Ok. Here's what I find amusing about all of this:
So the Dems want to see if they can find emails having to do with the firing of the Federal Attorneys. That sort of stuff is supposed to be done via email from White House accounts. However, they find out that some members of the White House use RNC accounts as well and that even though they're not supposed to use them for "official" discussions (and not use the White House ones for political discussions), some may have. So the Dems want to subpoena those email accounts, but the RNC computers are regularly deleted, so the email is "lost".
BTW. The "lost" statement does not mean "lost for the investiation". They are "lost" from the presidential record. The effect of this on the investigation at hand is a complete wash. Had the email's been properly handled on White House servers, they would be protected by Executive Priviledge. Those on the RCS system were deleted. In either case, they would not have been able to read them. It's a bunch of hoey about nothing.
The issue at hand is that there may have been a violation of another act which requires official white house communications to be documented and recorded. Since these conversations took place on outside computers, the record is lost.
Nice spin though!
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Gee, I guess those e-mails were just... "lost"
Gee, I guess those e-mails were just... "lost"Follow
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
The issue at hand is that there may have been a violation of another act which requires official white house communications to be documented and recorded. Since these conversations took place on outside computers, the record is lost.
So the administration says the emails are lost, deal with it. The Dem congress says that's not good enough and you counter by saying the emails are lost, deal with it? Did I miss something or did you really just skip over everything the article said?
PS, you didn't really address what bodhi said. It was however a nice spin though!
I think the real issue at hand is the fact that our government ultimately answers to us. Frankly, I'd support ANYTHING that acts like a flashlight into the cave of ether that is our current administration. If I had my way, every politicians email would be posted on the side of the GoodYear Blimp.
After all, who ultimately paid for the servers? We did.
After all, who ultimately paid for the servers? We did.
Defaulty wrote:
Did I miss something or did you really just skip over everything the article said?
PS, you didn't really address what bodhi said. It was however a nice spin though!
PS, you didn't really address what bodhi said. It was however a nice spin though!
This is Gbaji standard operating procedure. You must be new here.
Quote:
This is Gbaji standard operating procedure. You must be new here.
I've lurked on and off for a few years but never really read anything by him. Does he really think it fools people?
Quote:
It's a fishing expedition. Everyone knows it. Or at least everyone should know it.
When there's already a wrongful act suspected, the process of obtaining evidence is not a fishing expedition.
But of course you knew that already.
Yanari wrote:
Quote:
It's a fishing expedition. Everyone knows it. Or at least everyone should know it.
When there's already a wrongful act suspected, the process of obtaining evidence is not a fishing expedition.
No. That's totally incorrect. A fishing expedition is when you believe that some wrondoing may have occured, but don't have any evidence to prove that it occured, nor know exactly what evidence you are looking for, so you go digging through some private information in order to see if you can find something incriminating.
In order to do a legitimate search, you have to be able to define exactly what you are looking for and explain how that would result in evidence of wrongdoing, *and* have a reasonable reason to believe that what you're looking for exists. In this case, they don't know for sure what conversations were involved in the decision to fire those 8 attorneys. The mere fact that conversations occured is *not* evidence of wrongdoing, since presumably there had to have been some conversation, right? What's going on here is that the Dems suspect that the firings may have been political (which I might add isn't a violation of the rules either), but they don't have *any* evidence to suggest that the email conversations involved would show that. They just think they might. So they want to search them all to see if they do.
The danger with this type of search is that you could use it to search anyone for anything at any time. You have to have more then a suspicion to compell a search IMO. The fact that somehow they're able to get this going anyway is disturbing on many levels. Far moreso then anything the White House may have done. IMO, it's far more dangerous to have a political party using the power of congressional investigation to pursue a blatantly political agenda (investigating for the purpose of diging "dirt" on the other party), then a political party firing political appointments for political reasons. Much much more dangerous...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
As I implied, this was a legitimate search, not a fishing expedition.
Nice try though.
Nice try though.
Yanari wrote:
As I implied, this was a legitimate search, not a fishing expedition.
Nice try though.
Nice try though.
A legitimate search involves asking for specific email responses by a particular person as part of a specific converstaion on a specific date regarding a specific issue which the searcher has evidence will contain proof of wrongdoing.
Demanding that an entire organization hand over all emails for an entire group of people for a 3 year period of time is *not* legitimate. It's a fishing expedition.
This is the equivalent of arguing that since you believe that there are drug dealers operating in a particular neighborhood, it's ok to search all the houses within a 10 block radius to see if any of them have drugs.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Demanding that an entire organization hand over all emails for an entire group of people for a 3 year period of time is *not* legitimate. It's a fishing expedition.
In case you didn't know, that's how discovery works in all court cases. Furthermore, investigations, such as grand jury investigations, are, in essence, always fishing expeditions so they can determine if charges should be brought. For example, according to FRCP 26:
Quote:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Congress' investigatory power goes far beyond this. Hence, it *is* legitimate.
