White House Ordered to Preserve All Email

Verunks writes "A federal judge Monday ordered the White House to preserve copies of all its e-mails in response to two lawsuits that seek to determine whether e-mails have been destroyed in violation of federal law. The issue surfaced in the leak probe of administration officials who disclosed Valerie Plame's CIA identity. ' The Federal Records Act details strict standards prohibiting the destruction of government documents including electronic messages, unless first approved by the archivist of the United States. Justice Department lawyers had urged the courts to accept a proposed White House declaration promising to preserve all backup tapes. The judge's order "should stop any future destruction of e-mails, but the White House stopped archiving its e-mail in 2003 and we don't know if some backup tapes for those e-mails were already taped over before we went to court. It's a mystery," said Meredith Fuchs, a lawyer for the National Security Archive.'"

Comments

I'm afraid they're too late

[Cro Magnon]

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[innerweb]

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Once more, the oft quoted post is more tragic than humorous. I doubt the individuals controlling the White House will actually listen to a Judge any more than they pay attention to the constitution. This will probably spur them into a deletion frenzy. They will probably simply find another way to communicate that has less of a trail.

It is kind of like making it illegal to own guns or use encryption. The criminals never listen anyway.

InnerWeb

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[purpledinoz]

What's the point of this lawsuit anyway. If there's a conviction, then there'll be a pardon shortly after. No one's going to get punished, so there's no reason to stop breaking the law.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[divisionbyzero]

Yeah, they already have found a way around it. They use unofficial email addresses to discuss their dirty work. They aren't under any obligation to preserve emails sent or received via, say, their Republic National Committee email address.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[Chris Burke]

What's the point of this lawsuit anyway. If there's a conviction, then there'll be a pardon shortly after. No one's going to get punished, so there's no reason to stop breaking the law.

Getting the facts out into the open. Yes it would be nice if lawbreakers were punished for breaking the law but as we've seen sometimes that's practically impossible. In lieu of that, we can look for a conviction in the court of public opinion, a decision no pardon can reverse -- see Nixon. Or Scooter Libby for that matter. Scooter's conviction was damaging to the administration and the Republican party. If we can score even more solid dirt on someone as high or higher up than Scooter was, that would be even more damaging.

That's a reason for them to stop breaking the law -- getting people to believe that these are lawbreakers and can't be trusted in office. Irreparable damage to political careers may not be as satisfying as jail time, but it is something. The fear of losing elections should help keep the rest of them in line. For a while anyway. I know how this goes. But if you don't do anything, just throw up your hands and say there's no point, then you've done worse than a token gesture of dissatisfaction, you've given tacit permission.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[Zeinfeld]

Yeah, they already have found a way around it. They use unofficial email addresses to discuss their dirty work. They aren't under any obligation to preserve emails sent or received via, say, their Republic National Committee email address.

On the contrary, every communication they make regadless of media is subject to the Presidential records act.

I have some personal experience of this, during the Clinton administration every communication had to be surrendered to the arcivist, even if it was nothing more than a comment scribbled in the margine of a printed paper. The use of an external mail system from the Executive Office of the President was completely forbidden.

The difference between using the Whitehouse system and the RNC email servers is that the Whitehouse systems are privileged for an initial five years after the President leaves office and can be extended for a further seven. The RNC email system is not a government system, is not covered by any form of privilege whatsoever.

The other difference is security. The Whitehouse email systems are subject to security review by the NSA. The RNC system was not, they didn't even do security reviews of employees. The systems were not partitioned from systems serving other customers either. So as a result I would not be at all suprised if when the RNC denies having copies of some embarassing email or other if the Ambassador from Venezuela, Cuba, Iran or the like would 'helpfully' turn up with a hard drive full of the missing messages.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah cause we all know that prior administrations were so forthcoming with their information and Hillary will post everything to the white house website for all to see.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[rattis]

They will probably simply find another way to communicate that has less of a trail.

They already did using the blackberry's and other devices. It's already been documented that those devices went through the RNC servers instead of the White House servers.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[jackpot777]

Just have some small additions: first, the difference between an email address suffix and an orginization. One organization could use many suffixes. One email suffix could be used by many people in a variety of locations (Gmail, anyone?). When this was first reported in March / April:

Susan Ralston, formerly Karl Rove's assistant at the White House, appears to have used at least four outside email accounts: a 'gwb' domain account, a 'georgewbush.com' account, and an 'rnchq.org' account -- all run by the RNC -- plus an AOL account.

One organization using a lot of @xyz.com's.

She once emailed two associates of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, 'I now have an RNC blackberry which you can use to e-mail me at any time. No security issues like my WH email.' So it's not as though they didn't know they were circumnavigating the law concerning the security of whitehouse.gov emails. The link above says:

Here's Bob Franken discussing the story on CNN yesterday: "It's about the Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation of all official records of and about the president. . . .

"There are also messages to and from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, now in prison. At one point, according to investigators, after an e-mail was apparently sent by accident to the White House account of an assistant to Karl Rove, Abramoff fired another one saying, 'Damn it, it was not supposed to go in the White House system.' . . .

"Neither administration aides nor Republican Party officials would agree to be interviewed on camera after repeated requests from CNN.

So, what if it's shown that any government investigation was obstructed by someone deleting these emails...?

Whoever corruptly ...obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress--

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

US Code , Title 18, Section 1505. That's US Law. According to Cornell University Law School. But what do they know?

If you want to see a PDF of one such email exchange, click here. Sue Ralston has "please send all replies to ...@georgewbush.com" as her sig line, fer flip's sake. Page 2 is where Jack Abramoff himself says "Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her rnc pager and was not supposed to go into the WH system."

Amazing what you can find after five minutes of rooting around on the net, huh?!

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[TheSpoom]

The problem is that the email that's incriminating isn't being sent through formal White House servers, and thus isn't included.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[innerweb]

Actually, you are correct. No argument here. It is not a matter of good and bad, but the lesser of evils.

We the people (in general) have our collective heads to far up where they do not belong to deserve a democracy anymore. That is why each successive administration tends to push the limits further (and we see less and less of a democracy - or republic). This one just did a kind of warp speed ahead, so it is noticed much more - got us into a war based on lies, strongly participated in the tanking of the economy (wittingly or not), outed a devoted public servant (Valerie) and many more things. But, they both did bad things.

Personally, I would be happy if he had simply dropped his pants for some *innocent* intern. That is so much easier to explain to my kids than this pile of rubbish. Gah, what am I worried about, there will be someone worse soon. That ought to scare me, but I know it is coming, and I know what it is (just not who, nor from which side). Nothing like legalizing organized criminals.

Along those lines, maybe the US going bankrupt, or a world wide depression might be good. All of that suffering might lead to people actually taking the time to elect good people, for an election or two at least. [sarcasm off]

InnerWeb

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[jollyreaper]

have some personal experience of this, during the Clinton administration every communication had to be surrendered to the arcivist, even if it was nothing more than a comment scribbled in the margine of a printed paper. The use of an external mail system from the Executive Office of the President was completely forbidden.

The difference between using the Whitehouse system and the RNC email servers is that the Whitehouse systems are privileged for an initial five years after the President leaves office and can be extended for a further seven. The RNC email system is not a government system, is not covered by any form of privilege whatsoever. But we already know that they've installed RNC computers for secret communication. That came out during testimony with the special prosecutor. We also have direct quotes from Bush talking about how he doesn't like email because it puts everything out there for easy searching, he prefers to do things via phone or direct verbal communication. This is all in the public record.

In other words, just because the law says they're supposed to do something a certain way, that doesn't mean they're going to do it. After all, if they're already intent on breaking the law, the last thing they're going to do is make documenting their wrongdoing any easier than they have to!

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[jabster]

Good lord people. Don't any of you pay attention.

a) Scooter Libby didn't leak Plame's name to anyone.
b) Anybody without BDS knows that Richard Armitage "leaked" her name to Novak. I'll even give you a CNN link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html

Sheesh.

Get clues.

-john

p.s. Oh yeah:
c) Libby wasn't pardoned.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[Chris Burke]

a) Scooter Libby didn't leak Plame's name to anyone.
b) Anybody without BDS knows that Richard Armitage "leaked" her name to Novak. I'll even give you a CNN link:

Duh, it's the conspiracy to cover up the leak that's more interesting than the leak itself. It's this administration's incredible desire for secrecy in all things -- especially regarding their fuck-ups -- that is why issues like this email retention policy are so important.

p.s. Oh yeah:
c) Libby wasn't pardoned.

No, his sentence was only commuted by President Bush. Nice weaseling there; he's still not going to jail like I was saying. So the conviction still stands -- that's the 'ruined political careers' thing I was talking about. That's about all we can hope for these days. Bush was considering a full pardon until he realized what the political fallout would be for him. Libby was in either case ruined as a political figure.

What I find funny is how Scooter was convicted basically of lying, and you're satisfied with the explanation that it was just an accidental slip of the tongue that was coincidentally politically expedient to discredit a detractor and confirmed by Karl Rove who mysteriously knew about all this. Even though we know that not all the facts are available since they were, again accidentally and again conveniently, deleted. And then you're splitting hairs over a pardon, versus not suffering the full penalty of the law due to the personal intervention of Pres. Bush. Oh yeah, that's totally different, and definitely not just a political compromise.

I'm finding it hard to figure out what your point was. My point I hope was clear: That these kinds of cases, even if they don't result in jail time because the President's friends are immune to that, are at least politically damaging and thus worth pursuing. Scooter is a perfect example.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[jabster]

Oh yeah, that's totally different

Well....pardon & commutation ARE different. Look it up please.

Point: "Leaking" Plame's name was not a crime. Libby was convicted for lying to the special prosecutor. Not for revealing her name to anyone.

To counter your "point": The commuted sentence--no jail time--perfectly fits his crime. Try comparing his original sentence to that of Sandy Berger, who stole original documents from the National Archives, and later supposedly destroyed them. He got off with a slap on the wrist. And he still hasn't even taken his polygraph test like we was ordered to.

Again, Libby did not leak anyone's name. Libby was not convicted for leaking anyone's name. The person who did reveal Plame's name has never even been charged with anything and is sitting comfortably at home in front of his television.

So again, what's your point?

-john

p.s. Libby didn't leak Plame's name. Armitage did. Armitage has not even been charged.

p.p.s. What conspiracy?

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[Chris Burke]

Well....pardon & commutation ARE different. Look it up please.

Yes I know I just told you exactly what the difference is. One is the President doing a favor for one of his buddies and undoing the conviction, the other is the President doing a favor for one of his buddies and stopping them from going to jail. The key element -- the President doing a favor for one of his buddies to stop him from facing the punishment for his crime -- is the same.

So your comment that he wasn't pardoned -- without mentioning that the key element of Presidential favors that eliminate jail time still existed -- was simply disingenuous. Or maybe it's just you who should have looked up commutation? Either way, your weaseling is irrelevant to my point. Presidential favors for cronies are relevant to my point.

To counter your "point": The commuted sentence--no jail time--perfectly fits his crime.

In your opinion. Not in the opinion of the judge and jury. Libby was convicted and sentenced to jail time. Then, exactly like I was saying, the President came in and used his Presidential powers to prevent his loyal minion from serving the sentence the court had handed down.

Again, Libby did not leak anyone's name. Libby was not convicted for leaking anyone's name. The person who did reveal Plame's name has never even been charged with anything and is sitting comfortably at home in front of his television.

First, I never said Libby leaked anything, now did I? That's not a counter to anything I'm saying at all.

Second, the person we know did reveal Plame's name wasn't charged because he claimed that it was a mere slip of the tongue that accidentally gave up the name of a undercover CIA agent. What with all the actual evidence being conveniently (but according to the administration, once again accidentally) destroyed, the prosecutor couldn't prove that it wasn't accidental. So unlikely as that is, he couldn't charge anyone with leaking her name. However he could prove that Libby lied to the special prosecutor, so he was nailed for that, and rightfully so.

So again, what's your point?

