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."

30 of 799 comments (clear)

  1. Does this... by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... really come to anyone as a surprise by now?

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Does this... by SL+Baur · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think I am ready for a change. Not enough people care, just look at the cast of clowns running for President in '08. Maybe Ron Paul could make a change for the better, but I don't think he has any chance of getting a nomination, let alone winning the general election. Two decades of corrupt Bush/Clinton government -- enough already!
    2. Re:Does this... by Metzli · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Didn't he also say that he was going to be the CEO President and run the government like a business? That's why I voted for him in 2000. I didn't vote for him in 2004, because I realized that the business he meant was Enron.....

      --
      "It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
    3. Re:Does this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You stupid shit. He is running this country exactly the way he's run every company he's ever been in charge of. He's probably the only man in history who's been unable to make a profit running an oil company in Texas, for christ's sake. CEO president does not mean good president; it just means attempting to slash costs and benefits while maintaining maximum profit for himself and the other "executives" of this nation. That's what corporatism is about...

    4. Re:Does this... by nathanh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Didn't he also say that he was going to be the CEO President and run the government like a business? That's why I voted for him in 2000. I didn't vote for him in 2004, because I realized that the business he meant was Enron.....

      It's always a mistake to think you can run government like a business. It's a double mistake to vote for a politician who claims they can; they're either lying (most politicians) or stupid (take your pick).

      Three out of ten businesses go bankrupt within the first year. When a government goes bankrupt it destroys an entire country. Immediately you see there is a difference; you can't run a government like a business and simply hope you're not in that bottom 30%. Governments need to be far more risk adverse.

      Governments work with much larger time frames. They need to think in terms of decades. Businesses barely think in terms of years. I think one of the problems with the current administration is that they do only think in terms of years. That works fine in business where you can always bail before the stock tanks - the new investors take the loss instead of you - but it's disastrous for a government.

      The US government handles significantly more money than any single US business. This means there are more opportunities for corruption so there is a corresponding stronger need for oversight and accountability. This is one of the reasons why government works so slowly; the public service structure has been designed to obstruct and detect and resolve corruption.

      Governments have significantly more power than businesses. Businesses only have to follow the law; governments can create them. Governments can declare war. Government can imprison people. Government enforces the judiciary. These responsibilities make government both more powerful but also more difficult to manage. A businessman is not trained for that sort of responsibility.

      And I can't end without taking an easy swipe at the current administration. GWB is a terrible businessman and perhaps the worst choice for "CEO of the USA". He managed to financially cripple three oil companies before finally making money on the Texas Rangers; and IMO his profit from the Texas Rangers had nothing to do with his skills as a businessman. Despite having a huge family wealth and an MBA from Harvard, he was worse than mediocre. His track record has spoken for itself. I'm not surprised you wanted the government to be run like a business - it's a common desire amongst free market advocates - but I'm very surprised you chose GWB as the champion for your ideology.

  2. Miraculously.. by zyl0x · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..Bush will still be allowed continue on this rampage without being impeached. Incredible.

    --
    Blerg.
    1. Re:Miraculously.. by k_187 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, because who's next in line is so much better.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    2. Re:Miraculously.. by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless we could impeach Cheney at the same time, the best argument against impeaching Bush is "President Cheney".

    3. Re:Miraculously.. by flaknugget · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not a question of impeachment in order to replace this guy.

      Impeachment should be used to combat reckless use of power, it ensures The People still control its government and not the other way around.

      Anytime someone even suggests the word 'impeachment', things quickly descend into a partisan hate orgy.

      I understand why people are sensitive about the issue, but really, accountability in a democratic government shouldn't be a political football, it is supposed to be what defines DEMOCRACY as a system.

    4. Re:Miraculously.. by twifosp · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't think it matters who's next in line. Even if Cheney would be worse, impeaching Bush would show that the separation of powers can still be applied.

      Besides, impeaching Bush does not automatically mean he is removed from office. I remind you that Clinton was impeached for similar reasons (perjury) and remained in office.

      At this point I don't even think it matters whether or not the White House is being honest with the investigation committee. If they are being honest, then they are incredibly inept and don't deserve to run this country. If they aren't being honest they are a bunch of filthly liars who don't deserve to run this country. Same thing with all the intelligence goofs with the Iraq invasion. It doesn't matter much if they were lying about the intelligence or intentionally misleading the Senate. Either way, they are either dishonest or inept.

      Choosing not to impeach and seek justice based on the "next guy" is incredibly silly and un-American. Even if the decision is made to remove Bush from office, let Cheney be the President and let him be under the same scrutiny I say. This administration should not get away with being inept or dishonest, and they certainly shouldn't get away with being inept at being dishonest.

