WHITE HOUSE Tells Conyers: IT WILL - NOT - TURN OVER RNC E-MAILS

[kpete]

White House says it will not turn over RNC emails


April 12, 2007

White House Tells Democrats No Deal on Rove Testimony or E-mails


White House Counsel Fred Fielding, in a letter today, told Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, that the White House has not budged in its refusal to allow the panels to question several White House aides, including Karl Rove, about what they know regarding the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, moving the two sides closer to a constitutional battle over the scandal.

Fielding also appears to be trying to head off an attempt by Conyers to obtain e-mails and documents from the Republican National Committee regarding the firings. Roughly 50 White House officials, including 22 curent aides, used e-mail accounts controlled by the RNC to send messages, including some related to the prosecutor firings, and Conyers asked RNC Chairman Mike Duncan to turn over those records today.

Fielding also said that "it was and remains our intention to collect e-mails and documents from those accounts as well as the official White House e-mail and document retention systems" as part of a broader deal with the two committees on staffer testimony.

Fielding has offered to allow Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and other Bush aides to be questioned by committee investigators, but only behind closed doors, and not under oath. Fielding also won't allow any transcript of those interviews to be made. Conyers and Leahy have rejected the offer as woefully inadequate, and while both committees have authorized subpoenas for Rove, Miers and the others, only Conyers has issued up until now and those were for documents only.

more at:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0407/White_House_Tells_Democrats_No_Deal_on_Rove_Testimony_or_Emails.html

[senseandsensibility]

1. OMG

That is all.

[CatWoman]

2. !!

:nuke:

[senseandsensibility]

9. Exactly, CatWoman.

Still wordless here.:wow: And I'm not wordless often.

[Kikosexy2]

136. Subpoenas galore...

now!!!....and impeach after....

[Jack Rabbit]

150. I thought that was my line

Those are rabbit tracks.

!!

[tridim]

16. This is very "OMG" worthy.

What the hell are they thinking? It's like they're daring Congress to impeach their asses.

[Dinger]

20. Bing-Fucking-Go!

That is EXACTLY what they are doing!

[dchill]

66. One can only imagine...

what must be in those emails. SOMEONE* WILL go to jail for contempt of Congress if subpoenas are ignored.

Besides, executive privilege only extends to direct communications with the President - and since Bush "doesn't do email" it seems unlikely that any of Rove's emails would be "covered" under that claim.

* Karl Rove

[me b zola]

92. I see it as the regime playing a huge game of chicken

*co has nothing--I mean nothing to lose. If they hand over documents that is evidence that they will be--eventually--judged on.

But by refusing to cooperate they push Dems into a game of chicken. The gop stands to lose even bigger in '08 then they did in '06. Most Americans don't really pay attention to what is going on, just the highlights of what the media has chewed & swallowed for them. If the media isn't outraged and biting at the chomp by now over the too-numerous-to-count cases of illegal and unConstitutional behavior by this administration, the gop feels as though they at least stand a chance in the upcoming elections by way of the "over-reaching" card".

I've played a bit of poker and I always oblige someone with a weak hand (pukes)who wants to raise the bet when I'm holding a royal flush (Dems).


Time to go "all in".

[EVDebs]

144. No, the GOP will lose even bigger than 1976

and risks becoming the 'party of corruption' if you dig deeper into the CIA/GOP $ scandal. The media appears to have dropped it,

"It's all part of a growing ongoing investigation into corruption in defense and intelligence contracts, which already has sent former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham to prison and, legal sources say, may threaten others in Congress and the CIA. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12634250/

but the story is still out there. All you have to do to connect the dots to Danny Casolaro's and Gary Webb's original research on this is go back to So. Cal. and look a bit higher up. Remember the Wackenhut/Cabazon indian tribe's WMD agreement ? Anyone remember Iran-Contra and 'off the shelf' capabilities ?

The CIA runs their beyond-oversight ops thru the DOD, per Tim Weiner's book Blank Check: The Pentagon's Secret Budget. They also are skimmable that way. Remember Watergate ? All The President's Men has 'Chilean investors' depositing $ in a Nixon-accessable Mexican bank that Woodstein never followed back to the original source. That was CIA $ from Chile operations agains Allende coming back into the US version of the CIA's fund our friends system. You're not supposed to do those things DOMESTICALLY but the CIA now has a domestic ops branch setting up shop in the Democratic Party's convention city of Denver. Go figure.

This time, CIA insiders need to come out and start exposing the DOMESTIC stuff the GOP is doing. Conyers et al will have hearings that will make REAL AMERICANS (Red and Blue) blood boil !

[Fovea]

162. Do I have to start calling KKKarl "Susan" now?

McDougal, that is

[Qutzupalotl]

165. I wonder if Bush DOES "do" email after all...

This might put the lie to that and hundreds of other public statements.

[youthere]

77. In the words of Colbert:

"The president is saying that if you DON'T impeach him, you're a bunch a pussies. Well? Are you? Are you pussies? I think you are"
:rofl:

[myrna minx]

99. That's exactly what I was thinking.

They are playing a very dangerous game of chicken, trying to force a Constitutional crisis. :nuke:

[NormanYorkstein]

3. Is impeachment still off the table?

Here's an idea, let's wait for the Supreme Court to decide in two years. Surely the Supreme Court will be fair and evenhanded!

[Snotcicles]

46. Whats the penalty for treason? nt

[NormanYorkstein]

a Presidential pardon?

[Kool Kitty]

69. No, no, no, not a pardon, silly!

A PROMOTION!

