From: "Robert G Lewis" 

Hmm using subpoenas, open meetings and the laws of the United States vs.
burglars , yep sounds just like the Republican Watergate criminals.


"Gary Britt"  wrote in
message news:46268134$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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