E-mail Controversy Prompts Many Aides To Stop Usage

[danarhea]

With a number of hearings coming up which involve White House aides, including Attorneygate, Bush and Company has made a huge blunder. Because of fears of subpoenas, they stopped using the White House email system, and began using private email systems, including personal blackberries, instead. Now here is the irony. The Democrats have found those systems, and the White House will not be able to claim executive privilege, because many of the emails which are now being subpoenaed are not on any kind of government server. This is going to come back and bite the White House, right in the keester.

Article is here.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Attorneygate

............................ :roll:

 

[jfuh]

With a number of hearings coming up which involve White House aides, including Attorneygate, Bush and Company has made a huge blunder. Because of fears of subpoenas, they stopped using the White House email system, and began using private email systems, including personal blackberries, instead. Now here is the irony. The Democrats have found those systems, and the White House will not be able to claim executive privilege, because many of the emails which are now being subpoenaed are not on any kind of government server. This is going to come back and bite the White House, right in the keester.

Article is here.

:shock: How stupid can these guys be? Seriously? Why not just go old school and meet in person? Had they learned nothing from watergate or from their own troubles in the last months?
Finally, here's an idea for these morons - don't lie.

 

[Gibberish]

Finally, here's an idea for these morons - don't lie.

Now there is a concept they have failed to make a committee for.

 

[jfuh]

Now there is a concept they have failed to make a committee for.

Oh god, don't even get me started on those committees.

 

[danarhea]

This is getting even better. :rofl Some of the private domains used by the White House to hide their email activities:

gop.com - Really original. LOL.
dubyarocks.com
donkeyswantyourmoney.com
GWB43.com

Goodbye executive privilege. It does not exist on private servers. I have a new name for the White House - Dumb and Dumber. :rofl

Here’s the domain’s registration info for GWB43.com:

Domain Name: GWB43.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Republican National Committee dns@RNCHQ.ORG
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US
999 999 9999 fax: 999 999 9999
Record expires on 16-Jan-2008.
Record created on 16-Jan-2004.
Database last updated on 21-Mar-2007 17:45:46 EDT.
​

Guess what? Its a Federal felony to give false telephone number information in domain registrations, per homeland security, which did not want terrorists hiding their activities in their domains. Is the Patriot Act going to bite in the butt those who created it? The irony of it all. :rofl

From this article.

 

[Billo_Really]

This is related to my post on Champs thread:

Emails the White House doesn't want you to read

 

[Voidwar]

began using private email systems, including personal blackberries, instead. Now here is the irony. The Democrats have found those systems, and the White House will not be able to claim executive privilege, because many of the emails which are now being subpoenaed are not on any kind of government server.

Since they aren't, how will you prove destruction of evidence when you end up "subpeona-ing" blank hard-drives ?

These people have a right to privately communicate.

This witchhunt only makes the Dems look scummy, like a bunch of diary readers. I'm surprised they haven't hired Ken Starr to lead the charge.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by voidwar:
These people have a right to privately communicate.

As long as it is personal, not business, communication.

Or haven't you heard of the 1978 Presidential Records Act.

 

[Voidwar]

As long as it is personal, not business, communication.

Or haven't you heard of the 1978 Presidential Records Act.

Couldn't Care Less About It.

If I decide it's personal to me to do my job well, and that means keeping a lid on something, then my privacy is personal and they can eat 5hit. If you quote this silly law, I just tell you I think it is piss-poor legislation, and thus piss poor justification for an argument. If you ask me why, I will tell you that it attempts to prove another's motivation. It is foolish to set oneself up for failure, and writing a law that puts one in the position of needing to prove the motive inside the mind of another, is exactly that, a set up for failure.

If the "1978 Presidential Records Act conflicts with this :

These people have a right to privately communicate.

then its wrong, whether passed into law or not.

"Passed" into law only carries so much legitimacy, as the 3/5 compromise can prove.

 

[danarhea]

Couldn't Care Less About It.

If I decide it's personal to me to do my job well, and that means keeping a lid on something, then my privacy is personal and they can eat 5hit. If you quote this silly law, I just tell you I think it is piss-poor legislation, and thus piss poor justification for an argument. If you ask me why, I will tell you that it attempts to prove another's motivation. It is foolish to set oneself up for failure, and writing a law that puts one in the position of needing to prove the motive inside the mind of another, is exactly that, a set up for failure.

If the "1978 Presidential Records Act conflicts with this :



then its wrong, whether passed into law or not.

"Passed" into law only carries so much legitimacy, as the 3/5 compromise can prove.

You mean, if I decide to break the law and communicate it to someone else in an email, that emailed cannot be subpoenaed? That's a new one to me. The right to privately communicate in the case that you are citing conflicts with "probable cause".

 

[Voidwar]

You mean, if I decide to break the law and communicate it to someone else in an email, that emailed cannot be subpoenaed? That's a new one to me. The right to privately communicate in the case that you are citing conflicts with "probable cause".

Couldn't Care Less About "Probable Cause" anyway.

I've been on the recieving end of this lie before.

"Probable Cause" is what Thugs with Badges say when they violate my right to be secure in my person and in my effects against unreasonable searches and siezures.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I've heard cops call sounds and smells "probable cause".
Yet there was no warrant, nor description of places or things.
Probable Cause is a code word for cops violating rights.

 

[danarhea]

Couldn't Care Less About "Probable Cause" anyway.

I've been on the recieving end of this lie before.

"Probable Cause" is what Thugs with Badges say when they violate my right to be secure in my person and in my effects against unreasonable searches and siezures.


I've heard cops call sounds and smells "probable cause".
Yet there was no warrant, nor description of places or things.
Probable Cause is a code word for cops violating rights.

Well, the difference here is that there WILL be a subpoena.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Voidwar
Couldn't Care Less About It.

If I decide it's personal to me to do my job well, and that means keeping a lid on something, then my privacy is personal and they can eat 5hit. If you quote this silly law, I just tell you I think it is piss-poor legislation, and thus piss poor justification for an argument. If you ask me why, I will tell you that it attempts to prove another's motivation. It is foolish to set oneself up for failure, and writing a law that puts one in the position of needing to prove the motive inside the mind of another, is exactly that, a set up for failure.

If the "1978 Presidential Records Act conflicts with this :


Quote:
These people have a right to privately communicate.

then its wrong, whether passed into law or not.

"Passed" into law only carries so much legitimacy, as the 3/5 compromise can prove.

Wow! Now that's a straight forward and honest answer!

I thank you for that.

I choose not to rebut this time because
I really liked your candor.

 

[Voidwar]

Well, the difference here is that there WILL be a subpoena.

Do you believe a man has the right to "take the fifth" ?

If I have that right, then why does it not extend to my papers, which I have a right to, by the fourth amendment ?

Essentially, If I can take the fifth, then burning or withholding my papers would be like taking my "written fifth".

I guess I am not very "on board" with the current state of "thought police" legislation.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Voidwar
Couldn't Care Less About "Probable Cause" anyway.

I've been on the recieving end of this lie before.

"Probable Cause" is what Thugs with Badges say when they violate my right to be secure in my person and in my effects against unreasonable searches and siezures.

Quote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I've heard cops call sounds and smells "probable cause".
Yet there was no warrant, nor description of places or things.
Probable Cause is a code word for cops violating rights.

Do to the Patriot and Military Commission's Act's, our rights are no longer guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[Voidwar]

Do to the Patriot and Military Commission's Act's, our rights are no longer guaranteed by the Constitution.

There were highway checkpoints in effect long before the patriot act.

Everyone knows a drunk checkpoint is a violation of the Fourth.

All Gun regulation violates the Second.

Not taxing Churches, and then telling them what they can say from their pulpit in an election year violates the First.

The FCC violates the First.

Rape Shield Laws violate the Sixth.

You know whose watch all this happened on ?
The American Voter's.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Voidwar
There were highway checkpoints in effect long before the patriot act.

Everyone knows a drunk checkpoint is a violation of the Fourth.

All Gun regulation violates the Second.

Not taxing Churches, and then telling them what they can say from their pulpit in an election year violates the First.

The FCC violates the First.

Rape Shield Laws violate the Sixth.

You know whose watch all this happened on ?
The American Voter's.

I'm talking about loss of "due process" and "indefinate detention".

 

[Voidwar]

I'm talking about loss of "due process" and "indefinate detention".

understandable.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

My only point of contention was the timing of your assertion.
Constitutional freedoms, especially the bill of rights, have been getting whittled down for far longer than the Patriot act has been around.

Americans need to learn to say no to thugs. To Tell Cops NO.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Voidwar
My only point of contention was the timing of your assertion.
Constitutional freedoms, especially the bill of rights, have been getting whittled down for far longer than the Patriot act has been around.

Americans need to learn to say no to thugs. To Tell Cops NO.

I can see your point.

And can't say it's wrong.

 

[Narph]

Do you believe a man has the right to "take the fifth" ?

Yes, I believe a you have the right to take the fifth.

If I have that right, then why does it not extend to my papers, which I have a right to, by the fourth amendment ?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The fourth amendment does not say that they can't search and seize your person of things it means they can't do it without a court order.

Essentially, If I can take the fifth, then burning or withholding my papers would be like taking my "written fifth".

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I see your point about the fifth. The question I have is why would the fourth give them the right to search and seize your papers if they could not use them against you? I think the point of the "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" is they can't make you be wittiness against your self testifying or oral or written. I don't think that extends to things you choose to write or say unless to a lawyer or a priest.

I think that a personal journal should be private I equate a jouranl to written thoughts and I don't think thought should be use agains some one.
I don't think it is protected under the constitution.

 

[Inuyasha]

Maybe they should use smoke signals. I have never heard of one of those being sobpoenaed.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Inuyasha
Maybe they should use smoke signals. I have never heard of one of those being sobpoenaed.

Yeah, but that would bring heat from the AQMD.