[NormanYorkstein]

74. of course!

how could I have forgotten!

[orleans]

81. not a promotion--try medal of freedom! n/t

[mainegreen]

155. funniest post this week. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

177. Read on Watergate

the WH just walked into the same scenario

Impeachment was off the table in '72... my guess is... it will be on the table very soon

I call this... check mate

[Shakespeare]

4. That, essentially, is a declaration of war.

And our side better bring it. These criminal assholes have overstepped too far, too often.

[spindrifter]

5. I have never thought there should be a

political advisor position at the WH. The President should be doing the people's business, not taking orders from his chief political hack. If you got rid of KKKarl, then you would have the president's attorney, and my position with respect to her is that "even" if she has any kind of confidential atty.-client relationship with the president, she does not have an atty. client relationship with the DOJ. Her job is not to advise all cabinet heads and their departments.

[Oilwellian]

6. Time for the US Marshalls to step in

We've been patient long enough.

[femrap]

33. I was just thinking about those

US Marshalls today....great minds think alike, huh?

[Mme. Defarge]

57. Damn the torpedoes ...

full speed ahead!

[bdamomma]

97. can US Marshalls just arrest them all. I only wish

[mnhtnbb]

159. US Marshalls should have been sent to seize the ballot boxes in FL 2000

Yes, I think we've waited long enough.

[nadinbrzezinski]

185. Them marshals have no jurisdiccion on this

Bush can kill a kid on national teevee and he is immunte UNTIL impeachment comes to the fore.

[City Lights]

7. Time to play this card...

[AspenRose]

147. Damn straight!

eom

[Erika]

8. How "Nixonian" of the WH n/t

[EFerrari]

10. Go get 'em, Nancy!

lol

[americanstranger]

11. Time to serve those subpoenas.

Many, many, many subpoenas.

The gloves are off. It's clobberin' time.

- as

[WinkyDink]

12. You'd think FF would have learned by now.........

"He served as Associate Counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1970 to 1972, where he was the deputy to John Dean during the Watergate scandal."
(Wikipedia)

[senseandsensibility]

14. Truth is stranger than fiction

Thanks for reminding us of that.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

180. That's why I seldom read fiction. True crime is much more fun.

[loudsue]

79. I hope he proves to be just as unlucky for his clients this time, too!

If the white house was looking for a lucky charm, FF prolly isn't it.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Horse with no Name]

13. They better not get away with this

Enough is enough.
Evict the bastards.

[Solly Mack]

15. keep turning the other cheek and Bush'll keep slapping

Don't give him the benefit of the doubt
Don't ever think you can compromise with him
Don't ever delude yourself into thinking he'll keep his word
Don't ever give him wiggle room

Go after him like someone's life depends on it...because it does.

[w4rma]

55. Exactly. (nt)

[Jackpine Radical]

17. So, what are the enforcement options?

Subpoenas are served. There is no response. Then what?

[halobeam]

22. don't give them a dime FOR ANYTHING.

Thats it. Thats all we have left and thats all they really want. If they don't want a democracy, then they ought to come right out and say it. Now I'm too pissed to go to bed.

[bdamomma]

96. they don't know what a democracy is.

these SOB's have got to go, War Criminals all of them, I would love to smack those smirks off their faces.

[SammyWinstonJack]

100. I think George has said that, in so many words.

This would be easier if it were a Dictatorship, so long as I'm the Dictator. gwb December 18,2000.

[bdamomma]

103. probably the only thing that he said that was true.

and that comment was the key that this is what this imbecile believes, what American President has ever said that? I can't recall one. We have a madman in abuse of power.

[JackRiddler]

170. Not the case.

He also said (from memory), 20th C. history is full of examples of evil men seizing power over nations, building horrifying arsenals and threatening their neighbors. This was supposed to be about Saddam, but nearly all of his statements about Saddam were cases of projection.

He also said, "Lucky me, I hit the trifecta" in reference to 9/11 (about a dozen times).

He also said, "Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories," even as he pimped them.

He also said, "I didn't live in this century."

He also said, "Our enemies never stop thinking of ways to harm our nation - and neither do we."

[SlowDownFast]

108. Yep, shut the fucking lights off

in the White House.

Congress has the authority.

[TomInTib]

25. I believe it goes to US Marshall's office.

And then to contempt.

They are running out the clock.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. Don't contempt charges have to be enforced by the Executive?

Isn't the US Marshall's office part of the Executive?

I never realized how downright paranoid these people have made me.

[TomInTib]

Yeah.

I just couldn't bring myself to type same.

Figured you would know that, anyhow.

This is going nowhere, fast.

The WH will chunk some chum over the side, but guaranteed that they are watching the clock.

[halobeam]

41. dupe

[halobeam]

42. according to post 28

congress holds authority to cite inherent contempt.

[meldroc]

128. Inherent contempt... I LIKE IT!!!

It's archaic, and cumbersome, but if Congress chooses to do it, then they can send the House or Senate Seargent at Arms to arrest people and bring them before Congress.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

181. Shitfire! Didn't know that.

When I went to law school and took Remedies class, I don't think we heard about inherent contempt. Just civil and criminal contempt.

[fooj]

53. I don't believe it.

The feeling I get (perhaps it's all in my head) is that the American people have had ENOUGH. Seriously. Don't you think so? Something is in the air and it's not the stench of Little Lord Pissypants and his minions. It's the smell of raw, unmitigated contempt and anger.

IMO, they can focus on that "clock" all they want. There's NO PLACE to hide. I don't think that they planned for this unexpected turn of events. I'm thinking it's pretty gnarly on their end right about now.

