Comments (23)

profmarcus wrote on April 13, 2007 11:03 AM:

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

Peter Duffy wrote on April 13, 2007 11:10 AM:

Friday the 13th!!!

Which unlucky DOJ ex staffer will be DUMPED on????

steve duncan wrote on April 13, 2007 11:14 AM:

At this point it's apparent the WH is witholding (or deleting/shredding/hiding) anything especially relevant or important, either intending never to relinquish at all or to use as bargaining chips in the future. I'd look for all doc dumps in the near term to be mostly banal, innocuous stuff.

TheraP wrote on April 13, 2007 11:16 AM:

Don't lose sight of the house on fire - with this woodshed distraction!

Neil B. wrote on April 13, 2007 11:20 AM:

Good and needed move. There's a good discussion going on now at Kevin's WaMo (www.washingtonmonthly.com) about the related issue of the deleted and off-based emails about this issue. Kevin's threads attract many articulate and informed posters, as well as entertaining dextrotrolls like "Al."

jeffgee wrote on April 13, 2007 11:21 AM:

They'll put it in the George W. Bush presidential library, call it private property and not let anybody see it.

Jut wrote on April 13, 2007 11:22 AM:

What goes on between the documents being released and the documents being available online? My best guess is that the documents are released in paper form and then scanned by staff members to be released eventually as PDFs. Can you shed some light on how this release process works?

FlyOnTheWall wrote on April 13, 2007 11:28 AM:

They'll be posted here, shortly:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=46?

tbhull wrote on April 13, 2007 11:28 AM:

The House and Senate committee's involved in this investigation need to burn some midnight oil and subpoena the physical computer hardware (servers) at DOJ, the WH, and the RNC. Make the IT folks sweat that could or have possibly destroy the data on these servers or the servers themselves, so that no orders can follow to destroy hardware (servers and the like). The ISPs Smarttech and the like also need to receive subpoenas immediately. Why the delay?

It is as if Congress forgot how to work. No more DC parties until the necessary work is completed post haste.

Ballerina x wrote on April 13, 2007 11:29 AM:

code word "shame"

FlyOnTheWall wrote on April 13, 2007 11:30 AM:

Sorry, bad URL. The first two sets are now available here:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=472

Neil B. wrote on April 13, 2007 11:31 AM:

Check out this link about some extra powers the Congress has to enforce investigation, that we don't hear much about:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/03/dusting_off_inh.html

kathleen wrote on April 13, 2007 11:59 AM:

Why would U.s. attorneys be asked to go through a back ground check again?

Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 12:04 PM:

THESE EMPTY DOCUMENTS ARE AN ATTEMPT TO RE-FOCUS OFF OF THE BURNING HOUSE OF LOST EMAIL.

kathleen wrote on April 13, 2007 12:08 PM:

Which U.s. attorney's were offered the opportunity to go quietly? "to save face"

this line really gets me "Reagan and Clinton may have been pleased with the work of the U.S. attorneys who, after all, the had appointed".

I am just a peasant what do I know

PMN wrote on April 13, 2007 12:10 PM:

If/when folks are able to scrutinize White House staff emails using RNC accounts, please don't forget about noting any signs of possible White House coordination with supposedly independent expenditure efforts by the RNC (if such issues apply). I realize that the emphasis of such scrutiny will be and should be on the attorney purge. And that the White House claims RNC emailing was used as a means for avoiding abuse of public resources for political ends. But I wonder if any emails reveal untoward coordination/collusion between the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign (and/or related persons)and any RNC IEs on behalf of Bush-Cheney. I'm just guessing that any such RNC IE effort took place on behalf of Bush-Cheney and that such legal constraints should therefore have been in the mix; even if that's the case, I have no idea whether possible violations actually took place. If this thought process has already been raised and addressed, my apologies.

The Commissar wrote on April 13, 2007 12:15 PM:

Got some good notes on Domenici and 4 "very important districts."

http://acepilots.com/mt/2007/04/13/doj-document-dump/

Xerrop wrote on September 28, 2007 4:23 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public

ok.. bitte

Xerrop wrote on September 28, 2007 4:23 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public

ok.. bitte

Xerrop wrote on September 28, 2007 4:23 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public

ok.. bitte

Sasha wrote on October 2, 2007 9:33 AM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
associate inc international profit

ok.. bitte

test wrote on November 9, 2007 7:09 AM:

test

test wrote on November 9, 2007 8:05 AM:

test