Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

E-MAIL From WH- CONFIRMS Admin Deliberately USED E-Mail Servers (GWB43) To AVOID Legal Problems

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:36 AM
Original message
E-MAIL From WH- CONFIRMS Admin Deliberately USED E-Mail Servers (GWB43) To AVOID Legal Problems
The great GWB43 update

The newest news: An email written from the White House to Jack Abramoff confirms that administration personnel deliberately used private email servers to avoid legal problems:

...she said is better not to put this stuff in writing in their email system because it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc.


Did the Abramoff investigators know about this alternative communication system? I think not. If that fact were known, and if those secret emails to Casino Jack came to light, might someone in the WH be looking at jail time? Perhaps.

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-gwb43-update.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. wowee! I hope somebody gets on this before the servers are
destroyed...!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
68. they said that all the Abramoff material was printed out
not copied, everything so far has only been on 10,000 out of 70,000 collected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. This is the most corrupt administration ever to foul the White House!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
42. Enough to make one think this administration is one vast criminal conspiracy
and little else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #42
69. That's what I've been thinking. I must confess...
All of this is quite fascinating to watch. Big history in the making and who knows where it will all lead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #42
86. Yes, it is-kick against the REPUBLICANS that disrupted the Sampson hearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
62. and that's saying something. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mme. Defarge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
78. "Here's the smell of blood still;
all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand."

Macbeth, Act V, Scene 1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. Why do republicons always try to decieve Americans?
Why do republicons hate America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colorado_ufo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
46. "They hate us for our freedoms."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #46
60. eh, ah wasn't it Iran's Al Qaida and the easter bunny who hated our freedoms?
or was it that by taking our freedoms away, the Sauds won't hate us anymore?

(SARCASM)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
4. they're even more incompetent than they are corrupt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wake.up.america Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:42 AM
Original message
What??!!! And he is still walking around?
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 08:42 AM by wake.up.america
Somebody please service the CinC, then we will have a reason to impeach him after he lies about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. Maybe but more likely it is just what Sir Walter Scott observed: "Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive

Still holds after all these years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
5. Oh, this looks so baaaaaaaaaad. They're going down...
good find!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
6. I wish it were so. Jailtime that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
7. Does the mainstream media know about this gwb43 business?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I have not heard anything discussed on TV
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. Actually, there was an oblique reference to it in a press briefing with Tony Snow...
as a side issue to this US Attorney matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #19
26. Oh, ok, but no reference on Countdown or Hardball, yet
It would seem that either Keith Olbermann or David Shuster should be reporting on this GWB43.com email system
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #26
54. OIC
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #19
37. Yes, Tony was confused.
The British lady reporter (Victoria ?) asked Tony if the White House communicated on servers that belonged to the RNC. Tony didn't have a clue what she was talking about - said he "would ask" about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #8
43. Neither have I -- the GOP/Media Establishment is still focused on Ed Gillespie's comments
in the defense of the Department of Justice.

Because a Republican Party spokesperson needs to be the one to speak for the United States Department of Justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
67. Yes but they won't talk about it. Damn "librul" media!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IWantAChange Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
9. Repuke dream - Absolute Power // reality - Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #9
47. If you are already Absolutely Corrupt, Absolute Power is all that can protect you.
Too bad for them Absolute Power doesn't exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Ected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #47
61. Bingo!
Couldn't have said it better if I tried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. Thanks! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
10. The Secret WH communication System
Joseph Cannon: revised and expanded version of my piece on the "secret" White House communication system designed to do an end run around history...

http://www.trustme.com/story.php?title=secret-White-House-comunication-system
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
76. OMG! History repeats itself!!!
Nixon had a "secret" taping system...

Bush has a secret email system...

Where are the missing 19 minutes...I mean emails?

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
11. K & R
:kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
12. I found this at About.com
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208051.htm

Updated 24 March - 10.45 pm Pacific
Last week, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) asked Congress to investigate White House staff use of "gwb43.com" e-mail addresses while conducting official government business. (tip) The domain name is owned by the Republican National Committee (see a screenshot of whois registry info) and was probably created as a means for staffers to have e-mail conversations about the 2004 election while at work (bypassing the prohibited White House mail servers).

