from Bushco.

And, yes, this does mean we will never figure out what happened with Bushco's emails.

[No Elephants]

107. What emergency? The economists are not going to be the ones defending

this case. In fact, the Obama administration really does not have to defend anything. The case is about Bush's emails, not Obama's. The current admin could coast while the plaintiffs subpoena and depose people from Bushco.

And, yes, this does mean we will never figure out what happened with Bushco's emails.

[Th1onein]

137. I call bullshit.

I worked just as hard as anyone to get Obama elected, but this is bullshit.

[Qutzupalotl]

194. Yes it was.

Sorry.

[katandmoon]

155. You need to wake up and smell the coffee

Our newly inaugrated "change" president is just as corrupt as the old one,

[Qutzupalotl]

196. Perhaps so.

I will keep a more open mind now, thanks to you and the others. We must be ever vigilant.

Truly, I'm so excited to see any positive changes enacted, I'm too willing to make excuses. But I'm still not willing to write off this administration as corrupt. There really are a different set of guiding principles installed in so many other areas, so I'm having cognitive dissonance when I see the list of separate offenses presented in a row upthread. I'm going to go examine the administration's responses to each of these, so more reading and less posting for me for a while.

[Zhade]

208. "Justice delayed is justice denied." -- MLK

NT!

[Qutzupalotl]

209. Beyond a point, yes.

And I was forgetting the quote, and stepped in it.

But I'm saying it would delay things only a matter of days to withdraw, re-file, name Rove the private citizen et al, and boom, you're back in business. I think the problem here is the new administration landed in the middle of a lawsuit really focused on different set of culprits, wants out of the picture, and I wouldn't blame them. What I don't know yet is their plans or their reasoning.

[AyanRand Is Dead]

86. B.S.! Obama campaigned on a platform of multi-tasking.

He nuked John McCain for being not being able to deal with the bank-bailout fiasco and his campaign at the same time.


So this is no exscuse. It's actually a very simple matter, either you support transparency in government or you don't.

[Qutzupalotl]

95. He's archiving his own emails in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.

It's unreasonable to expect Obama to know how Bush deleted his.

It's one thing to let the case go forward, but if you know you can't answer the questions, you're going to keep hitting the same wall.

They need to subpoena Rove and the Geek Squad. Obama didn't have anything to do with this situation.

[No Elephants]

108. This is not about Obama being deposed. It is about Obama killing the entire case. If

there is no case, how is ANYONE going to be subpoenaed?\

[Qutzupalotl]

187. Would this really be the end of the legal road? Rove is still out there.

Does a dismissal now have any sort of prejudice to stop further legal action against, I don't know, Rove and his tech insiders?

[flyarm]

127. Oh bullshit..do some of you never run out of excuses??????

FISA
NAFTA
GITMO
Bagram
ROVE delay delay delay..
Obama sending Kissinger to the middle east to represent his admin and us!..Kissinger!! wtf!!!!!!!!Kissinger..one of the worst criminals in our government in my lifetime..wtf is wrong with some of you making excuses for this bullshit?????????
Is Baker next????????

one could go on and on

seems the new boss is the same as the old boss

wtf..when do you stop making excuses..you sound like the bush apologists in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and even 2008!

[Qutzupalotl]

190. You know what? You're right. I was bullshitting.

Before I knew all the facts, I responded emotionally as if I were this ideal conception of a president, doing what I'd do if I were him; and speculating as to his motives, thus the turn off the road of rationality into bullshit field. Sorry about that.

I should learn to preface my thoughts as speculation, or form them as questions. Or wait for more details to come out, but where's the fun in that.

What YOU do (watching) is essential to a healthy democracy, so keep it up and more power to you.

[JDPriestly]

92. Beneath the economic problems lies a single problem: The American

people have lost trust in the government, in Wall Street, in the banking industry, in big business, and in just about every other institution in our country. Trust is the glue that holds society together.

Obama needs to stop protecting the crooks in the Bush administration and, instead, start prosecuting them. That is the key to rebuilding the economy. Only when the American people regain their trust in the transparency and honesty of our institutions, can the economy improve.

[jody]

98. Agree! n/t

[sweettater]

105. Here! Here!

Totally, absolutely agree! Well said!

[No Elephants]

110. YES! THANK YOU.

[flyarm]

128. absolutely!! Thank you!! eom

[The Doctor.]

100. This administration can walk and chew gum. n/t

[No Elephants]

104. I am not understanding what that has to do with the emails from the Bush administration?

[Qutzupalotl]

204. Nothing. Speculation on my part

aka bs

[PassingFair]

189. Our country was bankrupted by scoundrels.

I want to find out WHO took WHAT
and HOW MUCH WE CAN GET BACK.

"Top Priority" is justice.

Always.

[Lorien]

2. The question that will probably never be answered: why is he protecting them?

Is it really just one big ol' club for the elite and they'll do whatever it takes to protect their own? I hope not, but none of this makes any sense otherwise.

[krawhitham]

4. Is it them, or maybe something in the emails he can not let out

National Security maybe

[orleans]

97. if that was the case then parts of them would be redacted. n/t

[No Elephants]

109. The point is, Bushco claims the emails are lost. If they are lost, how does Obama know that they

cntain classified info?

[EFerrari]

8. There have been so many similar headlines "Obama, siding with the Bush Administration"

that my bs detector is a little jumpy. Imho, it's not a bad idea to get confirmation from better sources than the AP, Waho or NYTs before buying in. Or at least, to compare their versions of these stories as they become available.

[glinda]

9. Yes. We have seen other stories that are incorrect also. If true though

the people should demand transparency and release of info. The only reason that I can see is that some Dems are involved.

[EFerrari]

12. They sure are involved. I have no problem objecting to bad behavior

from anyone for anti-democratic secrecy. But, we also have experience with anti-Democratic spin in our corporate media. I use Amy Goodman, Glen Greenwald, Bill Moyers and that crew for reality checks. TG for them!

[No Elephants]

111. Do you mean that some Dems were involved in losing Bushco's emails?

[JeffreyWilliamson]

14. Exactly what I thought...

The AP doesn't isn't real high up on my unbiased source list these days. I note that the article doesn't quote any Obama DOJ official, or mention that they even tried to contact anyone at the DOJ. Instead it throws the statement out there that the "Obama Administration" is trying to get cases dismissed and quotes everyone and their grandmother that might have a beef with that. Not to mention the article is a little unclear in that it would appear these lawsuits were filed during the Bush Administration as a result of their actions, and it's only been 30 days since Obama took office.

I'm getting a "turn them against Obama" type of feeling from these stories.

