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."
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.
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!
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.
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.