Quote:
This is the equivalent of arguing that since you believe that there are drug dealers operating in a particular neighborhood, it's ok to search all the houses within a 10 block radius to see if any of them have drugs.
Wow, what a terrible analogy. I guess this best fits into number 6:
Quote:
6) Make irrelevant comparisons.
This technique is useful when you've run out of argument. Ideally, you should wait until you've used all the other techniques provided above. When none of them have worked, tell a pointless story that has no relevance to the argument, but which makes a point. Any point.
This technique is useful when you've run out of argument. Ideally, you should wait until you've used all the other techniques provided above. When none of them have worked, tell a pointless story that has no relevance to the argument, but which makes a point. Any point.
Edited, Apr 14th 2007 12:48am by Addikeys
"Citing your sources isn't spoon feeding, it's basic 101 if you're making an argument."-Jophiel
gbaji wrote:
No. That's totally incorrect. A fishing expedition is when you believe that some wrondoing may have occured, but don't have any evidence to prove that it occured, nor know exactly what evidence you are looking for, so you go digging through some private information in order to see if you can find something incriminating.
Did you just claim that that you know exactly what the "totally correct" and "totally incorrect" meanings of a loosely defined idiom are?
Mmmmmmm, loosely defined college idioms.
IMO, it's far more dangerous to have a political party using the power of congressional investigation to pursue a blatantly political agenda
I think it's more out of amusement at how amazingly bad the administration is at cover ups.
I'm eagerly anticipating the "the dog ate the energy policy" cover up when they get around to subpoenaing those records.
I mean really, who could possibly be this stupid. It's amazing. It's almost as if they bet money on Democrats winning the White House in 2008.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji wrote:
IMO, it's far more dangerous to have a political party using the power of congressional investigation to pursue a blatantly political agenda (investigating for the purpose of diging "dirt" on the other party), then a political party firing political appointments for political reasons.
I'd give 50/50 odds for each.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
The danger with this type of search is that you could use it to search anyone for anything at any time. You have to have more then a suspicion to compell a search IMO.
Hmmm, isn't that what opponents of the PATRIOT Act have been saying all along? You seem to be just hunky-dory about those searches.
Quote:
IMO, it's far more dangerous to have a political party using the power of congressional investigation to pursue a blatantly political agenda (investigating for the purpose of diging "dirt" on the other party)
*cough*KennethStarr*cough*
The republicans would bet money on the results of the election if they could make a buck off it...
gbaji wrote:
Yanari wrote:
As I implied, this was a legitimate search, not a fishing expedition.
Nice try though.
Nice try though.
A legitimate search involves asking for specific email responses by a particular person as part of a specific converstaion on a specific date regarding a specific issue which the searcher has evidence will contain proof of wrongdoing.
Demanding that an entire organization hand over all emails for an entire group of people for a 3 year period of time is *not* legitimate. It's a fishing expedition.
This is the equivalent of arguing that since you believe that there are drug dealers operating in a particular neighborhood, it's ok to search all the houses within a 10 block radius to see if any of them have drugs.
Discovery ALWAYS requests "any and all information regarding...". No one in their right mind would limit themselves to a handful of known emails.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Did you just not bother to read the very description you quoted?
I'm pretty sure "looking at all the emails at the RNC to see if any include evidence of wrongdoing" falls under that catagory.
The problem is that the point here is *not* to find evidence of the "crime" at hand (which should be obvious since there isn't one), but to make a big deal of the standard deletion process of RNC email systems (which apparently worked). The next best thing to having evidence that a crime may have been comitted is to be able to imply that the other guy destroyed evidence. See, that way you can claim any crime you want and since the evidence was "lost", you don't have to prove anything at all. You can just let the masses assume that there must have been one...
It's a pretty low tactic. Even for the Dems.
Yes. But historically members of Congress do not abuse that power to allow the party with a majority to do whimsical investigations involving discoveries of the opposing parties campaign email system.
Funny. I seem to recall a large Presidential scandal involving a party searching another party's campaign plans. I guess as long as we abuse congressional investigative proceedures to spy on the other party's plans it's perfectly ok.
Oh wait! I'm sure you all believe that all those high ranking Dems sifting through the RNC emails would *never* use the opportunity to gain an advantage in the next election, now would they?...
Please tell me you guys aren't really that naive. Please.
Quote:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
I'm pretty sure "looking at all the emails at the RNC to see if any include evidence of wrongdoing" falls under that catagory.
The problem is that the point here is *not* to find evidence of the "crime" at hand (which should be obvious since there isn't one), but to make a big deal of the standard deletion process of RNC email systems (which apparently worked). The next best thing to having evidence that a crime may have been comitted is to be able to imply that the other guy destroyed evidence. See, that way you can claim any crime you want and since the evidence was "lost", you don't have to prove anything at all. You can just let the masses assume that there must have been one...
