Slashdot Mirror
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."
The problem here is that the emails were not on White House government email accounts but rather Republican Party email accounts. So technically it was a third party email system that the White House does not control. There is an issue whether the 22 aides should have used those accounts instead of their government accounts. The Republicans have countered that federal rules forbid the use of government email for anything other than government business.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Not to counter one tired statement with another, but he wasn't impeached for receiving a blowjob, he was impeached (by the House) because he lied under oath (committed perjury).
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
Yesterday he said this:
Here are the specifics of what is required by the Hatch Act. It is clear that
A) Politicization (partisan activities) within certain Federal Agencies, such as the CIA or the Justice Department, is a felony.
B) All records relating to government business MUST be retained for investigative purposes, and later historical preservation. To destroy these documents is a felony.
This law is clear, has been on the books since the 1930s, and has passed several Supreme Court affirmations. There's no wiggle room here. This is a clear violation of the law. And note A) in relation to the Federal US Attorney firings. To fire is legal; to fire with even just partisan intent -- never mind apparent Obstruction of Justice -- is a clear felony.
We're walking right into another constitutional crisis. Comparisons to Nixon's firing of Archibold Cox (The Saturday Night Massacre) are spot on.
This is a mountain out of a molehill. Read the Presidential Records Act, at least.
The law specifically excludes "materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President;"
The last I checked, Rove was a political advisor, NOT a cabinet member and did not have any official policy-making power. He might have had an indirect effect on policy, but certainly did not have a direct effect. Heck, it's not even completely clear that his emails are covered -- the act only applies to the President, his immediate staff and units of the Executive Office. Do we know for a fact that Rove is in this category?
And, there's also the problem that the Hatch Act forbids using government-owned equipment for political purposes. Political emails are SUPPOSED to be off the While House mail system.
While it is certainly possible that some material which should have been kept wasn't kept. However, there's a large body of material which is not required to be kept. The Clinton administration also used outside mail servers to avoid the archiving of political information.
This is just a witch-hunt: the Democratic Congress is engaged in a Karl Rove witch-hunt and is trying to snoop into his political activities. They're not doing it as legitimate oversight, but just to help their own political ends. And, now they're making an issue that they can't get to Rove's email. But, this is a catch-22: if he had done what the democrats think he should have, they'd be complaining about Rove using the official While House server for political purposes.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike this administration. This is not one of them.
In all seriousness, at least Sen. Patrick Leahy is smart enough to know that emails are not easily erased.
Quoting Leahy:
"You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too many servers," said Leahy, D-Vt. "Those e-mails are there, they just don't want to produce them. We'll subpoena them if necessary."
Every President in the 20th Century fired all US Attorneys upon taking the oath of office and assuming the role of the Presidency. This is considered standard practice. Here is an LA Times article on the history of administration hirings upon inauguration:
- na-talking23mar23,0,3342736,full.story?coll=la-hom e-headlines
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la
Firing US Attorneys in term is another matter. That has happened only a few times over the last century, and always due to malfeasance or criminal activity on the part of the US Attorney in question. The Hatch Act (the subject of this discussion) expressly forbids political activity or partisan interference in both the Judiciary and the Justice Department (it also demands full records keeping for all Federal activities).
It would appear our President and his advisers have committed felonies.
Educate yourself, and do not recycle talking points that were tried and discredited weeks ago. Clinton fired all but ONE USA at the *beginning* of his *first* term. The ONE USA he did not fire was the one who was investigating him. Clinton could have fired that USA, too, and been well within his rights, but he didn't so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Bush fired several USAs midway through his second term. Not typical. In fact, unprecedented.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
I can't think of no better way to refute this sort of spew than to quote one if its finest purveyors back at you. Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2005: After a long investigation, however, Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out.
More than a few conservatives have been crying foul, or whitewash, in part because Mr. Berger's plea means he'll likely avoid jail and lose his security clearance for only three years. So we called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission." Sandy Berger was punished and the final result of his actions was, uhh, nothing. No information was permanently lost. Whichever one of Karl's minions clicked "delete" willfully and permanently erased years worth of evidence in a criminal investigation, and when the resulting obstruction charge is handed down, it's going to be extremely gratifying.
