Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House E-mail Scandal Widens

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the what-did-they-know-and-when dept.

Republicans 839

Spamicles alerts us to a report just issued (PDF) by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. At least 88 White House officials used Republican National Committee email accounts for government business. The RNC has destroyed at least some of the emails from 51 of those officials. Law requires emails sent by officials to be stored or recorded. There is evidence that White House lawyers and the (current) Attorney General knew of this but did not act to stop it. From the article: "These e-mail accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies... Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC e-mail accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing e-mails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive."

cancel ×

839 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (5, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559565)

Just how obvious does the corruption in the White House have to be before you demand a change of government?

Judging by the number of people still defending this administration on slashdot, it would seem the parade scandals, lies, coverups & half-truths aren't enough. What will it take to convince you people? Does Cheney have to visit each house in the US personally, pry open the door with his shotgun, be caught shitting in your pillowcase while installing a keylogger on your PC?

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559581)

He's better then the alternative ... Lord Hillary.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559705)

That's you're fucking answer????

That is you're fucking answer????

Get out of the pool right now!!

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (3, Interesting)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559723)

He's better then the alternative ... Lord Hillary.
No, he's not. Hillary would be a fine president, as good as any other candidate who's thrown their hat in the ring. She's principled, seasoned, intelligent, and capable of working across party lines.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559817)

Nuh uh! That's totallee not true! Didnt u see where he called her Lord Hillary? That means shes an evil oppressive dicktater! /Sarcasm.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (5, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559857)

I'll give you seasoned and intelligent, but that buys her nothing (most everyone who is in national Presidential level politics is both of those things, regardless of popular images to the contrary); principled is a laugh, and party 'lines' are one ginat blurry smudge when it comes to issues of actual governance. Hillary would make, IMO, a mediocre president; one who does not lead but rather follows slavishly the polls and bends with the wind as a pseudo-populist centrist who cares less about constitution than 'keeping America safe', and less about proper governmental restraint than about 'raising our children' for us.

Truly a cynical idealist would be better than the messianic wacko we have now, but only just, and there are better in the field on both sides.

e.g. B. Obama and R. Paul.

Huh? The alternative is Nancy Pelosi (2, Interesting)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559835)

If we impeach the top two power-mad kleptomaniacs we have in the executive branch, we have president Nancy Pelosi. An election of Hillary is LESS likely once that happens.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559591)

They'd probably need to find him getting blown by the family pet before they'd really start to do anything.

Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanboy (0, Flamebait)

tjstork (137384) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559641)

Note that the article said: "Democrats say". The fact of the matter is that this so much Democratic fish hunting.

As if, they tell the truth.

Democrats haven't even tried to keep the promises that they were elected in Nov 2006. They promised to end the war, and didn't. They promised to clean up earmarks, and they won't. Bottom line is, all you liberals that flocked to Democrats like zombies do to living brains have been had just as much as we conservatives were that ate the public line of the RNC.

Idiots. Keep reading your MoveOn.org "press releases", er um, Propaganda, and drop your pants for Grandmaster Kos.

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (5, Funny)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559657)

Fish hunting? Isn't that fishing?

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (2, Insightful)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559675)

Would you prefer we elected Republicans instead? Yes, the Democrats betrayed the left, but would the Republicans have been any better? Remember that liberals are now hammering the Democrats to grow that most rare of all Washington institutions, a spine.

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (1)

erareno (1103509) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559911)

I thought that title belonged to balls. Especially now that we're on the verge of putting a candidate on the ballot without one.

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (2, Funny)

JoeShmoe950 (605274) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560119)

without two?

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (5, Funny)

sheldon (2322) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559697)

Praise Jesus!

Thank God Bush restored Dignity and Honor to the White House!

All these Liberals demanding our President stand for American values just simply hate America.

and they hate Jesus, of course!

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (1)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559985)

Save me Jebus!!!!!! /Homer

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (1)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560027)

They want to put stuff in his bum.

Mod parent as TROLL (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Meoward (665631) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559799)

You, sir, are a nitwit.

While I see both parties as uniformly spineless, the GOP was incredibly supine to corporate and other special interests at the expense of the individual. (And in the case of deficit spending, literally at the expense of future individuals.)

The Dems aren't that great (and there are a LOT of things they could have done differently the past 6 months IMO), but they're a damn sight better than the crowd they replaced.

Now if only Nancy would grow a pair..

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (4, Insightful)

Copid (137416) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559815)

Democrats haven't even tried to keep the promises that they were elected in Nov 2006. They promised to end the war, and didn't. They promised to clean up earmarks, and they won't. Bottom line is, all you liberals that flocked to Democrats like zombies do to living brains have been had just as much as we conservatives were that ate the public line of the RNC.
And if they keep it up, I'll be voting against the incumbent again. It's true that the Democrats aren't doing enough to clean up the mess. That doesn't mean that it didn't make sense to boot the guys who were making the mess to begin with.

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (5, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559827)

The issue is that the emails were presumably written while the officials were acting in an official capacity or could have been. The accounts were from a political party, and it is a wee bit suspicious that now that there are probes going on that the information was not being saved. Being by public officials normally subject to the act they should have retained enough of the records to demonstrate that they weren't a subject to the act. That way if there were any sort of investigation they could be looked at examined and then considered to be unrelated to matters. This is the same if you were to be investigated for a computer crime, you would be required to hand over any and all information relevant as well as decrypt any encrypted files. Failure to do so would result in sanctions as well as your guilt being presumed.

