White House Wins Ruling On E-mail Records

An anonymous reader writes "The White House Office of Administration is not required to turn over records about a trove of possibly missing e-mails, a federal judge ruled Monday. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the agency does not have 'substantial independent authority,' so it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act."

Comments

freedumb? f*ck yeah!

[kubla2000]

Nothing says "f*ck you" to the terrorists like a strong white house! Huzzah for freedumb!

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist

[Doc Ruby]

"More rights than the Nazis"? You're a fascist too. Er, I mean "Republican". Oh, right, 2008 - that's "libertarian", check.

If you weren't a fascist, lying to make Nazis look like victims, you'd know that that's a bullshit lie.

But hey, you're really not sticking up for Nazis. You're really just defending the kidnapping and secret torture of "accused terrorists", denying them protection of their Habeas Corpus rights that the Constitution requires.

How "libertarian" of you.

Conversely, when the courts do their job defending the Constitution and our rights, I applaud them. When they give you the unaccountable dictator you prefer, I loudly boo. Them and you.

Re:When did this change?

[myth_of_sisyphus]

Cheney says the office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive branch. I'd like to see this little piece of trickery and evil come before a judge.

Wrong way: you've got your head up a butt

[vague_ascetic]

"hate speech" bill supported by Obama

Please inform the world about this "hate speech" bill supported by Obama.

The very assertion is laughably in error. Obama does support Hate crimes legislation, which enhances sentences for persons convicted of violent felonies, or being an accessory to the commission violent felonies, when the victim(s) were singled out as being a member of specifically listed groups. There are valid questions, and proper arguments which can be made, regarding the legality and utility of hate crimes legislation, but 1st Amendment speech protection is certainly not one of them. There has never, ever been a 1st Amendment protection for speech which directly incited felonious acts.

The only reason some have decided to attack hate crimes legislation using this argument, is because the newest legislation would add to the list of protected groups, anyone attacked violently because of sexual orientation, or gender identity.

So why don't you just go ahead and spit out your anti-faggotry agenda Mr. AC, instead of hiding behind a 1st Amendment rock? You are free to spew, as long as you do not advocate killing fags in a manner that convinces others to act on your words.

Chicken-shit pissant peeper in the public potties...