HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Question--Did Team Bush e...

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 12:14 PM

 

Question--Did Team Bush ever turn over a whole shit load of e-mails?

The RepubliCons are combing through Hillary Clinton's e-mails . . . okay, good and fine.

So where're all the e-mails from the Bush years? Are they out there somewhere?

35 replies, 2226 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply Question--Did Team Bush ever turn over a whole shit load of e-mails? (Original post)
Damansarajaya Jul 2015 OP
OnyxCollie Jul 2015 #1
PufPuf23 Jul 2015 #4
PufPuf23 Jul 2015 #2
HassleCat Jul 2015 #28
SunSeeker Jul 2015 #3
former9thward Jul 2015 #6
Damansarajaya Jul 2015 #7
SunSeeker Jul 2015 #11
SunSeeker Jul 2015 #10
former9thward Jul 2015 #14
SunSeeker Jul 2015 #17
former9thward Jul 2015 #18
SunSeeker Jul 2015 #19
former9thward Jul 2015 #20
SunSeeker Jul 2015 #21
OnyxCollie Jul 2015 #23
OnyxCollie Jul 2015 #35
OnyxCollie Jul 2015 #22
misterhighwasted Jul 2015 #29
Orrex Jul 2015 #5
Damansarajaya Jul 2015 #9
Orrex Jul 2015 #12
arcane1 Jul 2015 #26
misterhighwasted Jul 2015 #30
Damansarajaya Jul 2015 #8
lame54 Jul 2015 #13
former9thward Jul 2015 #15
lame54 Jul 2015 #16
underpants Jul 2015 #33
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2015 #24
Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2015 #25
LWolf Jul 2015 #27
misterhighwasted Jul 2015 #31
LWolf Jul 2015 #32
misterhighwasted Jul 2015 #34

Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 12:23 PM

1. Nothing happened.

 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
MAJORITY STAFF
JUNE 2007

Interim Report
INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT VIOLATIONS

PREPARED FOR
CHAIRMAN HENRY A. WAXMAN

The Oversight Committee has been investigating whether White House officials violated the Presidential Records Act by using e-mail accounts maintained by the Republican National Committee and the Bush Cheney ‘04 campaign for official White House communications. This interim staff report provides a summary of the evidence the Committee has received to date, along with recommendations for next steps in the investigation.
The information the Committee has received in the investigation reveals:

• The number of White House officials given RNC e-mail accounts is higher than previously disclosed. In March 2007, White House spokesperson Dana Perino said that only a “handful of officials” had RNC e-mail accounts. In later statements, her estimate rose to “50 over the course of the administration.” In fact, the Committee has learned from the RNC that at least 88 White House officials had RNC e-mail accounts. The officials with RNC e-mail accounts include Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.

• White House officials made extensive use of their RNC e-mail accounts. The RNC has preserved 140,216 e-mails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these e-mails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official “.gov” e-mail accounts. Other heavy users of RNC e-mail accounts include former White House Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 e-mails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 e-mails). These e-mail accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.

• There has been extensive destruction of the e-mails of White House officials by the RNC. Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC e-mail accounts, the RNC has preserved no e-mails for 51 officials. In a deposition, Susan Ralston, Mr. Rove’s former executive assistant, testified that many of the White House officials for whom the RNC has no e-mail records were regular users of their RNC e-mail accounts. Although the RNC has preserved no e-mail records for Ken Mehlman, the former Director of Political Affairs, Ms. Ralston testified that Mr. Mehlman used his account “frequently, daily.” In addition, there are major gaps in the e-mail records of the 37 White House officials for whom the RNC did preserve e-mails. The RNC has preserved only 130 e-mails sent to Mr. Rove during President Bush’s first term and no e-mails sent by Mr. Rove prior to November 2003. For many other White House officials, the RNC has no e-mails from before the fall of 2006.

There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC e-mail accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records. In her deposition, Ms. Ralston testified that she searched Mr. Rove’s RNC e-mail account in response to an Enron-related investigation in 2001 and the investigation of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald later in the Administration. According to Ms. Ralston, the White House Counsel’s office knew about these e-mails because “all of the documents we collected were then turned over to the White House Counsel’s office.” There is no evidence, however, that White House Counsel Gonzales initiated any action to ensure the preservation of the e-mail records that were destroyed by the RNC.