That is largely what is happening here. If the President and his staff are unhappy because their personal correspondence is now the fodder for investigations, perhaps they should have behaved in an appropriate manner when it wasn't about them. Kind of ironic, that all of a sudden an absence of evidence really means innocence, right, I mean that is what you were getting at right? In this case a lack of evidence is clearly a powerful indication of innocence.

The Republican party has really no basis for complaining, they have themselves conducted these sorts of witch hunts over far less, and in this case their own secrecy is largely what is keeping the investigators from making a fair assessment of the bounds of the investigation. If they would have just provided the emails, then the investigators would look through them determine the innocent, and move on. I mean why would an individual who hadn't committed a crime ever wish to have information remain confidential?

Keep sucking up your what? (1)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559833)

Wow. That post answered the question in an un intended way. It seemed to me someone from outside the US asked for an insight into the idiocy of American politics, and it was answered as if the question came from someone for whom the democratic party means something. The answer was full of rhetoric and had little substance other than "the other side is just as bad".

To read between the lines, it appears your honest answer to the question was "I'm too stupid to give a shit."

I'm genuinely curious about this subject though. How much obvious criminal activity on the part of your administration does it take before you decide they should be locked up? Seriously.

And before anyone posts with another "I'm too stupid to give a shit" answer, let's just say for a fair percentage this is true. I'm interested in the views of people who will address the actual question.

How much obvious criminal activity? (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559941)

We should be laughing at such a question. "How much obvious criminal activity on the part of your administration does it take before you decide they should be locked up?" What has our society decayed to. We need to eliminate huge numbers of executive orders, review the whole premise of those things in the first place, and lock up our president ten seconds after he violates the constitution, much less the penal code.

Somebody else here said, "if only Pelosi would grow a pair" -- how appropriate.

The answer to your question is "Any." When someone violates the law, he gets punished. Period.

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559889)

remember how bush came in and was going to "bring integrity back to the whitehouse" and how psyched we all were as republicans? Remember how he had 90% approval after 911 and was totally leading the world and everything? remember how he controlled both houses of congress and put 2 (maybe more) judges on the supreme court and was starting to push back roe and bring in religion and morality in government and the dems had to eat shit and got kicked out of their nicer hill offices and got the shittier old used blackberries? And we republicans were going to reign high in an unbreakable majority for generations and we would eventually put all the athiest, lesbian, liberal, aclu, anti american, intellectual rat bastard scum in their place and turn the culture of america back to god fearing conservative decent people for the next hundreds of years? George W. Bush really really really fucked it all up didn't he?

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (4, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559909)

Idiots. Keep reading your MoveOn.org "press releases"

It's no worse than you watching Fox News. Our country is being gutted, everything we stand for as a nation undermined and you're still supporting them?

With your user number, you'd think you'd be old enough to have learned something. What an embarrassment that you continue to support such a lying, corrupt administration. We are all the poorer as a nation because of you.

Does anyone besides me wonder if there's a peaceable solution to our differences? Sometimes I wonder if we're going to have to have it out with you and your kind to get our country back. How can we move forward when a third of the nation is okay treating the Constitution like it's just a piece of paper?

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (0, Flamebait)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560041)

"Does anyone besides me wonder if there's a peaceable solution to our differences? Sometimes I wonder if we're going to have to have it out with you and your kind to get our country back. How can we move forward when a third of the nation is okay treating the Constitution like it's just a piece of paper?"

Well, except for liberals screaming down conservative speakers at universities (which legally sometimes veers into assault), and keying up and slashing the tires of SUVs (property crime), there isn't really that much actual violence going on in politics, just voter fraud. I'd say about 90% or so of the nation either have no idea what the Constitution says, or just don't care. That goes for Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Kennedy just as much as it does for President Bush and Sen. McCain.

And no, I'm not suggesting that most or all liberals are using blackshirt tactics, just that you don't see conservatives shouting down President Clinton on his speaking tours, or damaging Volvos, Priuses, and Microbusen. True liberals that support freedom of speech and property rights don't do these things.

Re:Keep sucking up your Democratic Propaganda Fanb (2, Funny)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559987)

the parents score shows that it is not safe to criticize the Democrats on slashdot.

Oh well. Been a week or so since I had a -1. Might as well join you.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (3, Insightful)

sheldon (2322) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559649)

Bush could have a live press conference where he bites the heads off kittens, and nobody would care. The 28% who still support him would claim he was showing true leadership by biting heads off kittens. The news media would report both sides of the story as if they had real credibility.

I don't know if this was planned, or just accidental, but basically after all the false scandal coverage during the Clinton years people have learned to just tune this shit out.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559787)

The 28% who still support him would claim he was showing true leadership by biting heads off kittens.

Not only that, but that 28% would also state he's doing his divine duty, and pin the blame on all you sick bastards looking at internet pr0n.