So, recapping: your analogy is flawed, your point is wrong, and my guess is you knew all of this and went ahead and said it anyways. Cuz that's how you people operate. Lie till you get caught, then go on the offensive when you do.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
You need to work on your soviet russia jokes
Congress has already demanded that the White House keep all emails, as well as all other communications, forever. This is known as the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and it was a result of the Nixon debacle. All material generated by the White House is property of the American people, and it must be turned over in its entirety to the national archivist when the administration leaves office. All records must be made available to the public 12 years after the end of the administration, except in case of national security. At the present time many George H. W. Bush and Reagan papers are secret due to an unconstitutional George W. Bush executive order.
It's not a violation of the act. You have to use separate phones/email for "political purposes" ask Al Gore about his hearing for using the White House phone to drum up donations. Get your facts right. You can't force the White House to use government owned systems for that -- THAT is illegal. They could have stored copies of of the off-site system sure... but they have no law forcing them to do that. I hate to break it to you but you also can't force staff members to turn over their home answering machines either. What a weak troll. Even if you hate Bush you shouldn't stand for the power grab the Congress is going for lately. There is a reason we have a separation of powers. If you keep heading down this road the president becomes a figurehead, and soon the people that write the laws will be enforcing them as well. More likely not enforcing them and building bridges to nowhere.
That is factually wrong. Laws were broken. A CIA agent was outed without proper clearance. The barrier between those who were allowed to know vs. the general public was crossed.
Libby has been convicted of saying different things at different times about what he remembers about when he recalls talking to people about something that wasn't a problem and didn't cause any problems, except for himself.
This is factually wrong. Libby was convicted of perjury. Perjury is purposefully lying under oath, in this case to a grand jury. Moreover, the "something that wasn't a problem" as you call it clearly WAS a problem, namely a CIA agent who had been working on counter-terrorism in the area of weapons of mass destruction was outed. Problems WERE caused-- not only the CIA agent was outed, but her entire network, including fake companies and other contacts were outed.
She wasn't covert
Factually wrong. Read her testimony. And I quote,
the White House didn't leak her name
Again, wrong. Although Armitage leaked her name first, her name was ALSO independently leaked by Rove and others to members of the media.
Pretty straightforward to me.
her husband's silly take on things has been roundly and thoroughly debunked, and he's been pointed out as lying about (or just being oily about) the whole thing from the beginning
not sure which "silly take on things" you're referring to, but he was 100% correct about yellowcake in Niger and that he had been targeted by Rove and others in the White House has been confirmed in Dick Cheney's own handwriting.
Perhaps you're thinking of the White House Press Secretary Scott McClellen's account that no one in the White House had leaked, which HAS been thoroughly debunked. Or maybe you're thinking of Bush's claim to that effect, and that anyone who had leaked would "no longer work" at the White House. Another lie.
Where's the corruption in this?
Where to begin... it could be in the White House's complete lack of support in finding the truth, lying to cover it up, lying about what the consequences would be if a traitor were found, lying to get us into a war, and then attacking an individual who was trying to get the truth out to the public. Somewhere in there.
the special prosecutor, who knew the whole story almost immediately, worked this in an entirely political manner?
Sorry, the special prosecutor had a theory (which turned out to be correct) about who the leaker was, but went to additional sources to confirm that this was in fact the leaker, the first leaker, and the ONLY leaker (which he was not). This requires interviewing more witnesses. Dick Cheney's 2nd man decided to lie under these circumstances, and to NOT bust him for this would endanger the legal process just as much as say, hiring a yes-man as the Attorney General or firing DAs for political reasons.
Pull your head out of your ass, stop listening to Rush/Hannity for your news, and quit spreading such bald-face lies.
And I'm still trying to figure out how Bill Clinton firing 93 US attorneys is justified while Gonzalez (allegedly at the direction of Bush) firing 8 is somehow a "scandal."
Because firing them all when you take office is standard practice. Firing some of them in the middle of your term for political reasons (eg, they are in the process of investigating certain Republicans), is NOT standard practice and actually falls under a little something called "obstruction of justice".
Pardon me, but your hypocrisy is showing.
Your ignorance is.
The difference is, Clinton didn't pick and choose, he fired all of them, which is actually not rare among Presidents are of a different party than the previous.
The question with the US Attorneys' firings are more along the line of - "Did they pick and choose who to fire based on who would look more favorable at their actions over the past 8 years?" rather than "Did they just fire all them Democrat-hired lawyers?!?"
Same farm, same grove of trees, but apples and oranges, nonetheless.
PS: I'm a Democrat who commonly votes Republican when the Dem is a 'tard. Oddly enough, I had a lot of trouble deciding who to vote for in 2004.