[City Lights]

94. I tend to agree with you.

They didn't expect to lose the midterms, and were caught with their pants down.

[meldroc]

127. That's what Special Prosecutors are for.

Since it's obvious that the DOJ has a huge conflict of interest in this case, Congress needs to appoint a special prosecutor, or just sic Fitzgerald on the White House. He has all the powers of a U.S. Attorney, but he answers to Congress, not Bush or Gonzo. And yes, he can draft up warrants, get a judge to sign them, and send Federal Marshals to enforce them.

[City Lights]

28. FWIW, here's the Wikipedia entry for Contempt of Congress:

Procedures

Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.

Inherent Contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years.

Statutory Proceedings

Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney; according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.

The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. Those penalities are enforced upon conviction, even if the Congress which initiatied the contempt citation has expired.

The statutory procedure has generally been used by Congress since 1935. But its use does leave some things unclear. The law pronounces the "duty" of U.S. Attorney is to empanel a grand jury and for its action on the matter. But dispute exists over whether or not the Congress can properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action, as the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch and ultimately reports to the President. (The Courts have been reluctant to decide this question, claiming it is a "political question" for resolution by the elected branches of government.)

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

[Jackpine Radical]

34. Thank you. It is as I thought.

The law pronounces the "duty" of U.S. Attorney is to empanel a grand jury and for its action on the matter. But dispute exists over whether or not the Congress can properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action, as the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch and ultimately reports to the President.

Anybody think Gonzo will see it as his duty to put himself before a grand jury?

[halobeam]

39. so if I understand this correctly...

US attny's are members of exec. branch, reports to pres. so the congress's authority to cite inherent contempt resides, but must be carried out by US Attny. US Attny's REPORT to Pres. but they are actually supposed to WORK FOR us. They work for us, and report to Pres.

So, we tell US Attny "X" (who might actually at this point not be too difficult to 'compel') to enpanel a grand jury and "report" to the President that he is fucked.

Works for me.

[roamer65]

18. Articles of Impeachment need to be introduced...NOW!

[napi21]

146. Not yet! we still don't have the votes, and we'd look very foolish

for presenting articles of impeachment, and then fail to get them passed. I know we've all beentold to be patient way too many times, but since January and the new Congress, things are looking up. Every week, and sometimes every day, new issuesof probable criminal activity surface. You can see the Pubs getting more and more disgusted with this crowd of crooks.

Be patient a little bit longer. I really believe, in a few months it will become obvious that Shrub's Party has abandoned him. THEN will be the time for "I".

[Fovea]

163. You're right

we've been told to be patient far too many times.

I would rather us look foolish to 20% of the wingnuts than craven and feckless to the rest of the world in the face of a constitutional crisis of this magnitude.

Merde!

[halobeam]

19. omg

Showdown!

:wow:

[bonito]

21. Illegal residence of the white house to America ,bend over again n/t

[mmonk]

23. According to CREW, there's a loophole in the Presidential Records Act

that there is no way to compel a president to comply with the Act until he leaves office. Is this the angle they are taking and do subpoenas override that loophole?
http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/041207WithoutATraceFullReport.pdf

[halobeam]

26. so then lets get him out of office...

if it takes every Dem. citizen to be all over Pelosi's shit to do it, then that's what has to be done. We can NOT back down. We are goners if we do. Goners.

[mmonk]

37. It says the Act can be amended

but maybe congress can get them for contempt? Or maybe the subpoenas overrule the loophole since it is an investigation. I don't know, just asking.

[halobeam]

45. I don't know

if subpeona overrules the loophole. Good question.

[Occulus]

85. Fine. That's HIM.

HE is not the RNC, he is not the server admin, he is not every reader of every email. This was a political server on which government business was done explicitly to avoid complying with the law in the first place.

If he cannot be compelled to comply, why do it in the first place- especially since a Constitutional crisis is what he seems to want?

[mmonk]

95. From what I understand, the WH wants these emails

of administration officials sent to them instead of sent to the House. I guess the question is do they have ultimate control over these particular emails or does the RNC?

[soulcore]

24. That's a line in the sand if I've ever seen one.

Failure to follow through, really follow through, it tantamount to aiding and abetting at this point.

[Canuckistanian]

27. That, my friends, was a clear declaration of war

War between the Executive and Congressional branches of the US of A.

The constitutional crisis has arrived.

[halobeam]

30. great fing bedtime story huh?

I'm livid beyond belief. LIVID.

[IChing]

36. How much more of that pen of fascism will be shoved into our

collective butt until we say no more? This is a rape of our constitution.

Shut down the financing of all federal government,

[halobeam]

40. agreed...

see my post #22

[Spazito]

29. Oh my, this could get REAL interesting given Congressman

Conyers letter to the RNC today:

snip

We understand that the White House has asked for all e-mails by or to White House officials that are stored on or retrievable from RNC servers. Our request is narrower, specifically limited to e-mails and other records relating to the US Attorney matters we are investigating, as described above. Particularly as these e-mails have gone outside the confines of official White House communications channels, we would ask that, whatever you may be doing to respond to the White House request, you treat our request as separate and provide the materials we have requested directly to us, as quickly as possible, rather than diverting them into a White House review of the larger set of e-mails and thereby delaying our receipt of them. One of your counsel suggested at a recent briefing you are considering the latter course. We would consider that to be an unjustified delay in responding to our request and potentially as an obstruction of justice of our investigation, and we urge you not to follow that course.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/conyers-sanchez-usa/?resultpage=3&

It seems Congressman Conyers is ahead of the game on this, no surprise, imo, he has been ahead of them all the way.