Both hands on the keyboard, Chester.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (4, Interesting)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559965)

Talkshow host Tom Hartman said that he can't help coming to the conclusion that the endless investigations into Clinton's Christmas card lists, travel agent's activities, and sexual peccadilloes was an effort to sour the public on the process of impeachment, and make whatever crimes the next president would do seem like partisan politics. It's hard not to start thinking this way.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559665)

Who's placing the Bush administration above reproach?
I, for one, stand relieved at the resluts of the 2006 election, when we finally traded a culture of corruption for a culture of a different sort [youtube.com]
Kristen Wiig [kristenwiig.com] is all that. But her site, alas, ain't. I think /. should volunteer to help.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (2, Informative)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559667)

Demanding a change of government wouldn't do anything. They're sure as hell not going away on their own, and they've got plenty of young men who've volunteeered complete control of their actions to the government who'll kill us dead if we try to do something about it ourselves.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1, Flamebait)

dudeman2 (88399) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559677)

According to the latest polls, 72% of us are convinced [msn.com] . The remaining 28% probably live in Jesusland [univie.ac.at] and I'm not going down there to try and change their minds...

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (5, Insightful)

wytcld (179112) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559681)

Something like 70% of Americans do demand a change in government. A majority have favored impeachment for some many months now. When the new Congress came in it had broad support, but then failed to either end the war or impeach. Now its popularity rating has dropped below even Bush's.

The problem in America isn't the people. We get it. The problem is the politicians still listen more to television commentators than to the people. And the talking heads mostly don't get it at all; don't see how corruption matters if that corruption just amounts to their friends in business and government going about their business "as usual." Of course, the networks overwhelmingly favor commentators who are of the right or center. The corporations that own them know very well who their friends are. This is too bad, since other parts of corporate America are far to the left, socially, of General Electric, Disney and whoever-the-hell-owns NBC now. We won't mention Fox.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Meoward (665631) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559683)

Your concerns are valid, and here's the answer: The average American doesn't give a shit.

For most of my fellow Americans, living in "freedom" means having a decent standard of living with a very narrow focus (creature comforts and more of them!) while being sold an (undeserved) positive image of themselves.

Most Americans don't really care, until their wallets or possessions enter the mix. We're more concerned with rising taxes than we are with the erosion of those freedoms that previous generations fought to protect. We care more about "American Idol" than the American ideal.

This is why when I see one of those stupid magnetic ribbons proclaiming that "freedom isn't free" on a gas-guzzling SUV, and I can't tell if the owner is connected with the military in any way (serving, veteran, family member in the service, etc.).. I steal it. Fuck 'em, they didn't pay a thing.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (3, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560049)

We're more concerned with rising taxes than we are with the erosion of those freedoms that previous generations fought to protect.

Most polls i've seen have not put lower taxes as a priority. Republicans keep yammering about such, but even when heavily advertized as an issue, most Americans don't give it much attention in any poll I've seen. I think partly because wealth is relative: people want more than the jones', and changing tax levels simply moves both them and the jones' up or down a roughly even amount. This is why I don't buy the argument that heavier taxes on the wealthy removes incentives: humans are by nature social comparers. Bill Gates and Warren Buffect cannot even spend their own money fast enough on personal stuff because they have so much. A 300 room mansion is merely a status symbol because they get lost in their own house if they actually try to use such rooms.
         

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19560077)

Actually, when I see some news like this I think "Ooh tonight's episode of the daily show's going to be pretty damned funny!"

America's only question.... (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560145)

"What's on TV tonight?"

Unless some presidential scandal can be hyped to attract more eyeballs than reality shows then nobody will really care. Look at the OJ trial and Clinton's impeachment. Both were boring as hell and choked up the airwaves.

Bush and his cronies have outlied Clinton (about stuff that really matters, not just a few cum-stains and cigars), out-Watergated Nixon with all the destruction of evidence and used the US and world's resources + the lives of many innocents to further his own business goals. Surely there's enough plot in there to do something?

Want to impeach Bush? Find a good script writer first!

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

Bill Barth (49178) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559693)

The only way to "demand a change of government" in the US is to press our Congress to impeach and convict the President. Otherwise, we have to wait until '08 until Bush is out by default. The question is then, do these corruptions rise to the level that the House and Senate will be willing to expend the political captial necessary to impeach the second President in a row (and, for removal, for the Senate to convict him). I doubt seriously that the necessary captial is there unless there's a video of the President telling Rove to monkey with the emails, and given that we'll be waiting for '08.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (5, Informative)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559695)

Is your question coming from the perspective of a person living under a parliamentary system? I can see the point of the question, if so. In the USA we do not simply call for elections. The legislature can't issue a vote of no confidence or otherwise pressure the executive into holding elections. Elections are held every 4 years, regardless. We can't move them up without amending the Constitution (which is very impractical).

The only way to remove the president is to put him on trial. Impeachment is conducted by the House and requires a simple majority. Trial is done by the Senate where a 2/3rds supermajority is required to convict. Upon conviction the president (or other official) is automatically removed from his office.

But then what? We'd have Cheney as president. That would be much, much worse. And the Congress are a lot of weak-kneed cowards who are afraid to spend their political capital on anything risky, which includes impeachment. Although the House could easily muster an impeachment, there is no way the Republicans in the Senate would vote to convict, meaning that the whole exercise would have no practical impact whatsoever.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559925)

I'd rather we just ride it out until 2008 and get the democrat who wins then to sign the international war crimes treaty and ship these bastards off to The Hague.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559927)

"We can't move them up without amending the Constitution (which is very impractical)."

