Democrats & Liberals Archives

5 Million Emails in 18 Minutes

Remember the Nixon tape gap? A mere 18 minutes. It looks like the Bush White House has the Nixon White House beat. It has lost 5 million emails. Remarkably no one knew about this until the Senate Judiciary Committee asked for the information. A few Nixon associates went to jail. I wonder if anyone will go to jail for not saving Bush White House communications, which is a federal crime?

Probably not.

Senate Judicial Committee Chairman Pat Leahy requested information from the White House regarding the recent firing of 8 U.S. attorneys. Amazingly, the newspapers tell us:

FIVE MILLION e-mails were lost by the White House according to a just released report from CREW called "WITHOUT A TRACE: The Missing White House Emails and the Violations of the Presidential Records Act." FIVE MILLION...that's insane.

Maybe it's insane for the rest of us. Not for the Bush White House. In any even, does anyone believe this? Not Leahy:

“They say they have not been preserved. I don’t believe that!” Leahy shouted from the Senate floor. “You can’t erase e-mails, not today. They’ve gone through too many servers. Those e-mails are there, they just don’t want to produce them. We’ll subpoena them if necessary.... Like the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes, it appears likely that key documentation has been erased or misplaced. This sounds like the Administration’s version of ‘the dog ate my homework.’”

How did this fiasco happen? Well, since shortly after Bush came into office, it was decided that many White House emails would contain "politically sensitive" information and therefore, should not easily get into the hands of snooping Democrats. So, several top officials were issued laptops with which they could tie into the email system of the Republican National Committee (RNC). This they used whenever the occasion called for it. Pretty neat, no?

At this point I remind you that the Presidential Records Act calls for the saving, not the deletion, of White House records. Looks like a crime has been committed here.

And who do you think is behind this outrageously corrupt event? I don't know, but I have my suspicions that are fed by this little tidbit:

One former White House staffer told National Journal recently that Rove uses his Republican National Committee e-mail account for 95 % of his e-mail communications.

Evidently, Karl Rove wants to hide 95% of his communications and almost 95% of his discussions with administraton officials and other Republicans. Why? Rove is supposed to be a senior advisor to the president. How come he does not want 95% of his emails to be archived in the White House? Maybe 95% of his responsibility is politics and only 5% has to do with governing.

Maybe Karl Rove came up with the brilliant idea of using the RNC email system. Maybe he gave the word that deleting the email messages would be better than turning them over to Senator Pat Leahy. Does this give you an inkling of what these emails contain?

I already know that Karl Rove is the chief corrupter of the political process in order to decrease Democratic votes and to gain Republican votes. Do you think the president will investigate this? The same way he investigated the Plame case. Do you think anyone will go to jail?

Nixon erased 18 minutes. Bush and his crony Rove are better at this game: they got rid of 5 million emails!

Posted by Paul Siegel at April 12, 2007 5:58 PM
Comment #216253

Some emails may be recoverable. This could be the impeachment wedge. Unfortunately, it may be necessary to impeach this bozo to stop his reckless adventures. I doubt impeachment will be successful prior to the election, but it will clarify the corruption of this administration.

Posted by: gergle at April 12, 2007 6:31 PM
Comment #216255

Is this all this Dem run congress has to do? For whatever reason those 8 attorneys were fired, so what. Congress has more important things to do, like social security, immigration, medical insurance, so quit wasting my tax money and get to work or as d.a.n. says vote out the incumbents.

Posted by: KAP at April 12, 2007 7:17 PM
Comment #216260

Hey Bush talked to Kissinger, maybe they talked about how to lose 18mins of emails/tapes and get away. Nixon left in shame, hopefully soon Bush will to.

Posted by: KT at April 12, 2007 7:40 PM
Comment #216270

It was only a matter of time before an unscrupulous President above the law would marry the lesson of the Nixon tapes with Executive Privilege and simply destroy all records of illegal, incompetent, and unethical behaviors.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 12, 2007 8:51 PM
Comment #216272

Impeachment is doable in the House if the case is clear. Trying him in the Senate with a conviction is not doable - the votes just aren’t there. America desperately needs more Independent Congresspersons.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 12, 2007 8:53 PM
Comment #216280

It would be very nice to see the basic facts here sourced from places other than, thinkprogress and a left-wing blogspot blog. Those are not exactly creditable sources.