Mike Duncan
Chairman
Republican National Committee
3 10 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

March 26, 2007

Two congressional investigations - one by the Oversight Committee and one by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees - have uncovered evidence that White House staff have used nongovernmental e-mail accounts to conduct official government business. Such emails written in the conduct of White House business would appear to be governmental records subject to preservation and eventual public disclosure.

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 establishes that the records of a president, his immediate staff, and certain units of the Executive Office of the President belong to the United States, not to the individual president or his staff. The Act further states that the president must "take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records pursuant to the requirements of this section and other provisions of law."

Evidence of the use of nongovernmental e-mail accounts has also emerged in the investigation of the firing of U.S. Attorneys being conducted by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. As part of this investigation, the Department of Justice has released thousands of pages of documents regarding the dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys in 2006. Among the documents released by the Justice Department is an e-mail exchange between J. Scott Jennings, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Political Affairs in the White House, and Kyle Sampson, the Chief of Staff of the Justice Department, that discussed how to replace Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cumins with Tim Griffin in a way that "would alleviate pressure/implication that Tim forced Bud out."7 In this e-mail exchange, as well as other exchanges, Mr. Jennings used a "gwb43.com" e-mail account maintained by the Republican National committee.8

A recent article in National Journal suggests that the use of nongovernmental e-mails by some high-ranking White House officials may be a common practice. According to this account, one former White House official said that Karl Rove uses his RNC account for "about 95 percent" of his e-mail.9 The National Journal account also raised questions about the preservation of these records. The article reports that the same former official said that the RNC has a policy of purging all e-mails after a short period of time, though it has chosen to preserve Mr. Rove's e-mails."

Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman


[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Mike Duncan
Chairman
Republican National Committee
3 10 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

April 18, 2007

To date, the Committee has received none of the information referenced above. Although staff met with RNC counsel and has communicated with RNC counsel by phone and email, the RNC still has not identified the "roughly 50" White House officials who held RNC accounts. And despite several requests, the RNC has not provided any details about the number of RNC e-mails sent or received by White House officials. This is elementary information that should already have been provided to the Committee.

Instead of providing this information, the RNC counsel has proposed to limit the Committee's request by using narrow "search terms" to identify e-mails relevant to the Committee's investigation. On Monday, RNC counsel proposed eight search terms, such as "political briefing," "Hatch Act," and "2008." While the "search term" approach was offered in good faith by the RNC counsel, it presents some serious problems. For example, the search terms proposed by the RNC would not have located a January 19,2007, e-mail from an official in Karl Rove's office to an official at the General Services Administration transmitting a copy of Powerpoint slides prepared by the White House that list the top 20 Democratic targets in 2008. That e-mail read: "Please do not email this out or let people see it. It is a close hold and we're not supposed to be emailing it around."'

Using search terms to limit the number of documents to be produced risks overlooking potentially responsive documents. The volume of e-mails involved may make resort to search terms necessary. But before the Committee can assess whether a search-term approach is required in this case - and whether it is required for every White House official or only some of them - the Committee needs basic facts about the scope and nature of the e-mails preserved on RNC servers. The Committee staff reasonably requested a meeting tomorrow to discuss these issues, but this request was unreasonably rejected. In fact, the RNC counsel stated that no meeting would occur until the Committee agreed to limiting search terms. This is not an acceptable proposal.

Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman


MEMORANDUM
February 26, 2008
Members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Democratic Committee Staff
Supplemental Information for Full Committee Hearing on White House E-mails

The process of recovering missing e-mails from RNC servers and White House back-up tapes has not begun. Beginning in April 2007, the Archives urged the White House to start recovering missing White House e-mails stored on back-up tapes maintained by the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the White House. In his May 1, 2007, letter, the Archivist advised Mr. Fielding that such a 'restoration' project can easily take more than one year to complete." Despite repeated requests from the Archives, these efforts have not yet begun. Moreover, the RNC has informed the Committee that it has no intention of trying to restore missing White House e-mails.

At this point, the full extent of the missing White House e-mails cannot be determined. There appear to be two main sources of missing e-mails. First, over 80 White House officials, including many of the most senior officials in the White House, regularly used RNC e-mail accounts. The RNC, however, has preserved no e-mails for over 50 of these officials and has saved few e-mails for the other officials from before fall 2006.