We came within a couple of votes of amending the constitution with regards to gay marriage.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.ma rriage/index.html [cnn.com]

Regards.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (5, Informative)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560019)

"We came within a couple of votes of amending the constitution with regards to gay marriage."

Not exactly. 49 people voted to end debate on the amendment. If debate had ended, 67 senators would have had to vote in favor for the amendment to pass. Then, it would have needed a supermajority of the House, also. Then, it would have needed approval of fully 3/4th of all the states!

So you see that amendment was quite a long way from success.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19560139)

"Then, it would have needed approval of fully 3/4th of all the states!"

Fully 45 states have already stated that they are against gay marriage.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (2)

m0nkyman (7101) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559981)

[em] We'd have Cheney as president. [/em]

Nothing is stopping Congress from impeaching both of them....

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559709)

Just how obvious does the corruption in the White House have to be before you demand a change of government?

Via our regular way, Democracy? Hardly at all. Bush is gone come '09, and any Republican who follows him will have a tight line to walk.

Via the never successfully used impeachment method?

An American citizen needs to die on American soil due to their criminal (not simply amoral) behavior.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

tomblag (1060876) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559725)

What would you suggest? Impeachment? neg.. what would be your desired outcome? ... impeach the pres and vice pres? talk about a long shot. Votes of no confidence? don't mean anything here. Election in a bout a year? you'll just have to wait

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559729)

Just how obvious does the corruption in the White House have to be before you demand a change of government?

And get a free trip to Guantanamo?

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (2, Interesting)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559753)

We still, by and large, have food, clothes, heat (or AC), cars, and sex with no short-term end in sight. Thus, there will be no revolution here. Even a tiny burp of one. Well fed well fscked people do not change their circumstances, if they can help it, even if there is a nagging feeling of wrongness about the whole enterprise of continuing onward.

Corruption is a specially cruel joke in a two-party government, because we all know they are both in it up to their necks, they have all the money they will ever need (mostly donated by 'people' made primarily of stock portfolios and imaginary assets) and they get it from literally the same sources.

You know, the other day in the shower I was thinking about the legitimacy of a corporation giving money to both candidates in an election. It occurred to me that the 'money is speech' argument usually trotted out for justifying scant regulation in the area that allows people to donate out of both sides of their ass is self-defeating. After all, since elections are zero-sum games between the candidates, the only way a speech argument could be legitimated is by arguing that the gift of money is intended to encourage the victory of a preferred candidate; giving money is a political act of approval and that political expression is thus a form of speech. Problem is, if someone gives money to both candidates, they are saying exactly the same thing as if they had given no money at all, which is essentially they don't care who wins. Thus the introduction of money does not substantially lend to any political speech in such cases. And if the money doesn't contribute to a speech act, it shouldn't be protected.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think a tiny first step might be not allowing a given individual or corporation to buy *both* candidates in an election; maybe people should have to make real the speech argument and actually say something with their money that is actually relevant to the political contest, namely by wanting one to win over the other.

Rant over. Back to your original question; if Dick Cheney sat on the average American's face, they (sorry, we) would complain loudly, and yet there would Cheney be, still sitting on their (our!) face. I sometimes wonder whether free speech has not become the most brilliant pacification tool ever devised; as long as people are shouting, they feel accomplished and they don't move forward to....doing anything.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

Belacgod (1103921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559759)

Since the Republicans made such a joke of the Clinton impeachment, any attempt to impeach Bush will be seen as partisan gamesmanship, even if it's justified. Plus, the Democrats are complete sissies, ninnies, pansies, and lots of other unflattering words ending in -ies. Witness their patheticness on Iraq. If they can't get together and demand what 70% of the country wants, what makes you think they'll take any political risks at all?

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

dn15 (735502) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559779)

Just how obvious does the corruption in the White House have to be before you demand a change of government?

In short the people who care don't have power and the people who have power don't care.

Of the people who disagree with any given administration (the current or any other, just speaking generally here) most don't think they can do anything to make a difference. They show up every four years (if that) to vote for the president, grumble a bit when their guy doesn't win, but overall feel pretty powerless to make a change. Even if they wanted to, it's not as if the average person can just stand up and move to impeach the leaders they don't like. On the other side, our elected representatives are slow to do anything themselves because they are too concerned with preserving their political careers by not making waves.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (5, Insightful)

i_b_don (1049110) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559807)

The problem is that the current administration and their supporters have done a very good job of turning everything into "us vs them" and 1/3 of the american public has fallen for it. Politics becomes like a sports team where you always root for "your side" and while you think you're rooting or your side you're really screwing yourself and the country because politics becomes not about doing what your constituents want but about whipping your partisan crowd into a frenzy.

Look at what's happened... nearly everything that I would have listed as to why our country was great BEFORE bush came along has been tainted or flat out ruined. From not torturing "enemies", to due process, to "checks and balances", to freedom of the press, to NOT spying on your own damn citizens, to NOT doing wars of agression, and on and on and on.

