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

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.

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.