[OldManMac]

Just when you think this administration can't find another way to lie their way through scandal and corruption, they just keep on going. Of course, the missing e-mails just happen to conveniently be from Karl Rove. Have these people no shame?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202408_pf.html

Rove E-Mail Sought by Congress May Be Missing
RNC Took Away His Access to Delete Files in 2005
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 13, 2007; A01

A lawyer for the Republican National Committee told congressional staff members yesterday that the RNC is missing at least four years' worth of e-mail from White House senior adviser Karl Rove that is being sought as part of investigations into the Bush administration, according to the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

GOP officials took issue with Rep. Henry Waxman's account of the briefing and said they still hope to find the e-mail as they conduct forensic work on their computer equipment. But they acknowledged that they took action to prevent Rove -- and Rove alone among the two dozen or so White House officials with RNC accounts -- from deleting his e-mails from the RNC server. Waxman (D-Calif.) said he was told the RNC made that move in 2005.

In a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Waxman said the RNC lawyer, Rob Kelner, also raised the possibility that Rove had personally deleted the missing e-mails, all dating back to before 2005. GOP officials said Kelner was merely speaking hypothetically about why e-mail might be missing for any staffer and not referring to Rove in particular.

The disclosures helped fan the controversy over what the White House has acknowledged to be the improper use of political e-mail accounts to conduct official government business.

Democrats are suspicious that Rove and other senior officials were using the political accounts, set up by the RNC, to avoid scrutiny from Congress. E-mails already in the public record suggest that at least some White House officials were mindful of a need not to discuss certain matters within the official White House e-mail system.

Yesterday, congressional Democrats denounced the White House after administration officials acknowledged this week that e-mails dealing with official government business, including the firing of U.S. attorneys, may have been lost because they were improperly sent through political messaging accounts. Twenty-two White House officials -- and a total of about 50 over the course of the administration -- have been given such accounts to avoid doing political work on government equipment.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, accused the White House of lying about the matter. He was joined by the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), in calling on the White House to join Congress in setting up a "fair and objective process for investigating this matter."

"You can't erase e-mails, not today," Leahy said in an angry speech on the Senate floor. "They've gone through too many servers. Those e-mails are there -- they just don't want to produce them. It's like the infamous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes."

White House officials rejected that explanation. "What we have done has been forthcoming, honest," spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We are trying to understand to the best of our ability the universe of the e-mails that were potentially lost, and we are taking steps to make sure that we use the forensics that are available to retrieve any of those that are lost."

The disclosures came as White House counsel Fred F. Fielding rejected demands for a compromise on providing testimony and records to Congress related to the prosecutor firings. In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, Fielding said the White House is standing firm with its "unified offer," which would include providing a limited set of documents. The White House has proposed allowing Rove and other aides to be interviewed privately, without a transcript and not under oath.

Fielding also wrote that it "remains our intention to collect e-mails and documents" from the RNC and other outside accounts used by White House officials. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved, but did not issue, new subpoenas for the Justice Department yesterday.

Gonzales, meanwhile, has been preparing for a pivotal appearance on Tuesday before the committee, including mock testimony sessions lasting up to five hours a day, officials said.

E-mails from Rove and other White House officials potentially figure in a number of congressional investigations. Democrats are seeking the RNC e-mails as part of an effort to determine the extent of Rove's role in firing the U.S. attorneys and the alleged politicization at the General Services Administration.

The RNC yesterday turned over to the White House a copy of e-mail records for administration officials still on the RNC server to determine whether any of them are privileged or whether they can be provided to congressional investigators. Officials indicated that they would include post-2005 e-mails from Rove.

GOP officials said they are also trying to determine whether they can recover other e-mail that may have been deleted through regular purges of e-mails or by deliberate deletion by White House staff. Waxman said the RNC indicated that it had destroyed all e-mail records from White House officials in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

In 2004, the RNC exempted White House officials from its policy of purging all e-mail after 30 days, so any lost e-mail after that date would have been presumably deleted by a White House official.

"We do not know what exists pre-2005 -- we are in the process of trying to determine what, if anything, does," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said. Another GOP official familiar with the inner workings of the RNC said officials have no evidence that Rove had deliberately deleted any e-mail. Kelner referred calls to the RNC, and the White House said Rove was not available to comment.

Republican officials also said there was nothing nefarious in their decision to take precautions to preserve Rove's e-mail. According to Waxman, Kelner told his staff that the RNC commenced a program in 2005 that took away Rove's ability to personally delete his e-mails. GOP officials said that was done only to preserve records for possible use in legal settings, not out of any concern that Rove would seek to scrub his e-mail account.