[senseandsensibility]

32. Yes Conyers may come across as the lovable

slightly befuddled guy on TV, but I have never doubted him for one second. I may have to switch back to my Conyers avatar.

[fooj]

56. He's a wise, experienced patriot.

:patriot:

[Spazito]

64. He certainly is, one you all should be (and DUers are) proud

of, he, and others, are fighting for the future of your country, fighting to repair the damage done to your awesome Constitution and restore the checks and balances the founders believed were the foundations of your democracy.

[Spazito]

67. He, and others, have been working on this for a long time,

well before the 2004 election, so that when the change in power happened, they would be able to hit the road running and he certainly has done so!

[Pachamama]

43. I'm loving me some John Conyers.....

:hi: Spazito!

Things are getting interesting aren't they?

Btw- I'm here in your country right now for the Easter week....skiing at Whistler, BC....

[Spazito]

62. Oh, very cool! Whistler is awesome, imo!

I hope there is plenty of powder and the sun is bright for you!

Things are getting VERY interesting down there and, at the same time, very hopeful! I want so much for the people of the United States to reclaim their awesome Constitution and, thanks to Conyers, Leahy, and all the others, it is becoming a real possibility!

[Pachamama]

125. Whistler has been great Spazito!

Plenty of snow up high and some sun (off and on between the clouds). Right now as I woke up this morning, there is unfortunately rain down at the village, but its snowing up high.

Yeah, I'm watching anxiously as I watch all these events unfolding too...I do so wish for this criminal cabal that has been destroying our Constitution to finally be brought to justice. Conyers, Leahy, Waxman et al really are trying. The possibility is there. Stay tuned...and thanks for all the neighborly support.

:hug:

[ishtar66]

88. Whistler is in Canada

and canada is not the u.s. of a.

[Pachamama]

123. Kein scheisse Scherlock!!!

Maybe if next time before you post a snarky response thinking your attacking some ignorant American and feeling the need to protect your Canadian honor, you might want to check and see that the post was answering the comment of a fellow Canuck (Spazito) who I correspond with regularly and knows that I'm in Canada and he is too, EH?

[Straight Shooter]

35. They are hiding something BIG TIME.

It's simple, if you look at it from bush's point of view: Rove is more important than the Constitution, more important than Congress, more important than democracy, and Rove of course is more important than the entire U.S. citizenry.

Madness.

[Stephanie]

38. Yes, they are hiding that they fired US Attys who wd not help with election rigging, for one thing

And that's jsut for starters, obviously.

[halobeam]

44. right. They have to fight this or it's over for them.

We also have to fight this, or it' over for us.

The gloves are off.

US citizens vs. Bush Administration

[bdamomma]

101. it's going to come to that, Us vs Bush Administration

they are not listening to us, and they are committing high crimes, war criminal acts. Power in Numbers.

[tridim]

49. Since the WH is withholding the information we're free to make guesses..

What else could be in all those emails that they thought would never be seen by anyone?

Fun with Gannon?
Talking points direct to the media? Media control?
Full * knowledge in outing Plame and Brewster Jennings?
Discussion about fake niger docs?
Anthrax letters?
Ken Lay alive and well?
Lots of suicided witnesses?
Real reasons for Iraq?
LIHOP, MIHOP?

The mind boggles. Could be anything, and it's probably much worse than any of us can imagine.

[PinkyisBlue]

84. Paul Wellstone's small plane "accident"? Election fraud in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere?

[disndat]

173. Ken Lay, alive and well?

Amazing. You belong to my exclusive club, "Ken Lay is alive and well." under a witness protection program wearing a wig, somewhere in Dubai or the Cote d'Azur.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

182. Would you like to buy a print of my picture?

I did a painting of the asskicking Goddess Kali Durga riding her tiger, and her tiger is stomping on Ken Lay's head and the Enron E.
I did this before he died.
Bit of karma there.

[SharonAnn]

118. Yes, they are. And it's "unsurvivable" if it's found out. That's why they're stonewalling.

[Straight Shooter]

129. I think that's the key right there. It's "unsurvivable."

Perhaps plans to sabotage the Democrats with plans of conducting Watergate-type surveillance on Congressional offices, not to mention all the other goings-on.

Remember how all the Repubs jumped to the defense of Rep. Jefferson (the bribery)? That was weird and totally out of character for them.

[caligirl]

47. Fielding ought to be investigated for ethics violations for persuing such a refusal.

[global1]

115. Exactly - It Looks Like Fielding Is Part and Parcel To Obstruction of...

Justice.

[jwirr]

48. When Nixon refused to hand over the documents he was being

impeached already. This damn fascist administration is not going to give in even if we call the hearings an impeachment. I do not know what can be done but I think it might come down to withholding money. Shutting the government down: all except the safety net.

[Triana]

52. WELL? Are Democrats going to DO it then?

Do you REALLY think they'll shut down the gov't, withhold funds, impeach?

I'm sorry, but I somehow doubt it and I tend to think bu$hit Inc will get away with this. And I think they know they will.

I

HOPE

I'M

WRONG!!!

[jwirr]

54. I hope you are wrong also but this thread has me very scared that

there is nothing we can do short of revolting.

[noise]

65. The Bush White House is a 5th column

They have used fearmongering and called people traitors to fool the public.

[bdamomma]

104. are they testing us??? because enough is enough

or will we find our spines. We have a sick little man in the WH.

