Redacted dates? Why would you redact anything in this case if

[ncteechur]

you are the white house especially dates if you are not guilty? Redacting anything is an admission of guilt. They obviously know that constructing a timeline is very damning. I love the press all over snowjob today about if * didn't know then the advisor counsel argument is moot, and if he did know means he was at the center of it which they have lied about.

What I wished they had asked yesterday at the * press conference was, "Mr. President, why don't you clear the air here and now and just tell us why all the 8 attorneys were fired?"

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. They did it because no one is in charge at the WH

They are scrambling to figure out what to do. Even though it might appear that Rove et al are masterminds, it is only true when it comes to dirty tricks, not to covering up well. Reminds me of the frat boys trying to explain away some stupid drunken stunt they pulled to the unsympathetic cops.

[unblock]

2. as with all secrecy, it only shows that they have SOMETHING to hide

same problem with the refusal to investigate 9/11, and so on and on. it doesn't prove lihop/mihop, it only strongly suggests that they had SOMETHING to hide that an investigation would reveal. just as an example, maybe an investigation into 9/11 might reveal that shrub was high on cocaine at the time. they might have considered that reason enough to thwart an investigation.

same here. redacted information suggests something to hide, but what exactly is very hard to determine.

[MadMaddie]

3. those 16 days worth of emails may have Gonzalez looped

right in the middle of this thing..

Also, I suspect even hire up. For example: Since * doesn't use the interntets -Rove could have written, " Well I discussed the issue with the President and he approves of the dismissals"

Purely speculation but as others have said this could be our Watergate.

What's the similar between 16 seconds of missing tape and 16 days of missing emails....? Nothing and Everything......