[EFerrari]

16. It may well be true, but I don't know that yet.

For a long time -- since the theft of Ohio in 2004, to be precise -- I not only check the source but also the reporter. LOL -- like that character in Slaughterhouse Five, "you're on the list now". :)

[JeffreyWilliamson]

18. Yep...

Checking those bylines is becoming a habit for me these days. You can never be too careful, especially with the AP these days.

It could be true, but I have a hard time with the source, and with the fact that the article doesn't attempt to explain what specifically has happened, who in the DOJ is doing it, or even bothering to follow up with that department to find out why.

So these groups have been fighting the Bush Administration for years to get these e-mails located and released. Along comes Obama, and after all of 1 month they sue his Administration today. Then for good measure they head out to inform the press of how evil Obama is.

And looky here, the AP was kind enough to go to print for us. I smell a rat.

[s-cubed]

42. Nonetheless, I logged onto whitehouse.gov

and gave them my opinion. Even if there were no nefarious activity in those emails (fat chance!), they are still part of our history, and are documentation that future historians will want to see. If there is some legit reason for not releasing them now, they can be archived for a number of years, but it's not right to let them disappear if they can be recovered.

[No Elephants]

114. Thank you. I'm going to do the same. This is bs.

[Maven]

21. That's what you call "cognitive dissonance"

[EFerrari]

24. Precisely! And, thank goodness the spnners are not good enough

or smooth enough not to give themselves away most of the time. :)

[Window]

46. Exactly. There's something else going on here, but what. I hate one-sided

sound bytes...give me exact quotes from all parties involved.

"The new administration seems no more eager than the last" to deal with the issue..."

Thanks but I'll await judgment until I hear from President Obama or Holder, Gibbs, etc.

[EFerrari]

51. I ran down some other Peter Yost articles and didn't find anything that seemed skewed

but even so. There's too many of these headlines to just be a coincidence, imo.

[Pharaoh]

33. Meet Corporate Light

Please prove me wrong Obama.:shrug:

[struggle4progress]

40. He make not be protecting them: he may allowing them to strangle on their own rope

This lawsuit has lasted several years. Towards the end of W's tenure, Judge Kennedy finally said: Produce the emails. A day or two before the inauguration, W's crowd basically replied, We don't have to: we've found them all and saved them -- and then prepared a motion to dismiss the lawsuit

Given the range of issues facing the new Administration, it is hard to imagine how they could possibly have been prepared to deal with the filing of W's motion on their first full day, 21 January. Nor is it immediately clear how they should have dealt with it, since Obama certainly didn't want his term to begin with what W's loyalists would have played as a partisan swipe at W

The problem, of limiting a president's ability to withhold public information and to ignore the lawful orders of courts, may require some careful consideration: if Obama simply withdrew W's stance on the lawsuit, no useful judicial precedent would be established, and the emails might still never come to light; if Obama lets the case go forward, there is some chance that Judge Kennedy will dismiss the 21 January motion, and then there may still be a contempt issue for those who refused to obey the previous court order

[No Elephants]

113. How does killing the case against Bush let Bush strangle on his own rope?

[struggle4progress]

197. I may be wrong -- but I doubt Kennedy will kill the case: the kill motion

was prepared by W's lawyers and filed on Obama's first full day in office, and I'd read it as an effort to side-step the contempt issue that naturally follows W's refusal to obey Kennedy's January order to produce the emails

I don't know what W's folk did with the material that the January order told them to produce: they simply said, "We don't have to produce it" -- but if Kennedy denies the kill motion, I'd think the issue of refusal to follow a lawful court order would naturally arise next

[CLANG]

41. I tend to believe that they are under threat for their lives

I think that the powers that be - the people that are higher up than the president of the united states - dictate what happens - else you're dead. I really hope not, but I'm starting to take it seriously.

[defendandprotect]

60. I don't think they have much to worry about yet . . .

if you look at the appointees and not much movement on the VN-endless war --

ending privatization of military/45,000 contractors in Iraq! --

and no movement on Single Payer Health Care.

Meanwhile bailout/handouts have continued to rich capitalists which we struggled

to get a stimulus thru that doesn't look like it's big enough to do the job.

Obama is surrounded by their people --

I think you'll know it when they pull the strings ---

or jolt them. They say that after the attack on Reagan, Bush was really president!

[nolabels]

78. Would that then indicate that Biden is the real POTUS also?

I remember quite a few times during the Iran-Contra hearings Biden took things behind closed doors so nothing would really surprise me :shrug:

[No Elephants]

112. Which people higher up than the President of the United States?

[CLANG]

144. DUH! Like, maybe the Illuminati???

[defendandprotect]

59. There are a few possibilities . . .

maybe he thinks if he protects them or doesn't harass them that they

won't be too tough on him?

Kinda a pukey idea -- but it's one answer . . . isn't it?

[Lorien]

70. Well, that would be in keeping with the traditional Dem method

"if we're nice to the opposition then they'll not be too mean to us, right"?

[No Elephants]

118. Wrong. They're mean whether we are nice or not. That's why being nice to Pubs for no

apparent reason about as ridiculous as it gets.

[Lorien]

130. I agree. I think the vast majority of the party does too

but those inside the beltway refuse to change their "strategy".

[No Elephants]

140. Not only those inside the beltway. Ever see some of the posts here? "But if we

do X, then WE give the Pubs reason to criticize us," and other stuff along those lines. As if Pubs would not criticize us, no matter what.

[totodeinhere]

161. I think the answer is obvious.

Too many Democrats in high places were complicit with the crimes of the Bush Administration. IMO, that shouldn't matter. Let it all hang out and if it also takes down some Democrats, so be it. But apparently the Obama Administration doesn't see it that way.

[cliffordu]

3. Welll..Shit.

And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?



There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

[Piewhacket]

5. CREW? Oh, mannnn..... this isn't looking like "change" I can believe in.

[Dr.Phool]

11. But, it's Change you can make believe in!

[Karmadillo]

6. We're the status quo we've been waiting for.

nt

[ProgressIn2008]

7. Why wouldn't he protect BushCo? Elites stick together to operate above the law. nt

[Politicalboi]

10. In the fucking meantime

Asshole Darrell Issa (R) wants the WH to keep track of the new administrations emails. Unfucking believable. You would think someone who taught Constitutional Law that he would want to go by it. We have EVERY right to see those e-mails.

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=16qbms

[memory]

13. VERY troubling

I don't know how much longer the hopeful heart in me can continue to be trampled on before it is abandoned.

I do still have some small hope that President Obama will not betray us and there is a good reason for this.

A small hope.

[defendandprotect]

15. Obama is keeping on 51 Bush/GOP prosecutors . .. what do we expect will happen--??!!!

[tom_paine]

20. OMFG NO! Please tell me you're joking or link me to the story.

Oh God...that pretty much guarantees that Bushification will continue.

Please tell me you are mistaken or joking...