[DearAbby]

50. Showdown

Is it time for Torches and pitchforks?

[flying_monkeys]

51. Wow. This kind of totally validates that psychology report....

The one by (I think 2 psych guys named) Briggs posted on this forum in some threads below....


Bush just can't admit to any type of shortcoming. He is going defiant instead.



I think this is ShowDown time.

[Disturbed]

60. The Dems screwed up.

They should've Impeached Gonzo as soon as they got into power.

Now there are only two options and neither are workable. The Busholini Fascists will win again.

[flying_monkeys]

61. I am nursing a beer so please

explain your post to me in little words? :)


What are the two options that won't work?

[Cleita]

58. Looks like things are going to start hitting the fan sooner

than we thought.

:popcorn:

[Rex]

59. Oh man.

I'm sure they will compromise and show GOPers in Congress. Probably release some here and some there, later on. Make it stretch out as far as it can go. Milk it. Conyers will get the documents. All of them.

[Disturbed]

63. What are the two options that won't work?

Contempt of Congress.

Impeachment of Bush.

[Oilwellian]

68. Can Congress have the computers & servers in question...

confiscated? Isn't that what the federal government does to your average citizen when they're being investigated for a crime?

[Kool Kitty]

70. I would think so.

Goddammit. The Friday news dump should be choice this week. I can't even imagine. And Gonzo's testimony ought to be a real howler. (Unless he can figure out a way to wriggle out of it.)

[Pacifist Patriot]

105. Can't see any reason why not.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

183. Those servers were private and illegally used RNC servers.

They did that explicitly to go around the legal requirements that they use govmint servers. The servers should be seized immediately and impounded.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

71. OK surround the WH and don't let them out.

until the emails are found!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

73. should be front page headlines but what do we get instead - Imus?

[Kablooie]

72. They are clearly saying, "We DARE you to take us to the Supreme Court"

Probably because they have some card up their sleeve that makes them think they will win in court.

Why the hell can't they just get rid of these pustulants instead of waiting for the court to fiddle around.

[Triana]

120. The Supreme Court is stacked by bu$hit...

..they're useless, a joke and ineffective. They are part of the problem. They are NOT going to do anything to GWB, Inc. no matter WHAT he/they do.

Forget it.

[Nia Zuri]

158. Remember Harriet Myers for Supreme Court Justice

It all makes sense now...

[jollyreaper2112]

75. yay!

This is why I agreed with the idea of holding off on impeachment and doing hearings. Eventually, enough truth would come out that the people would demand impeachment, not the dems, and it would be harder to portray things as political games. With the bushies openly showing contempt of congress, this is a story easy enough to sell on the news. This is impeachable stuff that the american people can understand!

[loudsue]

82. The truth of this will only be mentioned in passing on the "news", if at all.

The same bunch of crooks OWN the "news" that are in the white house and the justice department.

:kick:

[beltanefauve]

87. Yes, but don't underestimate US

This whole story broke, and won't go away in the first place, because of Josh Marshal and TPM and US, the bloggers and the citizen journalists who call them on their shit and let the cream rise to the top when the MSN wants to put things on page C-42, if at all. We, and our public outrage, have truly become a force to be reckoned with, and we're not going away anytime soon. If anything, we're only becoming more sophisticated in disseminating the information to the masses.

[Up2Late]

76. Isn't it time to storm the Castle yet?

Time to "Frog March" the whole lot of them off to prison.:mad:

[bdamomma]

106. in any other country these kind of criminals would be long gone

[Richard D]

78. Does this qualify . . .

. . . as a constitutional crisis yet?

[Hardrada]

80. Which side will the military take?

or will some forces go one way and some another like in Spain in 1936?

Just an idle historical speculation in what ifs?

[SicSemperTyranus]

90. Which side will the military take?

Sadly most of my colleagues will side with the Administration... it's basically programmed into us. Add to that my perception that the military leadership has become far more openly right-wing than once would have been allowed, and I think the vast majority will do exactly what they're told to do.

What SHOULD we do? My oath of commission is very clear: "I...do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God."

No where in my oath do I swear allegience to the President or the Executive Branch. I defend the Constitution. I hope it never comes to a choice, but if it does I go with the Constitution and Congress. Otherwise my oath meant nothing.

[SlowDownFast]

111. Welcome to DU, SST!

And thanks for your service!

Stick around...

:hi:

[paparush]

114. I think we have clearly defined DOMESTIC enemies....

[renate]

131. welcome to DU!

I just saw in your profile where you're writing from--thank you so much for your service!

:patriot:

[lefador]

91. Unfortunately in Spain most of the armed forces went with the fascists...

...however there was no democratic tradition to speak of.


The US military swear their allegiance to the constitution not the president, however I hope the system in this country does not let it come down to it. It is now clear than when GWB was making those jokes about being the dictator, he wasn't really joking at all.

Again, if the Republicans are innocent what do they have to fear about turning over their e-mails. BTW the white house's staff is paid by our taxes, so they have to provide accountability. Again, if they are innocent what do they have to fear? I mean they never gave 2 shits about other people's right to privacy... this makes them look, how do you say it... a bit like a two bit hypocritical bunch of turds.

[SicSemperTyranus]

93. Mostly right but with one key difference...

and that difference is for enlisted personnel. They DO swear to obey the President. In their oath the phrase "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States" is inserted after the pledge to defend the Constitution. Only commissioned officers are solely sworn to defend the Constitution itself, and swear no oaths concerning the President. Reference to the President was removed from the officer's oath in 1862. I think that was a sage move, because it makes very clear what we as officers must do if the President becomes the "domestic enemy" - we hold no allegiance to him and must defend the Constitution.

