Investigators eye e-mail gap »
Posted by: Aidenag 1 year, 5 months ago308 Comments Report this Story
A 16-day gap in e-mails between the Justice Department and the White House concerning the firing of U.S. attorneys has attracted the attention of congressional investigators. The last day before the gap, Kyle Sampson, e-mailed Miers an outline of the plan to fire the prosecutors and wrote, "The plan, by its terms, would commence this week"
Read Full Story at cnn.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 308
-
-
0%
Aidenag1 year, 5 months ago
The similarities are disturbing, thats for sure. Though not surprising. Bush has had lots of former nixon staff working in his own administration. Hell his own grandfather helped get nixon into power.
Reply-
0%
Aidenag1 year, 5 months ago
Anyone interested in reading everything that was released, the house judiciary has it on thier website:
(bottom right list, warning BIG .pdf files)
Reply-
0%
sailr1 year, 5 months ago
The only people that make stuff up are FAUX news, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. etc. More pure bullcrap on those stations than stars in the skies.
I'll bet you're an avid viewer/listeners of those harbingers of hate! Right?
Reply -
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 5 months ago
That's it secondchance, show your contempt for the rule of law and our constitution. Show your support for yet another imperial president that you don't feel should be accountable to our laws and the constitution. Keep it up. You're a great example of what is wrong with conservatives in this country.
Your kind supported Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler and now you support unaccountability in the name of power here. Great job!
Reply-
100%
capecoralM1 year, 5 months ago
Missing emails are not new it happened before: White House, under pressure to produce thousands of lost e-mail messages sought by Congress, says it cannot find any backup records for messages sent to or from Vice Pres Al Gore's office from March 1998 to April 1999 because of a computer system problem; Congressional investigators say it may never be known whether missing messages held information that could have served as evidence in battle to impeach Pres Clinton and investigation into possible fund-raising abuses by Clinton-Gore campaign. Some employees of Northrop Grumman Corporation, the company that maintained the e-mail system, have said at Congressional hearings that White House aides had told them to say nothing publicly when they discovered that more than two years of e-mail messages were missing. NYT By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: June 9, 2000
Reply-
93%
jeffery11 year, 5 months ago
Clinton didn't do anything criminal. The Republicans weren't hindered by the democrats and could investigate anything they wanted to investigate. Clinton didn't throw up any road blocks like this administration does and didn't attempt to stack the DOJ with compliant stooges to provide cover for Democrats and ensure the prosecution of only Republicans. Clinton didn't fire prosecutors that were prosecuting corrupt Democrats.
Clinton may not have been a George Washington but he wasn't heading a corrupt political cabal bent on destroying our republic to ensure Democrat control.
Reply-
0%
kagecom1 year, 5 months ago
Clinton didn't do anything criminal.(Other then commit Purgery and ask others to commit purgery on his behave) The Republicans weren't hindered by the democrats and could investigate anything they wanted to investigate. Clinton didn't throw up any road blocks(other then invoking exscutive privlage every other week and having it rejeced repeatedly by the suprime court) like this administration does and didn't attempt to stack the DOJ with compliant stooges to provide cover for Democrats(other then the 93 he fired the minute he took office in order to make shure in his administrations words they had HIS political priorities first) and ensure the prosecution of only Republicans. Clinton didn't fire prosecutors that were prosecuting corrupt Democrats.(other then the one that was investigaing his wife, and another investigating a cronie of him)
there now its accurate.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
0%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
I've already answered that question when you wrote it downstream.
The laws being cited as having been broken are:
Chapter 15 United States Code section 1505 and 1525.
Why don't you try reading the whole thread before you post. If you have time to post you have time to read.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
50%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
jeffery1:didn't attempt to stack the DOJ with compliant stooges to provide cover for Democrats
Actually that is exactly what he did when he fired all 93 federal prosecutors for no reason than a political reason. He replaced the one in Little Rock with a former student of his......where in the hell were you during all of that? Clinton fired prosecutors to prevent them from prosecuting him and his cronies.....
