From: "Rich Gauszka" 

Perhaps they're still trying to figure out what a 'gray area' is ;-)

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&n
ewsId=20070413005587&newsLang=en
Q I just want to go back one more time. You've talked about not finding any
indication of wrongful intent. But there were employees who used their RNC
accounts for official government business, isn't that what you were --

MS. PERINO: I think that there were probably instances of that, but I think
that was probably either out of an abundance of caution, or because of
convenience. As I said, you're managing multiple email accounts, and plus
we live in a world where we work 24/7. And I think that, again, there was
no willful intention, but that there is a possibility that because you're
using multiple accounts and trying to juggle that, that that was a problem.
That's why we're working to fix it.

Q Out of an abundance of caution they used their RNC accounts to do
official business?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that when people have -- I think there are gray
areas -- when they feel that there was a gray area that possibly they erred
on the wrong side of it. I haven't seen copies of these emails, where they
would -- where these were described.

Q Can you talk about what gray area would be?

Q It wasn't discussing the firing of federal prosecutors? That clearly is
official business, is it not?

Q Or is it politics?

MS. PERINO: Well, I guess that is one of the questions that's before us in
the U.S. attorney matter. I'm going to decline to comment on that specific
question. Let me take it back to the Counsel's Office and see what I can
say.

Q Is the President meeting with any potential candidates for this war czar
position this weekend?

MS. PERINO: No. Steve Hadley is -- he hasn't even narrowed the list down,
so he hasn't sent anyone to the President yet.

Q And he won't this weekend?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of, no. I'm going to do one more in the back
-- go ahead.


"Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
news:4626a767$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> I'm still wondering why Congress isn't playing up the Presidential Records
> Act and the use of non governmental servers for what appears to have been
> official business of the government.
>
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:46268752$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/04/the_rnc_tries_t.htm
l
>>
>> The RNC Tries to Hide Its Hatch Act Violations
>>
>> That is, in addition to requesting emails relating to the known instances
>> of possible Hatch Act Violations (that is, the PowerPoint presentation on
>> targeted Republican seats), Waxman asked for any other emails pertaining
>> to "the use of federal agencies or resources to help Republican
>> candidates." In a letter sent Friday giving Kelner the
extension he asked
>> for (May 9 for the PowerPoint presentation emails and May 30 for the more
>> general Federal Agencies emails), Waxman noted the following:
>>
>>
>> Gary Britt wrote:
>>> The Democrats In Congress are just trying burglarize the RNC.  Just like
>>> the watergate burglars were trying to do.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> Rich Gauszka wrote:
>>>> Forgot to add this one comment from the muckraker site
>>>>
>>>> http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003033.php
>>>> OK - lemme see if I can get this straight:
>>>>
>>>> Congress: we want to see your emails
>>>>
>>>> White House: no, executive privelege
>>>>
>>>> C: we see that some emails were RNC
>>>>
>>>> WH: that was to avoid the Hatch Act, so people could do political,
>>>> non-govt work
>>>>
>>>> C: OK, then let's see the RNC emails
>>>>
>>>> WH: no, there "exists a clear and indisputable Executive Branch
>>>> interest"
>>>>
>>>> Do I have that straight?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>> news:4626732e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> The White House is claming 'executive privilege'  for
RNC emails.
>>>>> They tried to have it both ways with the emails and
they got caught -
>>>>> now they have to go with the 'executive privilege' ploy.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003033.php
>>>>>
>>>>> And today, in a letter to the RNC, the White House
made their position
>>>>> clear: you have to give them to us first. There
"exists a clear and
>>>>> indisputable Executive Branch interest" in the
emails on the
>>>>> RNC-issued accounts, wrote Emmet Flood, Special Counsel to the
>>>>> President.
>>>>>
>>>>> "John Cuccia" 
wrote in message
>>>>> news:odrc23tadnebrfgbpmut2t33tam6lrg8at{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>> They weren't losing White House emails.  They were
losing RNC emails,
>>>>>> which they were using  for official business to
cirmcumvent the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now they have the nerve to claim that said RNC
email protected by
>>>>>> executive privilege.  The Bushies continue to
exhibit themselves to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> liars, thieves, and blackguards, to a man.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:31:26 -0400, "Rich Gauszka"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They probably were too busy 'losing' White House emails
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mike N."
 wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:0n0c2357m46tva0ceomnrt1fp02kidvu55{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3012688
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "It was a simple letter, just more
than 100 words on two pieces of
>>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But this singular document became one of
the key pieces of
>>>>>>>> evidence, the
>>>>>>>> smoking gun, touted by the Bush
administration to justify the
>>>>>>>> invasion of
>>>>>>>> Iraq. It's also the same piece of
"evidence" that led to a perjury
>>>>>>>> conviction for Vice President Dick
Cheney's former top aide, I.
>>>>>>>> Lewis
>>>>>>>> Libby.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The July 2000 letter, which was obtained
from Italian intelligence
>>>>>>>> services, appeared to be an official
correspondence from the Niger
>>>>>>>> government to the president of Iraq,
confirming a deal to sell 500
>>>>>>>> tons of
>>>>>>>> pure uranium to Iraq annually.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if the CIA had done a simple Internet
search on some of the
>>>>>>>> terms used
>>>>>>>> in the letter, the agency would have
quickly learned that it was a
>>>>>>>> forgery.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Instead, the letter was later cited by
President Bush in his 2003
>>>>>>>> State of
>>>>>>>> the Union address as proof that Saddam
Hussein was determined to
>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>> nuclear weapons, justifying a preemptive
invasion of the country. "
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5