From the sound of things, those emails are probably recoverable anyway, if it became necessary to recover them.

Fact is though that Leahy has no authority at all to subpoena White House emails or anybody’s emails to go on a political fishing expedition when there aren’t any legal proceedings related to any crimes here.

If and when those emails are recovered, the White House is just going to give Leahy the finger anyway and tell him to get lost.

Why doesn’t the White House demand to see Leahy’s, Ted Kennedy’s and Nancy Pelosi’s private e-mails if there isn’t going to be any separation of powers in Washington anymore?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 12, 2007 9:30 PM
Comment #216282

FIVE MILLION e-mails were lost by the White House according to a just released report from CREW called “WITHOUT A TRACE: The Missing White House Emails and the Violations of the Presidential Records Act.” FIVE MILLION…that’s insane.

Reminds me a bit of Arthur Anderson and Enron. It is funny how the mind lapses and things just dissapear when it is convienient for these people. Insane is probably putting it mildly Paul. The world is collapsing around them and you can bet someone will be fired again or possibly take the fall and maybe do some prison time. But one thing you can be sure of is that the weasles responsible will avoid all responsibility at the cost of others.

Posted by: ILdem at April 12, 2007 9:34 PM
Comment #216285


Do you recall the ultimate verdict against Arthur Anderson after all passion faded? 280000 people lost their jobs before the verdict was overturned in 2005.

You know the judge told the jury “even if [Andersen] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [it] guilty.” Sound like Fitzmas or maybe the Duke rape case. Doesn’t that give you some pause in going about your own life lawfully (you think)?

The Dems are playing the fishing game. Actually they call it giving the oppostion a flat tire. They keep on asking for things and tying up everything.

I get hundreds of emails each day. I delete them. They go someplace, I guess. If you asked me to find them, it would take a while. I might have to hire somebody who knew how to do it. They would have to be organized etc. The Dems just want to create this problem.

There is no evidence of any crime. The Dems want to fish around until the find one or more likely PROVOKE one.

Posted by: Jack at April 12, 2007 9:47 PM
Comment #216294
There is no evidence of any crime.

…except that it appears at least one of the attorneys was fired in order to obstruct an investigation.

That bit of evidence came out of the last set of emails released. It’s no surprise to me that administration officials wouldn’t want any more emails to be made public.

And what were these guys doing using non-governmental email accounts for government business? I’m pretty sure that’s a crime in itself.

If and when those emails are recovered, the White House is just going to give Leahy the finger

Yeah. Why aren’t they doing that instead of running around destroying documents and looking guilty?

Posted by: American Pundit at April 12, 2007 10:05 PM
Comment #216296

Enron, now if I remember right was in Dallas, Texasss, mmmmm isn’t that near Crawford????

Posted by: KT at April 12, 2007 10:06 PM
Comment #216298
I get hundreds of emails each day. I delete them. They go someplace, I guess. If you asked me to find them, it would take a while. I might have to hire somebody who knew how to do it. They would have to be organized etc. The Dems just want to create this problem.

There are two big problems with this analogy: there is not a specific law in place that requires you to keep your emails, and you are not an IT person, unlike the IT people who work for the White House.

Fact is though that Leahy has no authority at all to subpoena White House emails or anybody’s emails to go on a political fishing expedition when there aren’t any legal proceedings related to any crimes here.

Apparently you haven’t heard about the power of Congressional subpoena in support of investigations. Welcome to the real world.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 12, 2007 10:08 PM
Comment #216299


You know the judge told the jury “even if [Andersen] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [it] guilty.”

You never heard the phrase “ignorance of the law is no excuse”?

Posted by: womanmarine at April 12, 2007 10:09 PM
Comment #216302

“America desperately needs more Independent Congresspersons.”

David R. Remer,

AGREED! I’m disgusted with nearly the whole damn bunch! NO ONE in congress is being honest!

NO ONE on the ‘08 campaign trail is being honest!

We need a real American alternative!

Posted by: KansasDem at April 12, 2007 10:12 PM
Comment #216308

AP, it’s actually a crime under the Hatch Act TO use government resources for partisan political activities, which is why this isn’t a clear-cut case.

Aren’t the Democrats griping that the attorney-firings had political partisan motivations? So which is it?

The actual firings—the official government portion—are clearly recorded, so the Democrats are actually demanding the right to root around in unofficial Republican party communications to see if they can find evidence of a political motive that was translated into policy. They’re trying to have it both ways.

Also, there is no evidence at all that any firings took place to obstruct an investigation. That’s just a line of bull that the Democrats are using to keep up their witch-hunt.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 12, 2007 10:22 PM
Comment #216310

Here ya go LO.. see if this works better for you:;_ylt=AnwuKicnCT1LjBoz4AQWRPRZ.3QA
You don’t suppose that all these people are working together to create diversions to make us forget about Iraq?? ***

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 12, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #216311

I disagree that impeachment would fail in the senate if a clear,indesputable case or cases of high crimes and misdeamors is presented. There are enough Rep Senators of honor that combined with the Dems would be adequate. Some BS like the Reps tried with BC would fail and should. One outcome of even an unsuccessful attempt would be to hamstring an administration.Not the worst idea in the world considering this administartions desasterios leadership.

Posted by: BillS at April 12, 2007 10:28 PM
Comment #216313

LO…isn’t there any part of this that smells bad to you? or Jack or KAP ? You have to be getting close to running out of excuses for this bunch. It’s just one thing after another, after another.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 12, 2007 10:30 PM
Comment #216321

>>The Dems just want to create this problem. There is no evidence of any crime. The Dems want to fish around until the find one or more likely PROVOKE one.

Posted by: Jack at April 12, 2007 09:47 PM


Is Kenny Starr in charge of this investigation?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 12, 2007 10:58 PM
Comment #216327
Aren’t the Democrats griping that the attorney-firings had political partisan motivations?

No wonder you don’t get what’s going on, LO. I think it’s pretty well understood that the President can fire these guys for political reasons. That’s not the problem.

The problem is it looks like the firings obstructed a federal investigation — and then, Gonzales lied about the reasons for the firings. Now, we find out that emails which could shed light on the situation have gone missing.

That’s the gripe, LO.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 12, 2007 11:10 PM
Comment #216329

Those emails are all in the system—as Leahy himself points out. They have not been destroyed because they cannot be be destroyed on the federal computers. They can be pulled up whenever somebody takes the time and effort to do so.

At this point, they just haven’t been placed in the same easily accessible and centralized White House system because there was a question of whether or not RNC emails are really official presidential records.

The next question is whether the Democrats have any right to subpoena and read RNC emails over a completely political disagreement over attorney firings which the administration had every right to conduct, even if Gonazles handled the politics of it badly.

Gonazales’ poor political skills are in no way a crime, but if Democrats actually want to allege a crime here instead of merely insinuate one, then get on with it. Let them put their money where their mouths are. Until then, get ready to go to court for a showdown over the separation of powers and whether the Senate Judiciary Commitee gets to function as a completely unchecked judge, jury and executioner over the Executive Branch. They will lose that fight.

There are reaaly three things going on here.

1). A cheap political show trial in which the Democratic Judicial Commitee is trying to insinuate things for public consumption that they have no way of proving. As the Durham rape debacle demonstrated, simply making accusations that people with an agenda WANT to believe can be very damaging whether there’s any truth behind them or not. And we all know that Democrats want to and will believe anything at all negative about the Bush Administration, and the truth be damned.

2). They want a pretext to get their hands on RNC communications to give them insights into the Republican’s election strategy.

3). They want free reign to root around in RNC emails in search of tidbits totally unrelated to the attorney firings which can then inexpicably be leaked to the New York Times and their other accomplices which can then be spun into and endless supply of ever-deepening cooked up “scandals.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 12, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #216335


Yes. Ken Starr abused they system. All special proscutors end up doing that. It is a terrible thing to have someone whose job it is to FIND a crime (any crime).


It is a mitagating circumstance and obviously the supreme court thought it was, since that is WHY THEY THREW OUT THE CASE. Remember please that Anderson was vindicated in 2005. The company that employed 28,000 people around the country was destroyed by the over zealous prosecution. Although ultiimately they were not guilty, you might say the operation was a success but the patient died.

RE ignorance of the law, I would be willing to bet you cheated on your taxes. I am not saying you are dishonest, but tax laws are so complex and sometimes contradictory that it is probably impossible to file a perfect tax return. Most laws are like that. If you want to destroy a person, just investigate her. You can always find something.