Don't forget FDR who put Japanese-Americans into concentration camps without a trial and without habeaus corpus and had such poor conditions at those camps that many died as a result. FDR also had anti-war protesters arrested without habeaus corpus as well as arresting anyone who tried to sympathize with Japan or Germany into jail without habeaus corpus as well.
I'd say the concentration camps are worse than the prisons that Abraham Lincoln used, but only because I know Japanese-American families who survived to tell how horrible the concentration camps really were. Those concentration camps make Gitmo look like Club Med.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Domains are not IP addresses, also the first two domains use the same mail servers.
Trolling is a art,
In other words, this is Republican from beginning to end.
Whatever happened to "fiscally responsible" Republicans? Did they ever really exist?
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Bush fired several USAs midway through his second term.
Bush fired most/all US Attorneys at the beginning of his first term, AND fired again several of them midway through his second term as well.
Darn that Pelosi...she hasn't singlehandedly done away with pork in Congress. You should be asking if it's better or worse than in the last Congress. I don't know the answer to that. But even if pork cleanup is important to her, I could understand having an issue like Iraq as a higher or more urgent priority. I think the minimum we should expect from Congress is a clear record of who adds what to a bill - no more anonymous additions or deletions. And it was only an "emergency" spending bill because Bush refuses to put it in the normal budgets in an apparent effort to hide the enormity of his deficits (i.e. it's really not an unexpected emergency that came up).
Complaining about her going to Syria seems a bit ridiculous. The Logan Act has had 2 indictments in 200+ years and both were dismissed. With so little judicial precedent, the question of whether there's any technicality there is uncertain. Who knows how the current Supreme Court would rule, but I can't imagine them discounting the First Amendment altogether. If there is a technical breach, well there are plenty of Republicans that would be caught in the same technicality, including ones on the same trip with Speaker Pelosi, Speaker Gingrich on his trip to China and Speaker Delay in his dealings with Israel regarding Palestine. Not to mention thousands of other Americans that deal with foreign governments.
The war on terror began with Ronald Reagan. Want to know the best part? It was Ronald Reagan that normalized relations with Iraq, took them off the list of state sponsored terror, and sold them the "weapons of mass destruction" and other munitions. The irony? People in the current administration did it.
Let's look at an abbreviated list shall we?
Want further irony? It was also Ronald Reagan that trained and funded bin Laden.
Now let's do a thought experiment - how would the majority of American's feel about Ronald Reagan and these people that worked both for him and the current administration if they knew a little bit more about them? The reason why most people think that Reagan was a patriot and a great American is because they know very little about what the Reagan administration was responsible for and the concrete ways it is impacting us today.
Another thing: can you identify what exactly is petty in my argument? The fact that I pointed out that the state sponsored funeral for Ronald Reagan was an elaborate stage show for the current administration? I don't even like Reagan and what he stood for, but I think it was a tragedy that he was used as a set piece for a political play for sentiment and support by the Bush administration.
There is a major difference. It goes to intent.
It is one thing to fire them all at the beginning of one's term, indiscrimnately, which many presidents have done, to "start fresh" (although prior to the Patriot Act all such appointments had to go be approved by the Senate and as such required at least pretense of competence).
It is quite another to fire them only when they start conducting "inconvenient" investigations. Say Nixon's attempt at firing the prosecutor who decided to look too closely at Watergate. Or if Clinton had somehow tried to fire Kenneth Starr.
>You mean like engaging in unauthorized diplomatic negotiations with a foreign power? That's treason.
Oops. Careful. Before accusing the Speaker of the House of a capital crime, you might want to be sure you are on a solid legal footing.
There has been a flurry lately, among people who have discovered the Logan Act -- a piece of legislation that has NEVER been used. And they give it a cursory reading, and accept when they are told that it applies in the case of Madame Speaker's recent trip to Syria. They completely miss the fact that the Logan Act, even if it were enforceable, and even if it were enforceable against a sitting Member of Congress, is predicated on "authority." The problem, that the Fox news people et al fail to mention, is that she had authority to do what she did, and furthermore, any restrictions on that authority would have to come from an Act of Congress in the first place.
Now, if you can show that Madame Speaker violated a LAWFUL ORDER, we can discuss the validity of that order, and if you can establish that the order was violated, then we can talk about authority, the Logan Act, and treason.
However, you are putting forth an idea that the President's word is law at all times. You are actually going much further -- you are suggesting that just because the President has an opinion, or even, something that a person in the media might assume that opinion would be, THAT OPINION becomes law.