Reply-
0%
jeffery11 year, 5 months ago
Every president puts their people when they enter office. Clinton did this. He did not however, fire prosecutors because they prosecuted democrats. Bush fired those that had the integrity to prosecute corrupt Republicans and would not stop. His goal is to destroy the DOJ and create an operation that protects political allies and destroys political enemies.
Reply -
85%
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
"Rove emerged as the Democrats' newest target after weekend news reports said the New Mexico Republican Party's chairman urged Rove to fire David Iglesias, then the state's U.S. attorney."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/3/13
Here's the problem, Iglesias wasn't doing as the GOP chief wanted him to do and that's go after Democrats in New Mexico. If that isn't political, I'd like to know what it is. The U.S.Attorney is suppose to prosecute the criminals and not be used as a political arm for elections.
Reply
-
-
-
75%
capecoralM1 year, 5 months ago
I didn't say it was excusable or not. I simply pointed out that nearly 1 year of emails were missing during another administration. You ASSumed I was stating it was excusable for Clinton. Now as far as this goes what crime was committed in the case of Presidential appointees being let go?
Reply-
-
75%
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
"Why don't you try reading the whole thread before you post."
LOL They can't do that and hit and run.
Reply
-
-
67%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
Uhh...No *you* ASSumed that I assumed you were referring to the Clinton administration (did I mention Clinton in my post anywhere?). Regardless of who's watch it occurred on in the past, it's still WRONG today. The fact that "missing emails are not new" is not the point.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 5 months ago
CapecoralM,
Here's something about those missing Clinton Admin emails:
"The Clinton administration official who oversees the troubled White House e-mail system testified Wednesday he never told President Clinton about the computer problem that prevented thousands of White House e-mails from being properly stored and archived."
Some were actually on backup tapes but not all. Why?:
"Lindsay described the White House computer system as "antiquated" and "unstable." He said his job required him to lurch from one computer crisis to the next while using the time in between to beg for more money from Congress to upgrade the system."
This came out in court!:
"Lindsay's comments came in testimony before U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who is holding hearings into allegations of obstruction of justice by White House officials concerning the computer problem and the delayed reconstruction of the missing e-mails."
Reply
-
-
-
100%
ronaldus1 year, 5 months ago
"Here's what their REAL plan is."
Exactly.
There was no crime.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
If there was no crime, there can be no coverup.
But, since the Democrats have no plan other than owning defeat, there's not much else they can do besides making crap up.
Reply-
0%
donald511 year, 5 months ago
..last week the Dems told three representatives of the Credit Card Industry to explain nonstandard excessive charges and the three companies got rid of things like double monthly charges before they even testified, and then promised to correct some of their other ills under testimony. Just one case in point of the necessity of investigation that has been neglected the last 6 years.
Reply -
88%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
"There was no crime."
Is that so? Well, you might want to tell Bush and Gonzales to stop give speeches apologizing and admitting that "mistakes were made" then.
Reply -
0%
miklkit1 year, 5 months ago
loverman Send Message
avatar
Reply
Simon,
The assault on democracy is the fact that they planned to bypass the Senate when they nominated their replacements. They planned to use a section of the Patriot Act to do this, thus forcibly abrogating the Senate's responsibility. In essence, it was taking power from the legislative branch and giving it to the executive branch which affects the balance of powers between the 2 branches of government.
Besides that, it's probable that the 8 AG's were fired because of partisan political pressure to avoid investigating political corruption of Republican politicos or not initiating investigations on Democratic candidates running in the November elections so as to cast aspersions on them in order that Republican candidates running against them would win. In other words, political cheating by innuendo. That's Rove's pervue.
I hope loverman doesn't mind.--miklkit
Reply-
100%
capecoralM1 year, 5 months ago
"8 AG's were fired because of partisan political pressure to avoid investigating political corruption of Republican politicos or not initiating investigations on Democratic candidates running in the November elections so as to cast aspersions on them in order that Republican candidates running against them would win."