[warren pease]

122. Welcome, and a question...

It's been speculated that, if it actually came to armed conflict pitting the feds against the citizenry, that the military would ultimately refuse to carry out orders that involved shooting at US civilians. Others have speculated that the issue is irrelevant because Blackwater is now the de facto enforcement arm of BushCo. Still others have speculated that US troops, however reluctantly, would in fact follow orders to shoot at US civilians.

As an insider, what do you think? Are there other options I haven't listed? Has the retirement or maybe "purge" of virtually all high-ranking military who don't agree with BushCo gotten rid of the best and brightest -- and possibly the most sympathetic to an armed uprising against this administration -- and replaced them with BushBots?

Anyway, I'm very interested to hear your take.


Again, welcome and thanks for posting.


wp

[SicSemperTyranus]

168. Interesting question

Sorry for the delay - it's quite a time difference between here and the US.

I will give you my opinion on the matter, but please accept that I can only speculate and can't possibly anticipate the myriad circumstances that would be involved. Needless to say this would be the nightmare scenario. I previously said that I thought the military would do what it's told. But only to a point. Depending on how it played out I think you'd see a situation like the anti-Gorbachov and pro-reactionary coup attempt in Moscow in 1991; some units refused orders to move against the citizens, others moved out from their bases but only pretended to do anything, and others sided openly with the anti-coup forces. Least likely to move against the citizenry would be Guard and Reserve units (esp. if they're in their home states) since they identify most with the local population. More likely would be 'regular' infantry and military police units, especially if they went out to 'control' the situation and 'support public order,' and things got out of hand (esp. if there was an armed opposition). This is the Boston Massacre and Kent State scenarios (although Kent was Guard of course). In both cases outnumbered and scared soldiers in an unconventional situation panicked and fired in perceived self-defense, although in both cases cooler heads were able to show after the fact that the force they used was unwarranted. But people were still dead. That could very well happen again. An unsettling dynamic would be troops who had been in Iraq, especially recently. During the debacle after Katrina, Lieutenant General Honoré had to stop troops who were fresh from Iraq from pointing their weapons at the citizens and bascially acting like it was Baghdad in Louisiana. I would think that in a stressful and chaotic situation it would be possible for those troops to snap back into their 'Iraq urban-defense mode' and do things that would spiral the situation out of control, consciously or not.

The purge of the senior leadership (and I for one think there certainly was one) has probably not had that much effect on the overall dynamic, since ultimately as in the Moscow 1991 example it's the lieutenants, captains, and sergeants on the line who will or will not carry out the orders. As long as one can rationalize that he's carrying out his orders to the best of his ability, I think you'll see some pretty twisted rationalizations carried out in order NOT to harm civilians. The other thing that is also drummed into our heads is that there is no defense to carrying out an illegal order. Saying "But I was ordered to..." isn't worth the breath it takes to say it. The only permissible course of action is to refuse the order. The after-effects of Mi Lai and Nuremburg. With that in the backs of their minds, many junior leaders will find any way they can to get out of such a situation, if for no other reason than to save their own necks. I still think the confused, outnumbered, scared soldiers (or the Baghdad veterans) with little idea of what's going on over-reacting and firing on a crowd is the most likley scenario. Unfortunately if not brought under control quickly it could also set off a chain reaction of such events.

I think the one exception to all this is Blackwater and the other mercenary companies. I and many of my colleagues would be perfectly willing to open fire on them. They are not popular with the regular forces, at least here in Afghanistan. I hear the same goes for Iraq.

[Hardrada]

152. Thanks for your replies and your service!

I didn't know, for instance, about the fact there are two oaths. That clears up the matter. In any case, our servicemen and women of all ranks do not swear an oath to the national leader alone as did the Wehrmacht for instance.

[tavalon]

83. Yes!!

Bring 'em on! Damn, I wish Molly were still alive. The carcass is definitely rotting off now.

http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=18028

[orleans]

86. k&r n/t

[Zech Marquis]

89. where there's smoke...

it's so oblivous these reptiles have some really bad stuff to hide--my skin is crawling after seeing just how far they are willing to go in order to cover their trakcs :argh:

[frogcycle]

166. really?

they are criminals. they are on a moral level with Al Capone. Of course they will do ANYTHING to cover their tracks. If it comes to it, they'll torch the White Hose.

[liberal N proud]

98. The deal should be for them to turn over Rove's email or bu$h faces indictment

PERIOD!

[mmonk]

102. Maybe RNC officials should be indicted.

Let's see how willing all of them are to protecting the administration when they have something personal at stake.

[malaise]

107. I M P E A C H!

Come on John Conyers.

[Hubert Flottz]

109. What the White House means is...

"Go F??K Yourself America, you work for the Urinary Executive,(Prince Pissypants)he don't work for you!"

[debbierlus]

110. What's he gonna do? Claim executive privillege? Oh, wait, HE CAN'T

Because these aren't official White House servers & not the President's business....

They are so screwed. You can run COWARDs. But, you can't hide.

Cowards.

[debbierlus]

112. OMG - They ARE claiming executive privillege

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/washington/13emails.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Quote from the article:

Mr. Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, issued a tart reply: “The White House position seems to be that executive privilege not only applies in the Oval Office, but to the R.N.C. as well. There is absolutely no basis in law or fact for such a claim.”

[City Lights]

113. Yes they are.

Laws mean nothing to them. Their secrets are so dark, so deep, so ugly, that they will stop at nothing to keep them hidden. :scared:

[bdamomma]

116. this is really serious this must be stopped.

[Triana]

117. Yea. WHO is gonna stop them?

?

[bdamomma]

119. our Congress for one Hold them for Contempt of Congress.

and how much more are the American people who have a mind are going to let them continue their PNAC mission.

[Triana]

121. OK. Then it goes to a US Attny appointed by (or at least beholden to) bu$hit...who will do...

....nothing.

I just don't see this going anywhere.

UNLESS Democrats IMPEACH him. And they won't do that.

PLEASE let me be wrong!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

130. special persecutor would be appointed. at least in a sane world.

I keep forgetting where we are

[Joanne98]

126. Catherine Criar said EP doesn't cover private email accounts!

[Joanne98]

124. Bush is playing a game of Texas hold'em...But we have the Ace of Spades..

IMPEACHMENT! Keep it up motherfuckers!

[in_cog_ni_to]

132. Just how much more of this shit is Congress WILLING to take?

Exactly how long before enough is enough and they IMPEACH these SOBs! BOTH the Psycho and Shooter?

[nadinbrzezinski]

184. They just walked into it

this is oh so nixonian it is not even funny...

And THAT precedent does not favor the boys in the administration.

[lovuian]

133. Congress needs to wake up that a cabal took over this country

in 2000
Congress watched them steal the election
and now King George rules and they must obey

Subpoena Subpoena Subpoena

DO IT

[bdamomma]

134. Contempt of Congress

Congress is playing by the rules, apparently this disgusting regime does not, the Bush Crime Family will learn the hard way, but there will be a confrontation.

[johnlal]

135. Again, privacy only matters for the Bush Administration

We should be able to tap their phones and intercept their mail just like they do to us.

[robinlynne]

137. the white hosue already declared that it will amke every request go to the supreme court.

They are going to stall everything for two years.

[Doctor_J]

138. At last - fresh, stark grounds for impeachment

let's get it on.

[Lena inRI]

139. Uh. . .Rep Conyers and Senator Leahy. . .

.

the Bush crime enterprise is jerking you around. . .time to step up the chase to a full gallop:

1--subpoena PEOPLE NOW, not just documents/emails

2--consult Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald privately for evidence on Karl Rove's role and request public testimony of Fitzgerald regarding Rove's missing emails.

3--especially subpoena Monica Goodling and when she continues to plead the 5th, cite her for contempt of Congress.

FOR GOD'S SAKE AND OUR DEMOCRACY'S SURVIVAL,

SIC'EM

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Nothing Without Hope]

140. Sooo... if contempt of Congress is raised, does the Attorney General

do the investigation/prosecution? How is that handled and how could it be done in this criminal, totally partisan administration?

[ooglymoogly]

141. Hmmmm....could it be that the info in those emails is so treasonous

that turning them over or allowing testimony would be tantamount to exposing treason, a smoking gun if you will, so obvious and so heinous that even that last brainless 27% would have to understand that we have all been taken for suckers and that B+sh et al are in the process of destroying this country and robbing it blind and might also expose massive election fraud incriminating the entire GOP. Just imagine what these snakes are hiding. Most probably even worse than any of us suspected. So which is the better choice...refusing to let anyone see the treason and ending up in prison or indignitly yelling executive privilege and saying no we will not let anyone see on the grounds it will incriminate us all and put an end to the GOP for a long long time? NO they cannot turn over these documents nor let people testify. I expect the info will leak out anyway and that is the good news.

[DirtyDawg]

142. DAMMIT...

...JUST IMPEACH THEIR ASSES...ALL OF 'EM...and the sooner the better so we'll have time to fumigate the White House before the next occupant.

[Wapsie B]

143. Ok now.........Is it FINALLY time that we hang these asswipes by their gonads?

There's gotta be a blow-job somewhere in all this mess so that we can impeach.

[evolved Anarchopunk]

145. ..

what a crock of shit... this just plain hurts. If i know one thing, it is that Karl Rove is not fit to serve this country in any capacity.

[DFW]

148. A potential nuclear meltdown:

Lots of good comments here!

A few points: Rove is certainly fit to serve---fifteen to life, I'd say.

John Conyers does not intentionally seem befuddled. The man suffered a stroke
a few years back, and it's a tribute to his toughness that he retained his
smarts and his ability to carry out his duties un-slowed in anything but his
speech. He may not be shouting it out in rapid fire, but his words pack a punch
nonetheless.

Bush has taken a classic Nixon phrase and adopted his strategy wholeheartedly:
STONEWALL!

Of COURSE the emails contain incriminating documents. They know it. We know it.
They know we know it. Now it's a game of judicial boxing to see who can land the
most crippling legal blow. If they can outlast the clock, they'll do it. And no
tapes are there to play in front of Congress this time. Forensic computer geeks will
be needed to retrieve what will surely be a dedicated attempt to fully erase the
evidence (probably in process as we speak), and they have their own geeks. When
their own techies assure them that all evidence has been erased, they will suddenly
produce sanitized laptops, devoid of incriminating evidence, and start screaming
about an unjustified Democratic witch hunt when the hearings produce no smoking
gun. They will conveniently say that the only reason they fought disclosure was
on strictly constitutional grounds, and that they never had anything to hide (and
they still get a quarter from Tooth Fairy under their pillow at nights, too).