It's a pretty low tactic. Even for the Dems.
Quote:
Congress' investigatory power goes far beyond this. Hence, it *is* legitimate.
Yes. But historically members of Congress do not abuse that power to allow the party with a majority to do whimsical investigations involving discoveries of the opposing parties campaign email system.
Funny. I seem to recall a large Presidential scandal involving a party searching another party's campaign plans. I guess as long as we abuse congressional investigative proceedures to spy on the other party's plans it's perfectly ok.
Oh wait! I'm sure you all believe that all those high ranking Dems sifting through the RNC emails would *never* use the opportunity to gain an advantage in the next election, now would they?...
Please tell me you guys aren't really that naive. Please.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Please tell me you guys aren't really that naive. Please.
/raises hand
I am
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
It was perfectly legitimate when Ken Starr was fishing for embarrassing questions, but not now?
Please tell me you're no-- oh, forget it.
Please tell me you're no-- oh, forget it.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
It was perfectly legitimate when Ken Starr was fishing for embarrassing questions, but not now?
Ken Starr didn't subpoena the entire DNC email system.
It's a world of difference. Also, need I add that at least Ken Starr was investigating an actual criminal act (embezzlement, fraud, etc associated with the Whitewater business dealings). Whereas this investigation is to investigate whether or not a decision made by the Justice Department involved conversations with members of the White House in a manner that is completely legal, but which, if presented with the right spin might make the public unhappy.
I hope you can see the difference. I really do.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Did you just not bother to read the very description you quoted?
Quote:
...Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
I'm pretty sure "looking at all the emails at the RNC to see if any include evidence of wrongdoing" falls under that catagory.
Quote:
...Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
I'm pretty sure "looking at all the emails at the RNC to see if any include evidence of wrongdoing" falls under that catagory.
Are you saying that the emails are relevant? If so, relevant information is discoverable. But, if you're saying those emails are not relevant, the issue is whether there are motives, discussions, etc. regarding the firing of these attorneys contained in RNC emails. Hence, attempting to discover those emails is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or it is at least relevant evidence. Perhaps you think this is too broad. How about I show you a typical federal form interrogatory request regarding email from a corporation:
Quote:
G. Email. Identify all email systems in use, including but not limited to the following:
1. all email software and versions presently and previously used by [Plaintiff] [Defendant] [Third Party] and the dates of use;
2. all hardware that has been used or is currently in use as a server for the email system, including its name;
3. the specific types of hardware that were used as terminals into the email system (including home PCs, laptops, desktops, cell phones, PDAs, etc.) and for each its current location;
4. how many users there have been on each email system (delineate between past and current users);
5. whether the email is encrypted in any way and the passwords for all users;
6. all users known to you who have generated email related to the subject matter of this litigation;
7. all email known to you (including creation date, recipient(s), and sender) that relate to, reference, or are relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
1. all email software and versions presently and previously used by [Plaintiff] [Defendant] [Third Party] and the dates of use;
2. all hardware that has been used or is currently in use as a server for the email system, including its name;
3. the specific types of hardware that were used as terminals into the email system (including home PCs, laptops, desktops, cell phones, PDAs, etc.) and for each its current location;
4. how many users there have been on each email system (delineate between past and current users);
5. whether the email is encrypted in any way and the passwords for all users;
6. all users known to you who have generated email related to the subject matter of this litigation;
7. all email known to you (including creation date, recipient(s), and sender) that relate to, reference, or are relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
Here's a nice request to produce to go along with that interrogatory:
Quote:
[Produce] Exact copies (i.e., bit-by-bit copies) of all hard drives on the desktop computers, laptop computers, notebook computers, personal digital assistant computers, servers, and other electronic media related to this action from [relevant time period].
It is clear that you can get just about anything you want and "relevant" is nearly all encompassing.
"Citing your sources isn't spoon feeding, it's basic 101 if you're making an argument."-Jophiel
Was the DNC at that time setting up a seperate email system to allow the presidents staff to skirt the Presidentials record act?
No, then what does the price of clam chowder have to do with the subpeonas then?
Edited, Apr 17th 2007 12:49pm by bodhisattva
No, then what does the price of clam chowder have to do with the subpeonas then?
Edited, Apr 17th 2007 12:49pm by bodhisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#50REDACTED,
Posted: Apr 17 2007 at 8:54 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Oh no those big bad Republicans deleted irrelevant files what a crime.
Quote:
Also, need I add that at least Ken Starr was investigating an actual criminal act (embezzlement, fraud, etc associated with the Whitewater business dealings).
And what, exactly, did Ms. Lewinsky have to do with any of that?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Recent Visitors: 200
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (200)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Gee, I guess those e-mails were just... "lost"
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC