PDA

View Full Version : Missing emails and war czars


Lindsey
April 9th, 2007, 04:44 PM
Here's an interesting thought posted in one of the comments on a TPM Muckraker post (regarding the use of e-mail accounts operated under the auspices of the RNC to conduct planning about the USA firings):

Not a lawyer, but a thought crossed my mind ... Given that part of the communications strategy to justify the U.S. Attorney firings was to personally malign the terminated USA's. In the normal course, should one of those former USA's want to sue over this libelous conduct, Rove and others would be protected under sovereign immunity. Since, however, they presumably used non-governmental resources to hatch the plan, it could be argued that they were acting in their capacity as private citizens and, therefore, can be sued. If they argue that, no, they were acting in their governmental capacity then the use of the RNC server to accomplish this may be an illegal act.

It'd be fun to test.
Does that approach have a legal leg to stand on? Rove, Goodling, et al. do seem to be in violation of the Presidential Records Act in any event, based on what has come to light in the released e-mails.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
April 9th, 2007, 09:03 PM
Does that approach have a legal leg to stand on? Rove, Goodling, et al. do seem to be in violation of the Presidential Records Act in any event, based on what has come to light in the released e-mails.Probably not. The hitch is that libel is almost impossible to prove for a public official (which a US Attorney most assuredly is) and though there is clearly malice here (a required element), the maligning was almost all of the opinion type ("he wasn't performing up to our expectations") rather than the factual type ("he was expected to bring five cases of X type and only brought three").

Lindsey
April 9th, 2007, 10:19 PM
Probably not. The hitch is that libel is almost impossible to prove for a public official (which a US Attorney most assuredly is)
I was afraid of something like that. I would love it, though, if, one way or the other, the oh-so-clever strategy of taking the e-mail conversations outside the White House e-mail system ended up the rope with which these guys have hung themselves.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
April 10th, 2007, 03:54 PM
I would love it, though, if, one way or the other, the oh-so-clever strategy of taking the e-mail conversations outside the White House e-mail system ended up the rope with which these guys have hung themselves.Oh in one sense they have done that. That email, to the extent it exists on any computer anywhere, is now subject to subpoena...

Lindsey
April 10th, 2007, 10:33 PM
Oh in one sense they have done that. That email, to the extent it exists on any computer anywhere, is now subject to subpoena...
Music to my ears!

And meanwhile, the subpoena-ing has begun: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002979.php

And the Senate has threatened to start putting out subpoenas on Thursday if the DOJ doesn't turn over the additional documents they have requested.

Meanwhile, the Bush Justice Department, chock full of "original intent" true believers, hired, in no small part, on the basis of their answer to the question, "Do you believe Roe v Wade should be overturned?" is resisting Congress's requests for public documents on the grounds of . . .

(wait for it)

. . . the right to privacy.

I am not making this up (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002981.php).



--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
April 11th, 2007, 09:04 AM
Meanwhile, the Bush Justice Department, chock full of "original intent" true believers, hired, in no small part, on the basis of their answer to the question, "Do you believe Roe v Wade should be overturned?" is resisting Congress's requests for public documents on the grounds of . . .

(wait for it)

. . . the right to privacy.Oh. My. God. That's hilarious!

Lindsey
April 11th, 2007, 10:58 PM
Oh. My. God. That's hilarious!
It gets harder and harder to distinguish the real news about this administration from what appears in The Onion!

And for yet another example of that:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013566.php

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
April 12th, 2007, 01:48 PM
It gets harder and harder to distinguish the real news about this administration from what appears in The Onion! And for yet another example of that:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013566.phpDave Ross did the same sort of thing yesterday on CBS Radio:
With Imus off the front page there was room for this strange little story:

From the Washington Post, (quote) "The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department, and other agencies... but has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job."

What? Maybe if I read it slower... "someone to oversee wars, with powers to tell the Pentagon and State Department what to do..."

Isn't that the President? Is he trying to outsource his own job?

The other strange part is that one of the candidates for War Czar was ...General Jack Sheehan, a former NATO commander who says he never agreed on the basis for the war, that we didn't properly plan for it, who thinks Vice President Cheney has too much influence, and who sides with the pragmatists looking for away out.

He turned them down.

This is who they wanted to be War Czar?? Why not just ask Nancy Pelosi?

What's going on here?

Then there's this line. The article quotes political scholar Frederick Kagan who says, quote "It's a real problem that we don't have a single individual back here who is really capable of coordinating the [war] effort."

WHAT?? Four years and NOW they tell us?

What happened to the decider -- I distinctly remember the president saying he was the decider. I know we have that cut... yeah here it is.

[clip of Bush saying he was the decider, and he'd decided that Don Rumsfeld should stay on as Secretary of Defense.]

Oh well, never mind.

Lindsey
April 12th, 2007, 11:23 PM
Dave Ross did the same sort of thing yesterday on CBS Radio:
Seems like a lot of people had that "Huh? Isn't that Bush's job?" reaction to the "War Czar" proposal. And one commenter on Salon.com, in addition to pointing out that being President means that you are the war czar said (starting off by quoting from a previous message):

Pass the buck

Does anyone have a single doubt that once they get some sod in this job, that Bush's tune (along with that of all his loyal followers) will change to an Alberto Gonzalez-like refrain of "Why are you asking/blaming me? I have no idea what's going on, it's the War Czar's job!"

That's exactly what this is, and what Bush has done all his life when things he's "responsible for" go down the tubes; namely, find someone to bail him out or take the blame for the whole mess. Only now he's dealing with military men who operate in the real world, rather than one of Daddy's wealthy underlings/business partners, and they've told him essentially to go shove it. The schadenfreude would be delicious if it weren't for all the dead people.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
April 13th, 2007, 11:28 AM
Seems like a lot of people had that "Huh? Isn't that Bush's job?" reaction to the "War Czar" proposal.I'm sure the Salon commentator is right, and Bush will do the "Who, me?" routine...

Lindsey
April 13th, 2007, 11:30 PM
I'm sure the Salon commentator is right, and Bush will do the "Who, me?" routine...
That is, in fact, the approach his whole administration seems to take. :mad:

--Lindsey