    5. Re:Miraculously.. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't suppose it's possible to impeach them both at the same time and disallow them to appoint karl rove as president.. is it?

      Criminal trials routinely have more than one defendant. An impeachment takes the form of a criminal trial so there should be no problem impeaching both the President and Vice-President simultaneously.

      I don't see that happening over the emails though. The Democrats are not going to impeach anyone unless there is a high probability that they can convict. At the moment it is doubtful that there would be more than five Republican Senators that have even serously thought about backing impeachment.

      Gonzalez is another matter entirely. Unless he resigns soon he will be impeached. In his case the arithmetic is very different. A trial in the Senate would inevitably turn into a proxy for the impeachment of Bush. If the outcome of that trial was a 60:40 vote to convict the press would spend the next 18 months asking if the Democrats had found the seven votes they need to convict Bush. That is such a downside for the administration it cannot be allowed to happen. Gonzalez will go the minute Democrats start impeachment procedings.

      The only situation in which Bush is likely to be impeached is if he launches an attack against Iran. That is more likely than not to end up an even greater fiasco than Iraq. Iran has more military hardware in the region than the US can call on. They have highly effective Chinese anti-ship missiles.

      If the vulcans persuade Bush that bombing Iran would be a cakewalk it is sure to be another poorly planned fiasco premised on the idea that the enemy is a bunch of ingorant cowards who will roll at the first sign of a fight - yeah just like they did in the Iran-Iraq war when they lost a million lives.

      If Bush bombs and the Iranians respond by sinking the Nimitz, closing the straits of Hormuz and launching a ground attack against Basra an impeachment becomes a very real likelihood. Short of that level of stupidity it is not likely to happen.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  3. Typical outcome by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

    And, as usual, no one will be held accountable for it. If it looks like someone may, they will claim "National Security" and halt all proceedings. It would seem that "Slick Willy" has some competition.
    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    1. Re:Typical outcome by KaiserSoze · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah yes, except instead of "blowjob," we instead are dealing with the rigging of elections via bogus "voter fraud" cases and U.S. attorneys more loyal to the GOP than they are to the country. And WMD lies that led us into a now-four year war. But yeah, exactly the same as Clinton.

      --

      "What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris

    2. Re:Typical outcome by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I'd like you to cite one example where the administration knowingly deceived the American public. "
      OMG. Your head must be so far in the sand you hear Mandarin.

      "many democrats were privy to the very same information the president was and they chose to support the war. Did they lie? The UN believed Saddam had had weapons of mass destruction. Did they lie? Europe also believed Saddam had those weapons. Did they lie?"

      No, there mistake was thinking Bush had some inegrity and believed him.
      ~
      Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
      - George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002
      There was no evidence of this, at all.

      ~
      The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.
      - George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002
      No, many nations wanted evidence, they wanted to know where Bush was getting his information because they couldn't confirm what he was saying.

      ~

      We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
      - White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

      WHen you are the top dog, what your spokeman says counts as coming from you.

      ~
      What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.
      - White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

      UN inspectors never said such a thing.

      ~
      Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
      - George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

      Again, false.

      Intelligence "analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.
      - CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004
      ~
      I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein - because he had a weapons program.
      - George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

      Not a lie, but an interesting statement from a man in 2002 said that the definatly had them.

      ~
      Motivation:

      From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
      - former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, CBS' 60 Minutes, Jan. 11, 2004

      ~

      My resientment and disgust towards our president is not party based, it is based soley on the action of this administration.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. Blame the spamfilter by tglx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    gwb43.com and georgewbush.com domains are marked as spam domains. Would you keep copies of spam mails ?

  5. That's pretty much where I was going... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...how much has to happen before impeachment proceedings? He is clearly at least as deserving as any former president, and probably far more. If you can have people impeaching you over a blowjob - which I know is a very tired statement, but bear with me - then bush's long, long list of offenses surely must qualify. As if I needed any further proof that the Democrats and Republicans are all part of the same gang...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:That's pretty much where I was going... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

      Just to be clear on this, let's make sure we're all on the same page. Clinton was asked by a grand jury about consensual activities between two adults who are considered legally capable of making their own decisions.

      The question had no bearing whatsoever on his ability to do his job as president. 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. And not just because he lied, but because of his sexual proclivities!

      The simple fact is that he never should have been asked the question, because it had no bearing on anything. And because it was in front of a grand jury, he was denied his fifth amendment rights. So he did what any responsible man would do - he lied. Personally, I would simply refuse to answer, even though you're not permitted to do that, but either way you would be in trouble. I don't see that it makes much of a difference either way.

      Finally, we expect our politicians to lie. It's why we hire them. Studies have shown that we elect presidents on the basis of whether we like their face and voice or not, not based on the issues, or party affiliations (although many if not most people do vote blindly along party lines - but that simply makes them predictable.)

      Am I defending Clinton's lie? You bet. Do I think lying is wrong? Sure. But I think it's less wrong than asking him the question in the first place, and confronted with his situation, I don't think it was an unreasonable decision. The fact that we all expect politicians to lie from both sides of their mouth, but then we are willing to take someone to task for lying about a question of a personal nature that should never have been asked, is just the typical paradoxical bullshit that most people are willing to handwave away. I would rather wave my hands in other directions.

      The ultimate wrong done here, of course, is the fact that there is any situation in which you can be denied your constitutional rights. But then, we are regularly denied them, so I guess people are simply used to that, too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:That's pretty much where I was going... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trying to show that Clinton was sexually irresponible.

      "Sexually irresponsible"? What the hell does that mean? Asking about a consensual sexual act to try to establish some pattern for a supposedly nonconsensual sexual act is utterly unfounded. It's unrelated.

      So you are saying it s perfectly alright that under court proceedings, its perfectly acceptable to swear under oath to tell the truth, then lie, for whatever pretext?

      I'm saying that it's justified by the fact that he was being questioned by a grand jury, which denies you your constitutional right to protection from self-incrimination. Not that our constitution ever meant that much, being just a piece of paper, but there seem to be exceptions to every "right" that the constitution supposedly guarantees us.

      He was denied his fifth amendment rights. You don't think that is wrong?

      Here's a concept for you: You cannot be held to an oath made under duress of force. The force in question is denial of constitutional rights.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Some people by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Some people may act surprised: they're the ones who knew about it ahead of time. Some people may genuinely be surprised: they're the ones who have willingly accepted all of the lies and bullsh*t coming from the politicians over the last twenty years.

    So is anyone in trouble? Apparently not. Stanzel was careful to apportion blame widely and generically...

    What is the penalty for violating internal White House policy, I asked? "I don't believe the staff manual contains penalties for failure to preserve," the lawyer said.

    Stanzel, possibly unwittingly, offered one possible explanation for why the rule on preservation was flouted so widely: Because there was apparently no prospect of personal consequences. "There are no personal violations of the Presidential Records Act, but you can have a personal violation of the Hatch Act," he said.

    The lawyer criticized the crystal-clear (to me) ban on using non-White House e-mail for official purposes as being "too concise" and described a new, more extensive White House policy No accountability, no responsibility, no repercussions for stepping over the line, no penalties, maybe they'll make some new rules as a token gesture of fixing the problem, they'll be sure to leave better loopholes with even less accountability in the new rules...

    Our government has become everything that the first settlers to America were trying to get away from.
    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    1. Re:Some people by shystershep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Give me an example. I don't dispute that presidents are always trying to grab more power, but I disagree that this has increased over time, as you claim. Probably the most dictatorial president ever, the one that eliminated more civil rights than any other, was Abraham Lincoln. Bush's Guantanamo is nothing compared to Lincoln's suspension of habeaus corpus for US citizens and the arrest and detention of anyone even suspected of sympathizing with the South - with no trial, speedy or otherwise. Most of the 'rights' that people claim are being taken away didn't exist 100 years ago the way we think of them. Torture of criminal suspects was legal. Anyone expressing a dissenting opinion could be arrested.

      Sure, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but it always has been, and there is nothing particularly worse about the times are living in -- it's just that we are here to see it first hand.

      --
      The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Some people by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With respect to Lincoln, the Congress wasn't really fully functioning with southern members absent. And, of course, it was an actual case of insurrection and rebellion (and I would argue that the public safety did require it). None of these issues are at hand today.

      That being said, Lincoln did not have the power to suspend habeas corpus, so he should have been impeached and removed from office.

      The scary thing about that period of time is that the executive branch would simply ignore court decisions they didn't like. In Ex parte Merryman, the SCOTUS ruled that the suspension was not in consultation with Congress, and was therefore unconstitutional. If the tribunals come before the SCOTUS again and are ruled unconstitutional, Bush can really ignore the decision. I highly doubt there are enough Republicans to break rank and remove Bush in an impeachment proceeding.

  7. Nixon by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow. Nixon had NOTHING on the current thugs in the White House administration. It's patently absurd that these people haven't been impeached, fired, and tried for treason at this point.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  8. Bush administration totally corrupted by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm generally a conservative -- very pro-gun, willing to try the "surge" in Iraq, generally favor Republican policies over Democratic ones -- but I'm to the point now where I think the Bush administration (which I've never really felt comfortable with) has demonstrated that it is entirely corrupt -- lying to get into Iraq, lying about Plame, and now the total fix/lie-fest of the US Attorney mess.

    Bush needs to hang Rove out to dry -- let a special prosecutor send that guy to a Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, can Gonzalez and seal the door to Cheney's office.

  9. Re:Is anyone surprised? by IdleTime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nope... USA has become a 1st class banana republic.

    --
    If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  10. Presidential Records Act? by daigu · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Let's see:
    1. conducts war of aggression
    2. implements policies of torture in violatation of international treaties
    3. creates network of secret prisons
    4. "authorizes" the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens outside the oversight of the law
    5. got Republican legislators to suspend habeas corpus
    6. politicised D.A. prosecution focus toward political ends
    7. etc.

    Given these facts, you're surprised he thinks the Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to him? You're joking right? You think these people want to be held accountable 5-10 years from now? Put it in the memory hole, so we can have one of those swell state funerals like they had for Ronald Reagan, put on the rose-colored glasses and talk about how greatness of this catastrophy of a President. America wins the war on intelligence!

  11. Executive privilege by sharp-bang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    On the plus side, I bet it will be tough to claim executive privilege on those e-mails.

    --
    #!
  12. Re:Parallels... by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, you are really brilliant. Whitewater documents were about Hillary Clinton, who was not an elected official, and they were destroyed before Bill Clinton was elected President. Perhaps you would like to illuminate the audience as to how those documents were covered under the Presidential Records Act?

  13. Waiting for FOX News' take on this... by brit74 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fox News: "It's been recently discovered that, in fact, the Clinton Administration had deleted Bush's emails during their second term. The Democrats, as usual, are to blame and need to be held accountable."

    ------

    On a similar note, I read this quote today by Lee Iacocca regarding the Bush administration:
    "Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

    Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

    You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

    I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have."

  14. Re:What a total outrage!!!! by KoshClassic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is it that to refute the firing of the 8 U.S. Attorneys, the conservatives always say "But Clinton did it! He fired all 93 at the start of his administration", as if we're leaving out some key fact. But if you want all the facts in play, you can't stop half way. Every president, Reagan, Bush #1, Clinton, and Bush #2, all fired the U.S. Attorney's at the start of their terms. Its customary.

    What is not customary is firing 8 of them - the same ones you appointed, no less - in the middle of your term, for dubious reasons which may have included, but not been limitted to the fact that many of these 8 attorney's apparently either refused to back off on investigations of Republicans, or refused to vigorously persue investigations of Democrats - probably because in both scenario's they acted based on what they felt was warranted by the available evidence. In other words they acted as they were supposed to, as unbiased officers of the law, not as political shrills which is what Bush wanted them to be.

    By the way, has anyone besides me realised that with 8 of the 93 attornies fired for not doing enough to go after the Democrats or too much to go after the Republicans, that leaves 85 who, by implication, are doing plenty to go after the Democrats and ignoring the mis-steps of the Republicans. Shudder.

    --
    Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
  15. Re: the Iraq WMD lie by jc42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Their consistent MO has been to spout brazen nonsense, then rely on the sheer effrontery to keep the truth hidden until it is covered in a pile of bullshit so deep it will never be brought to light. And the damned thing is that it worked -- a least for a while. Seriously, who has time to think about the truth behind the Iraq WMD lie?

    Actually, if you go back to early 2003 and look at the propaganda leading up to the invasion of Iraq, you'll see that the Bush gang pretty much gave up on the WMD argument during the last month or so. The reason was that it had been so thoroughly debunked by so many people that they realized they needed a new pretext. They had pretty much run through all that were even remotely credible, so they pulled out their trump card: They had to stage a pre-emptive attack to prevent whatever Saddam's government might do in the future.

    This pretty much stopped the attempts to debunk their arguments, because this one can't be debunked. Unless you are blind, deaf and quadraplegic, you could be planning an attack on anyone, no matter who you are or how peaceful you've been in the past. It's a challenge-proof excuse for attacking anyone anywhere anytime.

    This is still remembered by a fair number of people in the world. It became clear that the people running the US government weren't joking when they used the phrase "sole remaining super-power". They did consider themselves in charge of the world, and they were prepared to attack anyone who challenged them. Or even people who didn't challenge them. They don't need evidence; all they need is to think that you might attack them.

    A lot of us still remember this. And we remember that roughly half of the Americans who bothered to vote in 2004 voted to give these people four more years.

    (The WMD concept does keep rearing its ugly head, of course. This is partly because of the discovery that, despite several more years of debunking, around half the voting American population still believes it. But it's also routinely used by American comedians, so it's not so good as a theme song any more. The real future is in worrying about what you and I might do in the future if we're not stopped now.)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.