What's fascinating is that staff continued to use this address long after the election -- and for government business. For example, J. Scott Jennings, White House Deputy Political Director, used his account at gwb43.com to communicate with Justice Department Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson about the firing of eight US attorneys.

CREW -- and others, including me -- wonder if this was a deliberate attempt to evade the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Interestingly, according to the National Journal (reported in the WaPo), Karl Rove "does 'about 95 percent' of his e-mailing using his RNC-based account."

It's hard to imagine someone arguing, with a straight face, that communications on a political mail server can be construed as "privileged." But expect it to happen.

The use of outside e-mail accounts is not confined to AttorneyGate. CREW notes that Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Roves former assistant Susan Ralston used three private e-mail accounts -- rnchq.com (headquarters of the Republican National Committee), georgebush.com (re-election campaign) and aol.com -- to communicate with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Many of the mails, according to CREW, provide "inside White House information to Mr. Abramoff in response to Mr. Abramoffs efforts to broker deals for his clients and place specified individuals in positions within the administration."

In its press release, CREW writes:
CREW has learned that to fulfill its statutory obligations under the PRA, the White House email system automatically copies all messages created by staff and sends them to the White House Office of Records Management for archiving. It appears that the White House deliberately bypassed the automatic archiving function of its own email system that was designed to ensure compliance with the PRA.

CREW currently is involved in several lawsuits challenging other improper and illegal record keeping practices of the Bush administration. In this matter, CREW cannot bring a lawsuit challenging the White House on its compliance with the PRA because of a legal precedent that relies on presidents to honor the mandatory record-keeping practices, with no judicial review.

Continued at above link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. What exactly does that mean??
"CREW cannot bring a lawsuit challenging the White House on its compliance with the PRA because of a legal precedent that relies on presidents to honor the mandatory record-keeping practices, with no judicial review."



So it is on the pResident's honor in keeping with the PRA. Judicial review has been removed somehow in an earlier precedent??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #16
30. It seems according to what I've read into the PRA (Presidential Records Act) of
1978, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.

Although the act made Presidential (and Vice Presidential) documents, etc public from private, the President seems to be able to control the terms of this act through Executive Orders.
Originally the act allowed that documents etc could be accessed through the Freedom Of Information Act, 5 years after the end of the President's term. Reagan and Shrub both signed EO's changing the policies.

Once again, from About.com
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/presidency/g/PRA.htm

And the act itself
http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html#2204

My conclusion is, that we were double crossed by the Congress when this act was initiated. It was supposed to protect us from the abuse of the Presidency of Nixon and instead, it allowed these records to be kept in control of the President as long as they wish with the signing of an Executive Order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #30
40. There have been times when I felt that the Bushes had to steal the
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 10:10 AM by higher class
election in 2000 to clean up and hide Bush, Sr and to protect against the oncoming plans of PNAC.

In contrast, I believe I've heard President Clinton say that all the records from his Presidency are available. But, this reads as though Bush, Jr could seal Clinton's records if he wanted to.

And once again - I'll remind people that Russ Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act.

We sold our citizenry down the river when our so called representatives supported the ACT from which the arrogance and crime comes - and then our representatives RENEWED IT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #12
31. Complying with the Presidential Records Act is voluntary?
"It appears that the White House deliberately bypassed the automatic archiving function of its own email system that was designed to ensure compliance with the PRA."

DELIBERATELY

"In this matter, CREW cannot bring a lawsuit challenging the White House on its compliance with the PRA because of a legal precedent that relies on presidents to honor the mandatory record-keeping practices, with no judicial review."

PRESIDENTS TO H O N O R ??????(from above second line)

So, since we know there is no honor and integrity in this White House - we should say OK?