Erasing an e-mail message beyond hope of retrieval is not easy, experts said.

In general, deleting any file on a computer does not make it go away, because the computer normally will erase not the file but rather its own records of it. "The data is not gone until it is overwritten," said John Christopher, senior data-recovery engineer at Novato, Calif.-based DriveSavers. The "deleted" file will remain on the hard drive, where it can still be found and read until other data are saved to the same spot.

The same thing happens with e-mail: Trashing a message only means that the mail program clears its records of where it had filed that e-mail in its own database.

Paul Robichaux, a principal with the Redmond, Wash., technology services firm 3Sharp and the author of three books about Microsoft's e-mail software, compared it to a library that removes the entry for a book from its card catalogue: "The book is still on the shelf."

[Dakarʒ]

Doing official emailing on a non-official system? Now, why would they do that?

[Mithras]

The bit about taking special measures to prevent Rove from deleting his email is just precious.

[osiris]

I never heard of a company purging emails after 90 days. No one backed the servers up?
Strange and shifty.

[Chuckit]

They seem to be suggesting that somebody scrub the entire drive (or more likely series of drives) for deleted e-mails. Yowza.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I never heard of a company purging emails after 90 days. No one backed the servers up?
Strange and shifty.

I have, it's actually quite common. My old company had a "E-mail retention" policy which was essentially a mandate that all e-mail correspondence be deleted after 90 days unless there was a compelling business reason to keep it. It was essentially a CYA move to prevent discovery of information in a lawsuit. Deleting E-mails after you're served with a subpoena is a big no-no, but there's nothign wrong with deleting them before you get served! And as long as it's part of a regular company policy, no court would object.

Even though I can understand why this was done (who wants to carry around six blackberrys, after all?), this is still a monumental, colossal screw-up on the part of the Republcians in the White House. We can expect the Democratically-controlled Congress to subpoena the RNC E-mail servers any day now. That will be fun to watch.

It should be noted that the Law of Unintended Consequences is in play here, with two laws butting heads: the Presidential Records act, which dictates that all Presidential correspondence be saved, and the Hatch Act, which prohibits the use of Government resources for non-government activities. Essentially, all Government business is supposed to be done with only Government resources, and all Political Party business must only be done with party resources. In this day and age of instant communications and E-mail and voice-mail forwarding, we shouldn't be suprised that people forwarded stuff around to make their lives easier. In this situation, if your blackberry is connected to one of those e-mail accounts, wouldn't you forward all mail going to the other one to your blackberry?

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I have, it's actually quite common. My old company had a "E-mail retention" policy which was essentially a mandate that all e-mail correspondence be deleted after 90 days unless there was a compelling business reason to keep it. It was essentially a CYA move to prevent discovery of information in a lawsuit. Deleting E-mails after you're served with a subpoena is a big no-no, but there's nothign wrong with deleting them before you get served! And as long as it's part of a regular company policy, no court would object.

Even though I can understand why this was done (who wants to carry around six blackberrys, after all?), this is still a monumental, colossal screw-up on the part of the Republcians in the White House. We can expect the Democratically-controlled Congress to subpoena the RNC E-mail servers any day now. That will be fun to watch.

Interesting, I did not know about the 90 day thing. I have emails going back to before there was email.

This will be fun to watch.

[Orion27]

How come Leahy never investigated Sandy Berger, stealing from the National Archives?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009522

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2038

Another example of Leahy revealing confidential information occurred just before the Iran-Contra hearings were to begin, when he allowed an NBC reporter to look through the Senate Intelligence Committee's confidential draft report on the burgeoning scandal. After NBC used the privileged information in a January 1987 report, Leahy came under increasing fire, and after a six-month internal investigation he was forced to step down from his seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Leahy's leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy in the Intelligence Committee's then-10-year history.

National Security can't be trusted with the Democrats.

[zwiebel_]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

How come Leahy never investigated Sandy Berger, stealing from the National Archives?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009522

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2038



National Security can't be trusted with the Republicans.

Fixinated

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

How come Leahy never investigated Sandy Berger, stealing from the National Archives?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009522

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2038



National Security can't be trusted with the Democrats.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

How come Leahy never investigated Sandy Berger, stealing from the National Archives?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009522

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2038



National Security can't be trusted with the Democrats.

I don't know about that issue off the top of my head, and that wasn't the subject of this discussion. Do try to pay attention, and not obfuscate the issue. If you want, start your own thread on this subject; no one is stopping you.

[Jawbone54]

Try looking in Sandy Berger's socks.

[Dakarʒ]

That's a quality post.

[BRussell]

Notice that Rove was using Republican party email to discuss US Attorney firings.

1) Isn't that prima facie evidence that his involvement in the US Attorney firings was political in nature?

2) Doesn't that mean that these emails are not covered by executive privilege? The president's executive and constitutional authority doesn't cover Republican party political activities.

[Dakarʒ]

That's a good point. If he didn't want to use the official servers for official business it shouldn't be protected. After all he had no good reason to avoid using them unless he was trying to avoid leaving a trail.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

How come Leahy never investigated Sandy Berger, stealing from the National Archives?

Maybe because Berger was prosecuted and convicted for what he did (by the very Bush Justice Department currently being investigated for these US Attorney firings)?

[tie]

I really can't see how Bush is claiming that RNC activities are covered by executive privilege.

This just gets slimier and slimier. I don't know that it will lead to anything, though, besides exposing how poorly the administration operates in every matter.

[Jawbone54]

I didn't even see the Sandy Berger comment before I posted. That takes some of the steam out, doesn't it?

Of course the firings were political in nature. Clinton's were as well. Everything that both party does is political in nature. That's the way Washington works. I'm tired of the whole system. I want my money back.

I'm buying an island and founding Jawbonia. Anyone up for being my first citizen?

[Dakarʒ]

Not with a name like that.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by tie 

I really can't see how Bush is claiming that RNC activities are covered by executive privilege.

The claim would be that even if Administration staff improperly used their RNC e-mail addresses to make privleged communication, that doesn't revoke the privileged nature of the communication.

Pretty shaky, if you ask me.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Not with a name like that.

That was my first thought as well

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

What does this whole flap have to do with anything? Some Democrat manufactured political crises. The whole thing is a joke. Let's get real.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I don't know about that issue off the top of my head, and that wasn't the subject of this discussion. Do try to pay attention, and not obfuscate the issue. If you want, start your own thread on this subject; no one is stopping you.

I'm telling you this topic is joke. Leahy is joke and an embarrassment to the nation.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Notice that Rove was using Republican party email to discuss US Attorney firings.

1) Isn't that prima facie evidence that his involvement in the US Attorney firings was political in nature?

2) Doesn't that mean that these emails are not covered by executive privilege? The president's executive and constitutional authority doesn't cover Republican party political activities.

US Attorney's are political appointments by design. That's news to you?

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

What does this whole flap have to do with anything? Some Democrat manufactured political crises. The whole thing is a joke. Let's get real.

Yes, let's get back to Obama, our magic negro.

[Buckaroo]

Didn't the Clintons have the same problem? They lost emails, FBI files, Republican Tax forms, etc.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Yes, let's get back to Obama, our magic negro.

From the Associated Press: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

His understanding starting very, very early in the administration was that those e-mails were being archived," Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said.

The prosecutor probing the Valerie Plame spy case saw and copied all of Rove's e-mails from his various accounts after searching Rove's laptop, his home computer, and the handheld computer devices he used for both the White House and Republican National Committee, Luskin said.
The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, subpoenaed the e-mails from the White House, the RNC and Bush's re-election campaign, he added.
"There's never been any suggestion that Fitzgerald had anything less than a complete record," Luskin said.
Any e-mails Rove deleted were the type of routine deletions people make to keep their inboxes orderly, Luskin said. He said Rove had no idea the e-mails were being deleted from the server, a central computer that managed the e-mail.

Couldn't find the bogeyman investigating Valerie Plame, so we just move along to the next manufactured scandal investigated by Leahy, the Reverend Sharpton of the Senate.

Ask Patrick Fitzgerald for his copies of all Rove's emails. Unless he has already trashed them. Democrats are a joke. Another manufactured bit of press.

[ironknee]

i'm waiting for the bush admin to say, "it was Rose Mary Woods who deleted them"

[olePigeon]

In other news, Nixon rose from the dead and exclaimed, "I'm sick of this ing 18 minutes coming back to bite me in the a- oh, email! Nevermind." The dead body of Nixon refused further comment.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

'"His understanding starting very, very early in the administration was that those e-mails were being archived," Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said.'

No one ever knows that they are breaking the law. It's always just an honest mistake.

If so, then why do they keep on lying about it?

More evidence of lying comes out today:

A Justice Department e-mail released on Friday shows that the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales proposed replacement candidates for seven United States attorneys nearly a year before those prosecutors were fired, in contrast to testimony last month in which the aide said that no successors were considered before the firings.
...
“If a decision is made to remove and replace a limited number of U.S. Attorneys, then the following might be considered for removal and possible replacement,” Mr. Sampson’s e-mail said.

But Mr. Sampson testified under oath on March 29 at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had no candidates in mind to replace any of the fired prosecutors.

At one point in the hearing, Charles E. Schumer, a Democratic Senator from New York, asked Mr. Sampson, “Did you or did you not have in mind specific replacements for the dismissed U.S. Attorneys before they were asked to resign on December 7th, 2006.”

Mr. Sampson, who was testifying under oath, replied, “I personally did not. On December 7th, I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/wa...orneys.html?hp

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

US Attorney's are political appointments by design. That's news to you?

No they're not. They're replaced at the start of a president's term, as every president has done including Bush. But after that, they're supposed to be insulated from political pressure, and they're not supposed to be fired for political reasons. Bush is the only one who has done that. That's news to you?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

No they're not. They're replaced at the start of a president's term, as every president has done including Bush. But after that, they're supposed to be insulated from political pressure, and they're not supposed to be fired for political reasons. Bush is the only one who has done that. That's news to you?

No sir. They can be dismissed at anytime.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

No sir. They can be dismissed at anytime.

When there is a just cause. Their refusals to investigate Democratic party leaders to unbury garbage is not a just cause.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

When there is a just cause. Their refusals to investigate Democratic party leaders to unbury garbage is not a just cause.

You say potato I say potahto!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

No sir. They can be dismissed at anytime.

Not for political reasons, they can't. And no president other than Bush has done it. It's illegal to fire a US Attorney if they fail to prosecute a particular case, such as, to pick a totally random hypothetical case out of thin air, a voter fraud case. It's called obstruction of justice.

Originally Posted by Orion27 

You say potato I say potahto!

Exactly, if 'potato' means 'truth' and 'potahto' means 'false Republican talking points.'

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Not for political reasons, they can't. And no president other than Bush has done it. It's illegal to fire a US Attorney if they fail to prosecute a particular case, such as, to pick a totally random hypothetical case out of thin air, a voter fraud case. It's called obstruction of justice.

Exactly, if 'potato' means 'truth' and 'potahto' means 'false Republican talking points.'

Show me the statute: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20070328a.html

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Show me the statute: US Attorney Firings Called 'Legal' But 'Improper' -- 03/28/2007

OK.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

OK.

Well obstrustion of Justice is one thing, firing the Attorneys is another. It's not illegal to fire the attorneys though. That was my point.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

You say potato I say potahto!

What a witty and intelligent response.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Well obstrustion of Justice is one thing, firing the Attorneys is another. It's not illegal to fire the attorneys though. That was my point.

Firing an attorney if he or she is not prosecuting a particular case that Karl Rove wants prosecuted is obstruction of justice.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

What a witty and intelligent response.

First of all, the emails the Democrats are whining about are available. Just ask Patrick Fitzgerald.
Second, it's not illegal to fire the Attorneys. So my answer is what else do you have to add? Evidence of wrongdoing of anykind? No. So the Democrats just keep digging, hoping to find something. Anything. They tried with Plame, and now another manufactured scandal. Those are the facts, despite all the whining here.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Firing an attorney if he or she is not prosecuting a particular case that Karl Rove wants prosecuted is obstruction of justice.

Says you and who else? Evidence? No! Blah Blah Blah.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

First of all, the emails the Democrats are whining about are available. Just ask Patrick Fitzgerald.
Second, it's not illegal to fire the Attorneys. So my answer is what else do you have to add? Evidence of wrongdoing of anykind? No. So the Democrats just keep digging, hoping to find something. Anything. They tried with Plame, and now another manufactured scandal. Those are the facts, despite all the whining here.

The whining I'm hear is coming from you and your anti-democrat tirade.

The Attorneys were instructed to investigate Democratic Party Leaders in order to dig up dirt to try and deface then in the eyes of the public. They refused to do so because it is not ethical. For that, they were fired. It was purely for political reasons, which is not supposed to be allowed. As we've already seen in the past, one reason can be stated for an action even though it wasn't the true reason. This applies to things that have been done by Democrats and Republicans alike.

If people weren't so quick to jump on a boat and throw accusations at their opposing party, more people would be able to see a situation clearly.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Says you and who else? Evidence? No! Blah Blah Blah.

1) Not just me. Obstruction of justice is even mentioned in the article you cited above.

2) There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that they were fired because they weren't prosecuting the specific cases the Bush political people wanted prosecuted. A Republican senator and a Republican congresswoman called a Republican US Attorney to ask how that prosecution against a Democrat was going. Soon after answering in the negative, he was fired. Another was fired during her prosecution of Republican congressman Duke Cunningham. The only direct evidence will come with emails in which they specifically state these things, which oops! just happened to be lost.

3) Hopefully you don't believe the standard for behavior is legality. I can call you a ****ing ***hole, and it wouldn't be illegal, but it would be wrong. Even if it wasn't illegal to fire these attorneys, it was absolutely unprecedented and it was wrong, and should be criticized by everyone who cares about their government.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

The whining I'm hear is coming from you and your anti-democrat tirade.

The Attorneys were instructed to investigate Democratic Party Leaders in order to dig up dirt to try and deface then in the eyes of the public. They refused to do so because it is not ethical. For that, they were fired. It was purely for political reasons, which is not supposed to be allowed. As we've already seen in the past, one reason can be stated for an action even though it wasn't the true reason. This applies to things that have been done by Democrats and Republicans alike.

If people weren't so quick to jump on a boat and throw accusations at their opposing party, more people would be able to see a situation clearly.

You would have done well as Duke Lacross player prosecuter. Lay out a hypothetical that's fit's your liberal bias, no matter the evidence, of which there is "none" and then convict in the press according to the template "before the trial". Then despite being found " innocent" as in the Valerie Plame case, pursue your indictment in the press because you just feel something is wrong. Typical.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

1) Not just me. Obstruction of justice is even mentioned in the article you cited above.

2) There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that they were fired because they weren't prosecuting the specific cases the Bush political people wanted prosecuted. A Republican senator and a Republican congresswoman called a Republican US Attorney to ask how that prosecution against a Democrat was going. Soon after answering in the negative, he was fired. Another was fired during her prosecution of Republican congressman Duke Cunningham. The only direct evidence will come with emails in which they specifically state these things, which oops! just happened to be lost.

3) Hopefully you don't believe the standard for behavior is legality. I can call you a ****ing ***hole, and it wouldn't be illegal, but it would be wrong. Even if it wasn't illegal to fire these attorneys, it was absolutely unprecedented and it was wrong, and should be criticized by everyone who cares about their government.

So you got in your underhanded ad hominem attack on me. Nice. Hope you have a nice time fishing. The emails aren't lost. Ask Patrick Fitzgerald. He has them all. Oh by the way, when does Leahy start his Sandy Berger invesitgation if he or you is so worried about your government?

[OldManMac]

Where is the "underhanded ad-hominem attack" on you?

[tie]

When did Fitzgerald subpoena Rove's computer? Did Fitzgerald subpoena the computers of every official with RNC email accounts? -- Rove is not the only person involved here. "Ask Patrick Fitzgerald. He has them all." I doubt it.

There is lots of evidence of lots of wrongdoing. The administration lied to Congress. And now we have illegally deleted emails. It looks like an illegal coverup, to hide illegal political dismissals. The dismissals may or may not have been legal. It is impossible to tell given that the administration has been trying to cover up their reasons -- partly by claiming that executive privilege extends to the RNC (!) and partly by deleting emails and lying in testimony. Why would the administration be breaking the law in the coverup if there were nothing illegal in the first place? You don't lie to Congress on a whim (well, I wouldn't).

(Regarding the Plame affair, it is also illegal to perjure yourself, to lie to the FBI, and to obstruct justice; and Libby did all three.)

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Where is the "underhanded ad-hominem attack" on you?

Have somethig positive to add Karl? I didn't think so.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

You would have done well as Duke Lacross player prosecuter. Lay out a hypothetical that's fit's your liberal bias, no matter the evidence, of which there is "none" and then convict in the press according to the template "before the trial". Then despite being found " innocent" as in the Valerie Plame case, pursue your indictment in the press because you just feel something is wrong. Typical.

My liberal bias? That's rich. I'd be just as concerned if the tables were reversed. I have no party affliation nor do I lean either way, which has be shown many times on these boards.

What about the two conservatives that disagreed with you earlier? Do they have "liberal" bias as well since they do not agree with your point of view?

Remove your political affliation blinders. It can do you wonders.