If you would have asked a run of the mill republican before back in 1999 if these were good things I believe they would have said "no". But now inch by inch they've traded their ideals for support of their team . but at least 20% of them have had enough balls and intelligence to quit drinking bush's cool-ade. I personally don't think you can ever pry the cool-ade out of the fingers of the rest because they're in too deep and they can't face a reality beyond what Rush or Fox has told them.

d

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

Glowing Fish (155236) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559903)

What will it take to convince you people? Does Cheney have to visit each house in the US personally, pry open the door with his shotgun, be caught shitting in your pillowcase while installing a keylogger on your PC?

Thank you for the plotline for my next Literotica story!

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

Deathanatos (811514) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559913)

What will it take to convince you people? Does Cheney have to visit each house in the US personally, pry open the door with his shotgun, be caught shitting in your pillowcase while installing a keylogger on your PC?
See? You answered the question yourself! You too can be visited by Cheney in person. Every Christmas night (and other nights that he just feels like it) he rides Air Force one (really a sleigh with eight reindeer, plus that annoying one with the light pollution on his face) out of the Undisclosed Location (aka, the North Pole, which is secretly a US Military base doubling as an oil drilling facility). The RNC (Radically Norse Creatures, a codename for the elves) aid Bush in the "toy shop", manufacturing the shotgun shells and writing the spyware (and you thought ELF stood for Executable and Linkable Format - ha!) Cheney distributes to all of the Windows PCs of the world. He enters your house through a "series of tubes" (ie, the chimney), whering a black business suit.

This whole deal started from the firing of US Attorneys, remember? (Think back, way back, and get off the email tangent for a second.) If you do remember that, then I ask, so? Quite honestly, I don't care which party is in power - I would have expected them to fire people. Period. You serve at the pleasure of the President, and when Mr. President leaves the office, well, tough. You do too. Granted, yes, these were Bush-appointed, but so what? The position is still at the pleasure of the President, and if he's not happy, neither will you be. Now, we have a (maybe) scandal, that to me is confusing as all heck, just because we can't deal with a nonissue.

Law requires emails sent by officials to be stored or recorded.
If I'm understanding this nonsense correctly, then the problem is not deleted emails. The problem is that there were two emails to choose from: one White House, one RNC. All government-business had to go through the White House one, so it could be logged/recorded, and all political-related through the RNC one, since you can't use government resources for politcal purposes. The RNC, not being a government records keeper, but a political party, is not required to keep emails, and people are not outraged that such has happened, as apperently government officials _might_ have sent email through the RNC accounts that probably should have gone through the White house ones. (What part of "series of tubes" did you miss? You think public officials are... bright?)
Maybe I'm weilding my +3 Mace of Common Sense (it's cursed, sorry!), but I think what we have here is not some political "omfg!" scandal of evilness. To me, this seems like two laws that could be mutually exclusive. Where is the boundry between political and government? What about when political decisions, the voice of the party, etc. influence decisions made in the government? What email do we use when, where do you draw the line, and why do we even give a damn? Some of the same on Slashdot fight to keep everything private all the time. There - I've sacraficed my karma for not defending a liberal point of view. (And isn't this artle posted by... Spam?!?!)

Though, seriously, yes. Next time an election comes around, I request this of the democratic party: Find a real canidate. Someone who we can have an election with, and not look at the ballot and say, "Gawd, both of these choices are shit. Well, that's why the Lord gave us hanging chads! Say, who's this Nader fellow..."

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

students (763488) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559975)

Americans should know that Cheney is not part of the White House. Number One Observatory Circle is the official residence of the Vice President of the United States, and Cheney rarely goes near Bush so they can't get killed at the same time.\end{pedantry}

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560113)

AN MSN survey has (at the moment I looked at it) 88% out of 482424 respondents saying Bush should be impeached.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/from/ET [msn.com]

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (2, Insightful)

biggerboy (512438) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560159)

N MSN survey has (at the moment I looked at it) 88% out of 482424 respondents saying Bush should be impeached.

Citing an Internet survey as a real poll says more of the person citing it than anything else.

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1)

Repton (60818) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560123)

My question is — if people are breaking the law, why don't the police get involved?

In New Zealand, there was a corruption scandal revolving around one of the government MPs. The government tried to make it go away by holding a narrowly-defined commission of inquiry (which said that the MP had been very silly, but not actually corrupt), but the opposition kept on it. They dug up more evidence, passed it on to the police. The police investigated, decided that there was something there, and they have now moved to press charges against the MP.

(I can't tell you more becuase this is where we're up to at the moment. But I hope they nail the guy.)

So, I get the impression that the police can't charge the president (you have to impeach him?), but what about those lower down? How high up the chain do you have to be before the police can't touch you?

Re:Question for any Americans reading Slashdot. (1, Troll)

DTemp (1086779) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560161)

So the USA is a large country in almost every way you can measure it. Lots of land, lots of people, etc

So I have an honest question for those of you that live in geographically-smaller countries: "Do all regions of your country generally have the same values?"

In the United States, we have this interesting area known as the "South." While most of the Northeast, Mid-West, and Coastal Western States are left-leaning, the South (and the south-west and non-coastal west) has a right-leaning attitude. And lots of people live in these states. And I'm not trying to make a political statement here, but generally speaking, the south has lower salaries, a lower-skilled and less-educated populace, more children per household, more religious tendancies, and a host of other features you could probably guess.

Pretty much, its because of the SOUTH that the current administration was re-elected. Oh, that and the democratic ticket in the last election, John Kerry, wasn't exactly the most likable guy you've ever met.

So thats why we have Bush. Now, impeachment is a huge deal and probably not gonna happen. However, save impeachment, we HAVE DEMANDED A CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT. The last American elections in November, the Democrats won both chambers in Congress. So we've done pretty much everything we can do in the last 2 years besides impeaching the president and nuking the South.

I dont see how anyone could mod you flamebait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19560163)

maybe cheyney had mod points?

Member of Adminsitration Knowingly Breaks the Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559575)

Nothing new ?

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Offtopic)

ultracool (883965) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559593)

In Soviet Russia, emails delete the RNC!

This is minor WRT this admin. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559619)

A better use of the time would be all the Haliburton deals, what Sibel Edmunds [justacitizen.org] has to say, and of course, how much monitoring of Americans is happening.

Re:This is minor WRT this admin. (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559773)

Oh get off the f*cking Haliburton horse. It's dead and buried and there never was a horse to begin with.

I think some of this "finding" may be true but the one instance cited here "The RNC has e-mail records for Brad Smith, an executive assistant in the Office of Political Affairs, for the period between January 10, 2007, and April 27, 2007. During this period, Mr. Smith sent 6,954 e-mails and received 9,812 e-mails, for an average of 217 per weekday." brings up questions of how they counted. If someone can send 217 emails in one day that is freaking amazing. They must be counting CC's or people on a mailing list. That would be ONE email with multiple people, not say 20 emails.

Using the RNC accounts during and after the elections to discuss political strategy seems OK to me. I'd rather either party didn't use Gov't resources to plan political activities. It's also NOT always poltical business when you email someone at a ".gov" address. I have friends at NASA and other agencies I often communicate with just to see how they are and they have ".gov" emails. This smells like much ado about nothing.

If you want to talk about destroying valuable records related to an investigation, lets talk about what Hillary did with the records from the Rose Law firm in Little Rock. And the records about the last days of Vince Foster.

By the way, a Congressional Subpoena is meaningless, as they have no police powers to enforce compliance. It's more like a sternly worded request. I also question the group that did the study, it's a Democratic hack job group. It's nothing more than trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide the fact that many Americans are starting to wish they had NOT elected Democrats to office last election.

Re:This is minor WRT this admin. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560033)

I agree about the dems. But I think that ppl regret republicans more (hence the stomping at the last election). I just wish that more would vote libertarian.

But the issue about haliburton is anything BUT dead. It appears that the dems are slowly bringing all this out and waiting until the end to bring up the worse. W/Cheney's interference with selection of haliburton is documented and is slowly moving forward. As to the emial, the white house is REQUIRED to have all their professional email going through a system that saves it. It is obvious that they avoided the system.

But I want to see sibel speak out. Sadly, it appears that she has crap on both major parties, so neither wants her to speak up.

Re:This is minor WRT this admin. (1)

jrsjrsjrs (947704) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560125)

When sitting in a government office building, holding a government title and collecting a government check, you are a servant of the people. EVERYTHING you do from that position must be subject to public scrutiny and in their interest.

Finally - Call Homland Security! (1)

WillRobinson (159226) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559621)

They have located the TERRORIST communications hub!

My Prediction on the response to this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559633)

Sweet F A

Anyone care to dispute?

Catch-22. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559635)

> Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC e-mail accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing e-mails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.

"In other words, given that all the evidence has been deleted, good luck proving it... even if the other side did have enough votes to bring the charges, and we didn't own the court that would adjudicate any case."
- Your Overlords.

Catch-22. It's the best catch there is.

Still, nothing is done about it (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559661)

If those servers belonged to anyone but the RNC, they would have been impounded immediately. Why are they allowed to destroy evidence?

Yu0 Fail It? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559687)

Simple Solution on the next election (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559707)

Vote Libertarian, not Republicrat or Democan as both major parties have fucked America up and will continue to do so.

Great time to be a Democrat (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559715)

Its a great time to be a Democrat. You can even vote when you're dead.

Spin it right! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559733)

This wasn't a betrayal of the public trust by government officials using public resources feed their political games, subverting democracy and intentionally betraying oversight and justice...

It was just a simple case of pro-active privatization of communication channels. It's liberty from the chains of evidence! It's saving the public from expensive prosecutions at no cost to the tax payers!

We're at war people - and dog gambit - it's just plain not patriotic to be demanding accountability of our heroic politicians during a war they went through such pain to start and keep going!

Re:Spin it right! (0, Flamebait)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559783)

Thank you Mr. Luntz. You have raped the English language yet one more time; I didn't think it was possible, but there it is.

Whoosh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559947)

Hundreds of feet above your head, a joke flew by.

Re:Spin it right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19560029)

It totally consented. Did you see what it was wearing?

Glass Houses (3, Insightful)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559805)

[ObDisclosure -- I'm independent -- I prefer to think before I vote.]

Before this becomes a big GOP-bashing party, let's not be so tunnel-visioned to believe that this could never happen on the blue side of the aisle.

Re:Glass Houses (1)

Fizzol (598030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559907)

Just more of the same. Whenever the GOP gets caught in yet another scandal they trot out the "There's enough blame to go around on both sides", or "Clinton did it too!". In this case the other side didn't do it too so they fall back on castigating the Dems for something they didn't do, but would have done, at least according to them.

Re:Glass Houses (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559919)

What exactly are you arguing? I'm sick of this: "well everybody does it" crap. NO friend, not everyone does it -- and even if they did, I don't see the relevance. Your attitude is the biggest threat to the republic.

Re:Glass Houses (3, Insightful)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559961)

You're right -- inaction is a great threat to the republic. But so is having a double-standard. Just ask Dred Scott.

Re:Glass Houses (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559943)

Leave it to an independent to reflexively indict by innuendo every member of both political parties.

So just to be really even handed, I will point out that even political independents can be corrupt. Now everyone can feel good that everyone is equally capable of criminality in the abstract, and we can get back to discussing the actual criminality that has occurred, which happens to have been conducted by the leaders of the GOP.

Re:Glass Houses (1)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560031)

Point taken and accepted. The question now, paraphrasing another AC, is "What are we going to do about it?"

"Politicians, like underwear, should be changed regularly, and for the same reasons."

Ends-Justify-Means Mode (5, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559955)

let's not be so tunnel-visioned to believe that this could never happen on the blue side of the aisle.

It is fairly well-known that the repubs had a sense of "ends justify means" for quite a while. They practically felt that since they were doing "God's work", they had a right to skirt the rules. Perhaps in the 1970's the Demo's had this kind of belief due to civil rights and Vietnam. However, the prez was a Repub at the time, putting that in check. This time there were no checks on power: Pubs controled 2, and perhaps 3 branches of gov't.

It is this sense that the ends are important enough to justify the shady means when these kinds of things happen. They felt that when their grand plans succeeded (Iraq victory, Gaza democracy, Prayer, etc.), then voters would be so happy that they could stay in power and stop any investigations. But, reality caught up with them.

Yes, it could happen to the Demo's, but it takes almost a perfect storm. Voters have historically kept mixed parties in the different branches, and this kind of "alignment" is rare.

Re:Glass Houses (1)

TheDauthi (219285) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560127)

No, but it IS happening with the Republicans right now.

No problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559819)

Just call the NSA & FBI, they've probably got a couple of copies, and then there's the RIAA which probably knows the locations of a few. Geeesh do we have to think of everything around here?

Question for any longstanding Slashdot reader (5, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559839)

There have been dozens (at least, and excluding dupes) of stories covering systems that can lift the last ten layers of disk content off a drive. Unless these guys have done a secure wipe with specially-designed patterns to eliminate residual information, why the hell isn't anyone paying one of the labs capable of such content lifting to read these drives?

The owners of the system claim deleted files can't be recovered. Well, like I said, unless it's a secure wipe, that's patently bogus, even if the original tracks have now been filled with other data. Up to nine times over, if you're lucky. I'm not sure I would trust a technologically-ignorant group to run a critical service.

The Democrats, on the other hand, no matter how justified their cause, are either unwilling to get competent technical advice or are unwilling to take the gamble of being wrong if they have that advice or knowledge. This may well be rocket science, but it still doesn't take a rocket scientist to do a search on Google to find out what can be done and who can do it.

In short, for me this has ceased to be a matter of rights and wrongs, of whether the law was broken, or of whether civil servants lost their jobs due to degenerate politics. Nobody will ever know the full facts of the matter, because those who could perfectly well obtain them have - for their own reasons - declined to do so. I trust the Democrats on many issues, but after this, I cannot trust them on the issue of cleaning up politics. How can I? Either they want to but can't, or they don't and won't. What does it matter which it is?

I'd also LOVE to know where all the technologists are, who are fully aware of these sorts of capabilities. Why the silence? It's not a conspiracy, that's obvious enough, so why is nobody asking questions? Why are the Republicans not asking why the Democrats aren't making the effort? Why are the blogs not discussing the effects of layering text over text on the magnetic fields? Even if the reliability of the technique is too poor, someone could at least have asked and gotten that reply.

Demacrats... (1)

thoolie (442789) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559877)

You know, it's a shame that when the Democrats get into a position of power they choose not to use it, as to seem "bipartison" and to appease their colleagues. But, when the shoe is on the other foot (as it has been for more than a decade), the Republicans are oh so quick to use their newly found authority to do whatever the heck the feel fit. Well, that is a sign of leadership for the Republicans and a sign of lack of leadership for the dems, but it also shows just how bad this country needs individuals who are willing to not just use power or to let power lie, but to lead the people and to do what's right and just.

You know, it would be better if both the parties used the power to beat up each other; as it stands now, the dems are like a wet noodle and the republicans know this and are just waiting to impeach the next dem president for....I don't know......j-walking perhaps?. WTF?

Re:Demacrats... (1)

TheSlashaway (1032228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560129)

It's the old game: GOOD COP / BAD COP. The Democrats are the good cop and the Republicans are the bad cop. They both represent corporate America and their enemy is the American middle class.

What about classified information in these emails? (1)

EdwinFreed (1084059) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559883)

Flagrant violations of the presidential records act aside, given this administration's cavalier attitude about the handling of classified information, I have to wonder if some of these messages contained any. And if they did, I have a hard time believing a facility operated by the RNC complied with the many rules and regulations for keeping classified information safe.