If we get the good on them, it will be 1976 and 1992 combined for them or worse.
It's a certainty that the real bad guys, Cheney and Rove, are set for life once
this administration is history, but if their party is to survive them, the truth
about what they have really done during this administration must never (in their
view) come out. They will go down kicking and biting, and we are fooling ourselves
if we expect the slightest cooperation anywhere along the way. Any potential whistle-
blowers had better seek protective custody, and get someone like the Mossad to be in
charge of it. The FBI would probably put them on a small private plane in a thunderstorm.

By the way--that's Sic Semper Tyrannis ("thus always to tyrants"), and not Sic Semper
Tyranus ("thus always a/the tyrant")--just for the record and the appeasement of those
few of us left who actually took a few semesters of Latin!

[SicSemperTyranus]

169. Oops

Good post and good point on the Latin - HS Latin was a long long time ago. Unfortunately DU doesn't allow changing User IDs, so it appears I'm stuck with it...

[DFW]

171. Maybe management can help out

Write to one of the managers and ask if you can change it.
I'm sure that if it can be done, they'll accommodate you.
Just explain why, and that it was a typo. etc etc.

[SicSemperTyranus]

175. No luck

All variants of the correct phrase are already taken. Just interpret mine as "Thus ever to THE tyrant," meaning the tyrant du jour.

[va4wilderness]

149. If the glove does not fit, we must not beseach. We must impeach....n/t

[seemunkee]

151. If these are RNC servers and RNC emails what control does the WH have over them?

Wouldn't this then be an issue between Congress and a private organization?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

153. Too Fucking Bad...

To the extent that Karl was engaged in RNC work on those computers, he was not in the employ of the POTUS and, therefore, Executive Privilege does not attach. He does not have any legal right to resist testifying.

Arrest the motherfucker. Arrest them all.

[donkeyotay]

154. While the WH stonewalls, we are free to speculate on what they are hiding

Idle gossip. Let me see, the Smartech-RNC server is run by a defense contractor, and the same was involved via Blackwell in the Ohio 2004 election. When we see the CIA and GOP together, we are reminded of Cunningham. When we think of Cunningham, we think of Foggo and Wilkes and how it looked like the CIA was bribing GOP congressmen and receiving defense contracts. We wonder about the role of hookers and if it went beyond bribes to blackmail. We wonder what MZM installed for the Office of the President. We wonder if the same server served Ralston and Abramoff in their access to the Rose Garden. We wonder. We wonder. And in absence of facts or credible investigation, we speculate.

[spanone]

156. They are fucking with the wrong man (Conyers) IMHO

This is the most arrogant, criminal administration Never elected to office.

[C_U_L8R]

157. which is it?

you won't turn them over
or
they were deleted?

executive privilage
or
campaign communications?

I think they've lied their way into a corner.

Check.

[tomp]

160. who exactly gets held in contempt of congress for this refusal? nt

[gulfcoastliberal]

161. So are they going to subpoena or not? No Rove or Miers?!

I heard on NPR that Conyers has never subpoenaed anyone in his entire career since elected! Why aren't the dems requiring Rove and Miers to testify?

[Herman74]

164. This Has Truly Become Nixonian...

...with Congress fighting a president determined to deny Congress the information Congress seeks.

What I find striking about the situation, is that BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION STANDARDS this present scandal started off at least as a relatively minor one, not one to compare to say, Abu Ghraib, for example. But it has grown and grown and grown...

Bush's Waterloo, er, I mean, Watergate?

[nadinbrzezinski]

178. You get it

so when is the I am not a crook speech?

:-)

[Baron Harkonen]

167. its time...

A subpoena is "a command to appear at a certain time and place to give testimony upon a certain matter."<1> The term is from the Middle English suppena and the Latin phrase sub poena meaning "under penalty."<2> The term may also be spelled "subpena."<3>

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

[Manifestor_of_Light]

186. And if you are into Mangled Latin, the plural could be....

Sub-penes!!! Penes is Latin plural for penis. Quite appropriate for a bunch of penes.

[LiberalFighter]

172. Is that ethical and especially legal for Fielding to be employed as a federal employee

and represent the RNC? That is, deciding whether RNC emails can be turned over to the committee?

[zulchzulu]

174. Well, name me a king that had to deal with his minion's wishes...

After all, kings that don't need to answer to their minions. Whoa is ye king that doth hath to sayeth any words to his lowly lower class. It is after all a monarchy, isn't it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

176. Buckle up... the ride is about to get real bumpy...

can anybody say... WATERGATE?

Good

[Erika]

179. This administration is so corrupt. No testimony under oath allowed?

The corruption of the right wing is unbelievable. W sold out our country with a lttle help and profits of his buds.

[opihimoimoi]

187. WHAD DE HELL ARE DEY HIDING??? Its become obvious the Bushies are stonewalling to hide sumpthin

What izit??

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. Oh what the hell let me speculate

stealing of elections (federal offense)

Firing Attorneys that did not tow the party line (Gee didn't both the Reds and the Germans do this?)

What else?

Oh reaching for them cute tin foil hat...

9.11

Now you got me

:hi:

What they are hiding, just as Watergate, will not matter in the end... it is all about that cute thing called Obstruction of Justice

They never learn, it is not about the crime, but the cover up.

Oh and it is a conspiracy, most likely, to get around the Hatch act

[opihimoimoi]

189. Thanks..I never really expected an answer...but you are so kind..

They seem to be hiding from their fraudulent facade, from their crimes, from your list, and from History.

Their Inadequencies...I almost forgot that one...add that to the list.

Aloha, Opi