You know you guys are just being silly. Maybe it should be illegal for two government buraucrats to discuss business on their commute home. That’s right, we will demand that government workers put in no more than 8 hours and never think about their jobs outside the office. And people wonder why we have trouble getting good people into government.

BTW - Didn’t AL Gore call in those Chinese donors from his official office?

Posted by: Jack at April 12, 2007 11:30 PM
Comment #216336
They have not been destroyed because they cannot be be destroyed on the federal computers.

LO, as you point out, the emails aren’t on federal servers. The RNC is not part of the government.

if Democrats actually want to allege a crime here instead of merely insinuate one

Hello! How much clearer do you want it, LO: Obstruction of justice — then lying and destroying documents to cover it up.

Any time it wants to, the administration can clear this up. Unfortunately, the witnesses keep resigning or taking the 5th while the documentary evidence disappears.

From any objective point of view, it looks like a crime was committed.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 12, 2007 11:36 PM
Comment #216338
You know you guys are just being silly.

So it doesn’t bother you that a crime appears to have been committed and evidence destroyed? How does it feel, Jack, to be so immersed in a culture of corruption that you no longer care about the integrity of our leaders?

Posted by: American Pundit at April 12, 2007 11:41 PM
Comment #216343

“They want a pretext to get their hands on RNC communications to give them insights into the Republican’s election strategy.”


That was really funny! What’s the secret strategy?

OK, I’ve got it! The Republican’ts will reveal that Cheney is and always has been a closeted Democrat!

Posted by: KansasDem at April 13, 2007 12:11 AM
Comment #216345
Hello! How much clearer do you want it, LO: Obstruction of justice — then lying and destroying documents to cover it up.

No files have been destroyed. They’re there, but the Democrats are simply not being allowed to get their grubby hands on them.

So let the Democrats officialy say that they’re investigating a charge of obstruction of justice if that’s what this is about. Why don’t they?

Fact is that they are not making that accusation because it’s a crock and they know it. If they accuse any such thing, they’ll have to put the facts and their own reputations on the line.

There are no charges here at all—partisans like yourself tossing them around without evidence is meaningless. Write your Democratic congressman if you think they should be making their wild accusations official in order to justify their witch hunt and fishing expedition.

But don’t complain if Republicans aren’t willing accomplices in shredding the US Constitution for yet another Democratic publicity stunt.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 13, 2007 12:27 AM
Comment #216348


Why doesn’t the White House demand to see Leahy’s, Ted Kennedy’s and Nancy Pelosi’s private e-mails if there isn’t going to be any separation of powers in Washington anymore?

Answwer: Because the W.H. has no oversight responsibilities over the Congress.

Posted by: Paul at April 13, 2007 12:47 AM
Comment #216351

The irony is that the use of RNC accounts might very well preclude the claim of executive privilege for those e-mails.

Our system is not based purely on the separation of powers. Although there are distinctive powers for each branch, there are also powers given to each branch to balance and check the other. Pardons, advise and consent on cabinet officials and judges, executive branch selection of judges, judicial review of legislation, agency regulations, and executive orders, etc. What you want isn’t separation of powers, it’s an inviolate shell of secrecy around the White House.

It isn’t illegal to fire US Attorneys, but only five have ever been let go midterm. All of a sudden Bush lets several of them go under suspicious circumstances. Such as? Carol Lam, while she’s pursuing a case against a number of GOP related corruption cases. David Iglesias after he doesn’t jump to, when in violation of ethics rules, GOP Congress members call him asking him whether he’s going to make sure a corruption case goes on before the November elections.

And he’s not alone. This seems to have been a general pattern, of US Attorneys being asked to put these charges out in advance of the elections.

The Hatch act stuff is not necessarily exclusive of this, and in fact could be related, if you think about the fact that a major official in the Bush White House is using his RNC account for 19 out of 20 emails. Why are so many of the e-mails concerning official business being run through a party server, especially if we’re dealing with National Security Matters?

It is not completely political when the taxpayers see the offices of their government, which are supposed to work for everybody, turned to the services of a party that ought to be earning its political keep through good policy decisions. Why should the General Services Administration, which is supposed to be the tech and infrastructure support for the government, being given lunchtime strategy talks on how to use the GSA for the sake of the Republican party?