[biopowertoday]

34. It was in LBN yesterday (or the day before). yes it is true

[dixiegrrrrl]

55. Here is the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x426437

In Wed. LBN.
I too had missed it.

I am going to check out who is remaining.

[defendandprotect]

56. No . . . in fact, he invited them ALL to stay, but only 51 are accepting --- !!!!

Alarming . . .

[No Elephants]

117. He invited all of them to stay? Even the ones from Pat Robertson's

law school and Trinity law school and Liberty law school that got their degrees when those schools were unaccredited and that failed the bar exam?

Oh, great. That's even worse news than killing the CREW case.

[ngGale]

23. DING! Hit nail on head...

Repeat, what you said. All 51/GOP prosecutors should be out and replaced ... NOW! IF it's not done soon there will be more hell to pay. IMHO!

[tbyg52]

53. Oh God. nt

[Cherchez la Femme]

147. OMFG

That floored me. It's been over a half hour and I'm still speechless.

Over half the Attorneys General under Obama are "Loyal Bushies"?!
There are no excuses for this. I never thought I'd view President Obama as delusional or insane, but all this demands I re-review those sentiments.

OMFG, I don't have enough exclamations and swear words to express my disgust.


Change?! Hood, meet wink. Apply.


OMFG, Jesus H. Christ
I don't know how my conscience can allow me to be a Democrat anymore. Where once I assumed my being a member of the Democratic Party was genetically linked, I don't think it's possible any longer... I've been holding on, holding on, holding on by the skin of my teeth; but this may be the proverbial straw. :cry:


On edit: Just read down to where ALL Attorney's General were invited to stay. :wow:
Pure insanity. Serially.
Wonder if Don Siegelman is surprised? Was Leura Canary (AG Alabama) invited to stay? Is she still there?!

[dixiegrrrrl]

182. Maybe this will clear it up just a wee bit

from TPM:

"The new administration has asked all the US the current Republican-appointed U.S. attorneys to stay on in the short term, while it decides which to retain. But it has already made a decision on Fitzgerald, it appears."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/report_fitzgerald_to_stay_on.php


" Short term"....


Implies that some changes will be made, as appropriate people are identified.

TPM will most likely be keeping close eye on this issue, since Josh broke the Attorneygate story back in 2006.

[Cherchez la Femme]

188. Thanks dixie!

Appreciate that. I'll keep an eye out... it would be SO very nice to have this despair assuaged!

[tom_paine]

17. The Primary Purpose of Government is to Pretend to Fail.

The Bushies are getting away...

VVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYY...SSSSSSSSSSSLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWLLLY!

[lib2DaBone]

22. LOL..vewwy slooowly wabbit.... Anyway...not gonna freak until I read better source than AP..

..BUT.. gotta say one thing... (as I read somewhere else here on DU)..

"Dems are wearing soft padded boxing gloves 2 sizes too big... The Repukes are wearing brass knuckles"

There is NO SUCH THING as Bi-partisan anymore. Obama has to get tough. No more Repukes appointed to high places. No more Gitmo, no more rendition, get out of Iraq. America is far left.. not center.. lets see some ass-kick progressive Dems appointed.. not Geithner, Eric Holder, etc, etc.

Just IMHO....

[tom_paine]

27. I agree with all you said, except about AP. But not for the reason you think.

Yes, they are a fully compromised and Bushified part of the Corporate M$M and the Bushiganda.

But the ONE thing you can count on them getting "right" is when Democrats dance to the Bushie Tune.

Thus, normally I'd agree with you, but past experience suggests that the Dems will do as AP says.

I hope I'm wrong...

[No Elephants]

116. Try reading the CREW website then. AP is correct.

[keopeli]

19. One month in, and it's time for my first stern disappointment email to the WH

along with a warning. I wrote so many of these to Bush* it was absurd, but I had hoped not to have to do this to Obama and, unfortunately, that was hope I was believing in.

I've known all along Obama would do some things I would disagree with. But, I didn't think it would be in regard to Bush's most eggregious abuses of Executive Power.

Damn. This really makes me sad and mad. Why couldn't they have said, "We don't know that we can recover all missing emails, but we will produce everything we can find and we will work hard to do so." Instead, they support an argument re executive priviledge.

If I thought it was wrong of Bush, I"m going to think it's wrong for Obama. And, I'm going to be MUCH more disappointed, as I am here.

This is a troubling sign. Very very troubling...and it saddens me deeply.

Keo

[MasonJar]

25. I do not get this at all. First he keeps Gates (a war hawk) and then

he chooses PUG Gregg and currently he is stifling exposure of a legion of Bush crimes, which are now virtually authenticated legend. Obama has told Conyers et al to compromise with Rove so he, Obama, doesn't have to make an overt decision on Bush's executive privilege claims. Now we find that he has retained 51 of the Bush attorneys-general. Good Grief, Barack Obama! Those left standing by the Bushista were the ones who played ball with politics against law and justice.

[Are_grits_groceries]

26. Something that we can't find is going on here.

I really don't believe Obama and friends would just up and become Bush II. I think there are some cases that aren't over yet, ie Bagram. Soemthing has to be going on there (or went on there) to make it much harder to just close up shop. There was a deadline so they sided with Bushco until the mess can be untangled.

Why would they just up and jump on the bandwagon about these emails?? There is something we don't know that is tying their hands for now or for good. In some areas, I believe you are right, and they are trying to retain some powers. However, there are too many ways that evil Cheney could have probably tied up everything.

No. I don't know what, and I will get my tinfoil hat. However, Cheney, and his minions with cloven feet, knew every corner of government. They should because they cut most of them. They are also smart. It's like people got strapped with a bomb we can't see. They have to disarm it the right way or too much gets destroyed.

I also don't necessarily believe all the smoke about Cheney and Bush over Scooter. That could be some ploy. He's probably protected in some way we can't see and didn't need a pardon. He might want his law license back, but he isn't going to hurt for money.:tinfoilhat:

[musette_sf]

31. this looks to me like a "news" dump, on a Saturday no less,

that does not even cite a specific example of how Obama's admin is trying to kill the lawsuit.

kind of reminds me of the "news" dump the other day that the Obama DOT was going to charge drivers tax by the mile. or, as confirmed not much later by actual BHO admin members, NOT going to charge drivers tax by the mile.

it is looking to me like a concerted effort by the MSM to sow dissent and cynicism with unsubstantiated gossip. the MSM is becoming the TMZ of reporting...

[EFerrari]

35. I agree. There's some kind of manipulation going on here. ETA:

I just spent too long defending human rights in a thread in GD: Pugilists only to realize the authors of the article in the OP were Nedra Pickler and Matt Apuzzo. Something's going on in the ho media.

ETA: I've tried to run down Peter Yost and there's nothing that seems shady in his work. No big obvious spinning that's I've found so far, anyway.