Sure, I'll repeat it again for you: It's hard to get significant penalties to stick to admin officials who commit crimes, because we know the President will just swoop in and stop them from going to jail -- exactly what happened here, your weaseling notwithstanding. However, as we can see, Libby's conviction was damaging not just to him but to the administration in general, and thus the prosecution did serve a useful purpose in punishing lawbreakers.

p.p.s. What conspiracy?

The one where high-level government officials lied in order to cover up what may have been an illegal and politically motivated outing of an undercover CIA agent. We know that at least one government official lied about the issue, and we know the white house has destroyed communications that under law should have been retained. Sure, a credulous weasel like you may be willing to go along with this all being just a happy coincidence for the Bush administration, but the linchpin here is the lying official who had no reason to lie if the proposed version of events is actually true. Even if they are true, he still lied to cover it up, which is illegal.

But I suppose you also believe that Al Capone wasn't really a mobster, he was just a normal businessman who was harshly convicted of the minor crime of tax evasion.

Either way it can't be proven -- again how convenient all the evidence was "accidentally" erased -- but that isn't my point. My point is, to the extent that government malfeasance has been proven, the President was still able to erase the penalties for that crime, but nevertheless the seemingly futile prosecution in fact had a significant political effect.

Check with AT&T?

[Lost Penguin]

Since AT&T has been spying on everyone since spring of 2000, why not ask them for copies of Whitehouse and NRC.com emails?

Re:Check with AT&T?

[pla]

Since AT&T has been spying on everyone since spring of 2000, why not ask them for copies of Whitehouse and NRC.com emails?

Whoever modded this "funny" clearly doesn't "get" it.

+5 "insightful (and scary as hell)", not "funny".

Re:Check with AT&T?

[k_187]

Especially since if they started in spring 2000, it was under Clinton's authority.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[jav1231]

Just clinging to that Clinton legacy (well spun, I might add) aren't we? Remember there were PLENTY of document scandals and privacy hacks under Clinton. I'd have more respect for people if they made this less about who's in power and more about the activity involved. Once someone starts the conversation with "typical Bush administration" this or "Clinton cover-up" that we pretty-much fail to stand on the pillar of truth. It becomes an "us and them" scenario and the jig is up.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[gstoddart]

Whoever modded this "funny" clearly doesn't "get" it.

+5 "insightful (and scary as hell)", not "funny".

Funny, ironic. Funny, if I don't laugh I'd have to weep. Funny, but weren't they already required by law to retain those e-mails instead of sending their e-mail through the RNP and ceasing to archive for White House?

Cheers

Re:Check with AT&T?

[bev_tech_rob]

No....YOU don't get it......Whitehouse.com used to be a porn site. The poster should have said 'whitehouse.GOV'.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[pla]

Especially since if they started in spring 2000, it was under Clinton's authority.

Defensive much?

I don't give a damn about whether Bush or Clinton or Mahatma frickin' Gandhi started the domestic wiretapping program. I just care that it exists, an affront to everything America stands (or rather, "stood") for. Like torture, any debate over the "legality" of it misses the point completely.

As for your curious defense of TweedleDum(R) over TweedleDee(D), I also don't care that Bush calls himself a Republican. Clinton? Scum of the Earth, and I wouldn't let him within 50 yards of a female relative; through Janet Reno, he singlehandedly destroyed the last shred of respect people had for the DOJ.

But Bush??? Personally, I would consider him the single worst, and the least Republican, president in US history - And I include FDR, "The Great Socialist" in that comparison. Republicans (claim to) believe in fiscal responsibility, small government, and minding their own business to the point of isolationism; Bush has racked up a debt that dwarfs his predecessors; made the government bigger and more intrusive than ever; and followed a foreign policy of busybody-ism resulting in massively decreased security for not just us but the whole world.

And you want to view it as a game of left-vs-right? We may as well argue about who has the nicer cufflinks.

Our government, regardless of meaningless party affiliations, has declared war against its own citizens. If you think it cares which letter, D or R, appears on your driver's license - Well, enjoy your false sense of security while it lasts.



As an aside, the letter that appears on my driver's license might surprise you. So do me the credit of having a better argument than whining that "Clinton did it first", hoping that I'll have no comeback to that, as though it excuses anything.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[rbanffy]

+1 scary

Re:Check with AT&T?

[k_187]

That would be exactly my point. Its been done before and bitching that SHRUB R BAD misses the point.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[FangVT]

Since AT&T has been spying on everyone since spring of 2000, why not ask them for copies of Whitehouse and NRC.com emails?

Whoever modded this "funny" clearly doesn't "get" it.

+5 "insightful (and scary as hell)", not "funny".

Just because something is insightful and scary doesn't mean it's not also funny. Haven't you ever heard someone complain that if they didn't laugh they'd have to cry?

Re:Check with AT&T?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Shrub is bad, for plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with wiretapping.

And no, Clinton wasn't any prize either.

The worst thing is that they are both just symptoms of the real problem.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

We may as well argue about who has the nicer cufflinks.

Okay, I have a lovely platinum set of cufflinks. They are round and have a bias relief of an eagle. The eagle's eye is made out of a small (don't know the carat offhand) diamond.

You are up.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[patternmatch]

If you think it cares which letter, D or R, appears on your driver's license - Well, enjoy your false sense of security while it lasts.

Since when is your party affiliation listed on your driver's license? Mine certainly isn't.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[jameson71]

I think the funny part comes from the thought of this administration actually owning up to its obligations and following the law.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[sharkey]

They are round and have a bias relief of an eagle.

Well? Does the relief have a liberal or a conservative bias?

Re:Check with AT&T?

[hachete]

Just how is the US Economy these days? Better? Worse? for all Clinton's faults he had a great track record with the US economy unlike wothisface, you know, that fiscally upright republican Bush. And Clinton did try and find bin Ladin. Unlike Bush. Clinton - even during his crisis - always enjoyed reasonable public approval ratings. Yeah, there's a pattern developing here.

C'mon guys, just saying every politico is corrupt and the system is broken is part of the problem *not* the solution.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[Scudsucker]

And I see some people still cling to the "Clinton did it too defense," which generally requires a great deal of reaching, a great deal of misinformation, or a great deal of bullshit. Like with Gonzo and the USA firings...wingnuts bleated that "Clinton fired all the USA's, what are you complaining about". Which was of course reach, misinformation, and bullshit because Clinton fired the USA's at the start of his first term, whereas Bush was firing his own appointees in the middle of his second term.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[Scudsucker]

Clinton? Scum of the Earth

Hardly. That's a valid opinion if you were his wife at the time, otherwise it's noneofyourfuckingbusiness.

through Janet Reno, he singlehandedly destroyed the last shred of respect people had for the DOJ.

Hardly. Reno was barely on the job when the FBI came and told her that children were being molested in the Branch Dividian compound. Having a prosecutors typically high opinion of child molestation, she authorized storming the compound.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[errxn]

Wow, completely missing GP's point and proving it at the same time! Congrats, you've scored a two-fer!

Re:Check with AT&T?

[yndrd1984]

>>Clinton? Scum of the Earth

Hardly. That's a valid opinion if you were his wife at the time, otherwise it's noneofyourfuckingbusiness.

Wait, "pla" can't think that someone's a dipshit if they aren't married to that person? I dislike him for signing the DMCA, how would my (hypothetical) gay marriage to him make my opinion more valid?

Re:Check with AT&T?

[Scudsucker]

The DMCA was deplorable, but supporting it hardly makes one "scum."

Re:Check with AT&T?

[Scudsucker]

Wow, completely missing GP's point

No, I didn't. Not my fault you don't know how to read.

and proving it at the same time! Congrats, you've scored a two-fer!

No, I didn't. But I suppose you'll continue with your rhetorical masturbation without actually making an argument, and keep declaring victory.

Re:Check with AT&T?

[drsmithy]

Clinton? Scum of the Earth, and I wouldn't let him within 50 yards of a female relative; [...]

So... You're saying you don't believe any of your female relatives are capable of making their own decisions ?

Re:Check with AT&T?

[errxn]

...and, as if on cue, rounded off with a made-to-order ad hominem attack. Correction: let's make that two-fer a hat trick!

Re:Check with AT&T?

[Scudsucker]

That word does not mean what you think it means...and my prediction was correct. A twofer indeed.

Storage requirements?

[morgan_greywolf]

Does anyone know what tech the White House has? It would seem like the storage requirements for storing every single e-mail sent in and out of the White House would be huge.

Re:Storage requirements?

[niceone]

Yeah, now all the terrorists have to do to bring down the US government is to send lots of emails with really big attachments to vice_president@whitehouse.gov.

Re:Storage requirements?

[OwlofCreamCheese]

dude, this isn't 1997, a TB of hard disk is 200 bucks and emails are still only a MB tops

Re:Storage requirements?

[RandoX]

Apparently you aren't dealing with the same users I am. The ones that paste (15) 1 meg bitmap screenshots into each email. Then send it to the global email address. Then each of those users replies to all and asks why it was sent to them. Again, with (15) 1 meg screen shots in the email. You don't have those users?

Re:Storage requirements?

[morgan_greywolf]

dude, this isn't 1997, a TB of hard disk is 200 bucks and emails are still only a MB tops You've obviously never adminned an Exchange or Notes server.

Re:Storage requirements?

[Hanners1979]

I heard it was somehow designed around a series of tubes.

Re:Storage requirements?

[Metzli]

Not trying to trivialize too much, but it's the same requirements that businesses have to meet due to e-discovery rules. If they can do it, one would think the White House could.

Re:Storage requirements?

[kennedy]

I do not know what technology the White House uses, but i work for a company that offers an email archiving service for just this sort of thing. Our customer base is mostly lawyers, hospitals, and people who deal with stocks and trading. Generally this service is used to stem insider trading, information leaking and to be ready in case your buisness is served with papers requiring you to produce emails from a specific period of time.

With our system, all email end up on a WORM device (see permabit) so we can assure all parties the data has not been tampered with.

Now - the interesting part - the amount of disk space needed can vary based on the customer's retention policy - which is general dictated by various federal standards (SAS70, etc), so really, you don't need an insane amount of disk space. Generally we see customers needing retention policies of 3 or 7 years. Anyway - there's no real hard and fast way to estimate how much space the white house would need (its based on number of mailboxes, number of messages per day, and size of messages) - but one of my larger customers, about 4 years worth of uncompressed data added up to about 300gigs. With the size of NAS and SAN devices today, it's quite feasible they could use a pair of 2TB disk arrays replicating to each other and probably be ok.

Re:Storage requirements?

[hey!]

Still doesn't matter.

Computer security is all about taking care where the effort warrants it. You don't create invulnerable systems, you create systems where the expected value of threats is negligible.

What's bugging you isn't that the users are using the email system as a shared file system; what's bugging you is that they're doing that and nobody but you thinks it is worth spending the money to deal with the potential consequences of that.

I'd say it's worth investing in some serious redundancy and backup capability if the consequences of losing the information is that the executive branch doesn't, in effect, remember what it was up to.

Re:Storage requirements?

[hackstraw]

You don't have those users?

I tell those users to use the shredder to get rid of those things.

Re:Storage requirements?

[u-235-sentinel]

Yeah, now all the terrorists have to do to bring down the US government is to send lots of emails with really big attachments to vice_president@whitehouse.gov.

Remind them it's whitehouse.gov and NOT whitehouse.com ;-)

Re:Storage requirements?

[SuiteSisterMary]

This would be why man invented all of the various single-instance-storage methods.

Re:Storage requirements?

[Stargoat]

How about we just require the White House to follow the same requirements as GLBA, SOX, BSA, FACT Act, and all the others?

Re:Storage requirements?

[gstoddart]

Does anyone know what tech the White House has? It would seem like the storage requirements for storing every single e-mail sent in and out of the White House would be huge.

Well, given the nature of the decisions which are coming out of the White House ... who cares?

This stuff is supposed to be historical record; I thought they were already obligated to keep all of this stuff (except for that whole sending through Republican Party addresses debacle). The White House has helicopters, airplanes, fleets of limousines, chase cars, private chefs, security personnel, communications officers, Stewards, housekeepers, and what have you.

