United States Attorney's

[Ray]

It is a perfectly good example .... It demonstrates how an employee within the White House can stay within the law.

And, yes, all Presidents have behaved in the same way with Air Force One. I choose the 2006 election because it is the most recent, and quite probably most easily in someone's mind.

As for whether I like Republicans or not, it is irrelevant to the behavior within the law, or not within the law.

I think repeated characterization of behavior that both major american parties participate in as republican behavior is relevant. It goes to bias counselor.

I don't think a piece of fiction is necessarily a good example of how things can be accomplished in real life.

 

[michaeledward]

I think repeated characterization of behavior that both major american parties participate in as republican behavior is relevant. It goes to bias counselor.

I don't think a piece of fiction is necessarily a good example of how things can be accomplished in real life.

Ray, please don't refer to me as 'couselor'. It seems condescending. You may address me as 'michaeledward' - my MT username, or Mike, or, if you prefer, Mr. Atkinson will be fine as well.


I will ask you then, to please tell us, how "in real life", operatives can comply with the Presidential Records Act; which mandates that all communications dealing with Presidential policy will be maintained.

Please tell us how "in real life", how operatives within the White House can comply with the Hatch Act of 1939.

Karl Rove, and others, were using computers and equipment provided by the Republican National Committee, and emails from the same organization to discuss policy matters; such as firing United States Attorneys.

In 'Real Life', we are subject to obeying the laws of the country.

Please ...explain to me why these employees are exempt from the laws of the country, "in real life".


P.S. 'In Real Life', we are hear that more than Five Million Emails have gone missing from the White House.

 

[Ray]

Please ...explain to me why these employees are exempt from the laws of the country, "in real life".

I do not say that anyone is exempt from following the laws of the country.

I do say that using a contrived piece of fiction may be a bad example of how someone who is a real person might arrange their activities. Further, I would go so far as to say that you should stick to fact in the beshirchment of the present administration.

 

[michaeledward]

I do not say that anyone is exempt from following the laws of the country.

I do say that using a contrived piece of fiction may be a bad example of how someone who is a real person might arrange their activities. Further, I would go so far as to say that you should stick to fact in the beshirchment of the present administration.

Which assertion of mine do you believe to be unfactual?

I will be glad to provide appropriate documentation and corroboration.

It appears you are calling me a liar. I would relish the opportunity to set the record straight, if that is indeed what you are doing.

 

[Ray]

It appears you are calling me a liar. I would relish the opportunity to set the record straight, if that is indeed what you are doing.

When I say "fiction" I mean your interjection of a television show into the conversation. I apologize for not explicitly saying that I was referring to the TV show that you were talking about -- I assumed that since it was referenced in around 5 postings and it was referred to as "fiction" in one or two, that you would connect "fiction" as in "West Wing."

Further, I wrongly assumed that you would understand that I was asking you to leave "fiction" ("West Wing" and the like) out of your argument since it is fiction and aking you to concentrate on "fact" or "non-fiction" or the facts of the subject.

If you still believe that I called you a liar, please feel free to "set the record straight." Who am I to try and change your mind anyway.

 

[michaeledward]

When I say "fiction" I mean your interjection of a television show into the conversation. I apologize for not explicitly saying that I was referring to the TV show that you were talking about -- I assumed that since it was referenced in around 5 postings and it was referred to as "fiction" in one or two, that you would connect "fiction" as in "West Wing."

Further, I wrongly assumed that you would understand that I was asking you to leave "fiction" ("West Wing" and the like) out of your argument since it is fiction and aking you to concentrate on "fact" or "non-fiction" or the facts of the subject.

If you still believe that I called you a liar, please feel free to "set the record straight." Who am I to try and change your mind anyway.

So, you don't like that I use an example from a fiction television show to demonstrate a point.

I pointed to the fact ... here:

You can't use the 'Office Computer' to send an email asking for donations to the Political Party. This is why the RNC gave White House officials computers, cell phones and blackberries.

I then used an analogy to further my point ..

a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based.

You are choosing not to discuss the point of issue, that White House officials are required to maintain all communications. You instead seem to be hung up on the use of an analogy.

But, you then go furhter. You go on to accuse me of 'besmirchment' - Defined as

be·smirch

(bĭ-smûrch') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. be·smirched, be·smirch·ing, be·smirch·es

1. To stain; sully: a reputation that was besmirched by slander.
2. To make dirty; soil.

I am pointing out facts and law. If the actions of the White House, and the employees therein, stain, sully, or make dirty the Administration, please recognize that those actions are performed by those people.