To be sure, a fair amount of classified information is so labeled more because it would be embarrassing to be revealed than because it is actually sensitive. And some of the rules for handling sensitive data are overly draconian. But there's also a lot of really important stuff these people deal with that really needs all the protection we can give it.

Of course now that so much of the email is deleted we'll probably never know...

all witch hunts, all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19559897)

Ahh, the witch hunt congress.

Don't Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi look nice on brooms?

Impeachment... sigh... (1, Flamebait)

jmors (682994) | more than 7 years ago | (#19559931)

Outeright illegal search and seizure, total abuse of power, taking away civil liberties and being above the law, flying folks off to foreign torture centers for "interrogation" without due process, lying about "WMD's" Spying on American Citizens... Will someone with the initials ML PLEASE give this president some oral sex so impeachment procedures can begin?

So I have this boss... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19560007)

So I have this boss... in fact, I have several bosses. And none of them know their email account and client from a hole in the ground. Maybe there's some law that says their email has to be configured some way or another, but you know what? They're old dudes who yell at me if I take more than thirty seconds setting up or fiddling with their machine. If it doesn't work in a way that's convenient for them, in the office/on the road/at home/at the mistress', my ass is grass.

They're not the smartest bunch, but I guess no one who gets into this business is. They're certainly not smart enough to come up with any kind of cool movie-plot conspiracy to run the world.

Presidential Records Act? Give me a break. I'm a freaking intern, who's just trying to make the stipend cover until the end of the month and save up enough scratch to take out that hot page from Texas.

Uh oh. Sen. Pelosi's giving me the eye. Might have to flash her BIOS again later. :(

Such a One-sided Conversation (1)

Revotron (1115029) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560067)

Damn the Republicans! Damn the Republican corruption to hell!
*Phone rings*
Err... Jefferson did WHAT? ...HOW MUCH MONEY? What about a freezer?

*Cough*... ALL REPUBLICANS MUST DIE! RAWR CORRUPTION! RAWR IRAQ OIL KARL ROVE!

11 or 88? (3, Interesting)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560081)

I'm not sure I follow this. The committee is saying 88 officials had political cover email accounts while the RNC says there were only 11. Is this a catagory problem? Are 77 not White House officials so that the RNC is correct, or are they minimizing in a way that is not truthful?

On another note, I'm guessing that federal marshals will be sent to Texas to ensure Harriet Miers keeps the appointment made for her with the House Judiciary committee. Does anyone think that issues that arose when they were called on to hunt down the Texas legislature will come up in this case?

Chalk one more onto the tally (5, Insightful)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560083)

Honestly, I believe that this administration has fucked up so bad that there is no shock element any more. Compared to Bush, Nixon was a saint, and Carter was as accomplished as FDR.

I agree with some points earlier about how we'd be even worse if we impeached Bush, though. Who would we be left with? Cheney. The only solution would be to impeach both Bush and Cheney at the same time, but by the time that proceeding gets through we'd already have finished the next election.

Breaking White House news: (-1, Offtopic)

PurifyYourMind (776223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560099)

I just pooped my cute little pants.

Glass Houses Pt.2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19560103)

Yeah, like your IT support is top notch and can guarantee that your e-mails dont' disappear either. Have you checked those backups lately?

Every single organization that I've worked for has bozos for IT support -- oh, sorry. I guess I'm speaking to them right now.

yargh! (5, Insightful)

lordvalrole (886029) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560109)

basically, Mr. Carl Rove ended up only having 130 emails actually recorded throughout bush's presidency when there should of been all of his emails and all of the other peoples emails recorded. This is why we will never know anything come 25 years from now when things get declassified. This seriously amazes me why the general public is not outraged by this. Compared to the insane ridiculousness of this administration. This trumps it all. I could bet my life that most of those emails were about foreign affairs in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, oil, military, war funding, contracts and contractors for Iraq, occupying the middle east, nsa wiretaps, spying on Americans, the whole damn thing were in those emails. I seriously would be my life on it. Now we have no records of any wrong doing. How screwed up is this place. We should be marching in DC with pitchforks (well guns) and over take the city. Un-fucking-believable

Strange justice (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560131)

Al Capone wasn't tried for murder. They went after him for tax evasion.

Bush has caused the deaths of thousands... and they'll go after him for deleting emails.

What the hell?

Re:Strange justice (1)

Revotron (1115029) | more than 7 years ago | (#19560173)

I have a question for you. What ever happened to that poor little lady who decided to fool around in Ted Kennedy's car?

I ask you this... *How* is Bush directly responsible for the death of thousands? How about the Congress that authorized the war? How about the top brass who decide the strategies and battle plans? For the love of God, all Liberals ever whine about is Bush, Bush, Bush. Like he has a big red "KILL" button on his desk or something to that regard...

How about you take a course on American Government to see how many people (FROM BOTH PARTIES) are actually involved in governmental and military affairs?

Bush Derangement Syndrome (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19560179)

Sure he sucks. Most Conservatives consider him to be a "liberal".

I can't wait until Fred Thompson defeats your savior Hillary (who ,if she wins, will continue the Iraq War and destroy civil liberties at a faster rate than Bush) just so I can hear the howls of "Stolen Election!".

The entire Government is corrupt. Why do you nutjobs focus on BUSH so much?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?