From: "Robert G Lewis" 

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.html
>
> 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