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."
... really come to anyone as a surprise by now?
There is a war going on for your mind.
We all know e-mails are never really deleted. They just hide a little bit harder.
..Bush will still be allowed continue on this rampage without being impeached. Incredible.
Blerg.
From Crooks And Liars:
This one's a no-brainer.
The NSA has been monitoring and logging all US domestic phone and email traffic for a few years now, thanks to Bush and Cheney.
So subpoena the "lost" WH emails from the NSA. Put the domestic spying operation to some practical use.
If they don't have the emails, they aren't doing their job, and it will be time to get rid of the NSA.
Annoyed Canuck | 04.12.07 - 3:57 pm | #
I hope this helps the Federal criminal prosecution of the world's largest crime syndicate.
Patriotically as always,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.
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
gwb43.com and georgewbush.com domains are marked as spam domains. Would you keep copies of spam mails ?
...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.'"
I seriously doubt the server people in charge of email for the White House would not be keeping both full and incremental backups in addition to major redundancy. After all, they'd want to CYA for actions they did take more than actions they didn't take. Of course, this IS the government, so anything can happen!
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
The US presidental office is run by a gang of criminals. What else is new?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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
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.
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.
It's a traditional thing, much like the 18.5 minute gap in Nixon's tapes or the shredding of Enron documents:
n _scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_tapes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Enro
He didn't get a blowjob. He needs one direly, but he didn't get one. No blowjob, no impeachment.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wouldn't it be ironic if their ISP was retaining their email?
Nope... USA has become a 1st class banana republic.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
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!
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.
#!
"nothing can ever be truly deleted?"
Really? Great! Could you get back my Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet from 1987? I've been looking for that sucker forever.
Look, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. It's fine if you want to ignore both history and what is going on around you, that's your prerogative and one engaged in frequently by the majority of the population of the USA. But the simple fact is that our current president has a worse record in every way than any former president! The deficit has been swelled more than ever before, and the pretext under which we went to war was a lie. (They later tried to foist the blame for the belief that Saddam was sitting on WMDs off on other countries, but you should be sure before you sign your name on the dotted line. Not being sure, but acting as if you are sure, is lying.) At least one election was stolen, although more accurately, both were. Stopping a legal recount without justification is itself an illegal act. And it is well known that many types of badness went on in Florida; listing persons from predominantly black boroughs on a list of disenfranchised felons and literally instructing the company assembling the list not to check it for validity is just one example.
In terms of freedoms lost, this has been one of the worst administrations of all time. And when caught performing a blatantly illegal act his response is "I'm the president!" and to issue a writ. Bush has issued more presidential writs explaining actions which are otherwise illegal (but apparently explaining why you did something illegal makes it okay if you are president, even if your explanation is pure bullshit) than all other presidents combined. You might not consider that cause for concern, but it seems like a big warning sign to me.
Since Bush has done so many things which are clearly impeachable offenses, and the Democrats are not interested in doing it, I must conclude that they feel they have something to gain by not doing so. In other words, as a party they are willing to compromise their convictions (As if they had any) for some temporary gain. Picking your battles is one thing - although I do believe that we let too many battles go in general - but this is just obscene.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but there was a strong groundswell of support for impeachment of Bush when the Democrats once again gained some power in Congress, and it has petered out with nary an action. I don't believe in either major party to any degree any longer. I think I'll just start voting green party to make a statement, and then when I get the cash up I'm getting the fuck out of here. I'm not willing to assassinate anyone, and I think that's about the only thing we could do to make a difference at this point (and no, I'm not talking about killing the president - it would take a lot more than that to make a difference) so if I'm not going to be part of the solution, at least I might as well not be part of the problem.
But like the wise man said, first, let's shoot all the lawyers. (No special offense meant to our friendly and helpful neighborhood lawyers, but the very existence of such people is part of the problem with the entire system. I'll be happy to go on a diatribe about that at a later date.) :P
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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?
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.
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.
Whether they're really gone *permanently* is another story, and already being discussed elsewhere. I think the bigger story, and I was Googling like crazy but can't find the link now, is that it turns out these Republican-controlled email addresses were on some of the *same servers through which electronic voting results were being processed.* I thought I read this on DailyKos but maybe I'm wrong. If anyone has a link to more info. on this, please post. Thanks.
Karl Rove is a senior adviser and deputy chief of staff. The law certainly applies to him. The problem isn't using non governmental resources for political purposes. It's using non governmental equipment for government purposes to avoid the reporting requirements of the Presidential records act.
Thalasar
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."
You're pointing out that they don't need to save messages relating to "private political associations"
That is true.
At issue, however, are the emails that are *KNOWN* to have been sent via these domains that are official government business. Scott Jennings (a Rove assistant) was interfacing with DOJ on the USA firings via his gwb43.com account. It's been openly acknowledged that Rove more or less exclusively used the RNC supplied email - both for his partisan activity and for his official governmental activity. (And yes, a fair amount of his communication is subject to the PRA - he's on the White House payroll in an official capacity, after all)
"You can take our lives, but you can never take our Flerbage!!!!"
The Democrats don't really want to impeach Bush. They LOVE the idea of having him still in office during the 2008 election. Although, one would think President Cheney could be just as awful.
All the Dems would have to do is watch (and laugh).
Jesus christ, did you even read the fucking quote? It's right there in print. A Bush justice department official telling the Wall Street Journal nothing was permanently lost, and there was no evidence of a conspiracy. What the fuck more do you want? Cheney singing it in verse on Limbaugh?
And btw, hah. You know you've won the argument when the other side starts trotting out grievances dating back to the Civil War.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
>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.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
He got away with the remark. The reason he was fired was the long history of prior remarks that was unearthed once the story broke. What really finished him off was the series of attacks on Gwen Eifel.
Same thing happened with Trent Lott and George Allen. They mouthed off crypto-racist comments for years. Once the story broke it became obvious that it wasn't just a one-off mis-speaking, it was a pattern.
The only slight element of injustice is that Imus is nowhere near the worst offender out there. Ann Coulter's schtick is way more offensive but she still gets away with it. Matt Druge regularly gets caught 'making shit up' like his non-existent 'source' for the hit piece he did on Ware last week. But they don't get called on it because, well there are different standards for wingnuts. they are not expected to tell the truth or be civil so they can get away with it.
Twenty years ago it was the right that used to be behind this type of media firestorm. There used to be an amazing sit-com called SOAP which was completely brilliant. The religious right got it taken off the air.
Imus is no great loss to culture. SOAP was. So were the numerous programs like SOAP which simply could not be made until HBO started.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
For all you know, they are interested in being together but not in having sex with one another, and they have an agreement saying that Bubba can get his dick wet anywhere and in anyone he wants.
How dare you make personal decisions about who is allowed to fuck who in a relationship in which you are not involved?
Hillary is obviously fine with it, at least to the degree that she accepts it as a necessary evil, otherwise there would have been a divorce by now. If she is not divorcing him because she doesn't care, then who are you to interfere? If she is not divorcing him for political reasons, then obviously the marriage isn't about love anyway, and so again, who the fuck are you?
Again, the simple fact is that he was asked in front of a grand jury in which case you do not enjoy the protection of the fifth amendment (or rather, it explicitly denies you protection in the case of being before a grand jury) about a question which was not material to the case. He was asked a question about a consensual activity which was no one's business but those who were actually involved, as if it were somehow relevant about allegations of nonconsensual acts. Which it was not.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
All emails were first printed, shredded then burnt. You are not going to get any more deleted than that!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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
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.
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.