And so, by some extension that I follow not at all, the Speaker of the House did something without authority. And ONLY the Speaker, as a member of a bipartisan delegation together with representatives of the State Department, did something wrong. And nobody seems to be able to articulate, in a manner that would be acceptable to bring a criminal charge, exactly what that wrong thing was. They certainly have not brought evidence of a crime to the table of anyone with any authority to prosecute such a crime.
All they have done is cause those people who already hate the Speaker, and presumably everyone who is not a member of the Bush party, to continue to hate them.
In other words, no net effect.
I would like to think they have educated themselves in the process, on a historical legal curiosity, but sadly, they have not.
Please, before you publicly accuse an elected official of a capital crime, do have your evidence in hand. Otherwise you are simply calling for an assassination; a serious crime.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the firings were not only political, but were designed to eliminate USAs who were insufficiently diligent in perverting justice for the aims of the GOP.
The first piece of evidence is that they lied about the reason for the firings - the claims of substandard performance don't even pass the laugh test. Most of the fired USAs were commended for their excellent performance.
The second piece of evidence is that we have e-mails showing them making up reasons for the firing *after* the fact. The "insufficient immigration prosecutions" thing, for example, was chosen just because three of the states happened to be border states. This is documented.
The third piece of evidence is in fact the 100% total and utter absence of any documentation of any performance problems. No phone calls, no memos, nothing in anyone's personal notebook, no e-mails, nothing indicating that anyone ever spoke to the fired USAs about the alleged performance issues. Anyone who has ever dealt with firing someone should find this astounding.
Considering how far we are into this thing, that's an amazing amount of evidence.
But ultimately it's already very obvious that the entire Justice Department was being perverted to work, not for Americans, but for GOP election prospects. Many obviously bogus investigations involving either Democratic candidates or voter fraud allegations were pursued just in time for elections - and as often as not, silently and mysteriously dropped right afterwards. And it doesn't get more political than that.
The current administration operates like a criminal gang the likes of which we've never seen in America. All patriots need to work together to drive a stake through the heart of these vicious, un-American, authoritarian criminals.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Seriously people come on. We have no knowledge what the fuck went on, attacking Bush over this when he's barely mentioned (except as the leader) is a little premature. He's not omnipotent, hell according to most people who are rallying against him he can't tie his shoes so talks of conspiracy should be laughable?
Now we are taking Washington Post (who's doesn't surprise me that they'd bring up Watergate) and NPR (who's bias is rarely in question unless it's ignored) and hearing them bring up the 18 minutes. Not surprising in the least.
Personally I'll wait until after this is all over, the last 6 years have been the Democrats trying to get a pound of flesh after the Republicans shamed Clinton so I think we'll be hearing about this for the next 2 years, but personally I'm waiting until we get some ACTUAL evidence of who did what when before I place blame. But if you're ok with this then realize you better be ok if Hillary or Obama gets in and the Republicans continually harass him, and then better be ok when the next president gets harassed by the opposite side again and again. Personally I was sick of it when people couldn't figure out what the Clinton impeachment was about (hint: it had nothing to do with the sex, it had to do with an actual crime).
The only question I have is it any wonder why people are so disillusioned by our government where our president and congress both can barely break 40 percent approval?
No, we are investigating perjury and obstruction of Justice. Amazingly enough, those are the same exact charges for which the Republican senate tried to impeach Clinton.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
1. Everything that passes through the White House e-mail system (WHES) is archived.
2. Everything relating to Government discussions must go through the WHES
3. Partisan activities are not allowed to be conducted using Government resources
Now here's the important fact:
4. Government business was conducted on systems other than the WHES. {--- This is against the law
You're right (AFAIK) that it would be covered by executive privelege, IF it went through the WHES. It would also be archived so that someday the public will get to look at it.
The problem is that they conducted discussions that (maybe) should have been protected by executive privelege... on a system that is not protected by executive privelege. To make the situation worse, e-mails have been found explicitly saying that they did this on purpose. {--- This is also against the law
You follow?
It really is quite different. When Clinton got rid of them, they had to be confirmed by congress. Right now he fired those attorneys because he could have appointed whomever he wished without any meaningful oversight.
Additionally there were no allegations when Clinton fired the US attorneys that the whitehouse or Democrats were interfering with investigations to help out their friends. And that is a huge difference.
Carol Lam got fired after getting a $4.7 million settlement against the Golden State Co. for using illegal immigrants to build the border fence. If you can explain how her firing was above reproach, I'll give you a cookie. My guess- punishment for putting Duke Cunningham behind bars.
Sig cannot be found.
When an incoming president cans ALL the federal prosecutors at the start of a term, he's wiping the slate clean and putting in place a set of actors who are charged with carrying out their judicial duties objectively - serving justice without being subject to any political pressure from a purportedly independent branch of government. If the president is doing his earnest best, he will choose the best people for the job, with party affiliations being not a factor.
The whole setup is kinda like the Deist concept of a creator, who makes a universe, sets it spinning under its own internal rules, and takes his hands the f*** off of it.
When the current white house, for whatever reason, canned those eight prosecutors at some suspiciously un-arbitrary point DURING a presidential term, the only inference a lot of analysts smarter than I am could draw, is that the executive white house is trying to exert influence over the judicial branch - not only the ones who were fired, but, by using them as examples of what happens when you don't carry out the judicial business to the satisfaction of the executive branch, as a means of coercing the remaining prosecutors to toe the executive party line.
The white house is trying to avoid the check, the limitation, if its power and agenda that the judicial branch is supposed to be by definition. Surprise, surprise.
"...the Republican senate tried to impeach Clinton..."
You might want to re-check your copy of the Constitution. The House impeaches; the Senate convicts or acquits. The House passed the bill of impeachment, making Billy the second President to be impeached (the other being A. Johnson). As with the former impeachment, Billy was not convicted. Conversely, Nixon was never impeached, but only because he quit first. In all likelihood, he would have been convicted.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
I really wish that people would look a little more at the context and a little less at what they WANT to be true. It has been common practice over the last 40 years or so to ask for the resignations of all USA's at the beginning of an administration. Didja get that? AT THE BEGINNING, which is what GWB43 did as well. Putting your own people in place is clearly the President's perogative, by law. The comparison ends there. In eight years, the Clinton administration "fired" about 9 USAs (c/b 8, I don't remember right now). Of those, all but one were what you'd call "for cause" - e.g., one guy got caught on-camera throttling a reporter. This batch of firings was not "for cause" but "by choice", and had the effect, intentional or not, of interfering in several significant and high-profile pending investigations and indictments.
I've lived several years in the US but I never understood this. Anyone cares to enlighten me as to why this is considered normal in a country where there is (supposedly) power separation ? Why does the government even have the power to fire attorneys/judges ? Why is it desirable ? And what do the fired attorneys do with their time until the next election rolls around ? Thank you. I could explain this better if I knew which country you are from. I'm guessing that you may be from a county where judges and and prosecuting attorneys serve under the same department or branch of government. That isn't the case here.
It is normal because the executive branch enforces the laws of the US, which means that law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys serve under the president in the org chart. The most senior members of law enforcement and most senior attorneys in the Justice Department are appointed by the president but must first be confirmed by a vote in the Senate. When a new presidential administration takes office it is standard practice to "clean house" and replace all political appointments. This is considered normal because it always happens and is expected to occur; it is understood that not only are we voting for the man who will serve as president but we are also voting on his judgment and ability to appoint compentent officials. The separation of powers is that the Congress writes and passes the laws and the courts rule on the enforcement of laws. Judges were not fired in this case, and cannot be fired by the president or anyone else in the executive branch.
It is desirable because it s a system that has worked well in the past- appointed officials are typically professional enough to serve the country rather than the just the president or the party of the president. The confirmation process helps to ensure that political operatives do not take office. Part of the reason why this specific case became such an issue is that the congress gave up it's right to a confirmation process to replace district attorneys before the 8 were fired, that law was just repealed so now any future replacements will again be required to meet the approval of the Senate.
In politically sensitive cases a "special prosecutor" is named who (basically) cannot be fired by the Attorney General or the President, to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The fired attorneys are senior attorneys, they shouldn't have much trouble finding jobs in the private sector. These were the most senior attorneys in the district (multi-state region) where they served, and they know the circuit-court judges, the junior attorneys that are not appointed, and how the system works in a very intimate way. They are very employable, but stand little chance of serving as a US district attorney again. Many of the people nominated to serve as a federal judge have previous experience as a district attorney- that is how valuable the experience is.
I hope I answered your questions well... I'll check back later to resole any other questions you may have.
Eugene Debs: "Money constitutes no proper basis of civilization"