Thousands of White House E-mails Deleted

kidcharles writes "The Washington Post reports that in the midst of an investigation by the U.S. Congress into the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the Department of Justice, numerous White House e-mails have been lost. Among them are communications from presidential adviser Karl Rove. Parallels are being drawn with the infamous '18 minutes' missing from the Nixon Watergate tapes. Also at issue is the use of Republican National Committee e-mail domains (such as gwb43.com and georgewbush.com) rather than the official White House domain. This is a violation of the Presidential Records Act."

Comments

Fool me once...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever, GWB is a douche bag.

-H

Re:Miraculously..

[MaWeiTao]

Rampage?

You mean like in March of 1993 when Clinton had every single US attorney fired. That's 93 people for those counting. At the time the US attorney in Washington DC was investating the Ways and Means Chairman, the guy who was trying to push Clinton's economic program through congress. More importantly, allegations regarding the Whitewater scandal were coming to a head. The clearing of these attorneys allowed the Clintons to appoint a personal friend in Little Rock who conveniently never brought about any real indictments related to Whitewater and disregarded some information submitted regarding the case.

And you know what? It was his prerogative, just like it was the current administration's prerogative to fire those attorneys. It's my understanding that every administration is free to replace US attorneys at their choosing. I suppose Clinton was a bit smarter with timing having gotten rid of those attorneys shortly after haven been elected to office.

The problem is Clinton did the same thing, in some ways worse. But people are quicker to justify the action. When Bush does it, there must be some sinister conspiracy worthy of on-going investigations. The media and democrats are spun into a frenzy over this. Instead of focusing on serious problems it seems like there's this obsession with undermining the president just for the sake of putting him down.

I don't like Bush at all. But this has just gotten ridiculous. There's this immature fixation on Bush like he's the source of pure evil. He, and not only he but any republican does something democrats have been doing for years and there's this crazy uproar. And in some cases the uproar is justifiable. My problem is the polarized, all-or-nothing view some people have of the world, and worse the double-standard. When my guy does something it's justifiable, when your guy does it, he's got ulterior motives and is abusing his power.

Someone needs to take one for the team here

[Junior J. Junior III]

Will someone please take one for the team and suck his dick already so we can get on with impeachment proceedings? Please.

Re:Some people

[MBraynard]

There is nothing to see here, but that doesn't stop you and other useless clowns from getting a severe case of flautus over absolutely anything the White House does or does not do.

Karl Rove emails someone something from his Hotmail account or his RNC provided blackberry. Big whoop. It doesn't even matter if he did use the White House email system - it's still covered by executive priviledge and you wouldn't be able to read it anyway.

Re:That's pretty much where I was going...

[BeansBaxter]

In fact, the vast majority of people who complain about Clinton are opposed to him not because of his activities, but because they think he's a bad person. Interesting and here I thought I was opposed to president Clinton because he lied under oath, failed to respond to threats as a commander and chief, and tried to get congress to create a national health care system ( not that we don't already have a couple of them titled Medicare and Medicaid). But thanks for setting me straight. The thing I liked most about Clinton was that congress opposed him. When less gets done I'm a little more comfortable. Bring on the fighting between the branches.

Re:Some people

[poot_rootbeer]

yes it has and then some. there is a last resort solution the founding fathers added into the constitution. how many guns do you own? get them while you still can before the "loop hole" is closed.

you do own guns right?

oh no! it looks like the government has already made possession of capital letters illegal!

Re:Troll?

[Mongoose]

Yes, those powers were given by an overzealous Congress recently in an effort to get reelected without even reading the bills. Where have you been? It's not checks and balances when Congress is trying to micromanage the Iraq war and international relationships. The Washington Post recently had an article accusing Pelosi of a "shadow presidency" after her Middle East gaff. If you honestly think it's fine think about if Tom Delay did the same thing with a Democrat president.

You can't seriously blame Bush for all of that. For example do you remember who was pushing for moving FEMA into DHS? That's all moot anyway, and you should read a social studies textbook before you speak about the powers again -- several of the items you list are perfectly legal and in the purview of the president. I also supported Bill Clinton's "grabs at power" if that's what you consider firing AGs... and he fired every single one for political reasons. I don't even want to bring up Janet Reno, since the Ruby Ridge nuts will come out. I will say one thing -- what have the Democrats elected accomplished with all this? "First Hundred Days" was a flop, and now they're just doing endless digging for trials. I'm sure you supported the attacks on Bill Clinton in his last days in office the same.

Re:Does this...

[baldass_newbie]

Clinton fired the entirety of the US Attorneys not just a few. He had to have them confirmed by a party with the guts to actually say no.

Okay. So what? Bush can fire 8 or 93. It's his perogative.

And what you seem willfully ignorant of is the fact that they 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot act specifically authorizes the president to appoint US attorneys without any legislative oversight.

Why do I seem ignorant of it? It's has little or no bearing. If it's to be repealed, that's fine. That's up to congress. To vote on. That's their job. Crying over attorneys getting fired has precious little to do with what powers they gave the Executive.

Which begs the question why did you post that dribble. It is clear to me that oversight even by ones own party is significantly better than no confirmation at all. Which is what the President was hoping to achieve.

First off, did you mean 'drivel'?
Secondly, the 'oversight even by ones [sic] own party' means nothing at all. See above post about Congressional oversight.

Bottom line is Bush can fire any and all of these attorneys whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants, political or otherwise.
It would seem that these 8, those potentially fired for 'political' reasons, were mainly fired at the discretion of the AG on behalf of the POTUS.
That's legal, end of story.

Most Republicans (at least in my circle) immediately recalled Clinton firing all 93 and the press blithely ignored it, despite the fact that it set back the Rostenkowski indictment.

And I still don't get your point. I mean, past Presidents fire at will, even on a grand scale, and help end political investigations - no problem.
Bush fires 8 and holy smokes - their might (MIGHT!) be some political reason.
So what?

The president can fire federal prosecutors WHENEVER HE WANTS FOR WHATEVER REASON.
Period.
There is no 'beginning of term' rule.
Period.
If you don't like the lack of congressional oversight, get on your congresscritter to change it.
That's how the system works.
But there is no indictable offense.

I can't believe this has been on the airwaves for as long as it does. Conclusion: either the media is willfully ignorant or they're taking sides.
Or both.
Now, what's your excuse?