If the official correspondence of the head of state isn't worth keeping, then, WTF is worth keeping?? A tremendous amount of resources go into keeping the President doing his work and plugged in. Surely to fsck the technical issues of archiving this shit is a surmountable problem.

If they're not archiving it now, it's because someone decided to stop the audit trail, not because the resources weren't there.

Cheers

Re:Storage requirements?

[cayenne8]

"It's important to remember that Bush is just trying to do what is right for the country and that privacy and secrecy are important for getting that job done right. No point in tipping off the terrorists unnecessarily. Secrets lost are secrets the enemy can't get."

I guess my main gripe is...why is HIS privacy and secrecy more important than mine? We've both US citizens after all....supposedly equal protections and rights under the laws...

If he can look at mine (which he shouldn't be able to do), then I should get to look at his.

Re:Storage requirements?

[thatblackguy]

Apparently you aren't dealing with the same users I am. The ones that paste (15) 1 meg bitmap screenshots into each email. Then send it to the global email address. Then each of those users replies to all and asks why it was sent to them. Again, with (15) 1 meg screen shots in the email. You don't have those users?

I dunno, I don't read my users e-mail.

Re:Storage requirements?

[jollyreaper]

Apparently you aren't dealing with the same users I am. The ones that paste (15) 1 meg bitmap screenshots into each email. Then send it to the global email address. Then each of those users replies to all and asks why it was sent to them. Again, with (15) 1 meg screen shots in the email. You don't have those users? On Exchange, the image is only supposed to be stored once in the server and each additional reference made to it just links back to the original. I think that's convenient.

Re:Storage requirements?

[RandoX]

I don't know if that's true or not, but I can confirm that each one still counts towards my inbox limit.

White House spokeswoman clarifies.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

She said she has seen some news reports that some court has ordered the White House to preserve all emails, mails and such records. But she has checked her emails just a minute ago and there is no such order there.

Re:White House spokeswoman clarifies.

[ThirdPrize]

Who actually thought it would be a good idea to delete the Whitehouses e-mails after 3 years without any backup? I keep my e-mails at work for the last 5 years as they come in handy some times. And I suspect that mine are not quite as important as the ones in the Whitehouse.

Re:White House spokeswoman clarifies.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Well, you have nothing to hide. You don't have to worry if the Dems get the senate and congressional committee chairpersonship and the subpoena powers that go with it, what they will find if they trawl through your mail. Now tell me why would they not think it is a good idea to erase the trail? Especially when they can say very innocently "oops" and there are enough people who would pretend to believe them.

Re:White House spokeswoman clarifies.

[gad_zuki!]

On further examination no emails from Meredith Fuchs are getting past the spam filter. A court order to force her to change her last name to Smithe has been issued by the 9th district court of appeals. It has also been suggested that President Bush seriously think about changing his name to Jones as the email that is missing has the subject line "Meredith Fuchs Bush." That message alone has crashed all the White House spam assassin filters three times today.

Re:White House spokeswoman clarifies.

[dpilot]

The mistake is in the words "your mail." It's not Bush's or Cheney's email, it belongs the the USA, and it needs to be kept in accordance with US records retention policies.

When you're at work, you keep or delete email based on your employer's records retention policies, not your own whims.

When you're at home, go ahead and do as you like.

Unfortunately...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Unfortunately, the court order was sent via email, and was filtered along with all judicial and legislative correspondence, directly to the Trash.

And so it continues...

Politics section

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Not YRO. And who's going to sit behind every white house staffer and make sure they don't delete emails? Maybe they'll remove every "Delete" key from the keyboards?

Re:Politics section

[Spazmania]

Maybe they'll remove every "Delete" key from the keyboards?

Sort of. The White House is using an Enterprise email system, i.e. not Firefox + IMAP. The messages remain on the server where the admin controls what you can do. If he doesn't want to allow you to empty the trash folder, he just flips a switch in the config.

Re:Politics section

[Crudely_Indecent]

There are modern mail management systems that remove the user from archive functions. One such piece of software is offered by Symantec as part of a package which filters spam/virus/phishing while at the same time auto-archiving all in and out bound messages. There are other free options that the WH could take advantage of. Qmail has now a wonderful plugin ability that would make auto-archive a snap.

We are talking about GW's staff. These folks, dastardly as they are, are not tech-stupid. They have resources at their fingertips that would make any geek green with envy. They knowingly deleted messages and failed to preserve archives. The Presidential Records Act isn't a new piece of legislation, it's been around since 1978.

The technology exists, and the White House can afford it. The question remains, will the White House obey the courts when told "don't break federal laws" or will they continue to break the law as usual.

Re:Politics section

[igb]

The White House is using an Enterprise email system, i.e. not Firefox + IMAP.''

Even if they were using Firefox plus IMAP, it's hardly rocket science to preserve all mail. Cyrus now supports delayed expunge, so that sort +flags.silent (\deleted) followed by expunge just records that the expunge happened, removes the messages from what fetch/search/etc see and makes a note to delete the files later. This saves IO at the time and means that punters who blow mail away accidentally can get restores easily. We run the real expunge at 0200, with a window of three days (ie mail you delete and expunge isn't really deleted for three days). Turn that process off, and it's preserved forever. Throw in snapshots with your netApp and you're done. [[ For Cyrus hotshots, it works slightly differently for delayed deletion of entire mailboxes, but you get the general idea. ]]

Re:Politics section

[Crazyscottie]

Who needs a "Delete" key?

rm /var/spool/mail/*

Done!

Re:Politics section

[UnknowingFool]

Ummm, you know that before you get any email on your desktop application that it has to pass through something called an email server. I think some corporations have a system in place that retains emails at that level. I'm pretty sure that even a company called Microsoft makes an application called Exchange that handles corporate policies on email retention. There have been rumors that before Microsoft there were email servers on Unix called qmail and sendmail. Of course only old babbling techies talk about those days along with stories of coding in binary. So it could be an old wives tale like punchcards and slide rulers are. :P

Re:Politics section

[SeaFox]

Maybe they'll remove every "Delete" key from the keyboards?

Why not? Clinton staffers removed the "W" key from many keyboards before they left.

Re:Politics section

[kmankmankman2001]

A proper email archival system grabs the email and keeps it according to the rules setup - totally independent of what the user does on their email client (or even email server). Read it, delete it, doesn't matter. For many companies the data store is on some type of WORM media as well as it's a requirement depending on the nature of the business.

I'd say it's unbelievable that the White House doesn't have a system and process in place to do all this but this administration just keeps staking out new frontiers on what's believable.

Re:Politics section

[frank_adrian314159]

Clinton staffers removed the "W" key from many keyboards before they left.

Why don't you fools ever check the facts? I bet you think that the Al Gore inventing the internet thing is a real knee-slapper, too. Spreading political rumor and innuendo as if it is fact hurts this democracy because it keeps false memes in circulation and a factually informed electorate is the only defense against tyrrany. Of course, if you only care about your side winning, I guess that doesn't matter.

pfft...

[djupedal]

'"A federal judge Monday ordered the White House to preserve copies of all its e-mails...'

That'll work...

What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't we get to see their emails? After all, if they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.

Oh, wait...

Our company was required to delete emails

[RandoX]

A company I worked for was forbidden to keep emails longer than 60 days. Lawsuit evidence discovery was the actual reason they gave. At least they were honest about that... I chose to leave there because of ethical disagreements I had.

Re:Our company was required to delete emails

[RandoX]

The reasoning was that if we were sued and then deleted our emails, we were obstructing justice. If it's our policy to delete emails, then we aren't treating the evidence differently than any of the other emails.

Re:Our company was required to delete emails

[charliebear]

Another reason for regular, scheduled email and other document destruction is to avoid the COST of combing through old archived tapes, etc in the event of a lawsuit, to classify evidence that is ok to turn over, and evidence that is disputed (i.e. trade secrets, etc). Say you have 500 employees, who each receive 20 emails a day on average. That's 10,000 emails per day, with a 5 day work week, that's 2.6 million per year. If your company is sued, you can't just turn over copies of every email without first reviewing them. If your policy is to delete email after 1 year, the most you have to deal with is 2.6 million. If you are not allowed to delete email, you are looking at a much larger (and expensive) job

Re:Our company was required to delete emails

[Chris Burke]

I can't remember any specifics, but I thought I remembered a company with a similar plan getting in trouble with the judge for doing exactly that. Once the lawsuit was filed and discovery began, they continued with their policy and deleted email including evidence. The judge said that once the lawsuit began, it couldn't be SOP anymore and they couldn't start deleting emails no matter what their existing policy was. I don't remember if this resulted in obstruction of justice charges or anything of that nature.

Anyway I'm just saying that might not be as great of a CYA plan as it seems. But it definitely beats waiting until the lawsuit is filed then going on a delete binge.

Re:Our company was required to delete emails

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Lawsuit evidence discovery was the actual reason they gave.

And it is a good reason. Lawyers have careers because the law is not cut-and-dried and it seems doubtful that anything exculpatory could be in an e-mail. So it is a liability in that sense. Why retain it, kill away.

The difference is that federal law says that those e-mails are to be preserved because of their historical value.

Re:Our company was required to delete emails

[Tibor the Hun]

Of course they're required.
If there are no legal reason to *keep* the emails, deleting them makes the most sense.
If the company gets slapped with a lawsuit, and it still has the old emails, someone will have to dig through them.
It's not cheap. The man hours alone can be astronomical, as you need to discover and produce only the emails related to the case, and not the last 2 years of one users correspondence.

So, if you're not legally required to keep them.. start deleting.

IANAL, btw.

Re:Our company was required to delete emails

[gstoddart]

The reasoning was that if we were sued and then deleted our emails, we were obstructing justice. If it's our policy to delete emails, then we aren't treating the evidence differently than any of the other emails.

Except, there have been court rulings which say that e-mail is considered to be a corporate record, and subject to retention rules. So, in discovery, if you can't produce something you're obligated to, you're fsck'd.

Now it falls into the category of things which if you delete before the allowed time, you get into deep do do. If you don't delete it as soon as it becomes legal to do so, you could get into deep do do since it will still be around to bite you in the ass. But, you need to know when you can delete it.

It is my understanding it is no longer legal to have a policy which simply says "all e-mail is deleted within 60 days" -- it gets a lot more complicated than that. The waters are much murkier in terms of what you can and can't delete. If you didn't keep it long enough (or, worse, after you'd been served a discovery motion you then deleted it) you could be in real trouble. In fact, if the company could have legally discarded of it, and mostly did, but one employee still had it in their files, you could still be screwed -- which is why companies try very hard to delete as soon as possible, but no sooner than the law allows.

Here's a link which sheds some light on the now confusing rules about deletion of e-mail. The legal landscape is now way beyond simply deleting after 60 days. I'm not sure there's a simple interpretation of any of this stuff any more.

Cheers

Careful what freedoms we give away

[DuncanE]

Firstly I would like to state I'm not an American citizen (I'm Australian).

I have always felt that freedom is better served by people hiding their truths.

No one... not even democracy.. has the right to ask someone to hand over their private thoughts. Not even if they are in a written letter. Not even if they are in an electronic email. Not even if that person is a President of a country.

So while I understand if people what to read George W's email to the Vice-Pres, I have to point out the GW's email to his daughters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law and ... to the fullest extent of humanity.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So while I understand if people what to read George W's email to the Vice-Pres, I have to point out the GW's email to his daughters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law and ... to the fullest extent of humanity. Easy peasy. Don't use official systems for personal business. The taxpayers are the owners of the government systems, so if the president doesn't like the rules for using our equipment, he can get another job.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[Sosarian]

I'm sure it'll be really funny with the President logging into Facebook and Hotmail to send email to his kids.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[DrLang21]

There is a distinction between personal correspondence and business correspondence. My e-mails sent from my e-mail address given to me by my employer are in no way private. Certain individuals within this company can read them at any time. My personal e-mails sent from my personal e-mail address are private (or so we like to think). Now it's not a far stretch from here to say that I should not be sending personal e-mails from my work address or work related e-mails from my private address. I don't see why our government shouldn't be held to the same industry standard.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't Georgy's personal emails home. These are emails guaranteed to be public because they originated at the hands of a government agent. All things a government agent does -unless it has special permissions to be secret- needs to be available to all those who pay for such services. This is law.