This is an outright falsehood and untruth. WTF. People are just making sh*t up and passing it around. BS Some of the firings were for not bringing charges against Dem's who are alleged to have committed voter fraud. You think it is ok to just let investigations of Democrat(ic)s slide so as not to look political? Ask yourself has there ever been a US Attorney fired by a president? When? Why? How many times in US history have Politacal Appointees been let go? This is a none scandal and the Democrat(ic) run congress is again wasting the peoples money. The republicans who are going along with this fiasco are also wasting tax payer money.
Reply-
100%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
"You think it is ok to just let investigations of Democrat(ic)s slide so as not to look political"
That was not the issue. Iglesias was fired after saying that there WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT VOTER FRAUD HAD TAKEN PLACE.
He was (allegedly) fired because the Bush admin. wanted him to proceed with prosecution in a case where there was no evidence of a crime!!! Do you get it now?
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
sailr1 year, 5 months ago
Endless witch hunts? How soon you forget the ` million dollars worth of endless witch hunts against Clinton by the Republicans!
I'm hoping the Democrats have not yet begun to "hunt" and that MUCH more is to come.
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW!!
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 5 months ago
Are you saying the Demcrat(ic)s are wasting tax payer money to payback the Republicans an America for Clinton's impeachment proceedings?
Reply-
75%
jeffery11 year, 5 months ago
No, sailr isn't. Clinton really didn't do anything wrong except to appear to not be forthcoming with regards to his affair. Bush on the other hand, has been less than credible in everything he's done. The hunt, now that the Republicans are out of power, must begin to uncover the crimes that this administration has committed, including their attempt to replace the rule of law with the privilege of power.
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
Clinton used the information at hand and Bush used the information he had at hand. Bush's updated information disproved what had been stated before but Bush chose to ignore it. Clinton didn't invade Iraq, Bush did. Thousands have since died.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
kagecom1 year, 5 months ago
He Lied to prevent prosicution of Sexual Harasment(wich is a crime). His did so under oath(wich is a crime). He then pressured others to lie under oath(wich is a crime). The sad thing is if he would have said durring the Sexual Harasment hearing that yes he tapped that, but she wanted it in reguards to Monica he would have not had any problems and would not have been impeached.
Reply-
-
69%
capecoralM1 year, 5 months ago
For POLITICAL reasons there was no indictment! That is well established..
Reply
-
-
42%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
Does the concept of consensual sex between TWO ADULTS still elude you neoclowns?
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
capecoralM1 year, 5 months ago
SO you can read sailr's mind through the keyboard now? How do you know sailr so well to know what s/he is thinking and anser for him/her??? I think an investigation is in order how you know, what you know, who sailr really is! I know it is not a crime but I think we should get to the bottom of it!
Reply
-
-
0%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
No one is being prosecuted yet! This is an INVESTIGATION, not a TRIAL! You have to investigate before any charges can be brought against someone, or before anyone can be sent to jail.
Unless of course your an inmate at Gitmo, but that's another story.
Reply -
69%
jeffery11 year, 5 months ago
No, it's not a fact that he lied under oath. He was never tried for it and so it was never determined whether he actually believed what he said or he did not. He would have had to know what he was saying was false for him to have lied and if he actually believed his definition then he wasn't lying.
I doubt very much that you would ever acknoweldge that anyone in this administration has ever done anything wrong. None of your posts indicate that you could.
Reply-
-
80%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
Good point loverman,
Let me also point out that, whether or not Clinton perjury is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT!!
Clinton is not the president right now, Bush is. The issue at hand is whether or not BUSH'S administration did anything inappropriate or illegal. All of you hampering on the fact that Clinton may have done something illegal too are completely missing the point.
Just because a former president may have broken the law does not give the current president the right to break the law with impunity. A 5 year old can tell you that two wrongs don't make a right.
Reply-
0%
cushi1 year, 5 months ago
But the fact that Clinton did NOT perjure himself begs to be restated! He was truthful within the narrow definition set forth in the proceedings, and perfectly within his right to say "I did not have sex with that woman" according to that definition. Again, the repugnicons knew perfectly that John Q. Public would NOT be aware of the technicality involved and would therefore chime in and align their thinking to Bill Clinton lied! Satan's imps are clever little devils, after all...