It seems incongruous that in my shining a light on those actions, that I am at fault for their behaviors.

 

[Ray]

So, you don't like that I use an example from a fiction television show to demonstrate a point.

Correct. I do not like the analogy of a fictional television show as an example of how to do something. Many times, fictionalized accounts aren't really good examples of how things work. I might tell you a fictionalized account of how a shipping employee where I work might step outside the building through the side door to use his cell phone and then step back inside after the call, but it wouldn't really reflect how such a thing could be done...First there is an auto alarm attached to that door, secondly it locks when he steps out, third there is a camera on that door which is monitored.

So, I don't know all the details of the white house and whether it is logistically possible for a worker there to get up, walk out, go to a park across the street, make a cell phone call and return. I don't know how suspious that would look and I don't even know if there is a park across the street.

But I do agree that the law should be followed.

It seems incongruous that in my shining a light on those actions, that I am at fault for their behaviors.

I don't know if you are "shining a light" or not.

You are not responsible for anyone's actions but your own.

 

[michaeledward]

You are not responsible for anyone's actions but your own.

Hmm, that didn't appear to be what you said here:

Further, I would go so far as to say that you should stick to fact in the beshirchment of the present administration.

 

[Ray]

Hmm, that didn't appear to be what you said here:

Appearances can be deceiving. Henceforth, I'm confining myself to reading the MA sections, that's why I came here anyway.

I'll keep checking the newspapers to see if GWB ends up in the brig for the US Attorney firings.

 

[michaeledward]

Appearances can be deceiving. I don't think that was the case here.



Moving on ...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=768578

According to someone who's had conversations with White House officials, the plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys originated with political adviser Karl Rove. It was seen as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of U.S. attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of.

The appearance that everything Mr. Rove touches is ******** may be deceiving, too.

 

[michaeledward]

From Murray Waas, we learn that United States Attorneys serve at the pleasure of Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling.

Yep, In March 2006, the Attorney General of the United States attempted to pass the buck (all hiring and firing of non-civil-service Justice Department employees) to his two deputies. Apparently the original order did not even require advising the Attorney General of the decision. When the specter of unconstitutionality was raised, the order was modified to inform the Attorney General, and issue the orders in his name.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070430nj1.htm

A senior executive branch official familiar with the delegation of authority said in an interview that -- as was the case with the firings of the U.S. attorneys and the selection of their replacements -- the two aides intended to work closely with White House political aides and the White House counsel's office in deciding which senior Justice Department officials to dismiss and whom to appoint to their posts. "It was an attempt to make the department more responsive to the political side of the White House and to do it in such a way that people would not know it was going on," the official said.

As Richard Belzar said the other night on Maher's program, they put party before country ... or at least party before justice.

 

[michaeledward]

Monica Goodling ....

doesn't know anything about anything.

Imagine that.

 

[michaeledward]

Three Cheers for Sara Taylor.

A Republican Aide to Karl Rove is currently appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is unclear what she will be allowed to say, but it appears that she would like to testify before the committee.

The White House would like for her not to testify, and has exerted Executive Privilege over her testimony. She shows a great deal of bravery by appearing against the wishes of the White House.

Now, we will see if she can serve country more than a man.

 

[michaeledward]

Ms. Taylor is not exceptionally brave.

She is exceedingly naive and disrespectful of the members of the Senate.

At least a half a dozen times in the last half hour, she interrupted Senators before they asked the question. I can't believe that Mr. Rove or Mr. Bush would tolerate interruptions like she is demonstrating before the Judiciary Committee today.

The White House is going to be FUMING at her appearance.

 

[michaeledward]

Now, we will see if she can serve country more than a man.

It appears that this sentence was more prescient than I could have imagined.

At one point in the testimony yesterday, Ms. Taylor stated

"I took an oath to the president, and I take that oath very seriously"

Senator Leahy is forced to bring the committee meeting down to the level of a fundamental civics class. Mr. Leahy schools Ms. Taylor appropriately.

I think the attitude of Ms. Taylor is pernicious in the White House. I think it fundamentally underlies the testimony we have heard from Ms. Goodling, and Mr. Samson. It represents a cult of personality, and a lack of understanding of our government.

The exchange is worth the investment of two minutes of your time.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003656.php