The idea that we can't or shouldn't be able to get at this information is absurd.

The funny part of all this is that most of the administration uses GOP-provided email services to protect themselves from such requests anyway - even though the legality of this is extremely questionable.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[closetpsycho]

I agree that all personal correspondence should stay personal. However, when acting in their official capacity as a public official, I believe full disclosure should be mandatory. It's as simple as having a personal email account and an official email account. Anything that requires official action, needs to go through the easily archived official email account. Anything personal, doesn't. Quick, simple, and effective. Now lets see if it ever gets put into action.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[pev]

As with pretty much every other employment around the world, Bush should expect his work related email (i.e. White House) to be monitored and archived by his employers and as such shouldn't have expectations of privacy. If he want's to write personal emails to his daughters that he'd rather not be read by his employers he should have personal email as everyone else does, no?

~Pev

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[db32]

Uhm he does expect the government email to get monitored. Hence the two main problems here. They quit archiving them, and they got in trouble for using outside email to conduct their shenanagins so that they wouldn't get burned by the government archiving and monitoring.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[dave420]

If he's emailing his daughters as President of the USA, then it should be recorded. If he's emailing them as Pappa Bush, then it shouldn't.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[canuck57]

No one... not even democracy.. has the right to ask someone to hand over their private thoughts. Not even if they are in a written letter. Not even if they are in an electronic email. Not even if that person is a President of a country.

Consider it public if you type it into a system that is public or owned by someone else. While I agree if it is say a persons personal computer whholey owned and operated by themselves I do not buy into privacy if it is the government's or companies computer. If you want privacy, a certain prudence on the individuals part goes a long way.

For example, use PGP. I do as I don't even trust my own PC for some things. BTW works on Linux and Macs too. And make sure to put the keyring on a thumb drive you hide or carry with you. That is, privacy is easy with due diligence.

Never put anything in plain text mail you can't answer to or others to see. Remember the other person can forward it and it is easy to intercept it.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[Alchemist253]

While I agree in general, the President is NOT a normal citizen, and special rules can and do apply.

First, as Commander-in-Chief he is in the unique role of being both a civilian and a military leader, and members of the military voluntarily surrender a number of the liberties and protections afforded private citizens.

Second, as Head of State he is the leader of the United States 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. ANYTHING he reads or writes is potentially relevant to his job, and should be retained if necessary. (A similar argument can be made for him acting in his dual capacity of Chief Executive.)

Anyone who seeks the presidency should be well aware of these facts; they are among the prices paid for a seat in the Oval Office. Note that the court order is not requiring him to DISCLOSE the documents, merely PRESERVE them in the event they are needed. While I would agree even this would be excessive as a blanket order for a private citizen, this is hardly an extreme measure for the president.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[slapout]

"Don't use official systems for personal business."

I think that probably covers everyone on Slashdot.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[nine-times]

I agree that privacy and anonymity are necessary for preserving freedom. However, I think that concept has limits. Like if I write a letter to someone in which I threaten to kill that person, it should probable be admissible in court.

Also, it's been traditional for Presidents' private papers and even diaries to be made public for the sake of history, which I think is a good thing. But certainly I expect the actions of public officials to be pretty transparent. If the President's "private thoughts" are in e-mails that he writes in an official capacity, and those emails have with no national security ramifications, then I pretty well expect those e-mails to be public. Transparency of government is vital to democracy.

So while I think it might be fair to claim we should respect GWB's privacy and not read his e-mails to his daughters, I also don't think we should accept that e-mails between GWB and the RNC chairmen (for example) are "private" if GWB claims that they're e-mails between friends.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[Skapare]

So no one is allowed to call home to the family when on the job in a government position?

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[Shakrai]

So no one is allowed to call home to the family when on the job in a government position?

Actually, he said "don't use official systems". So by all means, call your family from your personal cell phone while at work. Calling them from the office phone would be "using official systems".

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[bar-agent]

Let me start with saying that I approve of the court's decision, and thus with the general thrust of your post (*bow-chicka-bow-bow*).

But,

First, as Commander-in-Chief he is in the unique role of being both a civilian and a military leader, and members of the military voluntarily surrender a number of the liberties and protections afforded private citizens.

Members of the military do, however, the Commander-in-Chief is an emphatically and intentionally a civilian position. The President himself is not military personnel.

Which is good re this President. Based on his "stint" in the National Guard, if he were actually military personnel, he would never have actually shown up at the White House, thus leaving Cheney in charge.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[Scudsucker]

Should they also save every document sent to the printer? Should they get rid of shredders and save every piece of paper?

Would you like a straw man? How about another?

The logistics of saving each email are just crazy, and our taxpayer money will be spent making it possible.

We have databases in the hundreds of terabytes. Saving 8 years of email is trivial.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[rastoboy29]

Dude, these motherfuckers are reading OUR mail.  FUCK THEM.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[Shakrai]

Even using your personal cell phone at work means you're in your office on company time

Last time I checked, the labor law of almost every state provides for these things called "breaks".

Another question.

[iknownuttin]

It would seem like the storage requirements for storing every single e-mail sent in and out of the White House would be huge.

First, how do yo prove that emails were deleted? And if you can prove it, how do you prove that they weren't deleted maliciously?

Second, I once asked a member of the Bar here in GA (a lawyer) about deleting emails and the legal ramifications. He said that as long as I have a company policy of deleting them after X amount of time, then nobody could claim that I was deleting them for malicious or fraudulent reasons. Because, a lot of folks, when they get sued, will delete all of their emails right before discovery. Then the judge rules something that I can't remember, but basically you, the email deleter, gets into trouble and possibly loses the case.
As a smart ass, I said that my policy is to delete them as soon as I get them. That's OK, actually. I just have to live with trying remember what was in the email. Or print them - then that's yet more problems.

Re:Another question.

[DustyShadow]

Hmmm...I believe the rule, at least in federal cases, is that once you have a reasonable belief that you are going to be sued, you have to stop deleting or trashing anything that may have something to do with the case. This continues throughout the suit. The main problem though is how does someone else prove that you deleted stuff? I think most discovery is done voluntarily also so you can never be 100% sure that everyone is turning over everything.

Re:Another question.

[nomadic]

Then the judge rules something that I can't remember, but basically you, the email deleter, gets into trouble and possibly loses the case.

Three things that could happen:

1. The judge can find that your deletion creates a presumption that the e-mails were damaging.
2. The judge can enter sanctions against you for discovery abuses.
3. Depending on the laws the court is operating under, the other side might be able to sue you for spoliation of evidence. Not all locales have this tort though.

Re:Another question.

[NMerriam]

He said that as long as I have a company policy of deleting them after X amount of time, then nobody could claim that I was deleting them for malicious or fraudulent reasons.

Yes, but once you know that you're going to court (or even should reasonably have known), you have to preserve what has not ALREADY been deleted. You don't get to *continue* deleting things just because it's policy.

That's a nice idea, but just watch...

[Nursie]

...and wait, it won't be long before Gee-Dubya starts mailing his daughters and getting them to forward it straight to cheney, and vice versa.

He's the president, and his communications should be kept private until such time as they are deemed relevant to an investigation into corruption, illegal war, whatever.

Re:That's a nice idea, but just watch...

[morgan_greywolf]

Good point. In fact, with the new requirement to preserve all e-mail, how long before W, Cheny & Co. open up GMail accounts?

Re:That's a nice idea, but just watch...

[joeytmann]

It won't be them opening the gmail accounts, but one of their assistants who reads their email and prints it out for them to read.

Drats!

[dasroot]

Does this mean I can't delete the emails they sent me? Darn, I guess I'll have to give the money back...

Already the case?

[necro81]

I suppose there is nothing wrong with the White House being directed to preserve emails, given their past history. However, one would think that the Presidential Records Act would already force them to preserve any email that might have evidentiary value (see the third bullet down on the link).

On the other hand, a Bush Executive Order in late 2001 seems to allow almost anything from the President's or VP's office to be made off limits:

...reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisers...

Hopefully, this loophole can be closed and tighter retention policies put in place, not just for this case, but for all Presidential Papers. To put the Administration's opacity in perspective, Bush's executive order on this subject superceded one put in place by Reagan, and seeks to undermine a law put in place in response to Nixon.

Re:Already the case?

[innerweb]

and seeks to undermine a law put in place in response to Nixon.

Bush Jr and Nixon have way too much in common. Except, Nixon was a better politician and statesman.

InnerWeb

Re:Already the case?

[E 99]

I think the first, most obvious question would be, by what Constitutional power can Congress determine the manner in which the President keeps (or doesn't keep) his records? Just as Democrats accuse Bush of using 9/11 as an excuse to subvert the Constitution, the Democrats have used Nixon as an excuse to subvert the Constitution.

Re:Already the case?

[necro81]

It is generally accepted that, as a foundation of democracy, government transparency is essential. It is to this end, and for historical posterity, that records of communications within the White House (and Congress, and the Supreme Court) are preserved. The Presidential Records Act has been around for nearly three decades, and it has yet to be overturned on constitutional grounds.

As a clarification: the manner of the preservation isn't specified by law, only that the preservation be done.

As another clarification: the subversion that people (not just Democrats, and not just in the U.S.) accuse Bush of tends towards greater government secrecy and curtailing civil liberties. The subversion people accused Congress of in the wake of Nixon is towards greater government transparency and a weakened Executive. Each citizen must make their own judgement as to which is the greater subversion.

Re:Already the case?

[E 99]

The Congress doesn't have the power by itself. But the Congress passing a Bill which the President signs into law can and does make the determination. The Federal Judge is merely ordering the White House to uphold the law which the Executive Branch is Constitutionally mandated to do.

That is exactly what a writ of mandamus is -- a court order compelling a public official to carry out a duty as required by statue. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court determined that their jurisdiction, as defined in the Constitution, EXCLUDED the power to issue writs of mandamus to public officers.

Re:Already the case?

[E 99]

It is generally accepted that, as a foundation of democracy, government transparency is essential. It is to this end, and for historical posterity, that records of communications within the White House (and Congress, and the Supreme Court) are preserved. The Presidential Records Act has been around for nearly three decades, and it has yet to be overturned on constitutional grounds.

Government transparency and preservation of historical fact are both vital concerns. But privacy of deliberations within the executive office, equally vital. None of these three things can be sacrificed in favor of the others. Saying that the PRA has not been overturned on constitutional grounds is not entirely true, unless you mean specifically that the Supreme Court hasn't voided it on constitutional grounds. The PRA has been at least partially overturned on constitutional grounds by Executive Order 13233.

As another clarification: the subversion that people (not just Democrats, and not just in the U.S.) accuse Bush of tends towards greater government secrecy and curtailing civil liberties. The subversion people accused Congress of in the wake of Nixon is towards greater government transparency and a weakened Executive. Each citizen must make their own judgement as to which is the greater subversion.

Curtailing civil liberties? Was there an executive order I missed that prevents Muslims from voting? The "subversion" that Bush is accused of is asserting the power of the executive to do specifically what the Constitution tasks it with: to protect the United States by waging war on its enemies. In contrast, the usurpation of executive power and into the legislative branch, (or, as we have also seen, usurpation of legislative power into the judicial branch) is the ULTIMATE subversion of the constitution. The republic is only worth ANYTHING as long as the constitutional balance between the three branches of government is preserved. The founding fathers, educated by history, were equally scared of a tyrannical legislature as a tyrannical executive. Reasserting the power of the executive is something that those who love the Constitution have been campaigning for vigorously ever since their attack following Watergate. GWB will be remembered by history as the president who restored the balance.

Re:Already the case?

[NMerriam]

But privacy of deliberations within the executive office, equally vital.