[No Elephants]

120. If you don't like AP as a source, just go to the plaintiff's

website.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/

AP is correct.

[Mira]

103. In my distress I find I share a lot of your views at this point. In the meantime,

every move they make, every breath they take, every step they take we'll be watching.

[No Elephants]

121. Watching and posting is fun, but it does nothing. Hold them responsible. Start with

emailing www.whitehouse.gov.

[Mira]

139. I think watching and posting are critical, and giving them a minute to get their act

going is critical as well. I call and write to my representatives, our newspaper publishes my letters without a call for verification, I put out signs, and march locally and also travel to do it.
I have that website on "speed-dial"already, is that good enough?

[No Elephants]

160. If they need a minute to get their act together, the thing to do is ask the

judge for a continuance, not weigh in on the side of Bushco in requesting dismissal of this important suit.

But, I was responding to what you posted. As far as whether what you do is enough, I am beginning to wonder if what I do is enough. Nothing seems to have an impact.

[No Elephants]

119. Denial is tempting, but implausible.

[bobthedrummer]

28. "Network Hosting Attorney Scandal E-Mails Also Hosted Ohio's 2004 Election Results"

Archived DU thread started by Octafish April 23, 2007
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x735051

[L. Coyote]

48. What is on the Sidley-Austin server in Chiago???? That's the one you want to see.

[No Elephants]

122. Try the plaintiff's

website. http://www.citizensforethics.org/

[L. Coyote]

183. I told them when my informant told me! Congress too.

[RedSock]

29. why is anyone surprised?

obama is part of the two (sic) -party system.
his actions should surprise no one.

.......... same as it ever was ...........

and same as it will ever be .......

[ConcernedCanuk]

30. AAAHHHHHHHHH - I you think you get it!

.
.
.

Maybe Barack Obama did not know that the REAL leaders are the money people behind the curtains

He just got told . . .

[katandmoon]

154. I am not

[MetaTrope]

32. Remember that the media only let two Democratic candidates out the gate

Hillary was the Republican Party's wet dream, and Obama...well, who knows?

[StarryNite]

36. We expected change but sadly

it looks like we've been duped.

[cottonseed]

37. We're Democrats. We've been duped for a long time now.

You think the party of Feinstein, Pelosi, Harman, and Rockefeller would allow it? Obama or no, if you expected change from one side of a the 2 party corporate system then someone will have to sit you down and explain Santa Claus.

[defendandprotect]

57. It amazes me that we constantly repeat ....

Two parties both controlled by corporations ---

One party/two wings --

But then we seem to behave as though we've never know that ---

And it's been true for decades -- and getting worse every decade.

We actually have the DLC-corporate wing of the Democratic Party right in

the Democratic Party!!!

:eyes: :crazy: :eyes:

[ronnie624]

84. It's kind of sad, watching so many smart, informed people, as they struggle to understand,

when the answer is right there in front of us.

[No Elephants]

123. Do you have any solutions to suggest?

[ronnie624]

And if concerned citizens have no solutions to suggest,

they should just shut the fuck up?

Accepting the status quo is not a solution to any of the problems our country now faces.

[Imagevision]

38. Do you get the feeling that Pelosi's investigation attempts will get tampened down?!!

Sometimes you have to know how you got where your at in order not to repeat the same mistakes and re-arrive there again?
It appears Obama doesn't want to know 'jack' about anything wrong or illegal Bushco was involved in? (yes/no/maybe?

[OwnedByFerrets]

39. One more huge disappointment in what seems to be a daily dose.

[L. Coyote]

43. Obama was an intern at the law firm defending Bush criminals!!!!

[No Elephants]

124. Michelle was an attorney there when Barack arrived.

[L. Coyote]

184. His boss, right??

[flyarm]

132. L.Coyote..please keep repeating that..seems some here hate any of the messengers!

But never the one responsible for these coverups!

[Reterr]

44. Seriously WTF?

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

45. Obama is triangulating like Clinton did for 8-years

The Left must confront Obama when he is wrong, and not give him a pass like we did Bill Clinton.

[waiting for hope]

49. You may find some common ground

here in this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/20-4

Lately Common Dreams has been putting out some very intuitive stuff.

[No Elephants]

129. Thanks for the link. CD may not be intutive, just observant and keeping score since

the election.

[The abyss]

52. Indiana, well called!!!!

Left, right, center. Let us have some truth here!

I am sick to death of the partisan nonsense. Democrats, Republicans. All horse shit.

There is a document of which the preamble states “We the people…”

Please let us start there.

[No Elephants]

125. How? I keep emailing www.whitehouse.gov (and before that, I emailed

www.change.gov). But that and a few bucks will buy me, well, in this economy, probably nothing at all.

What can we do besides post (accomplishes zero) and email (probably accomplishes zero)?

Any suggestions?

[No Elephants]

126. Triangulating usually means taking an approximate mid point position on

issues, not letting a Republican Executive Branch totally off the hook for breaking the law. Let the lawsuit proceed or let Bushco off the hook. In this, there is no midpoint.

[Old Codger]

47. Change

You bet, they changed the names but the actions are the same, politics as usual.... I kinda figured it would be , I hoped not and am severely disappointed, but prepared for that am really pretty used to this type of behavior out of Washington no matter who sits in the chairs

[chill_wind]

54. Here's the court filing in opposition to the WH's motion to dismiss.

pdf file at the CREW site-- * named in the AP article *
filed jointly with the NSA (National Security Archive)- * named in the AP article. *



http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/20090220%20-%20CREWs%20Opposition%20to%20Defendants%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf

CREW RESISTS WHITE HOUSE’S PUSH FOR EMAIL LAWSUIT DISMISSAL

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/37373

[flyarm]

133. Notice how none of the apologists responded to your post?????? eom

[Cherchez la Femme]

163. There is no excuse

so it's not surprising.

How they can, even to themselves, explain this away is beyond my ken.


edit: This is not the post referred to by flyarm in post 134

[chill_wind]

198. Not surprised. And now it's been linked to several times

but those in a persistent pattern of denial may find it easier to not bother.
We saw much the same denial, for example, on the dismissal of the torture flights "states secrets" case. To this day there are still DUers who refuse to admit what happened or think that is still under delay, awaiting the eventual good guys' review.

[Beetwasher]

58. And You All BELIEVE THIS BECAUSE THE AP SAID SO?????

Really? That's all it takes? No proof, just the AP's spin and you all gobble it up and are ready to bash Obama.

Forgive me if I'm not so gullible as to take the AP's word on this. They are hardly anywhere near an objective source these days. Far from it.

I guess we've learned nothing about the media these last 8 years, huh?

"The department defends the government when it is sued."

IOW, the DOJ is doing it's job and defending against a lawsuit. As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with Obama and it's not HIS decision.