Second, an analysis of the White House e-mail system in 2005 identified over 700 days in which a component of the Executive Office of the President had an unusually low number of emails preserved on White House servers, including 473 days in which a component had no preserved e-mails. According to the analysis, there are 12 days of no e-mails for the President's immediate office and 16 days of no e-mails for the Vice President's office. The 2005 analysis was prepared by a team of 15 White House officials and contractor personnel supervised by Mr. McDevitt.

The White House is now disputing the accuracy of the 2005 analysis. In briefings with Committee staff, the White House has asserted that it has located at least some e-mails for each of the no-e-mail days for the White House Office as well as for five of the 16 no-e-mail days for the Office of the Vice President. The White House, however, has refused to share many other details with the Committee. At a meeting with the White House in October 2007, the Archives expressed doubts about the reliability of the new analysis being prepared by the White House.
According to the notes of this meeting:

We expressed great concern that the process was moving so slowly, and that we were very skeptical that the report results from the new tool could completely eliminate the possibility of messages missing from the collections system. We pointed out that some type of restoration project would inevitably be necessary if significant doubt remained that messages had not been collected, and that they should begin planning for such a project by requesting funding for the current FY.

The difficulties the White House encountered in recovering e-mails for Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also undermine its claim that the journaling system was adequate. According to documents provided and shown to the Committee, the journaling archive system contained no e-mails from the Office of the Vice President for important dates: September 30, 2003, to October 6, 2003. In an effort to recover the e-mails, the White House restored backup tapes for these days. These backup tapes also contained no journaled e-mails or .pst files for those dates for the Office of the Vice President. The only e-mails that could be recovered and provided to the Special Counsel were e-mails that the White House was able to restore from the personal email accounts of officials in the Vice President's office.

The Committee's investigation into the extent of the missing White House e-mails has been complicated by a lack of cooperation from the White House. The Committee requested documents from the White House on December 20,2007. Since that time, the White House has produced only a small number of documents, including no documents from either of the White House hearing witnesses, Theresa Payton, Chief Information Officer, and Alan Swendiman, Director of the Office of Administration. The White House also has withheld an unknown number of documents without any claim of executive privilege. In addition, the White House directed the National Archives to withhold various documents relating to White House actions, for which the Committee issued a subpoena.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 12:25 PM

4. Thanks. You are a better poster than lazy me. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 12:24 PM

2. What I recall is that the GWB admin used a non-federal email host

for years for most of the Executive branch and nothing of substance came of the event.

Worked for the GOP / Bushes and impacted the outcome of political crimes.

Here is summary (please excuse using wiki but I'm lazy):

Jump to: navigation, search


The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.[5]

The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an acronym standing for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.[7] Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc."[8]) and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"[9]), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.[10]

The "gwb43.com" domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee committee chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation.[11] Waxman sent a formal warning to the RNC, advising them to retain copies of all emails sent by White House employees. According to Waxman, "in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications."[12] The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.[13]

On April 12, 2007, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that White House staffers were told to use RNC accounts to "err on the side of avoiding violations of the Hatch Act, but they should also retain that information so it can be reviewed for the Presidential Records Act," and that "some employees ... have communicated about official business on those political email accounts."[14] Stanzel also said that even though RNC policy since 2004 has been to retain all emails of White House staff with RNC accounts, the staffers had the ability to delete the email themselves.

more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_system

IMHO the Hillary Clinton Benghazi / email "scandal" is BS to smear HRC and the Dems.

OTOH HCR should never have put herself in the position that the email electron trail would go missing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:44 PM

28. Gonzales... Gonzales... name sounds familiar

 

Is he the guy who tried to stop the US occupying forces from torturing "detainees." Yeah, that's the guy. And I remember how he did it. He defined torture as non-torture. Problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 12:25 PM

3. The Bush Administration cited Executive Privilege to withhold internal emails.

So we're never going to see them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 12:40 PM

6. No they didn't.

The National Archives has the Bush emails, http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/access/bush-email-restoration.pdf.