Preserving records doesn't require that they be made public, and Congress has never required them to be made public. If they are preserved in secret for 50-100 years and then added to the historical record, then both needs have been met. There is no Constitutional conflict in the requirement that records be preserved.

Curtailing civil liberties? ... The "subversion" that Bush is accused of is asserting the power of the executive to do specifically what the Constitution tasks it with: to protect the United States by waging war on its enemies.

Denial of Habeas Corpus is one of the most fundamental abridgments of individual civil liberties conceivable in our system of government.

Re:Already the case?

[NMerriam]

damn, I wish they would add an edit function for a minute or two after posting.

Re:Already the case?

[NMerriam]

That is exactly what a writ of mandamus is -- a court order compelling a public official to carry out a duty as required by statue. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court determined that their jurisdiction, as defined in the Constitution, EXCLUDED the power to issue writs of mandamus to public officers.

No they didn't. They decided that they did not have the jurisdiction over the case. They have never, in all the existence of this nation, said that they do NOT have the power to direct officeholders to perform procedural duties of their office.

Re:Already the case?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

The power of the Supreme Court of the United States to issue a writ of mandamus outside its appellate jurisdiction was the controversy that led the Court to delve into the much more significant issue of judicial review in the famed case of Marbury v. Madison. In modern practice, the Court has effectively abolished the issuance of mandamus and other prerogative writs although it theoretically retains the power to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus

Re:Already the case?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

What about

The federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 governs the way in which administrative agencies of the United States federal government may propose and establish regulations. The APA also sets up a process for federal courts to directly review agency decisions. As such, it is an important source of authority within federal American administrative law. The APA applies to both independent agencies and executive department agencies, and their subdivisions.

Do these count?

[drewmoney]

I swear, if any of those emails appear to be from me, they are just 'Out of Office Replies'!

Re:You Just Can' Trust Republicans

[bhwrice]

the fact that they stopped archiving seems so suspect to me, like they definitely have something to hide. Oh sure, they pass anti-privacy bills like the patriot act, but when it comes to themselves they don't want to leave a trace... "the White House stopped archiving its e-mail in 2003 and we don't know if some backup tapes for those e-mails were already taped over before we went to court."

Re:haha, who are they kidding?

[mfnickster]

the emails will simply "get lost"
or the email servers will suddenly break down and need repair.

This just in: archivist reports that 18.5 minutes worth of presidential e-mails contain nothing but whitespace.

SOX

[deniable]

Just make them follow Sarbanes-Oxley. With their ties to corporate America, it should be a no brainer. That and they'll get some practice with the rules they need to enforce. Put NASA under Six Sigma and get the US military certified to ISO 9000 and maybe 14000. Let me give you a tip, consulting will be the wave of the future.

Re:SOX

[techpawn]

Just make them follow Sarbanes-Oxley

By the time they get all the procedures into place some auditor who thinks they're a lawyer will just come and change the rules. At least that's how it was when I was working with SOX. I would die a little inside each time I submitted paperwork to test the application for submitting paperwork for testing applications... So it would have no effect on the current 1984 Pigs

Plausible excuse

[oyenstikker]

All W has to do is claim that the StupidFilter deleted them. Nobody will argue the point.

Re:haha, who are they kidding?

[deniable]

More like 18.5 months. Or if you go back to 2003, it will be about 60 months.

Do George and Dick handle their email. I bet they have staff for it, which kinda defeats the advantages of it. It means if anybody gets in trouble for this, it will be the low-level 'email' flunky.

zeitgeist

[synonymous]

Still don't believe me huh?
All these acts you witness are pages right out of hitlers book.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

Preserving emails is like preserving the wind

[VincenzoRomano]

Unless you also preserve the email server logs (and they have to be really detailed in order to make some sense of preservation), preserving all the emails is an illusion. Not to talk about the amount of storage needed, tapes for long term preservation etc etc.
Forget about the emails: it's more or less the same as the work of mounth: blowing in the wind.

Re:Preserving emails is like preserving the wind

[mabhatter654]

see the post about SOX above.. this is ALREADY LAW for any publicly traded company. And yes there is a huge boom in server storage! Forget the White House, imagine GM or IBM having to keep all the mails their employees send or receive... yes, it's being done, it should be trivial for something as small as the White House.

Re:Preserving emails is like preserving the wind

[zrq]

I often wondered about this. Lets assume they did store all their emails.

A few years later, when the data becomes part of the public record and a historian looks through them to try and reconstruct the discussion relating to an important decision ... the email archive appears not to contain one or two key emails. Unless another email in the record specifically mentions one of the missing ones "re your email of the 27th" - how would we know that the key emails are actually missing ?

If the records don't become public until years after the event, then there would be ample time for someone to go through and remove all references to one or two specific emails before the archives are published. They might not even need to delete an email, something a simple as removing an address from the cc list could allow someone to claim that they hadn't seen a particular email.

One solution I though of would be for the email server to create a secure hash (a one way hash, like SHA-512 or similar) of every email that went through the system. The system would be setup to publish the list of hashes on a live web server that anyone can download (a gzip file of hashes for each day perhaps).

Any external group like the Library of Congress or Ibiblio, could download and archive their own copy of the hashes for each day.

Them when a historian looks at the email archive a few years later, they can compare the contents of the archive with the lists of hashes stored by the external archives. It wouldn't prevent someone from altering the data in the email archive, but it would make it much more difficult to hide the fact that the archive had been tampered with.

To completely erase all traces of a change would require intercepting the email before it reached the mail server, or modifying the lists of hashes stored by all the external groups afterwards. Not impossible, but much much harder to do.

Re:Meredith Fuchs?

[deniable]

The story after this on the front page was about an atomic spy. I wondered if it would be Klaus Fuchs. It wasn't, but it would have been a weird coincidence.

Two accounts

[Etrias]

Remember folks, there are two accounts that we should consider here. As there is an executive order to preserve all "official" communication, the White House emails are likely not that hard to get as they would be breaking federal law if they deleted those emails.

However, the likelihood of what they are looking for are actually in the RNC emails, those are the ones that should be under federal order not to be destroyed. The current administration (under the direction of Karl Rove) was directed to have most of their communication about political strategy (under which the whole Plame event would have qualified) to be routed through RNC accounts.

Bush, of course, does not use email. As loath as I am to say so, if he wanted to be secret, not using email is a pretty good way to achieve the lack of culpability for any political shenanigans.

Re:Two accounts

[natedubbya]

I love the use of "destroyed" here. I usually just delete my email. Maybe the next thunderbird can come with an Annihilate button.

Re:Two accounts

[Scudsucker]

No, it's time to put that bullshit talking point to bed. That Armitage's leak was the one that was published in no way changes the fact that at least Rove and Libby were also trying to leak the information to the press.

Re:haha, who are they kidding?

[dragonsomnolent]

All I can say is "that is interesting, isn't it".

(yeah, it's offtopic, I know, but still that reference to Contact was too good to pass up)

Authority of the Courts

[E 99]

By what authority can the courts order the executive branch to not delete any emails? In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that it did not have, and under the Constitution could not be given, the power to issue such orders to the executive branch.

Re:Authority of the Courts

[Chris Burke]

You are deeply confused. In that case the Supreme Court ruled that they did have the power issue such orders to the executive branch and its officers when the order respected actions specified by law. They ruled that they do not have such power when the actions are merely those actions dictated to the officers by the President and are not dictated by law.

The White House data retention policies are dictated by law. The court absolutely has the power to order the executive branch to comply with the law.

Re:Authority of the Courts

[mabhatter654]

because it's discovery for criminal processes run by another EXECUTIVE agency. The "executive" branch is not just the President anymore like when that was tried. This is executive officers conducting investigation under the power of law against another department, so this is "normal" proceedings, and preservation of evidence... unless the White House wants to say they have power to destroy criminal evidence now!

Re:Authority of the Courts

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually Marbury v. Madison has to do with establishing Judicial Review. The Act of Congress which extended the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to include writs of mandamus was declared unconstitutional. This only means that the method in which the case was brought before the court was deemed illegal. Marbury v. Madison says nothing about denying the Supreme Court's authority to holding the Executive Branch accountable to the rule of law.

Re:Authority of the Courts

[E 99]

because it's discovery for criminal processes run by another EXECUTIVE agency. The "executive" branch is not just the President anymore like when that was tried. This is executive officers conducting investigation under the power of law against another department, so this is "normal" proceedings, and preservation of evidence... unless the White House wants to say they have power to destroy criminal evidence now!

1) The executive branch wasn't just the president during Marbury v. Madison. In fact the case was about the attempt to get the court to order President Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, to do what statute required him to do.
2) At current issue is two lawsuits seeking to make the executive branch follow the PRA statute. There are no criminal cases for which the emails are being alleged to be evidence.

Re:Authority of the Courts

[Chris Burke]

Again, your extension of this case to mean that the Supreme Court is incapable of giving an order of any kind to the Executive branch is unfounded. Innumerable precedent have established that the Supreme Court in fact can. The decision itself explicitly states the Court's opinion that they do have the ability to require compliance with the law. Madison vs Marbury was an issue of jurisdiction and the extension thereof. In the case under discussion, the jurisdiction of the courts have already been established and therefore the court is amply empowered to issue binding orders to the Executive Branch.

Your theories on Constitutional Law are crazy and unfounded, and basically imply that the Executive branch is above the law. This is clearly not so, as the Courts have even in this administrative term issued binding orders to the Executive branch.

Re:Authority of the Courts

[E 99]

You have it backwards. At issue was a writ of mandamus, which is an order to an officer to execute his duty as required by statute. James Madison was statutorily required to deliver a commission to Marbury, and the court scolded him for not doing it. But it correctly concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to order him to do it, and the commission was never delivered.

Re:Authority of the Courts

[E 99]

Marbury v. Madison determined that Congress could not give the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, because the Court's constitutional jurisdiction excludes the power of issuing writs of mandamus. The power of issuing writs of mandamus is the power to order a public officer to perform his duty as required by statute. So yes, this was exactly what Marbury v. Madison was about.

Re:Authority of the Courts

[NMerriam]

By what authority can the courts order the executive branch to not delete any emails? In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that it did not have, and under the Constitution could not be given, the power to issue such orders to the executive branch.

You keep making Constitutional pronouncements, but you don't seem to have even the most fundamental understanding of the seminal cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court.

I'm Marbury v Madison, the court decided that they did not have jurisdiction over the case and that the law Congress had passed that claimed to give them jurisdiction was unconstitutional. The ENTIRE POINT of the decision was that the court did NOT want to say they didn't have the right to order the executive branch to do something, but they also didn't want to risk actually ordering them to do something and having the order ignored. This is Constitutional history 101.

Re:Authority of the Courts

[NMerriam]

But it correctly concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to order him to do it, and the commission was never delivered.

No, the court decided they didn't have the jurisdiction to hear the case, not that they didn't have authority to order the Executive branch to follow the law. On the contrary, the court explicitly said that they had the authority to tell an official to perform his official duties, but that it was immaterial because they didn't have the authority to hear the case.

The Supreme Court got to eat their cake and have it, too -- the Executive got what it wanted in that particular case, but in accepting the judgment they wanted, tacitly accepted that the Court had the authority to tell it what to do! What you claim is almost the exact opposite of what actually happened.

Re:Authority of the Courts

[NMerriam]

Marbury v. Madison determined that Congress could not give the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, because the Court's constitutional jurisdiction excludes the power of issuing writs of mandamus.

Marbury v. Madison determined that Congress could not give the Court the power to hear a particular kind of case not on appeal. That the rest of the law they declared unconstitutional had to do with writs was completely irrelevant. Read the actual court case, this is not some secret.

Re:Authority of the Courts

[E 99]

I'm Marbury v Madison, the court decided that they did not have jurisdiction over the case and that the law Congress had passed that claimed to give them jurisdiction was unconstitutional. The ENTIRE POINT of the decision was that the court did NOT want to say they didn't have the right to order the executive branch to do something, but they also didn't want to risk actually ordering them to do something and having the order ignored. This is Constitutional history 101.

It can be claimed that there was a strategic motive behind the ruling -- that they didn't want to make an order that would be ignored -- but that doesn't change what the ruling was.

You are wrong on the "entire point" of the ruling. They ruled that the law giving them the power of the writ of mandamus was unconstitutional BECAUSE it was unconstitutional for them to have that power!

Re:Authority of the Courts

[NMerriam]

You are wrong on the "entire point" of the ruling. They ruled that the law giving them the power of the writ of mandamus was unconstitutional BECAUSE it was unconstitutional for them to have that power!

Please, for God's sake, read the actual ruling rather than whatever interpretation is popular with the tax-dodgers or freepers or whoever is passing around this ridiculous idea. They ruled that the Congress passed a law giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over this case, and that Congress did not have the ability to give them that jurisdiction. Period.

"This, then, is a plain case for a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be enquired,
Whether it can issue from this court." ...
"To enable this court, then, to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction." ...
"Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper, is in effect the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and, therefore, seems not to belong to appellate, but to original jurisdiction. Neither is it necessary in such a case as this, to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction."

They ruled entirely on the basis of jurisdiction. Any mandamus should issue from the original court, not from an appelate court. Which is, of course, how it still works today -- appellate courts instruct lower courts in what way they have erred and then leave it up to the lower court to deal with the details of how the rulings must be carried out.

However, as clearly stated in the decision, any cases that DO have original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court (as per the Constitution, not as per Congress), would indeed be subject to such commands directly from the court.

Nowhere do they claim the courts do not have the ability to issue a mandamus, indeed they SPELL OUT precisely who should issue the mandamus in different circumstances.

Cavity Search Bush

[Doc Ruby]

What Republicans told me and the rest of the world for the past 7 years:

If you're not guilty, you won't mind being searched - so now we have to search you much more closely. Mr Bush, please drop your drawers.

Re:Cavity Search Bush

[mOdQuArK!]

I wouldn't do it no matter how much they paid me. Too easy to get lost in there.

Re:haha, who are they kidding?

[Daimanta]

Even better: the archive where it's stored gets corrupted. I mean, that happens all the time and is a pretty good defence.

Two words, Executive Privilege

[plopez]

Whenever there is misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, corruption or sheer incompetence you can almost guarantee that a President will hide behind "Executive Privilege". Which I challenge you to find anywhere in the US Constitution, it in fact does not exist. They will use "Executive Privilege" to ignore the courts and grab more power for the Presidency. It is for reasons such as this that I have come to believe that the Constitution must be amended and the office of the Presidency abolished. It is simply too much power in the hands of one person, with the temptation to seize even more power.

However I see the chances of this happening as slim to know, as many people not only desire a President but actually a King or Emperor. In their world view, they need to see somebody "in charge", even if that person is a travesty.

Re:Two words, Executive Privilege

[fyoder]

It is for reasons such as this that I have come to believe that the Constitution must be amended and the office of the Presidency abolished. It is simply too much power in the hands of one person, with the temptation to seize even more power.

However I see the chances of this happening as slim to know, as many people not only desire a President but actually a King or Emperor. In their world view, they need to see somebody "in charge", even if that person is a travesty. Somebody, by whatever title, gets to be head of state. The trick is to limit their power so much that they are effectively a figurehead, regardless of their title. Here in Canada, that's the Queen, through her representative the Governor General who is officially Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. But if she decided on her own to use the military to 'liberate' her native Haiti or something, it wouldn't happen, even though she looks really cute with her Amazon Brigade.

Re:Two words, Executive Privilege

[Cro Magnon]

Somebody, by whatever title, gets to be head of state. The trick is to limit their power so much that they are effectively a figurehead, regardless of their title. Here in Canada, that's the Queen, through her representative the Governor General who is officially Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. But if she decided on her own to use the military to 'liberate' her native Haiti or something, it wouldn't happen, even though she looks really cute with her Amazon Brigade.

Well, the President of the USA isn't supposed to be able to decide on his own to attack other nations. But Congress, in its infinite stupidity & wimpiness, has allowed the Prez to do just that! "Checks and Balances" only work if the other branches of government use them!

Re:Two words, Executive Privilege

[E 99]

Well, the President of the USA isn't supposed to be able to decide on his own to attack other nations. But Congress, in its infinite stupidity & wimpiness, has allowed the Prez to do just that! "Checks and Balances" only work if the other branches of government use them!

The President of the USA is ABSOLUTELY able to decide on his own to attack other nations. That's what commander-in-chief means. If the words of the Constitution are too confusing, just look at the actions of its writers. Presidents Washington and Jefferson BOTH decided on their own to attack other nations.

Re:Two words, Executive Privilege

[Cro Magnon]

Congress has the exclusive power to declare war. As the Commander-in-Chief, it's the President's job to decide how to handle the war, but he cannot unilaterally declare the war.

And just when DID Washington & Jefferson attack other nations on their own? My early American history is a bit rusty, but I don't remember any such cases.

Re:Two words, Executive Privilege

[E 99]

Congress has the exclusive power to declare war. As the Commander-in-Chief, it's the President's job to decide how to handle the war, but he cannot unilaterally declare the war.

And just when DID Washington & Jefferson attack other nations on their own? My early American history is a bit rusty, but I don't remember any such cases.

Yes, Congress has the exclusive power to declare war. Issuing Declarations of War, and engaging enemies in battle are two entirely different things. One has never been a prerequisite for the other.

Washington launched numerous mini-wars against various confederations of Indian tribes, all without declarations of war. Jefferson unilaterally decided to end the tradition of paying tribute to the Muslim Barbary pirates out of the federal budget, went to full-scale war against the Ottoman Empire to secure the safety of our vessels from their raids. Congress didn't ever consider issuing a Declaration of War, because such declarations exist for diplomatic purposes, and so unless waging war on a European power, there was no reason for it.

See how they like it.

[ToasterTester]

Good to see Bush et al getting a little taste of what they are doing to us. One of our founding fathers says it best.

Those that give up Liberty to have temporary Security deserve Neither - Benjamin Franklin.

Re:See how they like it.

[Legion303]

"Those that give up Liberty to have temporary Security deserve Neither - Benjamin Franklin."

Sorry, wrong answer.

Re:See how they like it.

[CmdrGravy]

You're only quoting half of that quote though, the full quotation is:

Those that give up Liberty to have temporary Security deserve neither whilst those who abuse their liberty to stand in the way of lasting security and protection from terrorism deserve to lose all that they have, including liberty and security but also, and not limited to, their house, job and position in society.

Re:See how they like it.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually, the Motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania is available here. It looks pretty obviously to be just a one-liner. This is supposed to be an except from

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

If this is what you refer to, I can't seem to find it online, but the crux of the matter seems to be relating to whether Colonists should be allowed to arm themselves or depend on the government for protection. It is hard to fit your quote into this context. Perhaps you are joking?

Re:Why is this still an issue? Hello.. Armitage?

[GodfatherofSoul]

Why do you dittohead nitwits keep regurgitating that refrain? Libby was a leaker as well and the leaking "campaign" was probably initiated by Libby, though he may not have made the first phone call. Libby was busted for lying about his involvement. Check out the Washington Post's Libby timeline.

It was the CIA who requested the investigation into the leak, not the Democrats on a "witch hunt." And, the only reason Armitage wasn't brought up on charges is the leaker statute is too weakly worded to nail him (something about the act being knowledgeable and intentional).

But, I guess if you don't see it on Faux News, it didn't happen :(

Separation of Powers

[geoffrobinson]

At least according to the Founders, we have 3 equal and separate branches. The Executive can't order the courts to do something. Or they can, but the Executive should have the right to tell them to pound sand. The courts shouldn't be able to order the Executive Branch to do something either. They are not, or at least should not, be the super-branch.

Furthermore, Executive Privledge is a real concern. If you have to face lawsuits and investigations about advice given to the President or things along those lines, everyone will go into CYA mode. The President will not be given candid advice.

My viewpoint is based on the Constitution and not on any concern about what is in the emails or what the emails are about. It doesn't matter. That's the principle.

This principle applies to when Democrats control the White House and when Republicans control the White House.

Re:Separation of Powers

[Chris Burke]

At least according to the Founders, we have 3 equal and separate branches. The Executive can't order the courts to do something. Or they can, but the Executive should have the right to tell them to pound sand. The courts shouldn't be able to order the Executive Branch to do something either. They are not, or at least should not, be the super-branch.

No, no, you have Separation of Powers exactly backwards.

"Separation of Powers" does not mean that each branch holds absolute power within its domain, and none of the other branches can tell it what to do.

"Separation of Powers" means that, of those powers enjoyed by the government, each branch wields a separate set of powers, that often oppose each other so as to create a balance. It does not mean all branches are "equal" in the sense that you meant. "Balanced" would be more appropriate.

The Legislative branch creates the legal code that define not just what is legal and illegal but also allowed government behavior. They define what the government looks like, including the executive branch. President Bush couldn't just go and create the Department of Homeland Security because he felt like it, he had to ask Congress to authorize this and more importantly to allocate government funds.

Maybe you noticed how President Bush had to get his own choice for Attorney General approved by Congress? That's because the law that establishes the Department of Justice says so. This is case of one branch wielding direct power over another.

The Executive branch enforces the law and directs the government within the laws (including funding and organization laws) defined by Congress. It also wields the power to veto laws passed by Congress as a way to curb Congress' power over the Executive, and the ability to appoint Justices as a way to influence the Judicial Branch.

The Judicial Branch rules on the law, and issues orders and punishments regarding compliance with the law. They are the only branch with this power -- any claim by Bush or the AG or anyone else that something is or is not legal is merely an opinion with zero weight until the court rules on it. And when someone -- including a member of another branch in government -- is seen not to be in compliance with the law, the court absolutely has the power to order them to cease. Since "obstruction of justice" is defined in a law passed by Congress, the Judiciary also has the power to order someone to cease destroying evidence.

That's what Separation of Powers means. It's three branches with different powers, and each branch absolutely Constitutionally does have the right to exercise those powers over other branches as appropriate.

So yes, the Courts can tell the Executive branch what to do when it involves compliance with the laws passed by Congress. Anything else would not just be un-Constitutional, it would also be a blanket statement that the Executive Branch was summarily above the law. Please don't tell me you think the Founders would have agreed with that.

Re:Separation of Powers

[E 99]

"Separation of Powers" does not mean that each branch holds absolute power within its domain, and none of the other branches can tell it what to do.

"Separation of Powers" means that, of those powers enjoyed by the government, each branch wields a separate set of powers, that often oppose each other so as to create a balance. It does not mean all branches are "equal" in the sense that you meant. "Balanced" would be more appropriate.

It is entirely unclear how you mean those two statements to mean different things. There are some powers which are divided between branches, and other powers which are vested entirely in one of the three branches. The only sense that the branches were not meant to be "equal" is that the judiciary was meant to be inferior to the two representative branches.

The Legislative branch creates the legal code that define not just what is legal and illegal but also allowed government behavior. They define what the government looks like, including the executive branch. President Bush couldn't just go and create the Department of Homeland Security because he felt like it, he had to ask Congress to authorize this and more importantly to allocate government funds.

If the founders had given the legislature the power to control executive behavior, they would have completely failed at providing a check against the legislature and preventing a legislative tyranny, which was one of their greatest fears.

Maybe you noticed how President Bush had to get his own choice for Attorney General approved by Congress? That's because the law that establishes the Department of Justice says so. This is case of one branch wielding direct power over another.

No! Cabinet-level positions must be confirmed by the Senate because the CONSTITUTION gives them that power, not because they gave themselves that power.

They are the only branch with this power -- any claim by Bush or the AG or anyone else that something is or is not legal is merely an opinion with zero weight until the court rules on it.

You are making Thomas Jefferson spin in his grave. The OPINIONS of the Supreme Court have weight only for the Supreme Court and their inferior courts. The only legal opinion that matters or carries any weight in the exercise of executive power, is the opinion of the AG, or by extension the Office of Legal Counsel. Thomas Jefferson is on record making emotional tirades against those who share your opinion of a super-court that lords over the elected government.

And when someone -- including a member of another branch in government -- is seen not to be in compliance with the law, the court absolutely has the power to order them to cease.

Not according to the Supreme Court itself in Marbury v. Madison. It said, in fact, that it did not have constitutional authority to order an officer of the government to obey a statute, and that the act of Congress that sought to give them that power was in fact unconstitutional.

Re:Separation of Powers

[Chris Burke]

It is entirely unclear how you mean those two statements to mean different things.

In the one case -- the wrong case -- it means that each branch is completely immune to interference by the other, and wields all government power within their own organization. In the other case -- the correct case -- each branch wields a distinct set of powers that apply fully to the other branches, and by creating a network of such powers we create what is called "Checks and Balances" -- one branch wielding power against another and vice versa so that neither may exercise complete power within their branch or otherwise.

If you knew what "Checks and balances" actually meant then this wouldn't be that hard to grasp.

If the founders had given the legislature the power to control executive behavior, they would have completely failed at providing a check against the legislature and preventing a legislative tyranny, which was one of their greatest fears.

But... they did. Congress controls the purse strings, they control what agencies the Executive Branch creates, they control the jurisdictions of the various law enforcement agencies that operate under the President, they control when the President is able to put on his Commander in Chief hat and engage in war with other countries. You don't know anything at all if you think the legislative branch can't control executive behavior, because basically every aspect of the executive branch's apparatus is defined by the legislature.

The Executive Branch's power that checks this one is the veto. Also, he is free to operate his branch as he sees fit within the confines of the law created by Congress.

No! Cabinet-level positions must be confirmed by the Senate because the CONSTITUTION gives them that power, not because they gave themselves that power.

Go ahead and look for the Department of Justice and the Attorney General in the Constitution. These organizations, and the financing they receive, were created by Congress.

You are making Thomas Jefferson spin in his grave. The OPINIONS of the Supreme Court have weight only for the Supreme Court and their inferior courts. The only legal opinion that matters or carries any weight in the exercise of executive power, is the opinion of the AG, or by extension the Office of Legal Counsel. Thomas Jefferson is on record making emotional tirades against those who share your opinion of a super-court that lords over the elected government.

Oh, this idiotic theory again. No, the opinions of the Supreme Court are only issued in binding fashion within the confines of the Supreme Court, but once issued they carry weight everywhere that is under U.S. law! Or do you seriously believe that when the Court rules on something, the parties involved in the case must only comply with that decision so long as they stand before the Court? That as soon as they walk out, the "opinion"(aka decision) of the Supreme Court no longer matters? That's so clearly not true it goes against the most basic of knowledge of how the judiciary works. Yes, they only rule on matters of law when a case is brought before them, but YES that ruling is binding across all branches of government.

In contrast, the Attorney General can never, ever issue a binding decision on a matter of law. The Attorney General's opinion is never, ever anything more than an opinion. Even within the Legislative Branch his opinion is nothing more than that; nobody except the AG's employees need respect anything the AG says and then only because they'd be fired, not because it would carry any legal consequence. Bush himself has ignored the opinion of his AG several times so I don't know why you think the AG's opinion is ever binding.

What's funny is that Jefferson railed just as much against an untouchable executive who was free to wield power without restraint. And under your theory of Constitutional Law that's exactly what we'd have, since no law passed by Congress

Re:Separation of Powers

[E 99]

But... they did. Congress controls the purse strings, they control what agencies the Executive Branch creates, they control the jurisdictions of the various law enforcement agencies that operate under the President

Yes, the Constitution gives Congress the power to create and fund the executive agencies. The Constitution gives the President the power to run the executive agencies.

they control when the President is able to put on his Commander in Chief hat and engage in war with other countries. You don't know anything at all if you think the legislative branch can't control executive behavior, because basically every aspect of the executive branch's apparatus is defined by the legislature.

Nothing could be further from the plain text of the Constitution or the behavior of the founding fathers. Congress never gave President Washington permission to go to war with the Northwest Indian confederations. Congress never gave President Jefferson permission to go to war against the Ottoman Empire. Nor did they complain when he did. Nor did they feel any need to issue a Declaration of War. (because the power of Command-in-Chief is vested by the Constitution in the President, and everyone in Congress at the time had actually read the Constitution.)

One of the most important checks placed on the legislature by the founding fathers is the fact that the President has the independent duty to not execute any law that violates Constitution, and is not the puppet of the legislature.

Go ahead and look for the Department of Justice and the Attorney General in the Constitution. These organizations, and the financing they receive, were created by Congress.

Yes, because the CONSTITUTION gives the the power to create cabinet-level agencies, and gives the Senate the power to confirm the nominees to cabinet-level positions.

Oh, this idiotic theory again. No, the opinions of the Supreme Court are only issued in binding fashion within the confines of the Supreme Court, but once issued they carry weight everywhere that is under U.S. law! Or do you seriously believe that when the Court rules on something, the parties involved in the case must only comply with that decision so long as they stand before the Court? That as soon as they walk out, the "opinion"(aka decision) of the Supreme Court no longer matters? That's so clearly not true it goes against the most basic of knowledge of how the judiciary works. Yes, they only rule on matters of law when a case is brought before them, but YES that ruling is binding across all branches of government.

Yes, that's the way the court system does, and always has, worked. The idea that the Court's opinion is binding on the other branches of government is something akin to modern urban legend, perpetuated by those who think their ideology stands to gain ground by exaggerating the power of the Court. Nothing in the history of actual U.S. legal proceedings jibes with that. The Court only has jurisdiction only over its cases. They can decide, as they have, that human fetuses aren't really people, or that blacks aren't really people, and therefore make it impossible for the executive branch to successfully prosecute any crimes against fetuses or blacks, and make it meaningless for Congress to make any laws to protect fetuses or blacks, but they can't dictate how those branches read the Constitution, or command them as to how they are to execute their elected offices. The idea that they can would be utterly absurd as it would vest ALL governmental power in that one branch. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of the

Re:Separation of Powers

[Chris Burke]

Yes, the Constitution gives Congress the power to create and fund the executive agencies. The Constitution gives the President the power to run the executive agencies.

Yes, run them within the guidelines that Congress has given. Congress doesn't just create the agency and then let the President decide what it does, they create them and define exactly what that agency is for, what jurisdictions it is allowed to operate in, and even what the defined functions of its officers are. Here's the section that covers the Attorney General. Note first that it is fairly specific as to what the duties of that office actually are, meaning the President can't just decide that the Attorney General is in charge of railroads and national holidays, and second note that the only thing in there regarding the AG's opinion on law is as an adviser or prosecutor.

Yes, because the CONSTITUTION gives the the power to create cabinet-level agencies, and gives the Senate the power to confirm the nominees to cabinet-level positions.

Yes, the CONSTITUTION gives Congress powers that allow it some control over the Executive branch. I'm glad you've finally admitted this plainly obvious fact.

The Court only has jurisdiction only over its cases.

And this is a court case, to which the Executive Branch is a party, and therefore the Court's decisions are binding on the Executive Branch, including orders to not destroy evidence.

Like I keep saying, the Court's power to decide matters of law does in fact only occur within the auspices of a court case. However once this occurs, those decisions are in fact binding across all branches.

The opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel is binding on all the executive agencies, in no greater or lessor way than the opinion of the Supreme Court is binding on the inferior courts.

I refer you once again to the actual legal code of the U.S., where there is no mention of the AG ever making a binding legal decision. You're basically just making that up, but it holds no water.

And more to the point, if I get called into the AG's office, and he says I'm breaking the law, I can laugh in his face and walk out. If I get called into court, and the Judge says I'm breaking the law, the bailiff will take me away. In fact the only way the AG could stop me from laughing in his face and walking out is if he first goes to a judge and asks permission to hold me. Because, as is obvious to anyone who knows anything, the AG can't issue binding legal decisions but the courts can.

On the contrary, under your theory, the courts could direct the actions of the entire government.

If lawsuits are brought against the court for every such action and the court decides the plaintiffs have standing and the court has jurisdiction in every such action, and the court rules against the government in every such action... Then yes. That's how the government works. You've certainly seen it in action, so I don't know how you can keep denying it.

Why does this not result in rule by judiciary? Because the judiciary must in fact see each of these cases! But once they do see the case, and issue a ruling, absolutely can that ruling direct the actions of the government.

Whereas if they could not do this, then the Executive would be free to ignore any law passed by Congress because any ruling made by the judiciary regarding that law would be non-binding.

Good thing the Founders were smarter than you, and understand that having separate branches that can hold influence over the others and thus keep each other in "check" is much better than one in which no branch can ever hold influence over the others, and thus each branch is free to do absolutely whatever it wants. I mean... you really don't understand this?

First of all, Mar

Re:Separation of Powers

[E 99]

The opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel is binding on all the executive agencies, in no greater or lessor way than the opinion of the Supreme Court is binding on the inferior courts.

I refer you once again to the actual legal code of the U.S., where there is no mention of the AG ever making a binding legal decision. You're basically just making that up, but it holds no water.

Uh, while you were scanning the U.S. Code for the phrase "the AG can make binding legal decisions", how many times did you come across the phrase "judges can make binding legal decisions"?

The Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93 makes the Attorney General the provider of legal opinion to the President, and Article II, section 1 of the Constitution vests all executive power in the President, making such legal opinion "legal binding" on the entire executive branch and its agencies.

And more to the point, if I get called into the AG's office, and he says I'm breaking the law, I can laugh in his face and walk out. If I get called into court, and the Judge says I'm breaking the law, the bailiff will take me away. In fact the only way the AG could stop me from laughing in his face and walking out is if he first goes to a judge and asks permission to hold me. Because, as is obvious to anyone who knows anything, the AG can't issue binding legal decisions but the courts can.

That is utterly wrong. The AG, or even your local police officer can -- and will -- arrest you if the officer possesses probable cause that you have committed a felony, or if the officer has witnessed you commit a misdemeanor. That arrest is precisely as "legally binding" as an arrest served from a judge's arrest warrant. In either case the arrest is exactly as "legally binding" as the probable cause.

And this is a court case, to which the Executive Branch is a party, and therefore the Court's decisions are binding on the Executive Branch, including orders to not destroy evidence.

Yes, and even the conservative Marshall Court explicitly ruled that the Supreme Court does in fact have the power to issue rulings on cases that compel an Executive officer to comply with statutes. They only ruled that in that particular case that they did not have jurisdiction, not all cases to which the government is a party, because that would be un-Constitutional.

You've obviously not read the case. I suggest you do so, before stating what it says. The opinion states that 1) The Constitution give only ORIGINAL jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases involving executive officers, that 2) a writ of mandamus can ONLY be given by court with appellate jurisdiction, and that therefore 3) the Supreme Court cannot, ever, unless by constitutional amendment, issue a writ of mandamus as a remedy in a suit against an executive officer.

As far as the court having the authority to order an executive officer to retain records, or otherwise direct him in matters that usually fall under his own discretion, that would have been unthinkable to Justice Marshall, as would be evident to anyone who read the opinion:

"By the constitution of the United States, the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.

In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entruste

The Funny Thing About National Security

[Comatose51]

The funny thing with "national security" is that they can read all your emails but you can't see any of theirs, even though our Constitution states otherwise. Well it's only a "goddamn piece of paper".

Offsite or no email

[hey]

I recall reading that this administration was already using an obscurely named .com site for email for this
very reason. The other effect of this rule -- future presidents won't use email but IMs or IR blasting, etc.

Re:Way too late

[jackpot777]

Meh! The Clinton administration did plenty of shredding too. Not to mention how he let OBL go when he could have nabbed him.

Googled August 20, 1998

Saying "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists," Clinton pounded the bejesus out of al Qaeda locations. Note: Iraq was not on the list. Note: Taliban released a report confirming that OBL wasn't killed, despite our efforts.

So what was the response to this attempt to nab him?

Glad you asked.

But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of Clinton's severest critics earlier in the week, said, "There's an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation."

Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), a possible presidential candidate in 2000, noted "there is a cloud over this presidency."

And Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who called on Clinton to resign after his speech Monday, said: "The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action."

Not some bystanders. Not some pundits. Senators. Saying that maybe OBL was "diversionary motivation". Saying that trying to nab him put "a cloud" over the presidency. Brushing it off as "this issue." You might have noticed which side of the political divide they're all on.

You know: you can listen to as much spin and lies and distortion as you like, but it's not going to alter the past no matter how much you repeat it. You don't redefine the history that's already written, and viewable with just the easiest of Google searches, by repeating a lie. You can watch all the dramatic made-for-TV pieces you like that try to rewrite history to your liking ...but it's nowt next to the established timeline. To fact. To how things really happened, and were reported as such AT THE TIME.

Either live in reality, or keep your delusions to yourself.

Cheers.

Re:What a waste of tax money...

[nomadic]

All this over a CIA "operative" whose was not a covert agent. Per federal regulations, she was no longer considered covert because she had not received a covert assignment in over five years.

She was a covert agent at the time of Novak's column. Anyone who says otherwise is just making stuff up.

Ready your bots

[billcopc]

Time to start flooding whitehouse.gov with spam. Overload their storage system, and they will eventually give up on email storage. It's a pipe dream, but if the white house won't log their mail, maybe we'll see a tiny bit less push on big-brother bills.

White House Ordered to Preserve All Email

[bsur2000]

If the Bush Administration ever decides to begin paying any attention to Court Orders, or the laws of this nation,or the Constitutionthis would certainly seem an unlikely point for them to begin.

Re:Way too late

[janrinok]

Your reply suggests that, because both parties seem to do it, destroying evidence is acceptable. Is that really how you decided your standards, or wouldn't you prefer to clean the whole matter up by making all politicians act like decent people?

Re:Way too late

[jackpot777]

Just wanted to point out something. Disclaimer: I have voted for Tony Blair, and have never voted Conservative Party.

The parent of my answer started in this thread with dismissiveness. I've seen it used before by many others as a tactic to downplay the gravity of a situation they don't wish people to openly discuss, especially when it comes to politics (and in this case, American politics). It gets marked as funny, fair enough. But +3? Really?

The post I specifically answered mentioned one historically inaccurate sleight concerning Slick Willy Clinton in that he didn't go after OBL. This post, a few minutes ago, was at +3. I showed, with no error, he did. I countered with two links. Both from the same week in 1998. One showing Clinton going after OBL, the second one showing the lack of support the American C-in-C received from 'across the aisle', as they'd say in Washington.

This was marked down one point before being marked +1 for informative.

Disagreeing with me politically? Makes the world go around. But seriously: if you think that fellow geeks, or history, or myself, will think the facts are anything other than the facts because I get marked down by a few people with a conservative American political agenda on Slashdot? Good luck with that. How's that working for you in Iraq and possibly Iran?

Hell, I'd accept a Flamebait for this clarification as justification of just how much many Americans (and some are in this forum) will dismiss cited facts because of the cognitive dissonance it sets up in their minds, if it strokes their poor delicate and shattered egos. It's not as though that mental process is particularly complex.

Re:Way too late

[Cro Magnon]

I never said it was acceptable. I said it wasn't JUST Bush & Republicans that did it. I agree that both parties need to clean up their acts badly. But to bash the Republicans and to ignore the Democrat's own abuses is a serious mistake, because it means we'll just replace one set of evil crooks with another.

Off-site backups

[jabber]

The judge's order "should stop any future destruction of e-mails, but the White House stopped archiving its e-mail in 2003 and we don't know if some backup tapes for those e-mails were already taped over before we went to court. It's a mystery," said Meredith Fuchs, a lawyer for the National Security Archive.'"

It boggles the mind that the White House would not store a duplicate backup at an off-site location to prevent a disaster from taking out all their backups. It is the sane and reasonable thing to do. They do with with their top executives, shuffling them to "undisclosed locations" whenever anyone in the Middle East so much as sneezes.

The financial and many other high-security institutions are required to store all their backups - documents, email and even IM logs - off-site. This the the bread and butter of companies like Iron Mountain. How the White House does not have this as basic security policy is absolutely boggling. It seems almost a deliberate "oversight".

Re:What a waste of tax money...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Plame was 'covert' agent at time of name leak

"WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003."

There is an extremely effective propaganda machine churning out misinformation. It, too, should be investigated.

Yeah, right.

[Etrias]

Blanket statements without proof are a tough way to defend any position.

Let me help you clear your cognitive dissonance.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf

Re:Why is this still an issue? Hello.. Armitage?

[Rambuncle]

And it is WELL understood by now just how political many in the CIA had become during the Clinton years.

You're right. It is WELL understood that they were not very political.

Re:Meredith Fuchs?

[rasputin465]

...said Meredith Fuchs, a lawyer for...

bummer of a last name

Cufflinks? (was Re:Check with AT&T?)

[pluther]

We may as well argue about who has the nicer cufflinks.

Okay, I have a lovely platinum set of cufflinks. They are round and have a bias relief of an eagle. The eagle's eye is made out of a small (don't know the carat offhand) diamond.

You are up.

I have a set that are hand-carved out of some kind of dark hard wood, polished smooth.

They are in the shape of the Starfleet logo from the original series.

Beat that.

How to pronounce Fuchs

[RedBear]

Been a long time since I've seen that last name attached to anyone. For anyone out there wondering exactly how to pronounce the name "Fuchs", I just happen to have gone to elementary school* with someone by that name. His family pronounced it "fox". He would always get really irritated when I messed with him by pronouncing it "futches". There is another way to pronounce it, of course, but I don't think anyone anywhere actually uses that pronunciation...

* Holy crap, that was almost a quarter century ago already. Get off my lawn!

Re:How to pronounce Fuchs

[photomonkey]

I know a guy named Fuchs. He pronounces it "fyooks".

Re:How to pronounce Fuchs

[henni16]

Fuchs is the German word for fox.
The German pronunciation is more like "foocks".

Audio pronunciation example for "der Fuchs" ("the fox") at the dictionary leo.org:

http://dict.leo.org/le?9799018

Re:Way too late

[Scudsucker]

But to bash the Republicans and to ignore the Democrat's own abuses is a serious mistake, because it means we'll just replace one set of evil crooks with another.

Please, not only are Dems and Republicans not on the same page here, they aren't even on the same planet. The worst of what wingnut Republicans think Clinton did in their paranoid fantasies is dwarfed by what Bush has actually done.

See, here's the problem

[spun]

Dems, lefties and progressives in general have such a reputation as goody-goodies that we can't say things like 'George W Bush and his Republican supporters are traitors,' without getting shat on, even when it's true. Repubs and conservatives in general say things like , "Dems are all traitors who should be hanged by their balls until dead," and for some reason, not only do they get away with it, but some people actually stop to debate whether ball-hanging is good enough for 'em. Even on a so-called (by the conservatives) 'progressive' site like Slashdot. Go figure :-/

Re:haha, who are they kidding?

[mfnickster]

Actually, that was a Watergate reference, but perhaps Contact was, ah, fresher in your memory. :)

Re:Way too late

[kmankmankman2001]

|Either live in reality, or keep your delusions to yourself. You can't reason with people that get all their news from Bill O'Reilly.

Most companies do this

[sheldon]

It's easier to just auto-delete after x number of days, then to try to set quotas and convince people to manage their inbox.

It's gone Bob.

[/dev/trash]

All the 'good' stuff is already gone.

Re:Way too late

[pfleming]

This sounds like a child's response when they get in trouble.

Mom: Johnny, did you skip school today?
Johnny: Jimmy did it too! That doesn't make it all right. And what Nixon got impeached for is nothing like what we're doing now under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Why the debate? Mod me down

[djfuq]

Just wanted to take a dump on this playful banter of a topic: This is all bullshit - these political systems are too complex and nobody is really responsible for the chaos - just a bunch of people getting what they want or failing miserably at the cost of others. It is hardly worth the effort to hammer it all out and figure out what is accurate/inaccurate good/bad right/wrong /legal/illegal because every example given is half truth and scandalous. These guys run the country or pretend they do - you may have voted for or against them or not at all. Tough luck because it is all based on nothing and your vote does not count for anything ever. "Case in point" It all really doesn't make a difference who it is who emailed who because it is all crap and nobody has the time or resources to archive the friggin world - then play it back - and nobody would be allowed to anyway because it would scare someone. Nobody controls jack shit and nobody knows jack shit. The world has become an unmanageable incomprehensible mess of talking heads and pointing fingers but in the end we all will die and the sun will stop shining here and zillions of emails and records will be wasted in a catastrophic event. Happy now? Just make your money and eat your food. /a geopolitical nihilist paradigm

Re:What a waste of tax money...

[Duhavid]

Don't answer this, except to yourself....

If a Democrat had outed a CIA "operative" who was similarly
placed as Plame, would you be arguing the same on his/her/its
behalf?

Re:Way too late

[jollyreaper]

Props for your post, man. I'm sick of people who argue rhetoric instead of facts. My favorite quote on the matter: "Sir, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts."

Re:Way too late

[DeepZenPill]

Although it's quite convenient that the 3 examples you gave were all from Republican senators, it should be noted that Arlen Specter is considered a Republican in Name Only by many Republicans and was in fact opposed to Clinton's impeachment. He was critical of his own party throughout the proceedings and argued for a verdict of "not proven."

He has also been quite critical of the Bush administration, so throwing his name out in a list with the likes of John Ashcroft, pointing to the fact that they're both Republicans and critics of Clinton's military action grossly mis-portrays the man's actual political leanings. God forbid our representatives question the possibility of military action for political motives, if more had done the same during the Bush administration things might not be so awful.

Re:What a waste of tax money...

[operagost]

A public question gets a public answer. Yes, because a lie is a lie. And unlike the liars above, the liar who modded me down and the liars at MSNBC, the truth is that SHE WAS NO LONGER AN OPERATIVE.

Re:What a waste of tax money...

[Duhavid]

Fair enough.

Honest question. All I have seen so far tells me that
she was considered an operative. You maintain she was
not, and I think I saw on another of your posts that
there was something about no assignments in 5 years.

How could I confirm this for myself?

Keeping all spam requires lots of storage...

[hadaso]

Keeping all spam requires lots of storage...
Does the white house have any other communications worth keeping?

Re:Way too late

[Scudsucker]

Thanks for helping me prove my point, along with a new one: you wingnuts are infallibly wrong any time you open your mouths. If someone were to ask you if water was wet, you'd get the answer wrong.

Yeah, remember when the Chinese shot down one of the US satellites with the missile technology that Clinton gave them?

See, you're so damn stupid you misspell "Hughes Electronics" as "Clinton". But on my first point: remember when Bush apologized to that same batch of communists when they kept our air crew hostage after a mid air crash clearly caused by their pilot?

Remember the Carnivore database that Gore was creating until the Republicans prevented it?

It wasn't a database dipshit, it was a packet sniffing program to be set up on a specific LAN. That the FBI would have used when they obtained a warrant. Yet in the minds of you wingnuts, a limited software program to be used under a warrant is somehow far worse than a vast program to tap communications with no warrant. Because you are that damn stupid.

The world "loves the dems" because they make sure the whole world can fuck the US in the ass any time it wants.

Al Queda determined to attack the U.S., maybe using planes. My Pet Goat. Dubai Ports. Spank spank nazi beyach.

We got the current moron because the US was so sick of the Clintons they wouldn't give Gore a chance.

You mean Al Gore, who won the popular election by 500,000 votes? That would have won Florida if a statewide recount had been completed?

It will ALMOST be worth it to watch you fuckers scratching your heads in wonder when Hillary, using the precedence of her predecessor, is goose-stepping and frog-marching everyone around.

Her aborted attempt to pass health care aside, you guys should love Hillary. A tool for lobbyists, a former Republican, on the board of Wal-Mart for 6 years, a military hawk, and her law firm worked for big business. And yet you hate her guts, because she has a D after her name instead of an R. Because you are that damn stupid.