[chill_wind]

61. It took me all of 30 seconds to find the legal references they were talking about. n/t.

[Beetwasher]

62. Did You Read The Last Line Of The Article?

"The department defends the government when it is sued."

They DOJ is doing it's job. They are SUPPOSED to do this. This has NOTHING to do w/ Obama and is NOT his decision. In fact, it may even be innapropriate for him to insert himself into the case at this point.

The article is an ugly smear job. But don't let that get in the way of a good Obama bash session. :eyes:

[chill_wind]

72. Did you read the damn pdf?

If you did, you would know it is a suit against the EOP and he is the EOP.
He is most definitely inserting himself now and it WAS his EOP's decision to motion as they did on 1-21-2009. "Not his decision." Jesus!

[Beetwasher]

168. It's A Suit Against The Government

Last I checked the EOP was part of the Gov't and the DOJ is doing it's job defending against the lawsuit.

It's amazing, we spent years railing against Bush for politicizing the DOJ and now you want Obama to politicize the DOJ. :eyes:

I'd love to see the emails from Bush's WH as much as anyone, but if you think Obama can produce them, then you're deluded.

[chill_wind]

202. Evasive BS.

First you tried to claim the AP report was bogus. THEN you tried to exhonorate the Obama WH from any role in the decision making. Now it should be clear to you they took an active role on Day One.

[Beetwasher]

210. I Never Claimed The Report Was Bogus. Put Up Or Shut Up.

Show me where I said it was bogus. I merely asked why people would necessarily believe their SPIN on the story. The AP is hardly known for it's objectivity. It is in fact known for it's egregious anti-dem spin on things.

And if you know anything about how DOJ works (or should work, and apparently you don't) then you would know that it operates independently from the EOP, as it should, so that there is no politicization. And as a matter of fact, if Obama involved himself and for example FIRED the attorney's involved or told them to stand down, he would be GUILTY of the crime of impeding an official proceeding and politicizing the DOJ. Or at the very least, it would be HIGHLY inappropriate.

But don't let that stop you from your asinine, knee-jerk Obama bashing. :eyes:

[Hawkowl]

74. Obama controls the justice department

Period. He controls all of the executive branch. He can determine what laws to enforce and what to let slide. He can determine what of the government actions to defend and which to condemn. You need a remedial civics lesson.

[Beetwasher]

162. So You Want Obama To Politicize DOJ Just Like Bush?

Ok, got it. :eyes:

[Cherchez la Femme]

169. Bush's AG's ARE political

The DOJ *IS* politicized; "Loyal Bushies", remember?

For Obama to keep them, especially after what was done to Siegelman, is insane. Plumb crazy. Cuckoo.

[Beetwasher]

172. I Guess Holder Is Just An Idiot, Huh?

Maybe you should have been AG? :rofl:

[Cherchez la Femme]

175. That's the best you could do?

ONE AG out of how many... just under 100?

:rofl: right back at you.


And what about Leura Canary? She still in the Alabama AG office?
Answer: Of course she is.

[Beetwasher]

176. There Is Only One AG

Duh. WTF are you talking about? Holder is attorney general. He hires or fires the rest of the US Attorney's. You are obviously fucking clueless if you don't know that. Obama doesn't and shouldn't be getting involved in those personnel decisions.

Seriously, you people are arguing about shit that you're apparently totally clueless about.

[Cherchez la Femme]

179. Alabama Attorney General.

Splitting hairs does not absolve you.

[Beetwasher]

181. LOL!!! Splitting Hairs??? PKB!

That's a state attorney general who handles stuff at the state level. WTF are you talking about? DOJ is federal. Good grief.

Educate yourself, jeenyus.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/

[Cherchez la Femme]

185. It's quite plain what I meant

and you know it. I didn't put 'state' or 'assistant' in, but Alabama
--which is, duh, a state--
so yeah, that's splitting hairs.

Not even a nice try, just grasping at any straw floating by.
Ad hominem attacks only make you look more desperate.

You are no different than any 'puke Dubya apologist, hence not worth the time responding to.
I feel sorry for you.

Buh bye.

[Beetwasher]

191. Uh, We Were Talking About DOJ, A FEDERAL Agency

And that Holder hires the attorney's under him. In the context of the discussion, the Alabama STATE AG is irrelevant. You tried to pull a fast one and got busted. A state AG is NOT the same as THE US AG. There is only one USAG. You are either ignorant or purposely trying throw bullshit at me. You got busted. Deal with it.

"ONE AG out of how many... just under 100?"

It is clear you do not know what the fuck you are talking about. There are 50 state AG.

Yes, now run away. :rofl:

[Cherchez la Femme]

199. The subthread

to which I was replying to refers to the STATE (happy?) AG's kept and ALL of them being asked to stay -- but still it was clear to whom I was referring, and which would be plain to anyone paying attention.

But you keep on grasping at straws (and you do it so well!)
...although they still won't keep you afloat.

And still you ignore the Siegelman/Leura Canary issue. Typical.

Pathetic. I shouldn't have answered you this time; but now that I've clarified go right ahead, float another sad little straw and make sure you have the last word;
like that means you're right or that you even have a legitimate point. :eyes:

I didn't think it was possible to feel sorrier for you. Good-bye.

[Beetwasher]

201. Holy Shit Are U Clueless

Obama and Holder have nothing to do W/ state AG's. :rofl:

[No Elephants]

131. In this case the defendant (party sued) is NOT he United States. It is the

Executive Office of the President. Not the same thing as suing the United States. This is not CREW vs. The United States of America.

The job of the D of J is to defend the United States, if the United States has been sued. It hasn't. And, my guess is that the full list of defendants includes individuals as well.

[Beetwasher]

164. They Are Suing The Government

DOJ's responsibility is to defend the gov't from lawsuits.

Do you think Obama even HAS the emails????

You people expect Obama to politicize the DOJ just like Bush apparently.

[defendandprotect]

63. THIS is Bush's DOJ . . . with all invited by Obama to stay and 51 accepting--!!!

[Beetwasher]

64. Their Boss Is Eric Holder Now

And if they don't listen to him, they will be fired.

Yeesh. A month in and already everyone buys every piece of idiotic bullshit that spews out of Republican propoganda outlets.

[defendandprotect]

65. Do you remember the testimony that made clear that they exerted every

means to insure that they had staunch Republicans as prosecutors?

These were people who understood that they were pledged to Bush, not the nation, not

citizens -- they also made that clear.

These are also the people Bush DID NOT FIRE . . .

In other words, they've always lived up to the GOP vile agenda!

