1) Loyal
2) Democrats
3) Vulnerable
4) Battleground
5) Immigrant
6) Indict
7) Message
8) Corrupt

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

Turn
over
the
fucking
servers
you
lying
crooks
?

... that the RNC would have run the searches to make sure that the right emails got, er, "missed"?

1 Jeff
2 pass
3 eight
4 inch
5 uncut
6 threesome
7 foursome
8 party

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Missed this one Monday in WaPo:

The former Justice Department official who carried out the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year told Congress that several of the prosecutors had no performance problems and that a memo on the firings was distributed at a Nov. 27 meeting attended by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, a Democratic senator said yesterday.

The statements to House and Senate investigators by Michael A. Battle, former director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, represent another potential challenge to the credibility of Gonzales, who has said that he never saw any documents about the firings and that he had "lost confidence" in the prosecutors because of performance problems.

Seems like a direct contradiction, to me. Who ya gonna believe?

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

a
an
the
it
he
she
please
Bushie

OK, Lambert's list made me laugh.

But the trouble with this process is that even the "serious" suggestions here won't actually dig up the goods. Remember: The issue Waxman is pushing right now is whether they used the RNC emails for official business.

It might be possible to search the EOP addresses to ferret out political business done on official servers (potential Hatch Act violations) with something like "Karl" or "KR" or "RSCC" or "elections" or whatever.

But locating official business on political servers (a potential Presidential Records Act violation) is much harder, because official business won't have specific keywords that tag it as official.

This is why Waxman's request for emails specifically asks for any emails sent from an RNC-run server to addresses ending in ".gov" That's going to be the key issue to watch, I think. Remember that the Jennings email falls in this general category. And that's going to be the big fight, I bet.

You're quite right -- how would key words distinguish official businss from giving us the business? They wouldn't. So the offer is disingenuous. But why?

I still don't see why we aren't attacking the server guys. Maybe if the jackboot were on the other foot I wouldn't like that, but still....

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

The standard fallback excuse for anything crooked in the BushCo regime is "butbutbut Clinton did it too!!". So I see no reason not to turn that around to "And you did this to Clinton too" and use every tactic, demand every document type and otherwise request under threat of subpoena at least as much shit from the BushCo whitehouse as Ken Starr got from the Clinton administration.

[/hastening to hide this screen as i hear managerial footsteps in the hall]

"You’re quite right — how would key words distinguish official businss from giving us the business? They wouldn’t. So the offer is disingenuous. But why?"

First, "ha" to your business line. Very nice.

I'm sorta busy with Iran and Sudan, so this is guesswork rather than reporting. Please judge accordingly.

When I was a paralegal, a million years ago, one lawyer explained to me that the early shots of a legal battle are often efforts to define the terms of the debate, assert principles, and set precedents.

Again, I'm no lawyer, but my hunch is that the RNC is asserting/defending a right to limit access by the committee. (I'm explaining, not defending or criticizing here). The RNC is defending against not just current efforts to gain information but future efforts as well. If they cave on Issue X, when Issue-Y-that-is-related-to-issue-X comes up, they'll have a tough time defending.

As I said before, though, my sense is that the really big fight will be over RNC email - to - .gov email communications. But the fights the precede that one will shape that one.

Since they're gaming the system, why would they respect the *.gov extensions?

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

"Since they’re gaming the system, why would they respect the *.gov extensions?"

I'm not sure what you mean, Lambert. Could you expand on that?

What if both ends of the relevant conversations were not .gov email addresses? From our perspective, the whole purpose of having non-official email was to hide their nefarious activities.

If it was "official business" such as the firing of US attorneys, there is no guarantee one side would have used their .gov email, especially if both sides were up to no good, and knew it.

I've worked in a law firm as well, assigned to sift through every file on someone's hard drive to find anything that could be deemed relevant. I think that's how it's supposed to work, it's called "Due Diligence" and "Discovery", hello?

If this were a case involving two corporations, for example, serious lawyers would demand everything. The eight search word requirement would be laughed out of court, no?

Fredo
Boy Genius
Altoid Boy
Guru
Buff Guy
Quasimodo
Hurricane Karen
The Fabulous Mr. Lips

(Sure wouldn't help with the DOJ stuff, but boy would I love to see the results of this search)

The whole point of the controversy is that the White House didn't respect or see any difference between official and non-official communication, but promiscuously intermingled them, and often used private addresses for mail that they wished to conceal. So why subpoena only *.gov?

As Shystee said: Everything.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

you should look up how DNS works, :)

Some people say DNS works by routing all the damning emails through a series of tubes to some magical place where they get lost if lawyers, Congress, or history needs to examine corruption and fraud.