Posted on 11/12/2009 8:14:40 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Love this Most transparent administration ever....I guess they don’t know what Transparent means............Or they are LIARS
If Bachman had any sense at all, he did shred the documents— after scanning or otherwise making copies first.
The list, ping
Not a big deal. Democrats are involved. Laws and rules do not apply to democrats.
The Capone administration strikes again. BTT.
Love this Most transparent administration
It does always seem to be blatantly obvious what they’re doing though...
Has anyone lied to their diary yet?
!!!YES!!!
It was not the shredder - it was The Transparenterator!
To begin with, it is highly, highly doubtful that the documents in question were the originals, nor is it likely that they were the only copies.
Now, if the originals have also been shredded, that would be something. But there is no evidence that occurred.
More interesting is the degree of cooperation between the WH and AmeriCorps on this matter, which is made quite clear by the exchange. That's where the fire is ... don't focus on non-issues.
Thanks for the great work you are doing to document BO/Dems at the: www.nachumlist.com
State run media will be all over it. /sarc
I think that shredding a document without having preserved a proper facsimile thereof is a crime.
I’m sure that the Attorney General will be right on this...right?
I sure hope the Justice Department gets to the bottom of this.
LMBO!!!
The culture of corruption in the Ubama White House is breathtaking.
More come to light before we can investigate and fully disclose the last one!
We are trying to put out a forest fire with a child's sand bucket!
It means that you can see right through them.
One is not allowed to destroy documents that the destroyer has reason to believe will be required in an investigation, particularly if the destroyer (or the one who directs destruction) is an attorney.
There was an in-house counsel for Arthur Andersen & Co., the defunct accounting firm, who was criminally charged for urging destruction of documents before they were subpoenaed.
Here this was a known controversial situation. I think that the replacement inspector general is culpable if the facts are as represented.
Thank you too. The support means a lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.