Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Since AT&T has been spying on everyone since spring of 2000, why not ask them for copies of Whitehouse and NRC.com emails?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
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.
My blog
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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...
Why shouldn't we get to see their emails? After all, if they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.
Oh, wait...
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.
Firstly I would like to state I'm not an American citizen (I'm Australian).
... to the fullest extent of humanity.
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
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.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
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: 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.
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."
This just in: archivist reports that 18.5 minutes worth of presidential e-mails contain nothing but whitespace.
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
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.
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
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 :(
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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.
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
Either live in reality, or keep your delusions to yourself.
Cheers.
Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
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.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
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.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
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.