[Beetwasher]

67. Yeah, OK, I'm Sure Holder Will Allow Them To Continue W/ Their Allegiance To Bush

Yeah. Uh huh. :eyes:

Maybe he should fire every single attorney in the dept. and start from scratch, because, you know, that wouldn't like disrupt anything. Not to mention the media screaming "POLITICAL PURGE AT DOJ!!!!" :eyes:

It's been one freakin' month. Yeesh.

[defendandprotect]

68. It is SOP to "fire all the prosecutors" when a new president comes in . . .

that is normal . . .

and that is what Bush did -- but then after appoint his new prosecutors he began

firing those who didn't want to be as vile as he wanted them to be. That's what

the scandal is about.

Obama had every right to dismiss all of the GOP prosecutors and appoint new ones!

Don't Democratic prosecutors need jobs? Don't we need more progressive/liberal views

in the DOJ?

Why give Republicans these jobs?

STOP being so frightened of breathing because the "media" might notice it!!!

Who is watching media except idiots?

Yeah . . . I guess after one month, Gates won't be there any more . . . right?

[Beetwasher]

69. Uhh, No It's Not Normal

Some turn over yes, but NOT every prosecutor. That's called POLITICIZATION. That's what Bush did and it's wrong.

[flyarm]

77. Bill Clinton did fire virtually all of the U.S. attorneys when he came into office

and added to that number as time went on.

Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years

James S. Brady, served as U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., during the Carter administration.

“When Carter lost in November of 1980, I resigned,” said Brady, who later became president of the National Assn. of Former U.S. Attorneys. “Nobody asked me, but that’s the tradition of the office. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and when a new administration comes in, everybody knows you will have a new U.S. attorney.”

[Beetwasher]

101. Immediatly?

And did he make being a Dem A requirement?

[flyarm]

135. Do yourself a favor..look it up..do your own research, i am not your researcher!

You made a statement that was wrong..now correct it and clearify it!..But do the damn research before you post crap!

If you are too young to know any history..then do the research before you post gobbly gook!

And if you don't know how to use Google..ask for help!

[Beetwasher]

157. What A Load Of Crap

Nobody fires all the prosecutors immediately upon taking office and replaces them w/ members of their own political party. That's illegal and it's why congress is investigating Bush's DOJ.

So, you want Obama to be like Bush? That tells me all I need to know about you.

[flyarm]

171. No it is not why congress is investigating *'s DOJ..

* fired his own appointees..because they would not prosecute for political reasons!

do the damn research!

[Beetwasher]

173. Uhh, Remember Schlozman?

That's only part of the investigation. They are investigating the politicization of DOJ, part of which was only hiring Repubs.

[No Elephants]

141. Yes, and nothing is wrong with that. These positions are for political appointees, just as the

Cabinet positions are. The difficulty is when you fire them for the wrong reason, per my prior post to you, or when you politicize civil service positions, too, which Bush 43 also did.

[Beetwasher]

158. Wrong!

It is illegal to use a persons politics as a litmus when hiring as a prosecutor at DOJ. That's why congress is investigating Bush's DOJ. Or haven't you been paying attention?

[flyarm]

167. wow!

you really do not understand what really went on do you??

You are proving that with each of your posts!

* was firing his own US Attorney appointees ..wow ..like i said, go to google..and look up what you are talking about.

[Beetwasher]

170. Yes, I Do, Apparently YOU Do Not

If you expect Obama to even be able to hand over emails from Bush's WH, you're deluded. DOJ is doing it's job defending against a lawsuit. Period. There should be NO politics involved. This is NOT Bush's DOJ anymore.

[No Elephants]

136. Sorry, but you are mistaken. Reagan fired all of them. Bush 41 did not

have to because he inherited all Republicans from Reagan. Clinton, however, did fire all of them. Bush did as well when he took over, but he did so more gradually than Reagan and Clinton had. Replacing all from another party is SOP. What is not SOP is what 43 did--firing HIS OWN REPUBLICAN appointees because they would not go things like file bogus lawsuits against Democrats then running for office.

[Beetwasher]

159. Immediately? And They Used Political Party As A Litmus For Hiring?

Really? That's illegal and it's why Bush's DOJ is being investigated by Congress. Remember Bradley Schlozman?

[No Elephants]

138. Yes, and Holder is telling them to kill this suit, exactly what Gonzo

would have told them if Democrats had not sent Gonzo packing.

So, what is your point?

[Beetwasher]

166. So You Think Obama Should Politicize DOJ Just LIke Bush?

Got it.

[flyarm]

193. no I think Obama should do what he promised to do..

and that is to follow the rule of law...
and if you think Holder isn't a political appointee..you must be complicit in all the lies!
Holder blows your excuses out the door.

Obama didn't take an oath to protect against politicalization, he took an oath to protect and defend the constitution..it is predicated on the rule of law..and he even took the oath twice..that does not mean letting the guy before him, who broke our laws..get away with it!

You want to lecture on politicization..perhaps your first stop should be 1600 Penn. ave.

Obama's "ACTIONS" prove he was politicizing his whole campaign with lies.

I.E.

Fisa
Nafta
Gitmo
Torture
Begram
Abu Garab being reopened
Rendition flights
17,000 more troops to Afganistan..of which Obama never held a hearing on when he was head of the committee.

Now that is Change no thinking American can believe in.

news flash water is wet!!

Sounds like you are working your talking points real hard!..won't work with those of us who deal in reality.

[Beetwasher]

203. Newsflash! You're Clueless And Don't Know WTF You're Talking About!

DOJ, aside from the President hiring the AG, is supposed to act independently and NOT be politicized. That means, the President doesn't interfere once he appoints the AG. That's the rule of law. The DOJ does NOT work for the President, he works for the people and is expected to be independent.

Educate yourself, jeenyus:

http://www.usdoj.gov/02organizations/

[flyarm]

205. ehem...newsflash..you are the one who posted this:

Beetwasher (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-21-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Uhh, No It's Not Normal
Some turn over yes, but NOT every prosecutor. That's called POLITICIZATION. That's what Bush did and it's wrong.


and you were and are wrong..you were asked to look up the info and get it right..you are still wrong!


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html?_...

Adam Cohen, a lawyer, writes in a NYT Op Ed today how B*sh Admin officials may have broken the law and under what statutes a special prosecutor might seek indictments.


Some crimes that a special prosecutor might one day look at:

1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede” it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.

<snip>

2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations.

<snip>

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case, they would have opened an investigation of it.

<snip>

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Cohen writes that "It is illegal to lie to Congress" and to impede its getting information. U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as well as Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson are all under scrutiny for conflicting statements made to Congress.

Contacting prosecutors to influence or impede investigations is also a punishable crime, writes Cohen. Both Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) have been found to have contacted one of the fired U.S. attorneys, David Iglesias, in order to inquire about ongoing investigations.

The intimidation of Congressional wittnesses also violates the law, writes Cohen. One of the fired U.S. attorneys, H.E. Cummins, stated that he had been contacted and threatened with retaliation by McNulty's chief of staff.