According to the National Archives you can see them starting August 17, 2015.

http://www.archives.gov/foia/pra-notifications/pdf/bush43/rn-lpgwb-2015-057.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 12:43 PM

7. Well, that should be interesting. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 12:53 PM

11. No it won't. The interesting stuff will be witheld.

They're not releasing emails covered by FOIA exemptions, as stated at the link provided by former9thward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 12:50 PM

10. Yes, they did.

Your own link says thousands of pages and hundreds of "assets" will not be released.

What they are releasing is inconsequential crap, not internal communications they deemed covered by the executive privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #10)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 02:48 PM

14. You said:

So we're never going to see them. That is untrue. The Archives has them and they can be seen starting in August. I have posted the links. No, we can't see those that are classified. That is true about the Bill Clinton emails and in the future about the Obama emails. No difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #14)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 04:06 PM

17. I was referring to the emails Bush withheld, which is the subject of the OP.

And it is not the "same as" Obama and Clinton. It was not just classified emails that were withheld. Bush/Cheney took assertions of privileges and exemptions to a whole new level. And that's the stuff they bothered to report and assert exemptions for, as noted up the thread.

Stop posting GOP propaganda on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 04:45 PM

18. Stop posting allegations without any proof on DU.

The Archives have all the emails as I have proved. Presidents do not get to pick and choose what is available. That is up to the National Archives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #18)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 06:11 PM

19. Seriously? Pull up a chair.

Not only did they refuse to disclose internal emails, but emails with outside private companies/individuals. On his 10th day as vice president, Dick Cheney established a secret “Energy Task Force,” formally known as the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), for the purpose of making recommendations to President Bush on energy policy. In formulating a new energy strategy for America, the task force met secretly with lobbyists and representatives of the petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, and electricity industries. Many of these individuals work for energy companies which gave large campaign contributionsto Bush/Cheney 2000. Environmental groups were mostly excluded from the task force.

Members of Congress demanded Cheney release the names of individuals and corporations who gave information and advice to the task force. But the vice president refused. After pressure from the General Accounting Office (GAO), the independent auditing arm of Congress, Cheney did release limited information about the task force. The GAO issued a report on the information and found several corporations and associations, including Chevron Corp. and the National Mining Association, gave detailed energy policy recommendations for the task force.

According to the GAO’s report, “senior agency officials” with the Department of Energy met “numerous times” with energy companies to provide advice to Cheney’s energy task force. Those companies include Bechtel, Chevron, American Coal Company, Small Refiners Association, the Coal Council, CSX, Kerr-McGee, Nuclear Energy Institute, the National Mining Association, General Motors, the National Petroleum Council, and the energy lobbying firm of Barbour, Griffith & Rogers. In addition, the Secretary of Energy discussed national energy policy with chief executive officers of petroleum, electricity, nuclear, coal, chemical, and natural gas companies, among others. The task force even sought and received advice from the disgraced and bankrupt Enron Corporation.

The GAO did not know whether Halliburton was one of the companies involved in making recommendations to the energy task force. And Cheney refused to release all the documents which can prove or disprove Halliburton’s involvement.

Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit in federal court to obtain the release of all of the task force records. The lawsuit argued that in 2001 Cheney violated the “open-government” law, known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, by meeting behind closed doors with energy industry executives, analysts and lobbyists. A federal appeals court ruled in July 2003 that Cheney must supply all the information requested in the lawsuit. But Cheney continued to stonewall the request. On December 15, 2003, the Supreme Court announced it will hear Cheney’s appeal of the case. Three weeks later, Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spent a weekend together duck hunting at a private resort in southern Louisiana, giving rise to calls for Scalia to recuse himself from Cheney’s appeal. What happened next was predictable.

Bush/Cheney got their way and denied public access to task force records that likely showed unprecedented corporate cronyism in the Bush administration, disproportionate influence over energy policy by Halliburton and other energy companies, and the true reasons for why the Bush administration demanded war with Iraq.

Here’s a link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/05/11/court_backs_cheney_on_energy_meetings/

And that's just one example. For another example, see post 1 in this thread.

