Anyone recall the level of media scrutiny for the millions of emails Bush-Cheney-Rove 'lost'?

[blm]

Last edited Wed Mar 11, 2015, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Can someone with access to that sort of media info weigh in here?

Those emails were ONLY about secret energy meetings, 9-11, the Iraq war planning, the outing of a CIA agent, and mass firings of US attorney. Millions more were routed through private RNC servers away from all scrutiny.

The news networks responded with a collective yawn. They have two sets of rules they go by - one for GOP and one for Dems. Guess who gets the pass.

Would love to see the numbers.

Anyone else think that MediaWhoresOnline would have been all over this?

We need MWO now as much as we ever did. DU should host it if they can.

Better to revive MWO then put up with Disgustedist. ; )

[MADem]

1. Whaddaya mean? The "liberal" media was HOT on that story!!!!

See?

[blm]

5. ; )

see…you can still make me smile.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. The MSM barely mentioned it at the time, IIRC...

Only TPM, ThinkProgress, et al, were reporting on it...

[Stuart G]

3. I remember that, and you are correct..the MSM covered it for a day,

then it was over, as if nothing happened. Also, we are talking about truckloads of stuff taken from certain locations.. I think..truckloads..

[blm]

4. We need to find then send the data around. The difference must be staggering.

They have been working the refs for 3 decades - we need to start. Or revive MediaWhoresOnline.

[thecrow]

28. I remember a picture of a huge shredding company truck

pulled up in front of Cheney's house. it was like "Shreds 'R' Us" or something.
Does anyone else remember that?
I saw a picture of it here on DU... was it photoshopped or real?
At the time, I was too just beyond words mad at that.

Well, Hmmmmmm... here are LINKS! It was in 2006
Pic of shredder truck heading into Cheney's property ...

Wait! It's real! Here's a picture!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2690158

It was the Mid-Atlantic Shredding Co. truck. Picture at link ^^^

I love DU

[blm]

32. I remember that!!! IOKIYAR

was never more true than when Bush-Cheney occupied the WH.

[Aerows]

9. People on both sides of the aisle do not WANT to remember it.

I screamed about it in 2006-7 at the top of my lungs.

Now everybody is pretending that we forgot - nobody fucking forgot, we simply remember that members of Congress did absolutely nothing about it when Dems were in control of Congress and now want us to pretend none of the population spoke up.

Which is some old bullshit.

[cascadiance]

6. And SmartTech, the company that hosted Republican email, also helped "count votes" in Ohio in 2004..

... on one of the RNC servers that Karl Rove arguably used to flip the election to Bush then, which anonymous claimed they stopped when it was rumored that Rove thought he'd set it up again in 2012.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/04/24/327069/-UPDATED-RNC-s-Smartech-took-over-Ohio-Election-Servers-on-Nov-3-2004#

[blm]

7. Who can forget?

And who can forget you? Haven't seen you in ages.

[riqster]

29. Not Rove. Blackwell.

[Aerows]

8. Yes, and I about lost my top last night

screaming about it.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026344716

[Rex]

14. They quit caring in 2001 imo.

IMO. And seriously Aerows, when not a person punished went for spying on Congress (our good buddies the CIA) I was convinced we are a lawless nation for some. Those that live above the law. When not a person punished went for torture and horrible crimes against humanity I decided what is important to me, is not important to the PTB. We little people will await the day that a true hero comes along and rectifies these gross crimes against humanity.

Until then, we are totally lawless. Just look at the 47 traitors in Congress. I see people DEFENDING them HERE. Don't call it sedition, hey you know what it IS SEDITION. I am sorry that some don't like it. Iran-Contra was treason, 9/11 was gross negligence by our government. The 2008 meltdown was a crime against the working class. Not a single CEO sits in prison for destroying thousands and thousands of families.

I just cannot get mad about HRC and her private email server at home. Hell I am still livid about 2000! Livid about 2004 watching people figurativly spit in John Kerry's face. Livid.

Nobody is going to close any loopholes...do you see Congress jumping around busting their butts to reform voting districts? Term limits? Campaign finance reform?

They don't care my friend.

[Aerows]

16. I know

It disgusts me. Finding ways to break the law is a thriving business, when working within the law should be.

[Rex]

20. And now they have billion dollar think tanks and 'institutes' to crunch numbers for them.

Telling them which way they need to piss to make corporate sponsor #112 happy. Which Wall Street baron to take to lunch. There will be a day, however, that the non-governing elites lose power over the peoples branches of government. The governing elites will reclaim control...I'm 43 so probably not in my lifetime but I will remain hopeful. IMO.

[Rilgin]

84. Nobody would care now

Absolutely noone would care now about anything Hillary Clinton did in the past except that she is presumably running for president and democrats are being told she is both the front runner and inevitable.

If she was not running for president no one would care about her emails. The issue of her emails is not connected to any of the issues you mentioned. Those issues are very important and it is a travesty that they are not being addressed strongly in the media.

However, you should care about Hillary Clinton and how she would run the country and handle public information in ways you no longer have to care about how Powell or Rice or Bush handled their emails. Even if they did everything Clinton did, they no longer are running for president or high office. Its about our future not our past and evaluating Clinton as a future president is not incompatible with those issues you mentioned.

[Cha]

10. Hell No.. it's business as usual for the US corporate A$$hole media.. cover up the repub scandals..

unless they're too fooking big and manufacture SCANDALS for Dems.

[Hekate]

11. But but but Hillary Clinton is special. Scandal just trails both Clintons wherever they go...

Andrea Mitchell said so, and it must be true, and above all it must be their own fault.

[blm]

12. I think if MWO were around, they'd be more cautious at some levels.

Mitchell strikes me as one of those who would CARE about being blasted daily for a lack of journalistic integrity.

No one could MOCK the corporate media more fiercely. It was getting so hot when it was shut down. It was all over Crossfire at one point. People were starting to work it in there the way crank callers would work in Howard Stern. ; )

[Hekate]

19. I think you are right about Andrea M. She's an old-timer with reputation to match, yet she ...

...really ticked me off this morning in a conversation with Rachel Maddow about the treatment Hillary got after her speech at the UN.

Andrea acknowledged how important that speech was, really important. Yet somehow the press was just all over the email "scandal" and it was so sad.

Well, dammit Andrea, I was watching when you got called on, and YOU ignored the Iran Letter and YOU ignored the UN speech, and YOU asked about the flipping emails!

Oh, and that comment about how scandal just seems to trail the Clintons everywhere -- as though the media was not 100% complicit in that phenomenon.

Yeah, MediaWhoresOnline needs to make a comeback.

[blm]

22. My beef was that she's supposed to have MAJOR foreign policy creds, yet

didn't seem to be interested in the Traitor Tot letter.

I found that incredibly suspect. No way was HRC email a bigger story.

[Hekate]

25. You and I agree completely. How could Andrea have failed to cover that story? HOW?

The answers that come to mind are not flattering to her.

[riqster]

30. Traitor Tot!!

SO stealing that.

[Aerows]

80. I have to say right up front, plain and center

that the traitor tot letter has pissed me off more than you can imagine. I wrote both of my Senators over it. Both are Republicans, but at least one had the sense to move out of the way when a rock is falling and didn't sign it. He was told "Thank Goodness that despite being a Republican, you aren't as stupid as the rest of them."

The other one was told "Spend more time with the one that can tell the difference between bathwater and a fireplace before you represent our State."

[Aerows]

17. This has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton

so much as it has to do with Republicans smearing it in our faces as the American people that they can break the law, then complain when a Democrat does it - because they were let off of the hook.

[Hekate]

23. See my comments about Andrea Mitchell, above. The problem is, the Clintons never seem to ...

... actually break the law.

Well, except that time Bill foolishly lied about copping a feel and sleeping with willing women. I hope we understand by now that even if he had admitted that upfront, it would not have stopped Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich. The GOP just goes on to bigger and more outlandish claims.

It's rather like birtherism that way, Aerows. There is not enough factual information on the planet to satisfy a birther about the citizenship and parentage of Barack Obama. I tried to do that with my loony cousin, and finally had to start deleting every email he sent me.

The whole experience with the Clintons in the 1990s is why I trust nothing coming from the GOP today when it concerns the Clintons. Nothing.

[Aerows]

31. Well then the Bushes

the Greenspans and the Cheney's never do either.

This isn't something new - I've been pissed about this for 9 years.

[Hekate]

43. Take a breath. You are not seriously equating the Clintons with the Bushs and Cheneys?!

and their ilk?

Think about what you just said.

[sakabatou]

13. No. I may have forgotten or before my time on DU

[blm]

15. It was 2002-3 and was developing into a force to be reckoned with.

Had the corporate media hacks hooked on visiting the page worried they would show up there.

When MWO's alarm lights went off everyone clicked over.

[Aerows]

18. I've seen you use the acronym

MWO twice. I have absolutely no idea what that acronym is. I don't disagree that some lawlessness has taken place, I just don't agree with things that I am not certain of what they mean.

[Fumesucker]

21. MediaWhoresOnline

They were really ripping the M$M a new one back in that time period..

[blm]

24. The best.

.

[Aerows]

33. Can't say I wasn't just as upset by it

as I am now. I wasn't even on DU at that time. I just knew about it because it was professionally responsible to know about it.

You should see the SlashDot archives for late 2006/early 2007. There was not a person there that was not ready, willing and eager to make "the emails appear".

But we gave them a big ol' pass, and here we all are again, with people breaking the law and nobody giving a shit despite the fact that the person that administrated the email system could get their ass sued off and sent to prison.

Those little people don't matter.

[pnwmom]

35. Hillary didn't break the law. The law was overhauled and the new one

didn't go into effect till more than a year after she left office.

People are trying to hold her, and her alone, responsible for retroactively following a law that didn't exist when she was SoS.

[Aerows]

36. Good God Almighty.

Have I fallen into an alternate universe where since Republicans got off Scot free for breaking the law, that now it is exactly just okay for Democrats to do it?

What in the name of New Year's, Christmas and the 4th of July are they feeding politicians, and those that excuse them, these days?

[Agschmid]

39. Just let me know which law she broke?

[Aerows]

48. I hope this link is adequate.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/chapter-31

[Agschmid]

53. Which section of the law listed was broken?

[Aerows]

55. The journaling part of it.

Independent record keeping. Archiving. Storing it in a box in the attic so that if the business of the USA needed a record, they would have one.

This is absolutely not a new argument for me, since I argued it in 2006-7 when Bush and Cheney did it.

[Agschmid]

57. So if by journaling you mean section 1...

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

How did she break that law?

[Aerows]

60. "make and preserve records"

That has specific Federal meaning. We can play around all day, but she screwed up as badly as Bush and Cheney did.

I could sit here and pretend that "make and preserve records" hasn't had a protocol specific meaning for decades, but we'll be here all day pretending that the sun doesn't rise in the East.

I'm pretty sure that there is an argument out there that the Earth isn't flat, but it doesn't make that argument correct.

I've already been called a birther for stating Federal Law, so imagining that I am going to quail under the scrutiny of someone that asks for the law to be quoted - which I did - isn't exactly going to happen anytime soon.

[Agschmid]

62. Eh I'm not trying to pick a fight...

I'd like to know what that protocol is, and where what is expected is documented. The actual law allows for quite a bit of leeway.

[Aerows]

65. You are a good DUer

I appreciate your willingness to go against me when you think I'm wrong, and to consider the fact of law.

[NYC_SKP]

73. You both are!

[Aerows]

79. Thanks, Eugene

I appreciate the support.

[Agschmid]

81. Thanks...

Even if I've been a bit fiesty with you lately... We will get through it!

[Hekate]

44. Ooopsie. Way over the top with false equivalencies. OTT see my post above.

[Aerows]

51. You accused me of being a birther

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6351823

for stating the law. I'm pretty certain that nothing I could possibly say would eclipse that statement as over the top.

[KoKo]

26. I remember, blm......

After ALL THESE YEARS!

[sakabatou]

41. Yep, definitely forgot/didn't know about this.

[malaise]

27. Cheney flat out refused and told them to go

Cheney themselves

[pnwmom]

34. Or all the emails Colin Powell deliberately deleted? No one raised any eyebrow about that.

[Aerows]

37. An eyebrow did get raised

Mightily.

[pnwmom]

38. I noticed that Elizabeth Warren isn't criticizing Hillary for this.

Neither are any of the other possible Democratic Presidential contenders.

[Aerows]

40. I don't give a shit who does or does not criticize it.

I absolutely criticized it when the Bush Administration did it, personally wrote to Senator Leahy about it, and the Bush Administration was given a pass.

I'm not sure who you think I am that I would gripe when the Bush Administration did something that I *ardently* pointed out was illegal and then I would turn around and say it's okay because a Democrat did it.

I'm just not built that way.

[pnwmom]

42. Hillary preserved her State Department emails and sent them to the State Department.

The Bush administration destroyed theirs.

Why are you comparing them?

[Aerows]

46. For a very good reason

of skirting the law, journaling and conducting the People's business without having archived it.

Here.

[pnwmom]

49. She did preserve it and sent it to the State Department when they asked for it.

So it's archived now, unlike the Bush administration emails.

[Aerows]

52. No

A secured system is a secured system, but this is actually not nearly as egregious as 47 Republican Senators undermining the President of the United States, but I am quite well aware of the law regarding archiving of communication, since ... I archive communication.

Let's argue about this (and honestly, I will be the first to admit that it pisses me off to no end that Republicans didn't get bloodied over this), but the 47 Senators are worse than anyone that is just a little person that knows about email could ever be.

[Agschmid]

54. I assume this will be your response to me in the other thread?

[Aerows]

56. I am only capable of posting in so many threads

at a time. I did respond, sorry it was not as quick as you would prefer.

I personally wish there were ten of me, but I understand that some folks would disagree

[Agschmid]

58. Lol.

It's cool.

[MADem]

78. She journaled/preserved it by sending it TO recipients with .gov state department addresses.

I think you'll be hard put to find many if any emails in her trove that aren't at least copied to an aide. There might be one or two personal notes to her husband/child that "mention" work, but nothing that's front and center/directly job related--that stuff was already archived.

And the law leaves that journaling/archiving up to the INDIVIDUAL.

[NYC_SKP]

68. I guess we are supposed to take her word for it. Hillary, that is. Trust her!

IMO she is a prevaricator, to our faces, I mean the "convenience" excuse.

[pnwmom]

83. We trust people in government to make phone calls without transcripts.

So I think there's a huge overreaction about some non-classified emails.

[Aerows]

86. You've worked in the government for how long, exactly? n/t

[pnwmom]

87. How is that relevant? n/t

[Aerows]

92. When you are attempting to speak from a position of authority

that you clearly do not have authority on, I'd say it is quite relevant.

[pnwmom]

93. How was I attempting to speak from authority?

I was speaking from common sense and general knowledge.

[Aerows]

94. When you assert something

that is an incorrect fact, it generally leaves you wide open for someone that knows better to say, Oh really?

[pnwmom]

95. What did I way that was incorrect?

[cascadiance]

59. How do we "KNOW" she preserved all of her State Department emails?...

I'm not saying that she did or she didn't. But not having government entity oversight over her private email servers means quite correctly that we DO NOT KNOW whether she's giving all of her emails to the State Department.

Even if she's doing everything properly, working outside the government systems of IT will open up her to that criticism, and you can bet the right will push that line of thinking.

Now, if she's concerned about the government based systems having problems such as NSA spying, spying by opposing party operatives, just problems with quality, etc. then she should be (or have made that an issue at the time she moved her mail in to that private domain) as something that needed fixing. That way, if there are legitimate reasons for her having moved her professional email off of publicly accountable servers, then she could be on record that this is the problem that needs fixing, and perhaps this news coming to light would highlight those issues needing to be fixed.

All we are doing is helping the narrative that politicians like her can't be trusted that the right wants.

And helping the notion that even Democrats don't trust government run infrastructure, which is why we need to privatize everything, because government run installations are inherently not functioning well.

And if it is NSA that is causing this problem, it would probably fuel the priorities of the Republicans that the government spying programs are the only things worth expanding, and that all other government institutions that are victims to intelligence agency spying in an abusive way should be phased out for private systems.

We should be using what happened here not to focus on critiquing Hillary Clinton's motives for doing this, which we don't really know, but as a reason why we should be fixing the problems that have even Democrats go away from government infrastructure and its oversight.

Those that are corrupt, who will likely be protected when those who aren't will be targeted in the press as using private email in a corrupt fashion, want this too, as it legitimizes their desire to use private email and other IT infrastructure to carry on more corrupt agendas without having it have as much scrutiny too.

Just think. If Governor Kitzhaber and his fiancee here in Oregon had moved ALL of their email communications to private servers too, then we probably still would have him as our governor, as Kitzhaber wouldn't have felt the need to order a mass of email purges that he did that lead to his being pressured to resign. Would Hillary Clinton have advised him to move all of his email on to a private server the way she did? That would be an interesting question to ask her.

[pnwmom]

64. We should have fixed the antiquated .gov system years ago, and we should be

updating it continuously.

And the 2014 records act is a better law than the old one.

I just object to people trying to hold Hillary -- and Hillary alone --responsible for following the 2014 law retroactively.

We don't KNOW she withheld a single work-related email. And no matter how many she turned over, there would be some Republicans screaming that she was hiding something. Because that's what they do.

[Aerows]

66. No arguments from me on

the idea what the antiquated .gov system needs an update.

Leave it to Republicans, though - they think investing in infrastructure is "big government" and "socialism".

[cascadiance]

69. I'd like to think this is an area we could all agree on and not make this just a "Hillary" thing...

... and that by looking closely at this issue, it might help us understand more why she did what she did. It could also expose other motivations for keeping the .gov system from being updated to fix problems that might be in its domain. And by doing so, I suspect we'll be exposing a lot of Republican efforts to bring down government, etc. that should be exposed so that the people can see how they are working against the American people and our ability to have a democracy govern us rather than an oligarchy.

A minor issue is Hillary's judgement in this area, but I think that should be secondary to fixing the conditions that would lead her and others to go the route she did.

[cascadiance]

67. I'm trying to avoid this being just about Hillary, but SHE helped make it that way...

... especially for Republicans that are trying to use it against her. I'm just as much against it when the Bush crowd did it, and they should have their asses hauled out for this if the right wants to pursue this and just try to go after Hillary.

WHY would she not use a government-based system for her email? THAT is the question that needs to be asked. Not questioning her ethics, which at this point we really don't know. But her doing what she did opens her up to such ethics questions from the right who wants to attack her on those. So, why did she decide to do this and open herself up to this criticism?

I think it is an important question for us to ask, given that she's being considered as being a candidate as our leader in the 2016 election. I want someone in charge that has the capacity to make good judgements, and to feel that that person's judgement is in all of our interests, and not just her own.

I also want to fix the system so that the right doesn't have further reasons to try and privatize yet more of our infrastructure. If she has good reasons for doing this, then let's hear them, and if her reasons document the need to fix our government infrastructure, then let's use that as a pretext to getting that done. Had she done that earlier without being pushed in to responding to someone else's inquiry, I think most people would hear her reasons and feel the need to address them, and would have seen it as a reason perhaps to vote for her, rather than against her. For me personally though, there are many other concerns I have over her track record that aren't related to this.

[Aerows]

70. And here is a person that get's it.

"I'm just as much against it when the Bush crowd did it, and they should have their asses hauled out for this if the right wants to pursue this and just try to go after Hillary. "

I couldn't rec this post enough if we could rec individual posts.

[Rilgin]

97. History

The US, as a country, has a long history of not pursuing politicians at the time for their missteps and illegalities. In my lifetime, this goes all the way back to the pardon of Nixon through Reagan then Bush. Democratic politicians agreed to let them off the hook.

The difference between Hillary and the older Bush crowd is that Hillary is running for President now. George W and George H W and Dick Cheney and Oliver North and Nixon are not. Some of us did get upset when the crooks performed their actions and when they got away with it.

At some point these people and actions become part of history unless the individuals resurface in the public eye or try to obtain positions of power. Then their past missteps and misdeeds become issues again for them.

It is unfortunate that Nixon, Bush, and Reagan were not punished for having hidden government. This set a procedure for Powell, Rice and yes HRC to do the same. However, they are not running now for office and they are not being touted as our inevitable champion.

I would much rather have someone who responded to the Bush, Powell, and Rice methods by rejecting them and making an issue of this at the time than HRC who used the same method to avoid the public. That is the only issue and the only reason it attaches to HRC and not the older Bushes at this time. She is trying to be in office again, they are not.

With respect to Jeb Bush, he has some of the same email issues when he was Governor. However, it is not a reason that Hillary should get a pass. It is a reason that both of them should not run for office again.

[Hekate]

45. There is not enough factual evidence on the planet to convince a birther either. I am really sorry.

Genuinely sorry to see this.

[Aerows]

47. Are you implying that I am a birther

for knowing and quoting the law of the profession I'm in?

Wow.

[Hekate]

74. Read my posts above -- I responded to you with explanation for the term I used. Long response here

It's not exclusive to you. It's not even about you.

Aerows, my first foray online ever was to join Censure and Move On. I was a full adult when the witch hunt against both Clintons took place. I am now 67 and I have not forgotten, nor have I forgiven, the actions of the RW/VRWC/ GOP and their ilk.

The Clintons are not saints. God knows I am not, and you probably are not either. I don't fool around on my husband, nor he on me -- but that is our private marriage, and they have their own arrangements. Just so you know -- I agree the Clintons are not saints.

But each and every "scandal" that has (as Andrea Mitchell so disingenuously put it this morning) "followed them around" has been manufactured by the RW and propagated by the media. If they had done 1/10 of what they have been accused of over the years they would both be in prison -- because they are not now and never have been Republicans. IOKIYAR, you know?

I realized long ago that this is not about either of them giving up more information. The more they give, the more is demanded, and the more the RW keeps picking at every comma trying to unravel something, anything.

You may be offended at my analogy, but I am not calling you a birther. I am pointing out the extent to which Democrats allow themselves to fall into that old trap laid out for us by the Republicans.

If you have evidence that the Clintons have committed actual crimes like the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal, please bring it forth. Be explicit. Don't wave around innuendoes and false equivalencies. Eschew conspiracy theories.

I don't know what else to say, but I can tell there is something that really bothers you about them, far above and beyond the run of the mill politicians. I just can't believe that if you really were an adult in the 1990s and 2000-2008 that you could ever say that these people are "the same" in criminality or in any other way.

[Aerows]

76. I appreciate your response

but implying that I am a birther went beyond the pale. It shows that you have absolutely no respect for my perspective on this.

Oh well.

I think we probably agree more than we disagree, but Democrats keep *allowing* Republicans to break the law and then allow Republicans to get up in arms when Democrats break it.

You reap what you sow. I am a Democrat. What I'm not is stupid.

You have absolutely no ground to complain about someone breaking the law and Republicans attempting to make political hay over it when you already knew a Republican broke this very same law, sat back and covered for them.

[zappaman]

72. Annnnnnd the jury results.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Wed Mar 11, 2015, 09:58 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

There is not enough factual evidence on the planet to convince a birther either. I am really sorry.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6351823

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I'm pretty sure that calling a DU member a birther because they don't agree with you is against TOS.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 11, 2015, 10:07 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not calling poster a birthed. Seems to be using them as an example.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: over-the-top
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: They are not calling the poster a "birther". They are making an analogy to a belief system that makes people blind to facts they don't want to see. Dumb alert.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Hekate]

75. Oh. Well, thank you jury. Probably dug myself in deeper with the long post I wrote while...

... this was under consideration. Will stop trying to explain myself to that person now.

[Aerows]

85. I appreciated your explanation

I'm just puzzled why you attempted to paint me - of all things - as a birther to begin with.

Seriously?

[Hekate]

88. Because I didn't. It was an analogy gone wrong. Thank you, though, for reading my explanation.

Seriously.

See you around.

[Aerows]

91. I can accept that it was an analogy gone wrong.

Hell, I'm not perfect, either.

[leveymg]

50. The underlying statute has no teeth - so there seemed no

possible way to prosecute the Bushies, and the political process was paralyzed by the 911/Iraq War psychosis, so nothing was going to be done about the crimes of the Bush Administration. With Hillary's similar violation of the 1950 Federal Records Act there is a different political constellation today, so it seems worth pursuing. Whoever advised her to do this on the assumption that she too would similarly get off Scott free gave her some very bad advice.

[salin]

61. I miss "the horse"!!!!

Of course MWO would have been all over this.

And the responding emails sent to specific journalists would have gotten some mention - in some places. Now... crickets.

[valerief]

63. Or the two trillion dollars the military "lost" as of 9/10/2001. nt

[Aerows]

71. That everybody forgets about.

And some of us are still wondering about.

And get called every name in the book from a birther, a conspiracy theorist to delusional because we have long memories.

[malokvale77]

77. The media scrutiny was nil.

The Democratic Party was silent.

Tell me why I should give a damn.

Both parties are whores.

[Aerows]

90. They did exactly nothing about it.

I'm not ready to use the appellation you did, but if you are shocked when a Democrat does something Republicans got a pass on by a Democrat, you get the turd sandwich you should have already seen coming for lunch.

[malokvale77]

96. "I'm not ready to use the appellation you did"

A: I think you are there. Go ahead and admit it.

B: I am not shocked and will not eat the turd sandwich.

[MadDAsHell]

82. I'd say New York Times coverage is far from "media silence" as some here are suggesting...

...and a simple Google search would have given you that...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12emails.html?_r=0

[blm]

99. It's the LEVEL of coverage. We're well aware that some exists - certainly NOT comparable to

the amount of media attention occurring now.

[McCamy Taylor]

89. Nope. Not the MSM. Only the left wing press.

[colsohlibgal]

98. It Is So Maddening

The date of Rummy announcing he had no idea where 2 trillion was more than curious. If you wanted to announce this debacle what better day to announce it, to ensure it would quickly be forgotten, 9/10/01.

And the emails, oh yes. Accidentally destroyed or whatever, nothing to see here. The equivalent of "the dog ate my homework."

Unbelievable, it turns out "fair and balanced" is a huge stretch everywhere in MSM including MSNBC.