Finally, the firings themselves may be punishable. "United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding," writes Cohen. "Anyone involved in firing a United States attorney to obstruct or influence an official proceeding could have broken the law."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Attorney_firings_may_have...

[Beetwasher]

206. LOL! You just proved my point jeenyus

No. 4-You can't fire to impede or obstruct. If Obama fired the attorneys involved in the crew case, what would you call that?

[flyarm]

134. Do you ever read any other posts or do you just post ignorant stuff?? look at the post above yours!

[Beetwasher]

180. Uhh, Yeah, I Read It And It Doesn't Change A Damn Thing

This needs to work it's way through the courts. The gov't (EOP) is being sued. DOJ is doing it's job defending the gov't against a lawsuit.

The suit stems from actions taken by the previous admin. If you expect Obama (or Holder) to be able to just turn over all the emails, or to be able to comply w/ all of CREW's requests for stuff that BUSH's WH was responsible for, you are deluded. They've been their a month, Holder even less.

I would love to see CREW get what they want, but DOJ still has to do it's job and defend against the lawsuit and if Obama inserts himself he will be guilty of politicizing DOJ. This is left to the AG to handle, as it should be.

[Captain Hilts]

66. They seem to be keeping all the 'rights' that Bush took. nt

[TerribleLarryDingle]

71. You guys aure are ready to throw Obama under the bus.

sad really. Since when was Yahoo or AP not a Repuplicon shill. Chill the fuck out with the flaming torches already.

[chill_wind]

76. Let me repeat what I just said upthread. It takes about 30 seconds

to find the CREW website to read the details for yourself.

Now you might choose to defend the Obama EOP decision-- or dismay it-- but to attempt to reflexively discredit the AP report (and/or everybody else on the *long long growing list* of sources and blogs and rights organizations we hate these days, though not sometimes unjustifiably) without even bothering to find out what the hell they are talking about because it's saying MEAN BAD THINGS about President Obama again that could not possibly be the case is what is really sad. That's not a defense of the AP, which like every almost every last shred of our mainstream print media has shilled and distorted for the Bush admin. But there's becoming a bigger disturbing pattern among a lot of blanket supporters here of neatly rejecting everything wholesale these days at all critical of an Obama decision without even bothering to read the damn shit or even looking for other details or sources.

[OwnedByFerrets]

80. Amen

[Hissyspit]

89. Yup. And there are choices here: defending the lawsuit, quashing the lawsuit, or letting it

proceed.

[No Elephants]

115. Well said. If I read one more post that says "Obama must have SOME good reason for this," the

idolatry is going to make me lose my breakfast.

[No Elephants]

143. AP is absolutely correct about killing the lawsuit. What is your point?

[Cherchez la Femme]

174. "Repuplicon shill"?!

Same excuse Faux News uses, i.e. the "liberal media", to attempt to negate news which is detrimental to Repukes. I call bullshit.

Or do you think 'speaking truth to power' only applies to the Republican Party and not to our own?
I hold our own party to the same standards I would any other -- perhaps even more stringent because they represent moi. I would think our party would be better than any other party.

Guess I was wrong.

Truth is truth, no matter how people squirm to get out of it.

[eridani]

75. There is such a thing as the Presidential Records Act

Destroying records is fucking ILLEGAL!!!

[OwnedByFerrets]

81. So are war crimes, but the last administration seems

to be getting away with that too. Along with spying on its own citizens and multitudes of other crimes.

[No Elephants]

142. Yep. The victims in this are not Bushco or Obamaco. They are the rule of law and the rights

that statute gives the American people. Obama is selling out the people, and Democrats on this threads are acting as apologists. I am just about fresh out of hope for this country.

[Fearless]

79. Here's my guess as to what's happening...

The emails contain something that is so inflammatory that the Obama administration does not want it to get out. Could be torture. Could be payoffs high up in the new Iraqi government. Could be the location of the pallets of cash that disappeared in Baghdad. Could be any number of things that would lead those who already don't like us to mount another attack on US soil or possibly cause danger abroad for US citizens. The Bush administration has proven time and time again that they don't understand present technology and might have been stupid enough to pass memos back and forth regarding classified information. Even the simplest of things like the identity of a certain CIA operative and so on.

That said, I think that our job is to find a conclusion to this mess. We must pressure them to retrieve the emails. Maybe there are things that shouldn't be released publicly. I know that people don't like that, but it's the truth. We can't throw ourselves into the fire even with the best of intentions. If a crime has been committed, then they should be held accountable. But I don't think it's necessarily wise to make everything public information, even if it was supposed to be, if the Bush administration was stupid enough to email each other on sensitive issues. I know it's not popular and I know that most people won't like it, but I think some things are at times too complex to be so cut and dry as release or don't release.

[Hissyspit]

88. Those emails could be protected under the aegis of 'national security.' The lawsuit need not be

quashed.

[chill_wind]

94. And the kicker is that they don't even seem to be reaching for that

argument. IANL, but the essence of the argument as seen in the CREW rebuttal seems to largely be-- a lot of prior admin time and money has already been spent on this, some of the stuff has been restored and let's move on.

But no one should take my word for it. They should read it.

BTW, I was looking at the Exhibits attached. I was always curious about the names of some of those never-named-in-the-msm "outside contractors" that were brought in to fix the system, and particularly the broken email. One of those contractors was heh heh--MZM. I just fekking knew it!!

Now I have to go back to TPM and re-read everything that was ever written about MZM --and especially the fact of their several trips and trail to the WH a few years ago that the WH never wanted disclosed. I think the WH tried to say it was about buying office equipment and furniture or some clever thing.

[Fearless]

149. True,

It will be interesting how this plays out.

[iconicgnom]

91. I think y'r right out t' f'ken lunch.

If there isn't a way for those e-mails to be examined, and analyzed, by the Obama administration and the current congress and senate, then you don't have a democracy down there. Period.

[Fearless]

152. Well, first of all, it's a representative democracy.

Which means we elect people to make decisions. Secondly, I was just putting something onto the table -- like a discussion forum would be the right place to do that right? I didn't say I agree necessarily, but that something tells me that this is going to get very complicated.

[chill_wind]

96. Would you then extend that same defense to the Bush Admin?

Because I have no doubt they also felt there were things better kept secret and they didn't want to cooperate, either. CLEARLY they didn't.

[Fearless]

148. No, it's a matter of trust I suppose and granted I said you wouldn't like it.

I wasn't saying that I like it either, but if what I said is true, and I don't know, then let's let this thing play out before jumping to conclusions.

[AyanRand Is Dead]

85. I don't see how this is going to promote transparency in government.

Change? as in 50 cents?