Reply-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
88%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
"So what do they call a BJ then...an oral penis massage?"
I'd call it nobody's damned business except for Clinton, his wife and Monica Lewinsky.
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
He said that at a news conference not under oath. The big deal under oath was about((what is, is)). His was tossed by the Judge Scooter's wasn't.
Again Clinton hasen't been in office for a long long time and even so if all that you are saying about Clinton is true, what does it have to do with What these guys are doing...
What would you say to a killer that said, the other guy did it and nothing happen, so it should be ok for me to do it also?
Reply-
100%
cushi1 year, 5 months ago
But again, it was said in accordance with the definition he was given to work with, and I don't blame him one bit for staying within that definition in light of it being his personal business in the first place.
Reply -
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
Blackacereturn: His was tossed by the Judge
WRONG...geez...can't you dumlibs get anything right?
I know there was no prosecution, but I thought after the impeachment was over the judge in the Jones case assessed a penalty -- a fine of some sort, and a suspension of his law license in Arkansas for five years. Which implies that Clinton stipulated to the offense ie he pled guilty or nolo contendere...the punishment that was handed out to Bill Clinton. To wit:
- a $90,000 payment to Jones' lawyers
- a 5-year suspension of his law license in Arkansas
- a $25,000 fine
- loss of his privileges to argue before the US Supreme Court.
Reply-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.
The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray. On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
What you are saying has nothing to do with what Clinton did under oath, which is what we are talking about. I would like to see some proof of what you just post since it's the first i am hearing of this.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
kedirian1 year, 5 months ago
Amazing, how you Republicans and Neocons can get your undies all twisted about immorality below the belt(human after all), yet suddenly are tongue-tied when it comes to immorality of the mind and heart(Exxon, corporate shenanigans,incestuous lobbying,White House "cloak-and-daggers", etc.) on which Republicans seem to have a monopoly...
Reply -
-
100%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
Even if you're right, IT'S NOT FREAKIN' RELEVANT!
As has been said a million times already by myself and other posters on this thread, just because a previous president may or may not have committed a crime does not give a sitting president a free pass to break the law. Period, end of sentence.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
donald511 year, 5 months ago
..good ratings, but fired for cause from the Attorney General himself! Cape, do you want an AT who refuses to investigate all the reported case of fraud and abuse by contractors in Iraq & Afghanistan too? Or, one that defines torture as only that which kills... allowing Dubya to back out the Geneva Conventions? You are un-American if you do!
Reply -
-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
Yeah, that's why they are going under oath. To get the truth or else.
Reply
-
-
70%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
Cape...As usual, you ask the wrong questions. The questions you should be asking are why did Dumberto Gonzales cancel an overseas trip to stay in DC and defend his master and why are both Republicans and Democrats requesting that he resign? Try using logic and common sense for a change. Try it...
Reply
-
-
100%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
Uh...And let me guess--Republicans are the sole arbiters of what qualifies as "no good reason," right?
Reply -
-
-
100%
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
They do serve at the request of the president, however they are not his to do with as he pleases to stop the investigation of friends or to investigate so call enemies. I think you on the right who are always calling for the right thing to be done would be glad to have it done in this case. I guess you want us on the left to only look at what you say and not what you do?
If there is nothing to hide then stepe into the light and say prove us wrong!
Reply
-
-
-
33%
miklkit1 year, 5 months ago
Clinton has nothing at all to do with what is happening now. Watergate and Iran-Contra are closer to this CURRENT fiasco.
Reply
-
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 5 months ago
No, they're not BS. They have not been allowed to be investigated under Republican rule. Now we have the opportunity to actually investigate the crimes of this administration under Democrat rule, if they have the fortitude to do so.
Start the investigations now!
Reply -
100%
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
Since you are obviously young and getting talking points from Faux news and Limbaugh, I'll try to point out to you the problem. Nixon wasn't threatened with impeachment for breaking into the Democrat headquarters at WaterGate, he was threatened with impeachment with trying to cover it up. Now it appears that Bush is trying to do the same thing with the attorneys that were fired. He had the right to fire them if they were not doing their job but it appears that that wasn't the case so the investigation. Now if they have tried to cover their posterior and by destroying government documents to hide facts from the investigation, they are guilty of obstruction of justice which is a serious crime as Libby will attest to.
