Originally Posted by Botnst
Oh BS, Jim. You jump to conclusions unwarranted by the words I used. it is unkind and unfair.
now let's try some accuracy here.
Not all violations of law are criminal. Some violations of law are always criminal. Definitively, what do we know about this particular event? I can't say anything definitively, other than there's been a massive screw-up. Since I don't know, then why is it reasonable to assume somebody (anybody) is guilty of a criminal offense that may or may not have been committed?
I use the same argument with any person accused of crime. Do you?
I was reacting in part to your advocating greater restrictions on federal employees via further "enhancements" to the Hatch Act. I have gone over that document and find much of it commendable and enforceable by instituting procedures like a contractor would. That there may be nothing of value for the employees in the Justice Department's procedures on these laws is hardly something that will stick on a contractor administering the email system. Making the law more restrictive will only make more opportunity for meaningless oversight activities. Which is what I thought you were advocating that I objected to.
I think your description of your outlook that I bolded is the same as mine with regard to potential violations of laws. And, I am neither prosecutor, or judge, so my opinion on this matter is valuable to me, I suppose but not much beyond that as I never put my opinion into practice.
I think where we differ in this particular case is the projection of what the Senate oversight committee is going to do. Not my interpretation of what to do, but what I think they
will do, based on their posturing and posing of late. The presumption is now that Gonzales and the White House were up to something they are trying to hide based on the wiggling and writhing and contradictory testimony to date. Or so the antics of the committee seem to say. Based on that, and the projected vetos of various bits of legislation and willingness by the administration to head down a path of confrontation over Constitutional authority over the funding of the President's Iraq bungling, I don't share a projection of less than the strictest and most confining view one can support by the literal words of the applicable legislation being applied by the Senate oversight committee delving into this. Including determining the criminal or civil nature of the offense. Jim