[iconicgnom]

90. He signs onto the NSA bill. He puts his fingerprint on Bagram.

It doesn't look good.

[Grinchie]

99. All they need to do is Announce what the Email Server software was

And destroy that company utterly.

[The Backlash Cometh]

102. I predict that we will learn to hate right-wing Dems as much as we once

hated Repubs. I use to think that a right-wing Dem was one who was not committed to Civil Rights, but Obama is redefining the entire category.

[No Elephants]

145. In my view, MOST of the Dems who were not committed to Civil Rights started

voting Republican at some point and raised their children to do the same. That's why the electorally "Solid South," which gradually became solidly Democrat after Emancipation, gradually became solidly Republican after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I put "most" in caps to emphasize that some Democrats are certainly lukewarm on Civil Rights. However, I think, currently, the DLC types are a much bigger problem within the Party and there is no shortager of them within the Obama administration.

P.S. Not aiming to start a regional war or race war here either. All Republicans are not racists, nor are all Southerners. And there are racists in the North and in the Democratic Party. I'm simply giving some broad brush historical facts, not accusing or exonerating anyone.

[No Elephants]

146. Sorry, wrong spot.

[No Elephants]

150. A statute passed by the Congress of the United States

gave the People of the United States a right to Presidential records. Bushco claimed to have lost the records, though.

Next, there were orders issued by a federal court, part of the Judiciary of the United States established by the Constitution of the United States, directing Bushco to produce ALL the records, regardless of the media on which the records are embodied.

The rule of law, the Constitutional set up of 3 co-equal branches of goverment AND the rights of the American people are at stake in this lawsuit.

In its request for dismissal, Bushco tried to sleaze over both the law passed by Congress AND the court order. The unitary executive uber alles. This is what Obama is supporting.

This lawsuit should not be dismissed on the basis of some flim flam, evasive pleading on the part of Bushco. Nor should ANY administration, Republican or Democratic, be taking Bushco's side in this.

Everyone needs to take a breath and read the pdf at the CREW website before posting anymore bs rationalizations about this. (The pdf of the pleading that CREW filed with the Court on January 29, opposing Bushco's request for dismissal).

From December 2007 forward, I supported Obama with time and donations and my vote, but this stinks. So, IMO, have a number of other things that have gone on since the election. And don't tell me he indicated all these things all along. He did not. Would I have voted for McCain-Palin? No. But, I may have given my feet and my checkbook a lot more of a rest.

I don't know anymore what we, the people, can do anymore. Emailing and causing media flaps are better than nothing, but they do not go far enough. Anyone who has any suggestions about what we can do, please post them. I'm begging.

[southerncrone]

151. WTF? This is the key to ALL the corruption that has taken down our nation!

Those emails are the treasure-trove to all their sneaky scandals:

• Stolen elections


• Lying us into Iraqi War


• Plame outing


• Energy crisis based on Cheney & his bedfellows & their "energy policy"


• Seigelman unlawful imprisonment


• Illegal Wire tapping of US Citizens


• Gitmo & Abu Grab attrocities


• US Federal Attorneys scandel


• Numerous other evil acts yet unknown (many probably relating to the banking industry)


• The list goes on & on, I can't recall ALL of their misdeeds at present, but we know they will be in those emails

My sincere hope is that the Obama administration already has what it needs to FULLY & COMPLETELY prosecute these scumbags.

If these treasonous acts are not dealt with, we will be forced to suffer them again with their next wave of evildoers.

Just like kids, if there is no punishment or deterrent, they will repeat the acts with vigor because a precedent has been set to allow them to get off scott-free.
:grr:

[No Elephants]

156. Fully and completely prosecute? The Obama administration is taking Bushco's side in this case.

[southerncrone]

178. Hey, I'm not agreeing with the Obama decision on this, just

stating what NEEDS to be done.

Just trying to keep my hope alive that this is not as disturbing as it appears at this moment.

Obviously, I've no control over this matter, other than my outrage.

[katandmoon]

153. FUCK OBAMA.

[No Elephants]

165. I hear you, but I fear the people of America are the only getting fucked--and not in a good way.

[katandmoon]

186. ICAM -- and this bodes VERY ill for any investigation of Bush war crimes

[Offred]

177. E-mail case

I won't believe this until I hear it directly from President Obama, the attorney general, or the press secretary. This info is from the "Obama Department of Justice," but no quote from the president, attorney general, or press secretary. The current Department of Justice is still predominantly Bush's DOJ, with a significant number of moles who have burrowed in and didn't offer their resignations at the change of administrations. The DOJ needs a clean sweep to get rid of all the remaining Bushies.

This e-mail lawsuits information was also released at the same time a story appeared in Huffington Post (bylines were of two people with a history of being anti-Obama) saying that Obama's DOJ was supporting Bush's policy in Bagram. Again no direct quote from Obama, Holder, or Gibbs.

These stories appeared at the beginning of the weekend, meaning the administration was unlikely to respond before Monday. That means 48 hours of turmoil, outrage, and divisiveness on the part of both right- and left-wingers on political blogs. (A suspicious number of responses on HuffPo were from people who said they voted for Obama but now were throwing up their hands after 30 days and calling Obama Bush in disguise. These sounded suspiciously like Republican trolls out to destroy Obama's support.)

Let's all sit back, take a deep breath, then e-mail whitehouse.gov asking that Obama, Holder, or Gibbs address this directly. Frankly, I think the blogs may have been punked by a Bush retread in the Department of Justice. Why? Because even if this is revealed to be a "misspeak" on the DOJ's part, the notion that Obama is continuing Bush's policies is now forever out there in the ether.

[Cha]

200. Good for you..not one

to jump the gun and pile on when an AP corporatemediawhore story hits the presses.

Welcome to DU..we can use you. :)

[LiberalLovinLug]

195. bottoms up

President Obama seems to be bending backwards (and forwards) to try and appease the big elephant in the room. What he is failing to understand is that the elephant is not angry, it is insane. It was once master of the jungle and headlining now it is kept in the back room of a circus, and the donkeys (the DONKEYS!) are the main act. The elephant's only goal is to get back into the center ring. Not to behave, or entertain, or be nice to its handlers, its to get back in the limelight and watch the donkeys walk off yet again with their tails between their legs.

What it looks like is that instead of the donkeys just being themselves and performing what they do best, they are putting on elephant costumes and parading around the ring thinking that this will win over more of the audience and some of the elephants. It does neither. It makes the donkeys look like a weak joke.

Bush used his own hard working base as his engine. It worked for the most part. He was able to fulfill much of the neo-con dream. Why oh why don't the Democrats learn from this? Screw the far right, make US happy (the left base) and the hard work you will generate from your inspiration and commitment will overwhelm any extra trumpeting coming from the back room of the circus.

[Zhade]

207. Inexcusable.

NT!