No, the National Archives do not have everything from Bush/Cheney. Not even close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 06:31 PM

20. They do have it all.

Unless you are going to accuse them of lying and trying to do a cover up. Take your CTs elsewhere. Your link goes to a fight over papers by an in-power working administration. You can't get that type of stuff from the Obama administration either. The OP is about emails from an administration out of power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #20)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 06:45 PM

21. No, they don't. This word "all," you keep using it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:17 PM

23. Some, but not all.

 

Bush E-mails Found: 22 Million Missing E-mails From George W. Bush White House Recovered
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/bush-emails-found-22-mill_n_391557.html

It will be years before the public sees any of the recovered e-mails because they will now go through the National Archives' process for releasing presidential and agency records. Presidential records of the Bush administration won't be available until 2014 at the earliest.

~snip~

The two private organizations say there is not yet a final count on the extent of missing White House e-mail and there may never be a complete tally.

~snip~

The government now can find and search 22 million more e-mails than it could in late 2005 and the settlement means that the Obama administration will restore 94 calendar days of e-mail from backup tape, said Kristen Lejnieks, an attorney representing the National Security Archive.

Stanzel, the former White House spokesman, said that the 94 days of e-mails to be recovered from back-up tapes consist of 61 calendar days already planned in the Bush era and an additional 33 days of recovery that the Obama White House have agreed to recover as part of the settlement of the court case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 03:27 PM

35. Actually, the OP is about emails from an in-power working administration.

 

See post #1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:07 PM

22. The issue with the NEPDG meeting is the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

 

By claiming that the NEPDG meeting involved only executive branch members, Cheney et al. did not have to provide any info to the GAO.

The GAO dropped their case, but the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch pushed on, resulting in Cheney v. U.S. District Court.

Years later it was reported that the NEPDG had met with Chevron, Duke Energy, and other oil companies.

The NEPDG occurred during the first week of the Bush administration; the missing emails occurred between 2003 and 2005.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:47 PM

29. Thank you. If anyone believes the Bush admin was ever truthful about anything,

You might be a Right Winger.

Just sayin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 12:29 PM

5. Sure! Here's a sample.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #5)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 12:48 PM

9. LOL! good one . . . nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 01:05 PM

12. Sadly, that's a document released by the Obama-era Justice Department

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:34 PM

26. Oh, well it's different when it's not Bush doing it.

 

Just like using non-official email was bad when he did it, and DU was universal in criticizing the practice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:49 PM

30. HaaHaaa! YUP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 12:43 PM

8. Okay, thanks to all. Lots of good info here. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 02:31 PM

13. Remember the fire in Cheney's office

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 02:49 PM

15. Fire doesn't destroy emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 03:09 PM

16. it destroys hard-copies...

and looks suspicious as hell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #15)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 01:03 PM

33. It does when you have to put out the fire with axes and sledgehammers

Not that they actually did that. I think they just threw the server out a high window.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:22 PM

24. The world will NEVER change if we base our behavior on the past behavior of people we hate.

 

UNLESS, make and keep a promise to ourselves to act OPPOSITE of the way they did. But that's not what we're doing here.

I hate this childish "But Daddy, he/she did it TOO!" bullshit way of thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:31 PM

25. Probably not. But let's talk about Hillary to death

Even some around here (whom probably don't like Hillary much to begin with) seem want to make a big thing about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:36 PM

27. Did anybody ever ask him to?

IIR, Pelosi kept making GWB accountable for anything off the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #27)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:53 PM

31. Wouldn't have matter one bit. Bush boy was protected by Cheney's crime ring.

Geez I find it appaulling that Anyone on a Dem Site defends Team Cheney.
That's a pathetic attempt to hold Sec Clinto or any Dem accountable.
Team Cheney covered their filthy criminal tracks.
My gawd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #31)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:57 PM

32. Who is defending Cheney?

I haven't seen that. Disclaimer: I don't read everything on DU.

I simply pointed out that Pelosi protected him...which, to be frank, is a little more anger-inspiring than Cheney. Atrocity from within is always worse than from the enemy. It's the betrayal factor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #32)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 01:06 PM

34. Pelosi didn't protect anyone. She knew Cheny covered his sorry ass.

But but but Cheney....
I doubt that we are privy to half the dirty deals Pelosi or any other Dem knows of.
We'd like to know, but we don't have the security clearance they do.
All we have is a glass screen with a keyboard attached.

We will never know a spec of the hell brought down on our Nation by the Bush/Cheney criminals.
Bye

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread