Can anyone say, "Alexander Butterfield"?

I thought you could...

How come Al or American Hawk haven't shown up yet to explain that running official White House communications through the RNC's server is actually a good government initiative?

I think they're slipping.

Rove & Co. have seen to it that we have the tools to get to the bottom of this. What the national surveillance effort hasn't collected should be easily elicited with some skillful questioning.

Mr. Rove, would you like your interrogation Guantanamo style or Abu Ghraib style?

If he's spending 95% of his time on RNC business, shouldn't he be working there instead of the Oval Office?

I've been asking this question for a number of years now. Why is this person on the public payroll?

If he's spending 95% of his time on RNC business, shouldn't he be working there instead of the Oval Office?

Yes...

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

Those e-mails are gone. Gone, gone, gone.

We will learn about a server crash. Then the backup tapes are missing or bad. They don't store e-mails. Etc.

Don't expect any smoking guns to be found there.

Karl Rove sends 95% of his emails through a Republican National Committee account?

Ah, Kevin. I see you have little understanding of how e-mail works so let me explain. In emailing, there's a concept called forwarding. Forwarding e-mail means an e-mail sent to one address is immediately relayed (ie FORWARDED) to another address. I bet what Rove has done is just forwarded all his e-mail from the white house to his RNC account.

He did this because he's a small government conservative and understands since his e-mail will now be saved at the RNC server instead of the white house server, money will be saved for the taxpayers due to less use of e-mail server space at the white house. That is why he uses his RNC e-mail account a lot more than his White House account. Quite a simple explanation really and certainly better than the conspiracy theory you propose.

Rep. Waxman has put the RNC on notice not to destroy any of these emails.

Rest assured it's been destroyed.

Just like Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales giving the White House 12 hours to destroy all of the incriminating evidence when the Plame investigation was announced.

I have to say I suspect that Alan may prove right.

If the emails are through the RNC, then presumably the RNC decides when and how emails are stored, not any federal regulation.

I wonder if they don't get digitally shredded after a very short period of time.

If he's spending 95% of his time on RNC business, shouldn't he be working there instead of the Oval Office?

Heck, I spend 95% of my writing time at various blogs, and none of THEM pay me anything...

Thanks for the explanation Parody Al.

Karl Rove sends 95% of his emails through a Republican National Committee account? If he's spending 95% of his time on RNC business, shouldn't he be working there instead of the Oval Office?

How do you get "spending 95% of his time on RNC business" from "sends 95% of his emails through a RNC account"?

The two proportions aren't particularly likely to be related. Anyhow, Rove, Bush, and everyone else in this administration spends 100% of their time serving the interests of a narrow faction within the Republican Party and 0% serving the interests of the American people more generally.

And where they all should be working is inside a federal prison doing some kind of appropriate hard labor, neither in government positions of trust or in the RNC.

..95% of his emails through a Republican National Committee account?

Hulk smash claim to executive privilege!

No, seriously...What does this do to a potential claim of privileged communications? If it's not going through the government's servers, how confidential can it legally be considered to be?

..shouldn't he be working there instead of the Oval Office?

I'm thinking more along the lines of Rove manufacturing license plates while looking nervously at a 300-pound guy nicknamed 'Rattlesnake' who's making kissy-faces at him.

Gonzales will end up falling on his sword to protect Rove, but it may not be enough.

Correction: Gonzales with end up being dropped onto his sword to protect Rove...

How come Al or American Hawk haven't shown up yet to explain that running official White House communications through the RNC's server is actually a good government initiative?

Outsourcing, it's the way of the future!

And where they all should be working is inside a federal prison doing some kind of appropriate hard labor, neither in government positions of trust or in the RNC.

As usual, cmdicely has the appropriate take.

Those RNC e-mail probably have the same life expectancy as a new car left overnight in the South Bronx - and that's the whole purpose.

Isn't it interesting how the Repub's on the Sunday Gasbag shows are distancing themselves. I think this thing is reaching critical mass.

I see Al doesn't particularly understand the concept of email servers any more than he understands anything else.

But, you would think that Rove and Al would want those emails sent thorugh the White House server because it's just got to be the most secure server there could possibly be; what with all the terrorists about, taking pictures of the Vice President's home and what not.

Well, with somebody about to plead the 5th, any arguments that everything was above-board are shot. Now they have to rely on the arguments that any improprieties were confined solely to loose cannons. Those arguments worked wonder with Abu Ghraib; we'll see how they pan out this time.

More to the point, Is the RNC charging us for the use of computer space?

It is going to be very interesting to see how Bushco will try to argue that off the official manner e-mails somehow have the same executive privilege as those that are on official WH servers and are properly recorded, as these e-mails clearly are not so archived. If it does not follow the rules for being publicly archivalable, how then can they be official enough to deserve executive privilege protections? By trying to hide these e-mails from official subpoenas by not having them on official servers they likely not only shatter executive privilege from applying but also underscore the argument that Bushco has run a second parallel government within the WH in a manner totally at odds with the law and with the Constitution of the USA.

Either way though, these e-mails are going to be a real headache I think for Bushco. It is also interesting to note that Monica Gooding has just declined to testify to Congress citing 5th Amendment reasons. Interesting...

and Waxman and Leahy have not gotten to the Iraq fiasco yet. Phase II is waiting in the wing....

Breaking hard: Gonzo's assistant Ms Goodling will plead no contest, sorry the 5th when called.

I forget where I read it now and I pointed it out in an earlier thread, but Alberto G doesn't have any e-mail address at the DofJ.

That's more than a little strange in this day and age and certainly keeps him one step removed from any relative e-mails.

Al and all the rest, no need to point out how much money he's saving us taxpayers because there is no cheaper form of communication.

Anyway, if Rove is not using the White House server, are the messages stored on the RNC server beyond the protection of the White House as priviliged communication?

Just because the RNC wasn't archiving this stuff, doesn't mean it isn't out there somewhere. People who think email is ephemeral and therefore safe, are likely to be surprised.

Anyhow, Rove, Bush, and everyone else in this administration spends 100% of their time serving the interests of a narrow faction within the Republican Party and 0% serving the interests of the American people more generally.

And where they all should be working is inside a federal prison doing some kind of appropriate hard labor, neither in government positions of trust or in the RNC.
Posted by: cmdicely

Yes!

From the Talking Points Memo blog:

"Breaking off the AP wire: DoJ official Monica Goodling to take the 5th at upcoming congressional hearing."

Yahooo! Another Monica scandal! This ought to be rich.

Just because the RNC wasn't archiving this stuff, doesn't mean it isn't out there somewhere. People who think email is ephemeral and therefore safe, are likely to be surprised.

Well, that's a good point.

Insofar as Rove works out of his office at the WH, his email presumably has to go through some WH server even if it makes its way eventually to a RNC server.

Gotta believe that that traffic would be archived too.

What we going to name this scandal. E-Mailgate does not sound right.

I think this whole thing proves what we've always thought - Rove is made of spam!

Everybody needs to realize that although routing everything through RNC servers undercuts potential administration arguments that the information is privileged, it also undercuts congressional arguments that it's their business.

"Hulk SMASH claim to executive privilege!"

IMG! I can't stop laughing!

Gotta believe that that traffic would be archived too.
Posted by: frankly0 on March 26, 2007 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

The NSA has it fer sure.

Insofar as Rove works out of his office at the WH, his email presumably has to go through some WH server even if it makes its way eventually to a RNC server.

It would (one hopes) go through a proxy server - and it's pretty common to LOG the traffic, but not common to capture all of the content of the traffic (which would require assloads of storage, and likely cause a performance hit).

Funny thing is, using the White House email system is what saved Clinton - it has a notoriously (and conveniently) unreliable backup system.

"Hulk SMASH claim to executive privilege!"

OMG! I can't stop laughing!

Everybody needs to realize that although routing everything through RNC servers undercuts potential administration arguments that the information is privileged, it also undercuts congressional arguments that it's their business.

Um, no, it doesn't. Anything that potentially touches on any legitamte issue subject to legislative action, including anything that may touch on malfeasance or maladministration in government, is within the scope of Congress' broad investigative power, which includes subpoena power.

The fact that a government official conducts business in a venue outside of the control of the government does not put it outside of Congress' purview.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

Perhaps he meant "especially from" rather than "from even".

If senior counsel consider themselves to be realistically under threat of prosecution to the point of pleading the fifth, doesn't that signal to the senate that they should immediately appoint a special investigator?

The fact that a government official conducts business in a venue outside of the control of the government does not put it outside of Congress' purview.

No, of course not. But official records are already required to be preserved for the public record. In the case of the private records of a political party, Congress might have to show that what they're looking for is a legitimate inquiry and not partisan persecution.

"What we going to name this scandal. E-Mailgate does not sound right."

Turdgate? Turdblossomgate? Rovegate?

Arrogantassgate?

Would be unfortunate, and karmic if the arrogant ass was sending classified info over the wrong email.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Rove manufacturing license plates while looking nervously at a 300-pound guy nicknamed 'Rattlesnake' who's making kissy-faces at him.

A bit off-topic, but I find rape jokes such as this quite distasteful. Rape or the threat thereof should not be part of the American justice system.

I forget where I read it now and I pointed it out in an earlier thread, but Alberto G doesn't have any e-mail address at the DofJ.

AG only sends email through his myspace page....

I think this whole thing proves what we've always thought - Rove is made of spam!
Posted by: craigie

All sizzle and no steak?

craigie *hurts* me again.

> Insofar as Rove works out of his office at
> the WH, his email presumably has to go
> through some WH server even if it makes
> its way eventually to a RNC server.

No, not at all - the mail traffic would most likely go directly from Rove's e-mail client to the RNC server. The NSA is presumably copying all Internet traffic out of the White House and could break any encryption being used, but I would guess that the NSA's records cannot be subpoena'd.

Cranky

Everybody needs to realize that although routing everything through RNC servers undercuts potential administration arguments that the information is privileged, it also undercuts congressional arguments that it's their business.

No, not at all. It doesn't work that way. Since the information relates to the working of the federal government, it is inherently the business of Congress under its power of the purse and oversight functions.

craigie, perfect.

Possible headlines tomorrow:

"Monica Blows Off Congress"
"Monica Blue, Yet Dressses Down Oversight Committee"
"Monica's Reputation Stained By Relationships With Gonzalez, Rove"
"Monica-Gonzalez-Rove: A Rove Triangle"

Since the information relates to the working of the federal government, it is inherently the business of Congress under its power of the purse and oversight functions.

But we don't know which of the email relates to the working of the federal government until we can take a look. It has in camera proceeding written all over it.

The fact that they have a record of WH employees using the RNC servers to conduct official business with DOJ should give Congress sufficient probably cause to say the inquiry is legitimate.

I mentioned this at TPM, but isn't using gov't computers (at the WH) to access the RNC servers sorta like using the telephones at the WH to conduct political business. Isn't that a no-no?

It would (one hopes) go through a proxy server - and it's pretty common to LOG the traffic, but not common to capture all of the content of the traffic (which would require assloads of storage, and likely cause a performance hit).

I would certainly hope that every packet that originates from within the WH is copied before it leaves the local network. This is the WH we're talking about, after all.

In the case of the private records of a political party, Congress might have to show that what they're looking for is a legitimate inquiry and not partisan persecution.

These aren't the private records of a political party -- these are documents sent by governmet officials, working on governmen time, and relating to their governmnetal duties. The fact that they may have sent public documents through private channels does nothing to lessen their inherently public nature.

More about Goodling's plea at the WaPo.

"I'm thinking more along the lines of Rove manufacturing license plates while looking nervously at a 300-pound guy nicknamed 'Rattlesnake' who's making kissy-faces at him.

A bit off-topic, but I find rape jokes such as this quite distasteful. Rape or the threat thereof should not be part of the American justice system."

Posted by: Stefan on March 26, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Agreed. While I understand the emotions behind it, I am not of the view that there is ever any justification neither for rape nor for wishing it upon another, even rapists themselves. This is something I see as simply so evil that to inflict it or to endorse it stains the honour of those doing so, even when in jest. Granted, I am a bit touchy on the topic given my wife's history of being on the receiving end of such, but even before I knew her I never found such jokes particularly amusing.

The fact that they may have sent public documents through private channels does nothing to lessen their inherently public nature.

Not all the documents, if they had been sent through normal WH email systems, would have been "inherently public." Some would likely have been privileged.

Similarly, we can't assume that all the email on the RNC servers was email that should have been official, but was taken "off the books." I'd love to assume that, but we can reasonably expect a fight, and the arguments from the GOP side are not absurd.

I mentioned this at TPM, but isn't using gov't computers (at the WH) to access the RNC servers sorta like using the telephones at the WH to conduct political business. Isn't that a no-no?

It is if you're Al Gore, eg, but IOKIYAR.

"Communicating via email is one of the most powerful online tools Republicans use. We’re sure you will find the information useful and take advantage of the opportunities to assist the party and the President. Coast to coast, link by link, email to email, you are making a difference!"

http://www.gop.com/PrivacyPolicy.aspx

Hail to the chief! It gets me all warm and fuzzy to think how special folks who use the RNC email servers are.

If I am working at a company computer, during the time that I am "on the clock" then I had better be using email appropriately.

But then this administration is the unaccountabl-e-mail-serversforgod.com. So any inquiry into their doings is POLITICAL WITCH-HUNTING.

I am almost convinced that more people are waking up to the realization that our current administration has no clue how dastardly they indeed do their dastardly deeds.

E-mails that become "un-official" yet ARE used to conduct executive actions, are criminal, slimy, Orwellian, and soo-soo Rovbushcheynian so help us god!

But official records are already required to be preserved for the public record.

Which has nothing to do with the question of whether it is Congress' business, though it may affect whether or not there is illegality involved if the emails were deleted in the past.

In the case of the private records of a political party, Congress might have to show that what they're looking for is a legitimate inquiry and not partisan persecution.

Not really; while there may be some (e.g., first amendment-based) limits on Congressional inquiries into the conduct of private associations, they would apply more toward things like disclosing general membership information, not disclosing communications attributable to a particular federal official that happened also to interact with the association, which are well and clearly within Congress oversight role.

"Hulk SMASH claim to executive privilege!"

OMG! I can't stop laughing!

Me, neither! Good one, grape.

I know nothing about this stuff, but I'd always understood that there's no such thing as truly destroying e-mail. Surely some good forensic people could find some or much of this stuff if it's under subpoena, unless the RNC has actually put every one of its servers nationwide through that blender on YouTube?

Gosh, it's fun to be us these days.

> I'd love to assume that, but we can
> reasonably expect a fight, and the
> arguments from the GOP side are not absurd.

The argument that one can bypass all records retention and archiving _laws_ and all the precedent over subponeas and discovery merely by using a Yahoo Mail account rather than a dotgov e-mail? I am no lawyer, but I fear I _would_ have to classify that argument as absurd.

And if his argument about the business being private is true, he then has misuse of federal time/property and national security laws to contend with (Gore and the Executive Office phone calls - remember?).

Cranky

Scotian and Stefan;
Given that it's the Conservatives who are generally IN FAVOR of prison rape, (as it rides up along side their "harsh punishments" mentality of law enforcement) - I find it particularly funny to joke about folks like Karl Rove being on the receiving end.

Unfortunately, Karlo is not going to jail, because they will executive privilege, classify, and stonewall their way out of this, and any other scandal. And even if he does end up getting charged with something, no crony prosecutor will prosecute him; or some other person will fall on their sword for him, or he'll be pardoned. Worst-case, they'll pull a Ken Lay, and he'll have a "heart-attack" and he'll recover from his facial reconstruction surgery at some private villa in the Bahamas.

These slimy eels have been slipping out of the hands of justice since the Nixon days. They've become exceedingly good at it. They're so good now, they don't even bother covering their tracks, because the MSM has their backs. Anyone that accuses them is "shrill", "partisan", "unamerican", and a "troop-hater", or a "loony liberal".

We don't know that what's on there is official business, or related to it. It's a reasonable assumption.

But what if it's all mash notes to Jeff Gannon?

pj, I'm howling at your Monica headlines.

Not all the documents, if they had been sent through normal WH email systems, would have been "inherently public." Some would likely have been privileged.

The only privileged communication Rove might have had within the White House would be that covered by either national security privilege or executive privilege; but neither of those could apply to any communication he made via RNC servers, even if they might have applied in other circumstances.

I'd love to assume that, but we can reasonably expect a fight, and the arguments from the GOP side are not absurd.

I have yet to hear a non-absurd argument that might be raised by the GOP side, much less such an argument actually raised by the GOP sides, in regard to those emails. Merely asserting that non-absurd arguments exist does not establish that they, in fact, do.

I hate you liberals fuckers.
If I could, I send you all to Gitmo.

Failing that...
I'd be happy to brand you all as dealers in kiddie porn.

We don't know that what's on there is official business, or related to it.

It doesn't matter to whether or not it is subject to Congressional subpoena whether its on official business or not.

But what if it's all mash notes to Jeff Gannon?

Well, that's still within Congress subpoena power, particularly, though not exclusively, if they were sent from government computers, regardless of whose email server was used.

'private associations,' aren't on the public payroll...or did I miss something?

The only privileged communication Rove might have had within the White House would be that covered by either national security privilege or executive privilege; but neither of those could apply to any communication he made via RNC servers, even if they might have applied in other circumstances.

Huh? I don't understand what the medium of communication has to do with the potential applicability of privilege here.

All I'm saying is they took these communications off the books for a reason. They'll fight the release of these emails for sure. And I don't see it getting resolved without a fight. Will the Dems in Congress win that fight? Sure, probably -- assuming the whole D0J hasn't quit by then.

RE: Scandal Name...

I've always leaned toward calling this one USAgate. It covers the US Attorney angle, but it also nicely captures the fact that this has basically just been their SOP for running the country over the last 6+ years.

I think the salaries of all these people who use the RNC email system should be paid by the RNC not the TAXPAYERS.

All I'm saying is they took these communications off the books for a reason. They'll fight the release of these emails for sure.

No, that's not all you are saying. If that's all you were saying, no one would be arguing with you. You've explicitly stated that they have non-absurd arguments supporting them, and that, in fact, Congress would have to prove specific things in order to compel the production of the documents, things that there is, AFAICT, no basis for the claim that Congress would have to demonstrate.

If you were just saying that they'll try to stonewall, it would be noncontroversial. You've been repeatedly, and explictly, claiming that they have legitimate, or at least non absurd, bases for their objections to release, which you have not supported.

If, during the Lewinsky business, Congress had insisted on seeing all the private communications of everybody in the White House that was conducted on a Democratic Party account, I would certainly have agreed with the WH that they should resist a fishing expedition. The fact that the underlying beef has merit changes things, sure, but I don't think Congress demanding all the gwb43.com emails is the slam-dunk everybody's making it out to be.

Alan: Those e-mails are gone. Gone, gone, gone.

grape_crush: If it's not going through the government's servers, how confidential can it legally be considered to be?

And where are those hackers from the L0pht when we need them?

If you were just saying that they'll try to stonewall, it would be noncontroversial.

I'm trying to say that they'll stonewall, and have some measure of success before they have to give up the ghost.

Dog-gate my-email.

Stefan on March 26, 2007 at 4:52 PM:

A bit off-topic...

For the record, I didn't condone that act nor say that Rove needed to be raped.

..should not be part of the American justice system.

Not that it's part of the American justice system per se, just practiced by those within the system...But I'm being pedantic, and understand your larger point and apologize for the offense. Be sure to never watch Fletch Lives, Top Secret! or Trading Places, as they contain similar attempts at humor.

So Goodling is taking the Fifth? Whoda thunk it? (Or does she secretly mean that she will take a handful of Seconol and a fifth of vodka?)

but I don't think Congress demanding all the gwb43.com emails is the slam-dunk everybody's making it out to be.
Posted by: dj moonbat

But those communications conducted by a public employee are surely.

As seen on tpm,

Monica Goodling to take the 5th at Congressional hearings.

And why did the server change "L0pht" to Lopht? (meaning L-zero-pht to L-letter "o"-pht)

In preview, I see it did it again. If it corrects things like that, why doesn't it correct my other speling errors? (sic)

But those communications conducted by a public employee are surely.

Those communications that were conducted by public officials in their (ostensibly volunteer) capacities with the GOP? That's where all the arguing would go.

And why did the server change "L0pht" to "Lopht" in my post above? (meaning changing L-zero-pht to L-letter "o"-pht)

In preview, I see it did it again. If it corrects things like that, why doesn't it correct my other speling errors (sic)?

I bet you that RIM, that nice company that feeds addicts their Blackberrys, has all your email archived someplace. In fact, I bet the US government makes them do it.

Of course, if they weren't doing anything wrong, they would have nothing to hide, right?

Bwa ha ha ha!!!

dj: sorry. He's not an 'ostensibly volunteer' employee of the RNC.

He's a 'civil servant'.

This is a BIG difference.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

You cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment because you might commit a crime in testifying, but only if your testimony might reveal a crime already committed.

This is a bogus use of the Fifth Amendment.

Which shows just how desperate the Repugnicans are to avoid the truth about the attorney firings.

Bush's approval rating is very low. But the public likes the Democrat congress even less.

Cite, please. This sounds plainly false.

anadine, some wingnut was on here recently complaining that links he provided were purposefully altered by the moderators. I figured it more likely that there was some glitch in the blogging sw. I've found other errors in the use of HTML tags, eg.

If, during the Lewinsky business, Congress had insisted on seeing all the private communications of everybody in the White House that was conducted on a Democratic Party account, I would certainly have agreed with the WH that they should resist a fishing expedition.

Well, so would have I, since I never saw anything there that warranted any Congressional investigation in the first place. But, since we're not talking about the Lewinsky investigation, and we're not talking about an attempt to get access to all of the "private" communications of everyone in the White House that happened to have a Party account, and since we aren't talking about what Congress should or should not do, but what it has the legal power to compel, I'm not sure what your point with relaying that apparently irrelevant hypothetical is.

The fact that the underlying beef has merit changes things, sure, but I don't think Congress demanding all the gwb43.com emails is the slam-dunk everybody's making it out to be.

No one has talked about Congress demanding all the gwb43.com emails, so no one is making that out to be anything. We are talking specifically about the requests for the emails of a specific federal employee that is a focus of a particular investigation. And, yes, it is a slam-dunk. Now, anyone can delay any investigation, regardless of the merits of their objection, by destroying evidence and/or simply refusing to turn it over until adequate physical force is brought to bear to leave them no option. And certainly the RNC can do that here. But no argument has been presented by you, them, the Bush Administration, or anyone else that presents an argument with even a shadow of legal merit for why they aren't obligated to comply.

awol's current rating is 28% approval.

Bloomberg.com notes that the income level of those citing 'very high' approval of aWol is correlated to income. The higher the income the more strongly they approve.

You could have knocked me over with a feather.

I don't understand. Monica Goodling is a '99 graduate of Regent University's law school. Since she went to Regent, she is a child of Jesus and would never do anything to subvert the American justice system.

Oh, ha. I just found Regent's tagline on its atrociously punctuated home page (higher education my ass): "Christian Leadership to Change the World." Well, they certainly are, aren't they?

CMD: We are talking specifically about the requests for the emails of a specific federal employee that is a focus of a particular investigation.

Yeah.

This is a bogus use of the Fifth Amendment.
Which shows just how desperate the Repugnicans are to avoid the truth about the attorney firings.
Posted by: anonymous on March 26, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Yep; narrowly interpret the first and fourth amendments to the point of mootness, and widely interpret the fifth.

You cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment because you might commit a crime in testifying, but only if your testimony might reveal a crime already committed.

Um, that's exactly what her lawyer is saying. The legal jeopardy comes from the threat of her testimony, were she to testify, being used against her to charge her with a crime prior to the testimony.

It doesn't seem likely that Goodling could have engineered the firings herself, so its quite likely that she'll get some form of immunity; while she may have committed a crime, and may get off because of that, she's almost certainly not the biggest target.

Well, I guess "Christian Leadership" is rapidly becoming this decade's "Jumbo Shrimp."

Leave it to the fringe radical leftists of this board to fuss over an honest government emplyee's attempts to save the White House some money by using the RNC email servers.

What's next? Will you guys complain about the fact that Rove uses the RNC masseuse 97.13% of the time instead of a White House employee for releasing the streeses of such hard work that he does for the American people?

cmdicely: I'm not sure what your point with relaying that apparently irrelevant hypothetical is.

Everybody seems to be assuming that we have already proved what we all know to be true: that these emails weren't private, but emails that would otherwise have been public business.

That's the point of taking them onto the RNC servers: to turn the whole debate into the "witch-hunt" conducted by the Democratic congress. Of course there's something sleazy here: it seems obvious to me (and obviously to you, who seem intent on treating me like a GOP hack), but it will have to be argued out in a way that we wouldn't have to do with emails that are not the property of the GOP.

Fairly or not, when the American people see someone take the Fifth, they think one thing: guilty as sin.

In this case, of course, it will be deliciously fair.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on March 26, 2007 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

PJ, I used one of your titles, but I cited my source.:)

frankly0: Fairly or not, when the American people see someone take the Fifth, they think one thing: guilty as sin.

There's really no way around it: when a senior DoJ official has to take the Fifth during a congressional inquiry (and is the White House liaison, of all posisions!), there just is no way to finesse it. Gonzo is toast.

And why did the server change "L0pht" to "Lopht" in my post above? (meaning changing L-zero-pht to L-letter "o"-pht)

In preview, I see it did it again. If it corrects things like that, why doesn't it correct my other speling errors (sic)?

It didn't correct (or change) anything, though if you are using many common selections for monospace and serif fonts in your browser, the monospace font uses "lined figures" while the serif font uses "text figures". This can create the illusion, from looking at the text entry box and then the preview, that numeral-0 has been changed to letter-o, because a text figure numeral-0 is often the height of a lowercase letter, while the lined figure numeral 0 is the size of a capital letter. In most fonts, they are still distinct, though, the numeral-0 being wider, while the letter-o is more narrow.

Will you guys complain about the fact that Rove uses the RNC masseuse 97.13% of the time instead of a White House employee for releasing the streeses of such hard work that he does for the American people?

What nonsense! Everyone knows that Rove relieves stress by strangling puppies at the Arlington dog pound.

Fairly or not, when the American people see someone take the Fifth, they think one thing: guilty as sin.

In this case, of course, it will be deliciously fair.
Posted by: frankly0

Tailgunner Joe would be so proud.

But, yes, I watched the Watergate hearings. Where is Barbara Jordan and that 'just ole country lawyer' when we need them...

Will you guys complain about the fact that Rove uses the RNC masseuse 97.13% of the time instead of a White House employee for releasing the streeses of such hard work that he does for the American people?

I don't believe any public sector union contract would ever allow an employee to be forced to touch Karl Rove. Anyone who does that is definitely private.

craigie: Well, I guess "Christian Leadership" is rapidly becoming this decade's "Jumbo Shrimp."

This ties with grape crush's "Hulk SMASH claim of executive privilege" and pj in jesusland's Monica headlines for funniest lines of the day. But mr. shortstop contributes another contender:

"Monica's pleading the 5th, but when Karl's on the stand, he plans to use the 2nd."

Everybody seems to be assuming that we have already proved what we all know to be true: that these emails weren't private, but emails that would otherwise have been public business.

AFAIAC, the recent document dumps proved this.

Everybody seems to be assuming that we have already proved what we all know to be true: that these emails weren't private, but emails that would otherwise have been public business.

No, you seem to be assuming that there is something that needs to be "proved" here, yet you have presented exactly zero evidence to support the contention that anything of the type actually needs to be proved.

Disputo adds another contender: Everyone knows that Rove relieves stress by strangling puppies at the Arlington dog pound.

I really enjoy the holiday mood that overtakes these threads when the GOP has screwed itself nine ways from Sunday.

Off the AP Wire: "DoJ official Monica Goodling to take the 5th at upcoming congressional hearing."

For those of you who don't have a score card Monica Goodling is a 1999 graduate of Regent Law School who was able to swing a cushy conservative fast track job as the DoJ's liason with Karl Rove's shop. If anybody knows what a bad boy Karl has been it is Monica. She is probably a more significant target of interest than Kyle Sampson.

Fairly or not, when the American people see someone take the Fifth, they think one thing: guilty as sin.

Taking the 5th doesn't mean she won't testify, it means she won't testify without being granted some form of immunity from prosecution.

Not as familiar with the subject as other lawyers surely are, and please excuse me if someone has already mentioned this (I have not reviewed every comment posted in this thread yet), but is there a Hatch Act claim here?

1999 graduate of Regent Law

Best and Brightest of the Conservative movement.

Not joking, either.

cmdicely: Um, that's exactly what her lawyer is saying. The legal jeopardy comes from the threat of her testimony, were she to testify, being used against her to charge her with a crime prior to the testimony.

That's not what he is saying and he makes that clear with accompanying comments.

He's saying that Congress might hold that any testimony she gave, even if truthful and accurate, was perjury simply because they believe the truth is different from what she stated.

His reference to Libby makes this clear that he is afraid she will be subject to a perjury charge only, not for some underlying crime, because here testimony might not be truthful.

"Monica's pleading the 5th, but when Karl's on the stand, he plans to use the 2nd."
Posted by: shortstop

*spit take*

Taking the 5th doesn't mean she won't testify, it means she won't testify without being granted some form of immunity from prosecution.

No matter. People will know she took the Fifth and assume she's guilty of something.

Not that it's part of the American justice system per se, just practiced by those within the system...

Which is part of my point -- it's condoned here, and part of the reason why it's condoned is this sort of nudge-nudge wink-wink humor that's pervasive in our culture about prison rape. That sort of shit just doesn't go on in other developed Western countries, as there's an expectation there that prisoners are in the custody of the state and deserve to have their physical security protected.

But I'm being pedantic, and understand your larger point and apologize for the offense. Be sure to never watch Fletch Lives, Top Secret! or Trading Places, as they contain similar attempts at humor.

You know, oddly enough I actually don't like those movies for that exact reason.

Consider this: when Martha Stewart went to jail, would people have considered it acceptable to make jokes about how she deserved to get raped in prison? If it's not acceptable to make jokes about a woman getting raped why it is acceptable to do the same when it's a man?

Anyway, this is all off-topic, but I have friends who've volunteered in the prison system so this is a particular issue of mine....

but is there a Hatch Act claim here?

Most probably, yes. I just so happen to have the Office of Special Council Hatch Act page open.

I really enjoy the holiday mood that overtakes these threads when the GOP has screwed itself nine ways from Sunday.
Posted by: shortstop

Reminds me of Mardi Gras...

cmdicely: No, you seem to be assuming that there is something that needs to be "proved" here, yet you have presented exactly zero evidence to support the contention that anything of the type actually needs to be proved.

I think you and I are talking past one another, because you're just talking the law of congressional oversight -- which I will freely admit wouldn't bar an aggressive look at whatever they want -- and I'm talking about stonewalling and public opinion.

They took these emails out of the official system because they had NO argument except privilege in that context, and the procedure for dealing with assertions of privilege would definitely go against them. They're bad people, but not (entirely) stupid; taking them onto private servers gives them additional arguments for drawing out the process of stonewalling.

He's saying that Congress might hold that any testimony she gave, even if truthful and accurate, was perjury simply because they believe the truth is different from what she stated.

I don't see that; I see him referring specifically to claims made by another witness that Goodling had misled them before they testified, which might itself be criminal, and suggesting, with the reference to the Libby case, that her testimony might be used as evidence against her of past criminality in that regard.

His reference to Libby makes this clear that he is afraid she will be subject to a perjury charge only, not for some underlying crime, because here testimony might not be truthful.

His reference to Libby certainly makes clear that his concern is perjury and/or related charges, however, his reference to allegations already made by a senior DoJ official that he was misled by Goodling before testifying also make clear that his legal argument is that the new testimony might be incriminating in regard to that (and potentially other related) past acts that may be seen as directed at misleading Congress or suborning false testimony.

That the concern is perjury, etc., rather than an "underlying" crime does not contradict that the concern is about the testimony being used as evidence of a past criminal act.

He's saying that Congress might hold that any testimony she gave, even if truthful and accurate, was perjury simply because they believe the truth is different from what she stated.

This is correct.

IOW, Goodling's lawyer is basically saying that his client does not recognize the authority of congress.

Did they sneak a repeal of the Hatch Act in? Possibly between 'Clear Skies Initiative' and 'Healthy Forests'?

No?

They're so screwed?

IOW, Goodling's lawyer is basically saying that his client does not recognize the authority of congress.
Posted by: Disputo

err....what?

IOW, Goodling's lawyer is basically saying that his client does not recognize the authority of congress.

Or, rather, that she does recognize the authority of Congress to throw her ass in prison for committing perjury.

I think you and I are talking past one another, because you're just talking the law of congressional oversight -- which I will freely admit wouldn't bar an aggressive look at whatever they want -- and I'm talking about stonewalling and public opinion.

I think you are wrong in either case; I think that public opinion is such that the burden of persuasion, in the court of public opinion, is on the White House in this issue, not the Congress. Of course, they have the physical power to stonewall, but in terms of the arguments you've made (that they have arguments that are "not absurd", etc.) I don't think you've made your case whether the context is a court of law or one of public opinion. You haven't present any non-absurd argument that they have, just invented strawmen to characterize the arguments of those arguing that the case is fairly clear.

They took these emails out of the official system because they had NO argument except privilege in that context, and the procedure for dealing with assertions of privilege would definitely go against them.

I think you are assuming, incorrectly, that the reason Rove conducts 95% of his emailing from RNC servers was a premonition that this particular set of actions would come to light and be the subject of an investigation. I think the reason is, rather, that much of what Rove does (far beyond his interaction with DoJ) is, in fact, partisan activity that would be illegal or at least embarrassing if it came to light conducted through government channels, and that keeping it on RNC servers reduced the risk of that accidentally coming to light.

I particularly think that because while privilege may be the only defense they had against subpoenas in the case of government servers, its not that that makes government servers more vulnerable: privilege is the only defense against the Congressional subpoenas period, and the only way they'd have a colorable, non-absurd argument for any kind of privilege in email is where the email was intra-executive-branch communication through government channels (they'd need a lot more than that, but without that they're starting out with nothing.)

IOW, Goodling's lawyer is basically saying that his client does not recognize the authority of congress.
Posted by: Disputo on March 26, 2007 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

This is precisely the gibberish that Tony Snow was spewing last week.

Boy - they pick a meme, and they stick to it, no matter how stupid it is.

CMD: I think the reason is, rather, that much of what Rove does (far beyond his interaction with DoJ) is, in fact, partisan activity that would be illegal or at least embarrassing if it came to light conducted through government channels, and that keeping it on RNC servers reduced the risk of that accidentally coming to light.

Yeah. And he's on the public payroll...

Holy cow, I get in from work and all hell's broken loose!!

CNN is talking about George Bush's impeachment, Gonzales is under immense fire, a white house official refuses to speak, the "i" word for incompetence abounds, 'malfeasance' is used by Chris Dodd, William Cohen, no stranger to troubled presidents early in his own career with Richard Nixon, responds to Carol, the pro-Bush reporter on CNN as she foolishly claims a president can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, with Cohen saying, NO, impeachment can occur with abuse of power as well, as with ignoring Congress. HELLO?

And i happen to go online first to see what John Dean has to say--he is no stranger to abusive presidents, so here is this:

"This time, it is my belief that Bush -- unlike Reagan before him -- will not blink. He will not let Fielding strike a deal, as Fielding did for Reagan. Rather, Bush feels that he has his manhood on the line. He knows what his conservative constituency wants: a strong president who protects his prerogatives. He believes in the unitary executive theory of protecting those prerogatives, and of strengthening the presidency by defying Congress.

In short, all those who have wanted to see Karl Rove in jail may get their wish, for he will not cave in, either -- and may well be prosecuted for contempt... Bush's greatest problem here, however, is Harriett Miers. It is dubious he can exert any privilege over a former White House Counsel; I doubt she is ready to go to prison for him; and all who know her say if she is under oath, she will not lie. That could be a problem."

Bloggers knew years ago this administration was the worst ever.

Or, rather, that she does recognize the authority of Congress to throw her ass in prison for committing perjury.
Posted by: dj moonbat

Contempt of Congress works pretty well, too.

Goodling is not saying (through her lawyer) that she is taking the fifth because if she tells the truth she may incriminate herself in acts committed prior to the testimony.

Neither is she saying that she is taking the fifth because she may lie under oath, thereby committing perjury (which isn't covered by the fifth protections anyway).

What Goodling is saying is that no matter what she says under oath, that she believes that Congress will find that she is lying and is committing a crime, so therefore she rejects the authority of Congress and refuses to comply.

I think you are wrong in either case; I think that public opinion is such that the burden of persuasion, in the court of public opinion, is on the White House in this issue, not the Congress.

Sweet. I'll look forward to seeing those emails in the Congressional Record next week.

William Cohen, no stranger to troubled presidents early in his own career with Richard Nixon, responds to Carol, the pro-Bush reporter on CNN as she foolishly claims a president can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, with Cohen saying, NO, impeachment can occur with abuse of power as well, as with ignoring Congress.

Technically, both are correct: impeachment can only be for bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. OTOH, misadministration and maladministration are well-established as things that are intended within the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors", and, anyhow, Congress' determination of what is, at the moment, a "high crime and misdemeanor" is unreviewable.

Bloggers knew years ago this administration was the worst ever.
Posted by: consider wisely always

Indeed we did. Can I get an 'amen' for the most pathological admin yet?

Sweet. I'll look forward to seeing those emails in the Congressional Record next week.

I seem to recall stating repeatedly that the physical ability to stonewall was unconnected to the things you've been claiming about them having tenable arguments, whether legal or PR, for keeping things secret. Given that, I can't see why you would respond to my post the way you did, it certainly has no rational bearing on anything I've said.

Again, no one here, myself least of all, is challenging your claim as to the fact that the administration will stonewall. What some people, myself especially, have objected to is your claims that this administration has arguments that are, whether from a legal or PR perspective, not absurd that will compel the Congress to prove something about the content of the emails before they are turned over so that Congress can determine the content of the emails.

What Goodling is saying is that no matter what she says under oath, that she believes that Congress will find that she is lying and is committing a crime, so therefore she rejects the authority of Congress and refuses to comply.
Posted by: Disputo on March 26, 2007 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

This is going to come down to Congress saying; "WTF? The 5th doesn't cover that." and it going to the Supreme Court who will (5-to-4, I guaran-fucking-tee it) say that the 5th DOES cover it. SCOTUS got Bushie's back again.

Can I get an 'amen' for the most pathological admin yet?

Indeed you can:

Amen, Hallelujah and right the fuck on!

This is going to come down to Congress saying; "WTF? The 5th doesn't cover that." and it going to the Supreme Court who will (5-to-4, I guaran-fucking-tee it) say that the 5th DOES cover it. SCOTUS got Bushie's back again.
Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld

Cue the 'Funeral Dirge'...

Dum-dum-de-dum-dum-de-dum de-dum de- dum...

Goodling is not saying (through her lawyer) that she is taking the fifth because if she tells the truth she may incriminate herself in acts committed prior to the testimony.

Yes, she is. Her lawyer, in invoking the 5th, quite specifically pointed to the allegations made by another witness that he was misled by Goodling prior to his testimony. Testimony from which one might infer the truth of that accusation, even it did not directly confirm it, might create legal jeopardy under 18 USC § 1622 (subornation of perjury) and/or 18 USC § 1001 (falsifying or concealing material facts within the jurisdiction, here, of a legislative inquiry).

The WH is so wrapped up in lies within lies within lies, that one WH spokesperson is no longer bothering to pretend that their arguments are consistent.

This is going to come down to Congress saying; "WTF? The 5th doesn't cover that." and it going to the Supreme Court who will (5-to-4, I guaran-fucking-tee it) say that the 5th DOES cover it.

The 5th emphatically does cover what Goodling's lawyer has claimed is the issue; OTOH, its rather routine for people who aren't the primary targets to be granted immunity; once you have immunity for your testimony, you can't assert the 5th, because you are exposed to no legal jeopardy from your testimony.

Though the Committee will likely get all the testimony it can get from other sources before deciding on whether it needs to or should offer immunity to secure Goodling's testimony.

Where are the trolls? With the RNC servers in the scope of a congressional inquiry, are they no longer receiving their talking points?

Can I get an 'amen' for the most pathological admin yet?

Indeed you can:

Amen, Hallelujah and right the fuck on!
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State

Atta girl!

Where are the trolls? With the RNC servers in the scope of a congressional inquiry, are they no longer receiving their talking points?

LOL.

Paging Sam Erwin...

Al or American Hawk aren't around today because they use the RNC server also which is currently being wiped clean

Here is the letter from Goodling's attorney

I know I'm just a poor simple country lawyer, but cuold you explain....'

I can't imagine those two tools actually having access...

I know I'm just a poor simple country lawyer, but cuold you explain....'
Posted by: MsNThrope

I have this 'problem' with transposition...typing is not my forte.

'I know I'm just a poor simple country lawyer but could you please explain...'

Brought down the whole of the Nixon cover-up...

Here again is that swift and decisive action with which the Bush White House famously dispenses with its own wrongdoers.

'I know I'm just a poor simple country lawyer but could you please explain...'

Or to put it in pop-culture parlance, it was Columbo asking "Just one more question..."

Though the Committee will likely get all the testimony it can get from other sources before deciding on whether it needs to or should offer immunity to secure Goodling's testimony.

At the moment, Leahy seems content to let Goodling's invocation of the 5th hang out there -- no doubt understanding what a PR fiasco it is for the White House and Gonzales:

"The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath," Leahy said in a statement.

Why use an axe when a stiletto works better?

Meanwhile, from Minitrue comes this gem:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "It is unfortunate that a public servant no longer feels comfortable that they will be treated fairly in testimony in front of Congress."

You have to at least give her some credit for pure chutzpah. I'm trying to imagine a White House flack saying something comparable during Watergate:

Ron Zeigler: It's a sad day when a president of the United State can't feel safe taping himself committing a felony . . .

I know you were a just baby, but, darlin' girl..

'I know I'm just a poor simple country lawyer but could you please explain...'

Is what crashed the whole fuckin' thing into a wall.

Looking at the photo of Monica Goodling at tpm, doesn't she look remarkably like --Tonya Harding?

I know - I was just being a smart-ass.

Like that's news!

Luv ya.

I just read the letter, and it is unfrickingbelievable.

The lawyer gives four reasons for Goodling invoking the fifth:

1) the committee members have prejudged Goodling.
2) the hearings are being used to promote the Democratic Party
3) the committee lacks objectivity and won't be fair
4) a Senior DOJ official already indicated that Goodling did not tell the entire truth in this matter

NONE of which of course have anything to do with the 5A protections against self-incrimination.

More amazingly, the lawyers refers to Goodling's "Constitutional right not to answer any questions". There is, of course, no such right.

Most disturbingly, however, and an illustration of how wingnutty he is, the lawyer proffers Libby as an example of the legal jeopardy one can find themselves in when they tell the truth.

As I said before, this is nothing less than Goodling rejecting the authority of Congress. Congress should hold not just Goodling, but her lawyers as well, in contempt for taking such a contemptible position.

At the moment, Leahy seems content to let Goodling's invocation of the 5th hang out there -- no doubt understanding what a PR fiasco it is for the White House and Gonzales:

Yeah, the thing about this is, invoking the 5th is so horrible from a PR point of view that it is of very little utility in political terms for the Administration except to delay revelation of the very worst, least defensible conduct. OTOH, it can be of immense legal value for the particular individual.

Until its clear that Goodling's testimony is indispensable, there is no real reason to do anything but leave it out there letting it do PR damage; and, if it is necessary, Congress can extend Goodling immunity.

cmdicely: Testimony from which one might infer the truth of that accusation, even it did not directly confirm it, might create legal jeopardy under 18 USC § 1622 (subornation of perjury) and/or 18 USC § 1001 (falsifying or concealing material facts within the jurisdiction, here, of a legislative inquiry).

The first is nonsense, at least as you describe the situtaion To suborn perjury the person testifying must have been induced to give false testimony and that witness must know the information to be false. If the witness was "misled" then the witness cannot have committed perjury and there could not have been subornation of perjury. You don't commit perjury by merely repeating information that you believe to be true, but which turns out to be false. The attorney's letter makes it quite clear that the witness was not apprised of certain facts; nothing about that suggests that the witness committed perjury or nor does the manner presented, an unsolicited admission by the witness, suggest that anyone in Congress has suggested that this witness committed perjury, much less that such perjury was the result of an inducement or threat from Goodling.

Reading the letter closely, Goodling's attorney simply has not made a case that she is in jeopardy. A general claim that some DOJ officials are believed to have given false testimony, without any tie to Goodling and her attorney points to no such tie in his letter, is insufficient to establish the necessary possible jeopardy.

Someone uses their constitutionally guaranteed right found in the Constitution and all of liberaldom titters and passes out with excitement.

I have pleaded the Fifth Amendment in several different instances and never, ever was I subjected to anything other than hostile cross examination and the benefit of the doubt.

When did the left abandon the Constitution and start demanding people go to jail on trumped up charges? The Democratic Senators have already convicted this poor woman and she, rightly, decides that she won't be part of their show trial. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Or are you deserving of rights ONLY if you have never worked in the Bush Administration?

Cummins was on CNN advising that the DOJ and higher-ups stop repeating that the USAs were fired due to poor performance.

He said the email dumps do not prove such an assertion (he also described the email content as unprofessional) and he said to continue to repeat that the firings were performance-related, as he and his colleagues have discussed, would be slander. I think I wouldn't mess with these USAs.

4) a Senior DOJ official already indicated that Goodling did not tell the entire truth in this matter

How does that support her invoking the Fifth Amendment?

Hey, at least it's not GMail.

Globe: I thought the same thing with regard to the trolls--the curious incident IS their lack of barking. . .
I do believe Rove's email would show a pattern of felony, whenever it surfaces--make no mistake, some recipients of the email have cached and saved it--the hold cards of the disgruntled. . .

Looking at the photo of Monica Goodling at tpm, doesn't she look remarkably like --Tonya Harding?

I'm surprised that that did not appear in her lawyers' letter as reason 5 why she is taking the fifth.

MsNThorpe: 'I know I'm just a poor simple country lawyer but could you please explain...'

Well..."We could wind this up pretty soon if everyone would tell what he knows but if we continue to play hide-and-seek, then it could take a while."

NONE of which of course have anything to do with the 5A protections against self-incrimination.

Actually, #4 directly relates to a reason to believe that her testimony may expose her to criminal prosecution for prior acts, since if it is inconsistent with what other testimony and evidence available to the committe suggests she told the person making the accusation before his testimony, it could serve as evidence that she violated various criminal statutes (as I noted above) in regard to her influence on that earlier testimony.

The rest are tangential to the purposes of the 5th Amendment, but when one has the legal right to invoke the 5th Amendment (as the reference to #4 supports), there is no law against allowing other concerns to determine whether or not to take advantage of that right.

More amazingly, the lawyers refers to Goodling's "Constitutional right not to answer any questions". There is, of course, no such right.

Sure, its, at best, a phrasing which assumes a lot of context; but then, again, its a public statement not a legal brief—self-serving purely political spin is, really, part of the job of advocacy in such a circumstance.

Most disturbingly, however, and an illustration of how wingnutty he is, the lawyer proffers Libby as an example of the legal jeopardy one can find themselves in when they tell the truth.

Well, its certainly a genuine illustration of the jeopardy someone can be in when the truth of their past lies comes to light, so it doesn't seem misplaced if the allegations against Goodling are true, or the truth is such that it would appear that they are true if she testified honestly.

As I said before, this is nothing less than Goodling rejecting the authority of Congress.

I disagree that this is true. Its Goodling's attorney invoking 5th Amendment protections on a usual, well-accepted legal basis, and doing a lot of PR posturing about why Goodling has decided to choose to invoke that legal right when it is available to her.

Congress should hold not just Goodling, but her lawyers as well, in contempt for taking such a contemptible position.

I'm uncomfortable with using contempt of Congress against someone for making a colorable claim of 5th Amendment protection even if the political spin that accompanies it is outright lies (I also think that such an act is, itself, unconstitutional.)

OTOH, I do think the Committee ought to do everything it can to look into the situation with Goodling including the accusation against here, and think that there might well be a good case to recommended charges in regard to her apparent past obstruction of the investigation.

Oops...typing is not my forte either, MsNThrope.

More amazingly, the lawyers refers to Goodling's "Constitutional right not to answer any questions". There is, of course, no such right.

Doh! The 5th amendment was put there to insure that persons testifying were not being...ya know...waterboarded...Self-incrimination. Under duress...

How does that support her invoking the Fifth Amendment?

It supports her taking the 5th because it would potentially be prior criminal conduct of which her later testimony on the matter might be used as evidence in a future prosecution.

Al: "Ah, Kevin. I see you have little understanding of how e-mail works so let me explain. ... I bet what Rove has done is just forwarded all his e-mail from the white house to his RNC account. ... [H]e's a small government conservative and understands ... money will be saved for the taxpayers due to less use of e-mail server space at the white house. ... Quite a simple explanation really and certainly better than the conspiracy theory you propose."

Thanks for the break in levity.

You have a real gift, you know. "Simple explanations" often require great creativity, and what you just offered up was a real gem. I haven't laughed that hard at a post in quite a while.

With people like you on a political payroll, and Washington-based "correspondents" like MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell who practically beg to be spoonfed such implausible claptrap like a starving largemouth bass awaiting the drop of the lure and hook, it's no small wonder at all why the country now finds itself in an incredible fucking mess.

You just know that even if the emails Rovesputin sent had a self-shredder attachment, you know someone did a copy-and-paste of something incriminating into a word document to refer to later. Time to start looking at hard drives.

Oops...typing is not my forte either, MsNThrope.
Posted by: Apollo 13

Yeah yeah. I luv ya, cara mia.

You know, I got the sense that the WH was not expecting this action by Goodling and was caught by as much surprise as the rest of us, something they are not used to given they way they operate. This could also be why we aren't seeing a Trolletariat pushback yet, they are still scrambling to decide what the new narrative/frame is to be at the top and without that the talking points can't be disseminated to the paid and unpaid Trolletariat. It is already interesting to see the ripple dynamics this press release from Goodling has had on the political dialogue within the beltway and at least CNN so far, and this is just past the three hour mark. For once the WH is having to operate behind the wake of the story instead of either leading it or at least shaping/steering it somewhat from the front of it, and given that when people hear senior Justice officials pleading the 5th to avoid testifying to Congress that is a story with a very powerful wake behind it indeed.

Combined with the Novakula article today it is possible today was the day we heard the *snap* breaking the Bushco control over the dialogue (at least barring a terrorist attack, and these days I have to wonder even then given the damage Bushco has done to itself by its hubris and arrogance) in the public MSM discourse. Not that in any reasonable/sane reality that would not have already happened literally years ago, but this is the reality we have to work with. I also think that the greater story of the USAs firings and subsequent lying about why on the record and oath for revealed the beginnings of the true damage Bushco has done to the American prosecutorial system under its authority by politicizing it in ways never intended by the Constitution and Founding Fathers. I have said on more than a few occasions that I believe the damage that Bushco have truly done in this area (as in many others alas) is far more extreme and drastic than most would want to believe possible, which is part of why it has been so successfully hidden to date and hopefully is finally beginning to truly unravel.