Reply-
0%
kagecom1 year, 5 months ago
Accually they serve at the pleasure of the President, in other words if Bush got grumpy and desided that firing a US attorny would make him feel better he can. The ONLY thing the president can't do is fire an attorny at the direction of someone outside the Excutive Branch.
As far as this goes:
"...they are guilty of obstruction of justice which is a serious crime..."
so you suported the Impeachment of clinton right because He obstructed justice repeatedly, and not just in requards to Monica.
Reply-
94%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
"The ONLY thing the president can't do is fire an attorny at the direction of someone outside the Excutive Branch"
WRONG. As I already pointd out, the president can not, for example, fire an attorney if the purpose of the firing is to impede an ongoing investigation, which is what happened to Carol Lam (allegedly).
The relevant law is Chapter 15 United States Code section 1512.
As far as Clinton goes:
a) he was impeached for one instance of perjury, regarding Monica
b) it is disingenuous to say that he obstructed justice repeatedly since that HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN! (remember, we deal in facts here in reality. People tried repeatedly to pin obstruction charges on Clinton and each time they were dropped because there was NO EVIDENCE).
c) what Clinton may or may not have done illegally is completely irrelevant. BUSH is the one in office, not Clinton. A current prez is not allowed to break the law because a former prez may have also broken the law.
Reply -
63%
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
kagecom
"Accually they serve at the pleasure of the President"
Another Republican talking point that is false. They serve at the pleasure of the American people. They do not work for the president, they work for the American so all this BS is just that. He has the right to fire them if they are not preforming their job but not just because he gets "grumpy" as you talking heads would like to believe.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
"That is the only true part of your post...."
What is untrue about my statement.
He had the right to fire them IF it was not related to an investigation. The senate approved their appointment therefore they are to serve the American people and NOT for the pleasure of the president. I don't know where in the hell you right wing people get the idea that you can rewrite the laws and The Constitution. Once the man is appointed and approved by the senate, he then works for the people and not the president. The presidents appoints the Supreme Court Judges but they don't work for the pleasure of King George.
Reply
-
-
-
33%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
"Fake scandals" involving Republicans AND Democrats, asking for Gonzales to resign? Wow...That's an interesting strategy.
Reply -
0%
kedirian1 year, 5 months ago
Well....? You think Dubya 's miles away from ....high crimes and misdemeanors?
Reply -
-
-
67%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
Ah Yes.... a case brought by insane democraps after they passed an unconstitutional law to try and take running foreign policy away from the President in violation of the Constitituion......and then they granted Ollie North immunity and then he was tried using that same testimony, another violation of the Constitution by insane Demlibs that was thrown out by the courts.....let's see now.....that's 3 violations by DEMLIBS in one case....
Reply-
94%
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
If you're going to disrespect the name of the Democrat party by your misspellings, then I can return the favor. How about Repubidiots?
Reagan ,Bush, and Oliver North all broke the law and the Democrat congress didn't pursue the issue to the president and VP. What did the Repubidiot congress do in return? They kept after a sitting president with Starr until the got him with entrapment.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
truthaddict1 year, 5 months ago
The PLAN is to get rid of all the rats in D.C.
Fixing the country requires cleaning up the White House.
Americans voted for the Democrats because the idiots in power were and are out of control.
Rat poison takes a little while to work.
Be patient...
Reply -
67%
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
Second you are delusional...I think they did have a plan, but how can you execute a plan when the crooks are in charge. The Bush white house just wouldn't stop so what does a wise congress do? They stop them.
If its sooo fake why can't you testify under oath, or why are you hiding information? You would think if they are so above board they would be more open.
secondchance, I have a suggestion for you watch and read other news outside of the FOX world or you are going to make yourself seem as much of an ass as they are!
Reply -
50%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
"The democrats DUPED Americans into voting for them."
Oh, pshaaww! Don't be so modest, secondchanc
-
-
