THEY Must Be Dreaming . . .

If they think for one minute we’re going to believe that FOUR YEARS of Karl Rove’s emails have mysteriously gone missing

A lawyer for the Republican National Committee told congressional staff members yesterday that the RNC is missing at least four years’ worth of e-mail from White House senior adviser Karl Rove that is being sought as part of investigations into the Bush administration, according to the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

And this is after the RNC reportedly took action to prevent just such a thing . . .specifically involving Karl Rove. 

GOP officials took issue with Rep. Henry Waxman‘s account of the briefing and said they still hope to find the e-mail as they conduct forensic work on their computer equipment. But they acknowledged that they took action to prevent Rove — and Rove alone among the two dozen or so White House officials with RNC accounts — from deleting his e-mails from the RNC server. Waxman (D-Calif.) said he was told the RNC made that move in 2005. 

Republicans must be soooo proud.

This is one dog that ain’t gonna hunt.  I bet Cheney’s regretting his epithet slur at my senator.  Go get ’em, Pat.


6 thoughts on “THEY Must Be Dreaming . . .

  1. Ah, so it IS just about finding a way to attack Karl Rove.

    As if the fact that they are demanding emails from 2001 onwards — way before the attorney firings were even discussed — wasn’t enough of a clue.

    And on the horizon, I’m sure we’ll see telephone records, fax machine logs, dry-cleaning receipts, and people on the street being subpoenaed as the progressively-more wild-eyed Leahy and Waxman go digging, digging, desperate for anything to prove that Karl Rove is the serial-killing puppy-eating terrorist that they believe him to be.

    What I find most amusing is that Leahy and Waxman, who have made careers out of opposing data mining of private entities and individuals to discover evidence of terrorist activities, is now pushing to do the same to discover evidence of political activities.

    It really shows well what their priorities are. They oppose looking for data that could prevent another three thousand people from being killed, but support doing the same for their petty political vendettas.

  2. It’s called “accountability” – something this administration has not had to adhere to until now. I agree – go get ’em Pat. PAT LEAHY – A true patriot indeed.

    They’ve gotten away with enough for long enough. Just because they don’t have a rubber stamp anymore doesn’t meant Pat is data mining. If they aren’t worried, why are they practicing their testimony at great length? Should be easy to just speak the truth. It should just roll off your tongue.

  3. NDT, There is so much wrong with that statement I don’t know where to begin.

    How about: there is no possible physical way to “erase” those particular emails. I know this for a fact, not just opinion. Without physically destroying the servers, which are locked in a room by themselves with restricted access, mind you, it’s simply impossible. There’s an axiom among government workers: if you wouldn’t say it in public, don’t put it in an email. Because they NEVER go away. So they’re purposely lying about it.

    And I hope they do pursue Rove to the fullest extent of the law. Maybe then he’d have a clue about what the law actually IS.

    Leahy and Waxman, who have made careers out of opposing data mining of private entities and individuals to discover evidence of terrorist activities . . .

    Leahy has made a career of pursuing justice while a prosecutor, and advocating for victims’ rights, and helping to preserve our state, family farms, and acted with Jim Jeffords to enact much beneficial environmental legislation. He’s been a senator longer than Bush’s been sober, so your slander isn’t necessary. If you want to debate the merits of datamining–which has already been abused (if you ever check my sidebar once in a while you might have seen that story)–then debating it is fine, but your efforts to misconstrue Patrick Leahy as someone he isn’t will not go unchecked.

    Personally I disagree with the data mining provisions as they were written. They are too broad in several aspects. Just as it’s ridiculous to strip search a little old lady at the airport, it’s ridiculous to scour receipts from bookstores and library records to see what people are reading and then put them on some arbitrary list.

    Who do you think buy books in small local bookstores? Terrorists? I’d bet they use Amazon or the internet or big book stores.

    Only true bibliophiles patronize their local small book shops.

    And they don’t oppose finding data to save lives. They opposed the incremental chipping away of our rights. I know the difference is nuanced, but do try to keep up.

  4. How about: there is no possible physical way to “erase” those particular emails. I know this for a fact, not just opinion.

    Really, Jamie? You’ve seen the RNC email servers? What ones do they use? Where are they located? What’s the access code? What protocols are they running? What’s their primary setup? What has their history been for the past five years? Can you document, using procedures and process manuals, that all the emails that were ever issued on this server can be recovered at any time?

    And if you can’t answer all of those questions, you don’t have fact.

    And that brings up an important point. Leahy has full access to the White House and other government emails — which the White House has gladly handed over. What they are subpoenaing are the RNC’s emails, using the theory that a government employee’s emails, even if they aren’t on a government server, cannot currently be demonstrated to even have anything to do with government business, and from a time preceding what Congress is supposedly investigating, are automatically government property and should be handed over on demand.

    If they aren’t worried, why are they practicing their testimony at great length? Should be easy to just speak the truth. It should just roll off your tongue.

    Because, Sigh, what they are dealing with is this:

    They’ve gotten away with enough for long enough.

    In other words, you already believe they’re guilty.

    When you are in a place with people who have already demonstrated their prejudices, you must realize that the point of these hearings is not to find fact, but to find reason for attack. With that in mind, you measure every word and you rehearse your answers. If you ever go to court or are ever deposed, you’ll realize that.

    But that really is the whole point here, Sigh. Neither you or Jamie are interested in facts; you merely want confirmation of your beliefs that Rove is guilty and should be punished. Leahy is merely demonstrating how easy it is to manipulate liberals and Democrats by playing on their prejudices — just like another Democrat prosecutor.

  5. Meanwhile, as for data mining, I will phrase it this way; while I don’t think the Federal government needs to keep dibs on everything that everyone is reading/calling/accessing, I do think they should take more than a passing interest in who checks out “Jihad For Dummies” repeatedly.

    This is similar to my employee screens on email and Web access at work. My primary concern is that the employees not use company resources to do something bad for which we can be held accountable. They’re not likely to do that browsing CNN;, though, is a different matter. If they access a suspicious site once or twice, not an issue; however, it points me to be looking at other data concerning what exactly it is they’re doing there.

    In short, you don’t need to track everything everything. But you do need to have the ability to identify potential problems when they first show up and look for additional linkages — which Leahy’s flat rejection would fatally cripple.

  6. Leahy is not manipulating me. You have it backwards. He is voicing the concerns of me and many others who do not get their politics from the pulpit or Fox News. Yep – you can’t wipe the smile off my face when I hear Pat go after the truth. One positive note is that because of the last 6 years, I have had a political awakening or awareness that I have never had before. And I don’t just complain – I vote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s