Two words - DELIBERATELY and Presidents to HONOR.!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. Please see my post #30. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
33. Thanks Ommm! This explains a lot! ....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #12
50. oh what a tangled web we weave....
K and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
13. This could explain the 18 day gap in emails on the U.S. Attorney firings. You know they didn't stop
talking about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
27. More than just this one address will explain things.
I deeply doubt that this was the only external email address that was used. Besides the usual web-based email addresses(Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail), email is a commodity these days. Setting up an email address is easier than putting your pants on. Every ISP on the planet offers email servers. Many, if not most of those, have webmail services, for ease of use. Registering obscure domain names is as easy as buying something on the web. Placing that domain name with an ISP or on other DNS servers takes minutes.

It's all simple with some basic knowledge. It is not some technological triumph. You can even run your own email server with a desktop server and free software, either a Linux distro or just a program that runs on top of WindowsXP. You can run IRC servers or Jabber servers that don't even have domain names, just IP addresses and DSL lines.

None of this requires a degree in CompSci. Just a 15 year old kid with basic computer knowledge. Really.

Much of the information that CREW seeks is going to be found on home computers and laptops and personal Blackberries. EvDO accounts are one way that they can be connecting to these sorts of servers.

Anyone who thinks they have not been going to these lengths, technologically, has not been paying attention, at all. They can, and you can bet they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
14. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive
Or however that old cliche goes.

These guys can't keep their stories straight now, can they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrat 4 Ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. I believe the outside email accounts are getting attention but will the
MSM do a follow-up? That remains to be seen. The whole fired US Attorneys story got some coverage in yesterday's paper.

Front page story in the Courier-Journal, Louisville, KY yesterday. Appears a hometown boy has made "good" in the Rethug White house. It is getting traction in some places. The article mentions the White House staff using outside email accounts to avoid tracking. Ya think maybe Mean Mitch McConnell might have gotten Jennings his job? I would bet money on it.

Federal inquiry includes local man
Congress probing U.S. attorney firings


By James R. Carroll and Tom Loftus
The Courier-Journal

WASHINGTON Few people here would recognize Scott Jennings if he walked down Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House -- on his way to work.

But the 29-year-old Kentuckian's relative anonymity may soon disappear in the political and constitutional clash between the Bush administration and Congress over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

Jennings, of Louisville, is deputy White House political director and special assistant to the president. And as such, he is one of the people whom congressional Democrats want to talk with about the firings.

He is among the White House and Justice Department officials named in subpoenas that the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized Thursday -- but has not yet issued. A House panel did the same thing Wednesday, pending negotiations with the administration.

(snip)

Jennings used an e-mail account registered to the Republican National Committee.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007703250496
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
17. The kicker is the one sent after that one...


Right there, the last one in that image Dammit. Check my journal from the 15th.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #17
53. Beat me to it; that was the one I was looking for.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Seen this?
A nice related thread, shamelessly promoted.

-Hoot

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
70. One thing stands out clear from this exchange-KNOWN JACK ABRAMOFF WH CONTACTS
all of them-Susan Bonzon Ralston, Ruben Barrales, Jennifer Farley--and Karl Rove, Barry Jackson, plus former RNC head Ken Mehlman.

The House Oversight Committee (and Rep. Waxman) knew about this

House Oversight Committee: The Abramoff Investigation-White House contacts
http://oversight.house.gov/abramoff/index2.asp

CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
18. Subpoena gwb43.com servers and records!
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 09:06 AM by Canuckistanian
Also their administrators and tech staff. Evidence is probably being destroyed as we speak!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #18
28. If they destroy this....
....they are CLEARLY looking at Obstruction charges, IMO. No good response to a subpoena for these records. Either they turn over the incriminating documents or they have destroyed them. IMO, these materials HAVE TO BE subpoenaed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
williesgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
20. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
21. It shows they're consciously evading accountability.
I wish RICO applied to this corruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
23. Is this story getting ANY traction w/ MSM? Olberman?
Anybody out there with a VOICE?

Has Rep. John Conyers mentioned it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
24. I'm just catching up with this confusing alternate e-mail
server business. Have they (and who are they?) confiscated e-mail communication via the RNC server to and from Abramoff also? How is all of this against the law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #24
34. Don't know the legalities
I'm totally not a lawyer. But I believe the problem centers around communication rules for official DOJ/White House business. Meaning that these type discussions are supposed to go through official channels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:00 AM
Original message
I think you are correct. I just read Ommm's post #12 above,
and it really clarified a lot of questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. Whoops! accidental triple post! ....n/t
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 10:02 AM by WiseButAngrySara
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #34
39. Whoops! accidental triple post! ....n/t
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 10:01 AM by WiseButAngrySara
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
25. And, as usual, k(pete)nr! ....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
29. "We don't use email"
I hope this bites them hard. :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
32. This is quite astonishing


considering the vast number of Repuke sheep who said about the NSA Spy-On-Average-Americans Scandal: "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."

Looks like we, the average Americans, should have been spying on THEM.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
35. "Legal problems" = "accountability" or "oversight" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
41. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
44. This needs more exposure!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
45. BWWAAAHAHAHA! That's as incriminating as those Diebold emails!
I don't know how many remember when the contents of Diebold's message archive was put online by a hacker some years ago, but it had a bunch of message that said things like, "We should be careful what we say here in email, in case someone reads it someday..."


Whoops.

:rofl: :rofl:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #45
65. And it will probably get the Administration in just as much trouble.
Which is no trouble...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhilipShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
48. I may have grounds to file a Personal lawsuit against RNC connected parties
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 11:40 AM by PhilipShore
I am not a lawyer, but I filed a civil lawsuit against a bank; the suit was dismissed, and I appealed, and the 3 judge panel recently ruled in mine and the banks favor (In a 5 page written opinion), saying I could not sue the bank (Party A) but that I could sue, (Parties B, C, D, E, F).


If any Private Investigators, or lawyers are interested in assisting me -- please let me know.


I filed the original lawsuit, because a Real Estate Law firm in Miami -- rewrote my grandfather's Will between 1967 and 1976 -- during the probate and other litigation, of his estate, In Miami.

The problem is that I live in New York, and when I showed the paperwork to a Private Investigator, in New York he advised me that he would investigate it, and that it concerns Real Estate fraud by law firms, so I would need a Private Investigator or law Firms, with experience in Rhode Island and Florida law, in the Miami Beach area.

I hired a Private Investigator, and he mentioned that, that one of the parties, that would of been a a member of Parties (B, C, D, E, F) would not take calls from the PI, but only the law firm of Akerman Senterfitt, would take his calls.

Other people have told me -- that that law firm is infamous for not representing clients in Real Estate Fraud -- but is infamous for being involved in Real Estate Fraud, and that same law firm has on their staff, a Mr. Nelson -- according to Wikipedia -- was deputy chief of staff of the Republican National Committee (RNC). In that position, he has been mentioned in two criminal cases:

* Nelson was the superior of James Tobin, the New England political director for the RNC, who was convicted in late 2005 for his role in a scheme to jam phone lines in New Hampshire in November 2002 to block Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts. Nelson was on the government's witness list to testify at Tobin's trial, <6> but he was never called to testify at the trial.<7>

* As of 2006, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and two others face criminal charges of violating a Texas law that prohibits the use of corporate money to fund candidates. The indictment charges they wrote a check to the RNC from a PAC controlled by DeLay and had the RNC send the same amount of money to the candidates, in order to get around that law. According to the indictment, the request and proposal to do this was made to Nelson in September 2002, and the check and list of candidates to be funded was given to Nelson two days later.<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Nelson

Two GOP consultants from the Bush re-election campaign are moving to the Washington, D.C., office of the law firm Akerman Senterfitt, based in Florida

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_3_26/ai_n13661436
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vickitulsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #48
81. Hey, this looks very interesting to me!
I don't know why no one replied here in the thread, but perhaps some did PM you about this.

Fascinating stuff, if I understand it correctly!

Sure hope you get somewhere with this ... seems to me there are ample provisions in various areas of the laws of this country to nail the overt criminals we have running this country (and wrecking the lives of Americans and global citizens alike) these days.

And yes, I did mean to say "overt," not "covert"!

------> After all, it's not like they've been taking extremely careful pains to be absolutely sure NOT to incriminate themselves along the way, as they probably felt they were so smashingly successful in the many "wins" and the unfettered power they garnered, so why bother? It really did appear that after they were (S)elected and installed in the White House in 2000, they felt no one could or would challenge them ever again (in any serious way).

Doesn't it truly seem like they thought this way?

I've always thought they (and by "they" I basically mean Bu$h and that blackhearted puppetmaster Cheney) practically pounded their chests in public displays of defiance and arrogance as they set about brazenly taking giant steps to further the Grand Plot (Power Grab!) they'd been hatching for at least four decades.


Soooo, like Nixon in the "ancient" history of OUR White House recordkeeping practices, these next generation criminals have almost assuredly fashioned the very nooses with which they can be hung -- if someone (or many someones) will just get busy pursuing these matters.

I remember so well that when the existence of the Nixon White House audio tapes first came to light -- to the public at least -- everyone was absolutely flabbergasted that the man had ordered all that taping to be done hisveryownself!!

He created the records that were going to convinct him, either by providing hard and incontravertible evidence or by making him appear to be obviously, clearly guilty to anyone with an ounce of common sense if he either refused to turn over the tapes or destroyed them.

If he'd destroyed them, which action must surely always be a strong temptation to anyone caught in a situation like this, then perhaps he would have tried to say they never existed. But of course other people knew they DID exist and they could be subpoenaed to testify to that fact.

That's the beauty of subpoenaes, to me. "Subpoena" may be the one most dreaded word of all to this criminal administration!

There's just nowhere to go once you have put certain things into words in documents. You either have to turn over the evidence or make a big deal out of HIDING IT! Either way, your goose gets cooked. (I think someone basically said this upthread -- maybe Tahiti Nut? who always seems to sum up a lot of stuff in concise form. But I can't help elaborating on a theme that just delights me!)

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what it means if the accused HIDE THE EVIDENCE ... or even if they merely protest having to turn it over ... or testify under oath!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhilipShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. Thanks...
I have had a few very useful replies, when I gave the background in other other threads. If anyone wants to read the case feel free to contact me, I will give them the case numbers.

Someone, obviously back then --used the system for their benefit; and it is very similar --in fact text book similarities to what Republicans do today. For example, a law says something in black and white, but the Republicans simply rewrite the law in their mind, and say to themselves it is not black and white, and consider themselves above the "rule of law".

And, they can -- now -- as they did then get away with it: because they were the advocates and adversaries -- all conspiring with one another to loot my grandfather's estate.

When I found out much later; about this they were actually shocked that I would question; the fact -- of them using litigation to rewrite my grandfathers' Will, as if I was represented back then --I would of said, yes I will sign the papers rewriting his will to disinherit me from a estate worth perhaps forty million dollars.

It completely defies all logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terri S Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
49. has anyone sent this to Leahy and KO???
also, in the mass of emails my eyes start to glaze over after awhile, so I may have missed it, but is there a link to the whole email they reference here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Waxman is on it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
51. Oh, dear Susan Ralston
I'm pretty sure you were the "she" referenced above. Tell me, Sue...Was it all worth it in the end?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
55. this may be the first smart thing they have done
and they were still stupid enough to put it in writing.

you know what gets people in trouble? evidence never write anything down, especially on email. you can shred paper, but email is basically forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
57. One is forced to wonder. If they indeed did nothing wrong - why did they go to such lengths to hide
what was (by their accounts) perfectly legal and no different from the practice of prior administrations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeplessinseattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
58. I could have sworn I saw this email on DU a week or two ago?
does anyone remember? I can't remember the source tho. someone must have leaked it way before these came out tho, wonder who it was?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaybeat Donating Member (729 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #58
71. Yes, I think so (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
59. There goes Executive Privilege
If the e-mails were not on a government computer, they're fair game for a subpoena
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
64. Susan Bonzon Ralston is known to have used the RNC backdoor server network
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 02:10 PM by bobthedrummer
She also was known to be a Jack Abramoff WH contact by the House Oversight Committee (chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman)-along with Karl Rove, Barry Jackson, Ken Mehlman, Ruben Barrales and Jennifer Farley.

House Oversight Committee: The Abramoff Investigation-White House contacts
http://oversight.house.gov/abramoff/index2.asp

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pryderi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
66. Republicans are just smarter than Dems.
gwb43.com mail servers are going to crash and all backups are going to go missing.

Waxman advises RNC not to destroy any e-mails
Michael Roston
Published: Monday March 26, 2007
Print This Email This

Pointing to e-mails between Bush administration officials and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff that used private e-mail addresses, the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ordered the Republican National Committee and the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign to preserve all e-mail records and to ensure that they aren't purged or destroyed.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Waxman_to_Republican_groups_Save_those_0326.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AikidoSoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. Even if the hard drives are erased or corrupted, the data can be retrieved
To really get rid of the data they would have to do a "military specification" wipe -- and that my dear, would be highly unusual and probably prosecutable because it would clearly demonstrate that these actions are intentional.

Even with "wiped" drives you can buy DiskExplorer & Recovery Bundle software to not only recover erased data but to get into hard drives with passwords.

If the Republicons are "smart" as you say, they would let someone "steal" the servers, or infect them with viruses and/or worms that "eat" data, and/or create a huge surge (read monstrously large surge) which would scramble the data.

Or, go to war with Iran, destroy another large icon of America (Statue of Liberty for example) -- in other words distract everyone from all these investigations and create an atmosphere of intense conversations that stoke fear in everyone's hearts.

This would be the modus operandi I would expect from the Busheviks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
appleannie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
73. It is going mainstream
Jennings did not use his White House e-mail account for the exchanges but rather an e-mail account from the RNC that noted his e-mail as [email protected]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2952653&page=1

No one seemed to notice the above statement though.

GWB43.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Similarly, in spite of the embarrassing revelations contained in the e-mails turned over by the Justice Department to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, the general rule at the White House is that if it's really sensitive, don't put it in writing -- certainly not in an e-mail.

That stuff gets archived.

The president himself, for instance, never uses e-mail at all.

And it now turns out that some of his aides sometimes avoid using their official White House e-mail accounts -- the ones that get automatically archived.

As I wrote in yesterday's column, Tuesday's document dump -- which initiated from the Justice Department, not the White House -- includes e-mails from J. Scott Jennings, Karl Rove's deputy at the White House, coming from an e-mail address at gwb43.com. That's a domain owned by the Republican National Committee.

This raises all sorts of questions. I put four of them to a White House spokesman yesterday, but haven't gotten a response
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/03/15/BL2007031501053.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Sigh
Isn't it wonderful?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
75. This is most likely a(nother) violation of the law!
Book'em Dano!

:grr: :spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cobalt-60 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. Send Kono instead
I like his style a little more than Dan-O's
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
79. Oh My, kpete! I Nominate This For Thread Of The DAY!!!!!
This should be the infamous straw . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mme. Defarge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
80. Susan Ralston and Karl Rove
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
82. I want to know if there's a way to find out if there are any other
emails they might be using. If we already know they're using GWB43, what's to say there aren'tone or many others we haven't heard about?

Bernie Ward tonight was reading something that stated that Rovedid 80 to 90% of his communications through the GWB43 server to avoid the WH email system that he knew could be subpoenaed.

We are ALL told to use alternate email addys tojoin lists or play games so we can keep our primary email clean of spam. Why wouldn't AH's like Rove use3,4 or 10 different ones????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. kick that question around napi21-Susan Ralston definitely has an answer to it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
85. kick-and a citizen can only wonder about this partisan political network's
components in both the public and private sector.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 15th 2021, 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC