Email gaps line up with Plamegate and Iraqi intell investigation

[truthmatters]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_e_mail;_ylt=AiTxl7ivFYB9_cP.7_JSTsKs0N UE


It is illegal not to save these communications.
It is illegal to earse them.
It is a crime.

These communications belong to the people not to this administration.



White House missing CIA, Iraq e-mails By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jan 19, 6:55 AM ET



WASHINGTON - Apparent gaps in White House e-mail archives coincide with dates in late 2003 and early 2004 when the administration was struggling to deal with the CIA leak investigation and the possibility of a congressional probe into Iraq intelligence failures.

ADVERTISEMENT

The gaps — 473 days over a period of 20 months — are cited in a chart prepared by White House computer technicians and shared in September with the House Reform and Government Oversight Committee, which has been looking into reports of missing e-mail.

Among the times for which e-mail may not have been archived from Vice President Dick Cheney's office are four days in early October 2003, just as a federal probe was beginning into the leak of Valerie Plame's CIA identity, an inquiry that eventually ensnared Cheney's chief of staff.

Contents of the chart — which the White House now disputes — were disclosed Thursday by Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who chairs the House committee, as he announced plans for a Feb. 15 hearing.

Waxman said he decided to release details from the White House-prepared chart after presidential spokesman Tony Fratto declared "we have absolutely no reason to believe that any e-mails are missing."

[Dilloduck]

Good thing there is an investigation going.

[jimnyc]

These communications belong to the people not to this administration.

You mean we own the emails that go to the White House? I can just write them and get copies of any of them if I wish? Can you please supply precedent to show this to be the case... Silly me assumed some of it was likely confidential information and not open to the public eyes.

[jimnyc]

TM - your second message has been removed. We DO NOT post entire articles here. And no, putting half of it in your first message and the other half in your second is still not acceptable.

[Kathianne]

If it's Saturday, it's TM 'bringing truth to our eyes' day. :read::bang3:

[jimnyc]

If it's Saturday, it's TM 'bringing truth to our eyes' day. :read::bang3:

Allow me to correct that for you:

If it's Saturday, it's TM 'driving us to drink with her inane, incoherent ramblings' day.

[red states rule]

If it's Saturday, it's TM 'bringing truth to our eyes' day. :read::bang3:

Reading TM's posts is like lowering your head, and running full speed into the far wall

It hurts like hell, accomplishes nothing, and gives you a bad headache

[truthmatters]

hide your heads and it will all go away.

I didnt know you could only post a certain percetn of an article?

what percent is that?

I did not post even half of the article so I would really like to know the percent we are allowed to post?



They are missing gaps which coinside with times they were asccused of crimes. I wonder how you will react when and if President Obama does this?

Its OK you know you will never have to worry about that huh because Dems dont do this Nixonian stuff do they?

[jimnyc]

hide your heads and it will all go away.

I didnt know you could only post a certain percetn of an article?

what percent is that?

I did not post even half of the article so I would really like to know the percent we are allowed to post?

You already know what you posted in your first post. You POSTED THE REST OF THE ARTICLE IN YOUR SECOND POST. That's the ENTIRE article split up between two posts.

And how about you read the rules of the board if you're unsure? Is that too much to ask?

[truthmatters]

wow , this is really wierd maybe you didnt reaed the whole article?

[jimnyc]

hide your heads and it will all go away.

Its OK you know you will never have to worry about that huh because Dems dont do this Nixonian stuff do they?

Like you hide your fat head in the sand whenever an article is posted about the ever so corrupted democrat party?

[jimnyc]

wow , this is really wierd maybe you didnt reaed the whole article?

I did, asswipe, and that's how I know you broke copyright laws by posting the entire protected article.

[truthmatters]

There are 20 paragraghs in that article Jim.

I first posted four.

I did not post 16 in the second post.

[jimnyc]

There are 20 paragraghs in that article Jim.

I first posted four.

I did not post 16 in the second post.

First off, you did too. Secondly, it doesn't matter, as it is you posted more than you should in your first post. It's not necessary to return and post more from the very same article in a subsequent post.

[Kathianne]

Allow me to correct that for you:

If it's Saturday, it's TM 'driving us to drink with her inane, incoherent ramblings' day.

:cheers2::alcoholic::wine::beer:

Ya gotta point!

[truthmatters]

Oh Jim now really.


Could you please tell me the percent which you will allow me to post?

Im begining to understand why the Bush admin thought it was OK to erase any evidence. Might makes right to certain people.

[jimnyc]

Oh Jim now really.


Could you please tell me the percent which you will allow me to post?

Im beinging to understand why the Bush admin thought it was OK to erase any evidence. Might makes right to certain people.

Try reading the RULES as I suggested you fucking retard! It's in black and white and is LAW as to what is allowed as per the "fair use act".

I'm beginning to understand why the dems are so stupid, if you are any indication.

Since you would rather argue about the rules set forth, which have ALWAYS been applied equally throughout the board, and is a matter of case law, say "goodnight" to your thread. Maybe next time I should just give you a temporary ban for breaking the rules and putting the board in legal jeopardy?

[jimnyc]

TM seems to think that she broke no rules by posting as much of an article as she did. Whether she posted an entire article as I pointed out, or just about an entire article, there was clearly 14-20 paragraphs worth of material copied and pasted into 2 posts by her.

This rule has been enforced MANY times previously and has been applied equally to all. The rules are quite clear on what is allowed and what is not. Yet I am told I am trying to "hide things" by asking a member to abide by the rules. One can easily do a search on this board for the term "copyright" and see who has been asked not to post entire articles previously.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to bend when it comes to copyright issues and take a chance legally just so someone doesn't feel picked on. This rule applies to all, and all equally, and always has been this way.

My apologies to all for the locked thread, but TM is more interested in complaining or arguing about the rules than she is abiding by them.