The way this Administration has operated is truly that of a criminal organization and not of a real Presidency. It has shown nothing but contempt for all those outside its fellow travelers and a ruthless willingness to use any and all tools to not just oppose those non-fellow travelers (the rest of the country/world) but to wage total war on them even to the extent of scorched earth methods. So I have always feared that the American judicial system under this Administration had been far more damaged and politicized than most would accept, indeed it was thought by many to be more than a little on the tin foil hat side of things. Now while I could understand that given the relative lack of solid direct evidence/information to support the concerns the indirect and secondary/tertiary stuff was not enough to start acting under the presumption it was true, I also never thought the idea should be dismissed either until conclusive evidence to the contrary appeared. Alas, instead I believe my worst fears have been confirmed and that what is under this rock is the keystone to how Bushco and the GOP that followed them so steadfastly until last Nov changed things have gamed and abused the powers of Office to stack the political deck in their favour at the ballot box. This is clearly anti-American in the truest sense of the word I should think. So they have to bury it, and now Goodling has just raised the stakes on them enormously. I have been waiting for this to come about, and I think the momentum of the cascading troubles afflicting Bushco are too great for them to avoid/deflect anymore. As for the GOP, they aren't looking much better, and the longer they refuse to face the fact they were not just dupes but willing accomplices while they were riding high with Bushco the more damage they will end up doing to themselves, especially if the Dems are smart enough to point out at every opportunity how Bush could not have done what he did without a compliant Congress. After all, if this basic oversight turned up all this in only a couple of months since the Congress was sworn in under Dem control, that speaks volumes to how lax and enabling the GOP was in terms of oversight and protecting Congress and the Constitution as they are also sworn to do.

The way this Administration has operated is truly that of a criminal organization and not of a real Presidency. - Scotian

Uh-huh. It's an enormous money laundering op.

It's the 'ultimate hostile takeover'.

Thanks, cmdecisively.

The first is nonsense, at least as you describe the situtaion To suborn perjury the person testifying must have been induced to give false testimony and that witness must know the information to be false.

Right, that was my mistake, the actual charge would be either the 18 USC § 1001 charge or a perjury charge under 18 USC § 1621 with Goodling charged as a principal not because she directly committed the offense, but under the provision of 18 USC § 2(b) which allows someone to be charged as a principal in an offense if they willfully cause another person to do something which would have been a crime had the first person done it themselves. While that's very similar to subornation, it is distinct: I had thought the federal subornation statute was broader than subornation usually is, but should have reread it before posting.

As an aside, it could also be witness tampering under 18 USC § 1512(b).

The Hatch Act is the first thing on my mind. I worked for the federal government for 30 years as an attorney and manager. During that time, there was more than one occasion when I was called upon to advise on the ramifications of the Hatch Act. Because the Act relates to the separation of one's government work in this instance from furthering one's political purpose, the real issue here seems to be whether Rove et al used government property, time, or location to make political plans or communications. If so, they may well be within the prohibitions of the Hatch Act wherein the consequences range from such actions as reprimand to suspension to dismissal. (By the by, that is more than theory. In the late '90s, my own boss inadvertently allowed his name to be used in a congressional campaign and suffered a several month suspension. Obviously, this situation may be more egregious and systematic. If, however, the email was used to camoflage the improper activity, one really has to wonder whether any claims of executive privilege could prevail. Is Rove a government employee or the political advisor? How and where and when you communicate does have legal consequences here. Congressman Waxman and his staff really know what they are doing.

cmdecisively

That was so good, you are off the hook for that blackmail photo of me and Norman.

And I just sent my hubby out for Makers Mark and Coca-Cola. Much to celebrate tonight!

Congressman Waxman and his staff really know what they are doing.

My favorite RSS feed these days comes from the House Oversight Committee.

Because the Act relates to the separation of one's government work in this instance from furthering one's political purpose, the real issue here seems to be whether Rove et al used government property, time, or location to make political plans or communications. - Chris

This issue is not in doubt. We have them spot on for violations (too numerous to count) of the Hatch Act...but this presumes that they care about the rule of law...

That was so good, you are off the hook for that blackmail photo of me and Norman.

Explain, please. I do not wish to become party to any kind of scandal with a clutch of Constitutionally-challenged moonbats.

This just in from USA Today:

A Justice Department aide involved in the controversial firings of eight federal prosecutors will refuse to answer questions at a Senate hearing this week, citing protection against self-incrimination, the Associated Press reports.

Acording to AP and Bloomberg News, Monica Goodling, a counsel to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who helped coordinate the dismissals, will invoke her constitutional right not to answer questions.

Both the AP and Bloomberg say that news comes from Goodling's attorney, John Dowd. They say Dowd has notified the Senate Judiciary Committee of his client's decision. That committee is set to hold its hearing on Thursday.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," Dowd said today, according to AP.

Ms Goodling doesn't want to incriminate herself. How special is that?

Jeebus, we're closer to impeachment that we thought. Senator Hagel is right and Gonzales is basicly toast, hopefully he takes Ms. Goodling with him on the way out and drops her off at the local unemployee office. If she's a lawyer she'll need her own shingle to hang out of some office building somewhere, cause nobody will hire her after this completely unethical episode.

"I do not wish to become party to any kind of scandal with a clutch of Constitutionally-challenged moonbats."

Heh. In your dreams.

Chris: My husband is a retired USAF officer. I have always been po9litically active. A sympathetic JAG officer who lived next door on Davis-Monthan back in the 80's hipped me to the Hatch Act and told my I could never go wrong if I stuck within those guidelines, and I would have plenty of breathing room. The one time I was questioned about my Nuclear Freeze activities, I innocently asked about the Hatch Act and why i was being held to a different (higher) standard than actual federal employees? I was never questioned about my off-base activities again, and it apparently didn't impact my husbands career. (But I might give off a "this bitch is more trouble than she's worth" vibe, too.)

"But I might give off a "this bitch is more trouble than she's worth" vibe, too."

A virtue well worth cultivating.

Honey, I'm a walking bumper-crop.

Heh.

And I just sent my hubby out for Makers Mark and Coca-Cola. Much to celebrate tonight!
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State

You would dare profane good Kentucky bourbon with Coca-cola!

Girl, we need to talk.

12 year old Bourbon!

Yikes.

*looks away*

No, no, no. I wasn't raised by wolves!

I drink my whiskey neat, with a Coke back.

And it's here! He went to Costco and bought the BIG bottle!

"You would dare profane good Kentucky bourbon with Coca-cola!"

It's a roots thing in East Tennessee. Get over it.

Tennessee. does. not. produce. bourbon.

Got it? By Law.

Straight mash whiskey. Yeah. Bourbon? Not a chance, bub.

It is imported legally, bozo. Get a life.

Anyway, I hate bourbon. I'm strictly single malt myself.

But I did grow up in E. Tennessee.

There are only 5 counties in Kentucky which may legally put 'Bourbon' on their label.

Period.

Speaking of the Hatch Act, I'm sure many of you have seen what Rove's shop has been up to over at the GSA.

Expect to hear much more of this--from more and more agencies and departments.

Bozo yourself.

Explain, please.

But,Norman, surely you remember this brilliant picture of your romantic weekend with Global Citizen?

I keep it on the wall next to my monitor.

Yep, Shortstop. I was fighting sleep at 1:00 A.M. to post about that.

Aw, man. I was just funnin'.

But,Norman, surely you remember this brilliant picture of your romantic weekend with Global Citizen?

Which was an impetus to me changing my name...

From the article cited above by someone named Short Stop:

Last month, in a letter to Waxman's committee, a senior GSA official called the no-bid arrangement a "procedural mistake." Doan told The Post that she submitted a service order for the work through normal GSA contracting channels and did not focus on it afterward.

SO we are now sending people off to the hoosegow based on what is, buried of course and amost an afterthought in the article, a "procedural mistake?"

You know, I made a lot of "procedural mistakes" during my years in business. Sometimes I was caught and sometimes I got away scott-free and enjoyed a healthy profit on a deal that had a few of these "procedural mistakes." I hardly think there is even a whiff of a scandal here. In fact, let my pick it up and smell it just to be certain.

[sniff, sniff]

No scandal here. Next moonbat fantasy, please.

Globe, I didn't see it. Hey, different people often will post on the same topic on different blogs! It's not really a race to first, is it?

But,Norman, surely you remember this brilliant picture of your romantic weekend with Global Citizen?

Oh, yes. The floozy. Well, after I was through, my wish came true and she turned into a pizza.

Norman, do read on:

(Mentally blockquote the rest of this post. I'm drinking.)

"Waxman's investigation began in response to a Jan. 19 story in The Washington Post about a no-bid job Doan tried to give to firms run by Edie Fraser, a veteran Washington public relations executive who had served as a paid consultant to Doan. Waxman's investigators concluded that the two women had "a long-standing business relationship" that was not "previously disclosed," according to Waxman's letter.

"Between 2003 and 2005, Fraser billed Doan as much as $20,000 a month in consulting fees to "generally promote attributes" of Doan and her company, New Technology Management Inc., according to invoices obtained by The Post. In all, Doan paid at least $417,500 to companies affiliated with Fraser before Doan took over the GSA, according to Waxman's investigators.

"Last year, Fraser helped prepare Doan for her GSA confirmation and lined up political support for her, according to interviews and e-mails obtained by The Post.

"On July 25, two months after Doan took office, she took the unusual step of personally signing the no-bid arrangement with Diversity Best Practices and Business Women's Network, firms then run by Fraser, to produce a report about GSA's use of businesses owned by minorities or women. The GSA's general counsel at the time, Alan R. Swendiman, told Waxman's investigators he was "alarmed" that the project was not competitively bid."

Sorry - that bit precedes Normans quote. This bit follows it:

But Swendiman, now a special assistant to President Bush, told Waxman's investigators that he "immediately and repeatedly" advised Doan to terminate the arrangement. When he was unable to persuade her, Swendiman directed a GSA contracting officer to terminate the arrangement. The investigators found evidence indicating that Doan continued to try to find ways to award the project to her friend.

Who is Scott and why is he giving Norm free stuff? Now take that scandal away from your gin-blossomed nose and let it rest, Norman. It needs its beauty sleep before all the forced testimony.

Oh, no - I didn't mean it that way at all Shortstop.

I just found it noteworthy too, and wondered today where the hell the blogosphere was on the issue. i mean, we are talking about the nations checkbook when we talk about the GSA.

And full disclosure: The GSA pays me on a regular basis - whenever I pull a shift at the VA.

I think everyone is too distracted with the politicization of Justice right now to pay attention to the blatant politicization of the GSA. But indeed there will be time...

...especially since both Waxman and Grassley are on this and not going away.

Ain't the oversight committee rss feed great? That's what happens when you have competents running congress. I just wish the other committees would set them up quick.

Norman: "When did the left abandon the Constitution and start demanding people go to jail on trumped up charges? The Democratic Senators have already convicted this poor woman and she, rightly, decides that she won't be part of their show trial. What could possibly be wrong with that?"

Look like the ACLU has recruited another member. I await with interest Norman's exposition on the evils of the Patriot Act and the sanctity of the First and Fourth amendments.

I've been saying that even now the right is not QUITE beyond parody. But I think I was wrong.

Possible headlines tomorrow:
"Monica Blows Off Congress"
"Monica Blue, Yet Dressses Down Oversight Committee"
"Monica's Reputation Stained By Relationships With Gonzalez, Rove"
"Monica-Gonzalez-Rove: A Rove Triangle"

I can't wait to see the one that says "Pop goes the Weasel"

...especially since both Waxman and Grassley are on this and not going away.

Charles Grassley? That Iowa Hillbilly Republican?

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

...especially since both Waxman and Grassley are on this and not going away.
Posted by: shortstop

My fondest dream...but then I still celebrate Aug 19th...

Do explain that disdain, Norman.

Ain't the oversight committee rss feed great?

Yeah, the latest from 5:46 PM....

• Chairman Waxman Requests Information on White House Contract with MZM
• Committee Requests CIA Documents Related to Disclosure of CIA Agent

So many scandals, so little time.

Look like the ACLU has recruited another member. I await with interest Norman's exposition on the evils of the Patriot Act and the sanctity of the First and Fourth amendments.

There is but a thin line separating you from oblivion. A thin line, a frail line, but a line, nonetheless. This line keeps the enemies of America back, it keeps them in line, and it keeps a lonely vigil against an attack that would devastate our cities and lay waste to the little towns that run between where I live and where you live. It is a line that has kept us safe for, lo, these five years. I see these things denigrated every day. But that thin line is the Patriot Act and the powers delegated in a legal manner to those who are charged with defending us against evil men. You may enjoy running these things into the ground and making jokes out of them. The fact of the matter is, the only reason why you are able to denigrate this law and this country is because of the protection it gives you.

I've been saying that even now the right is not QUITE beyond parody. But I think I was wrong.

No idea who you are. Were you opining on something? Sorry, I was completely indifferent.

Do explain that disdain, Norman.

I will now write you a play, in one act.

[scene: evening, in the office of US Senator Charles Grassley (R) IA (Hillbilly)]

[phone rings]

GRASSLEY: Hello

VOICE ON SPEAKERPHONE: Senator Grassley?

G: Yes?

VoS: This is Karl Rove. How are you this evening, Senator?

G: I'll be happy to stop the investigation into the GAO, sir.

VoS/Karl Rove: I thought you would, punk.

[Senator Grassley hangs up phone, bursts into tears]

[end scene]

FINIS

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Norman: "Sorry, I was completely indifferent."

If by indifferent you mean lost in a fog of authoritarian talking points gleaned from old 24 episodes, I see your point.

If by indifferent you mean lost in a fog of authoritarian talking points gleaned from old 24 episodes, I see your point.

Never seen that programme. I watch a lot of sports on television. Tonight, hockey. We are in a lull before baseball season. I have enjoyed watching the preseason games and a few college games, but it is sports, sports, sports around here. About the only program I do enjoy is Cops.

God help me, I do love watching the police throw a man with no shirt up against a chain link fence and pull a crack pipe out of his shoe.

How can you folks not love Norm?

Isn't he everyones favorite cranky (pathological liar) great-uncle-thrice-removed?

As a point of clarification, the original article says that Rove does almost all his email through a RNC-issued Blackberry. My guess is that the RNC runs (or contracts for) a Blackberry Enterprise Server, and the Blackberries it hands out are all set up to use that server for their email. One implication of this is Rove's emails would never go through any White House network at all. So, unless the WH is snooping wireless traffic, it probably has no record of any such Rove emails at all, at least on the sender side.

And, in case you were wondering, the RNC does have a policy of rapid email deletion. Supposedly, Rove's emails were handled differently. Well, that at least is surely true.

Mr. R,

Did you get the blackberry info from the /National Jrnl/ article (which is behind a subscription wall)? I only ask because none of the articles I saw quoting the NJ article mentioned a blackberry (only that 95% of Rove's email is sent through his RNC acct).

However, I have read in other places that Rove is addicted to his blackberry, and using a blackberry in the WH would indeed protect him from being logged by the WH's network.

Norm, if you change Grassley to Spector you could get that produced.

How can you folks not love Norm?
Posted by: Disputo

I adore Uncle Normie - but more chicken suit...now.

Norman: "God help me, I do love watching the police throw a man with no shirt up against a chain link fence and pull a crack pipe out of his shoe."

But only if the police can show probable cause, I assume. Oh wait, I forgot -- that's part of that pesky 4th Amendment (i.e. the BAD civil liberty.)

The Blackberry info is in the original National Journal article. (Well, not the RNC server part, which is simply my guess.) Some of this is quoted in Froomkin's Friday column. Scroll down to the section on Rove's emails.

When a party wins the White House, its is supposed to stop being partisan and start acting in the public interest. Sure, that's a little naive, but it's still a distinction that virtually everyone in government understands and would try to uphold.

With this White House, though, that shift in attitude never happened. They ae as partisan as ever and in fact they use the instruments of power -- with which they were entrusted to serve a larger public good -- only as tools and weapons in their fierce partisan battles. If Rove is using RNC email instead of official WH email, it only goes to show how he views his position, his loyalties, his reason for working there.

And if it's also to avoid the records-retention policies imposed by government, then there's another issue here: can he claim executive privilege over emails which he deliberately treated as non-White House, non-official?

Juicy stuff...

That chicken suit cost me more money than most of you see in a month.

MsNThrope >"...Where is Barbara Jordan..."

Unfortunately not in the White House where she should have been.

"...It is those who describe me as an extremist who happen to be the extremists against whom I am warning the electorate." - George Soros

cmdicely: Right, that was my mistake, the actual charge would be either the 18 USC § 1001 charge or a perjury charge under 18 USC § 1621 with Goodling charged as a principal not because she directly committed the offense, but under the provision of 18 USC § 2(b) which allows someone to be charged as a principal in an offense if they willfully cause another person to do something which would have been a crime had the first person done it themselves. While that's very similar to subornation, it is distinct: I had thought the federal subornation statute was broader than subornation usually is, but should have reread it before posting.

A better argument.

We'll see what the experts say.

Marshall has them working on it over at talkingpointsmemo.

One other point on Goodling's lawyer's argument:

Is failing to inform a person of certain facts, Goodling's claim is not that she has been accused of misleading anyone but merely of failing to inform a person of pertinent facts, that one has no duty to disclose sufficient to bring the person within the ambit of the crimes you say are applicable, cmdicely?

Seems a stretch.

Laughing my ass off at Norm's playwriting. And agree with cld: Specter's even better.

I admit I got a big chuckle out of Goodling's lawyer blabbing that Specter has been dissing the Judiciary Committee's investigation behind the scenes. Arlen, you are such a treacherous fuck.

Is failing to inform a person of certain facts, Goodling's claim is not that she has been accused of misleading anyone but merely of failing to inform a person of pertinent facts, that one has no duty to disclose sufficient to bring the person within the ambit of the crimes you say are applicable, cmdicely?

Certainly, if done with the requisite intent, and if the person was deliberately led to believe they had been fully informed, it would seem, on its face, to meet the requirements of 18 USC § 1001, which makes criminal anyone whoever knowingly or willingly "covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact" in any matter within the scope of "any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate."

That chicken suit cost me more money than most of you see in a month. Norman Rogers at 12:11 AM

…O we are now sending people off to the hoosegow based on what is… a "procedural mistake?"… Norman Rogers at 8:44 PM