The Republican party does not have the right to turn every facet of the Government into a means for perpetuating its own party. At some point, we are asking the President and everybody under him to be willing to take their Party hats off and do what’s best for all Americans, not just advantageous to the elite few who can call themselves the Politicians of the GOP.

Speaking of fishing expeditions, The whole Voting Fraud thing that the US Attorneys were being pressured to pursue qualifies. Remember all the Republicans gloating about how many cases of Voting Fraud Were levied against the Democrats? Talk about self-fulfilling prophesies. The circumstances that lead to these firings may indicate a wide ranging campaign of using the valuable time and efforts of our US Attorneys not to go after real crimes and real criminals, but instead to go after weak investigations that benefit your party, investigations that mostly ended up in acquittal.

This is about trying to convince Americans that the other side has a problem with corruption that it does not, and trying to hid its own corruption in the process.

Do we have to magically have knowledge of what we’re investigating each and every time? Should we only open investigations when we don’t need them, like the GOP did for the last few years at taxpayer expense?

Defend what you like. The Republican party will suffer further for its refusal to recognize the limits of acceptable behavior, for its party member’s willingness to let the abuse of power continue, even when the rest of the country is outraged at it. Only the kids who don’t want other kids to play with them claim invincibility during cops and robbers. It is the copout of those who want to remain elite without earning the status themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 13, 2007 12:51 AM
Comment #216356

Regarding executive privilege & e-mail. E-mails are probably not covered by executive privelege. SCOTUS has already ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in e-mails — this is why a good defense attorney will not correspond with a client via e-mail.

Regarding Congressional oversight/investigative powers: they are nearly unlimited. The RNC cannot claim executive privilege, generally, and definitely not in a Congressional investigation.

Finally: the issues here are not Rep vs Dem issues, they are Congress vs Executive as intended by the Framers of the Constitution who created this tension by design because they wisely did not trust executive power.

Posted by: Paul at April 13, 2007 3:07 AM
Comment #216358

Enron’s main office was in Houston not Dallas. It is 205 miles from Crawford. There were strong financial and political ties between Ken Lay and G W Bush. Ken Lay was instrumental in rewriting FERC regulations and installing their choice for the head of FERC. This was significant in the energy trading fraud that Enron committed and taught to others.


Arthur Anderson gave up it’s business when management decided to shred documents in an upcoming investigation. This choice to surrender their integrity over profit is what sank the business. The jurors in Houston stated this, clearly. What Rehnquist said was that jury instructions were too broad . No retrial was ever done because like the Supremes, the issue was moot.

Posted by: gergle at April 13, 2007 5:03 AM
Comment #216366

The jurors recieved the wrong instructions. They convicted based on that. We do not know what the trial would have produced if it was done right. I know it is more fun to determine guild first (as in Fitzmas) and even claim guilt was proven when there were no indictments (Fitzmas again).

In this current case there is also no significant indication of a crime. It is the criminalization of politics. It was wrong for Starr too, BTW. This criminalization of politics is a dangerous animal and should be kept out.


Remember the chonology. ENRON became big and powerful while Clinton was president and his people ran justice and regulation. The crime was detected and punished EARLY in the Bush administration. That there headquarters is 2o5 miles from crawford is as irrelevant as the color of a victims underwear.

Posted by: Jack at April 13, 2007 8:11 AM
Comment #216370


It might be useful to consider reminding ourselves of Arthur Andersen’s handling of its documentation and retention policy. It will be helpful to make sure that we have complied with the tenets of common sense.

That, of course, is a paraphrase of lawyer Nancy Temple’s famous memo “reminding” Arthur Andersen’s audit team in Houston to shred Enron-related documents ahead of a government investigation the firm knew was coming.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Andersen’s conviction, it would be useful to remind ourselves of a few things about Andersen, starting with Temple’s memo.

The Supremes tossed the Andersen verdict on what amounts to a legal technicality. Jury instructions were too vague, the court said its unanimous decision Tuesday.

Fine. I agree, up to a point. The instructions went so far as to say that if Andersen believed it was acting lawfully, the firm could still be found guilty. That seems unreasonable. Most companies have document destruction policies. Few are meant to conceal evidence.

The point is also irrelevant beyond the court room. Andersen, or at least its collective leadership, knew what it was doing.

As I said in January when the Supremes agreed to hear the case, the outcome doesn’t change the events that preceded conviction.

The decision is not, as Andersen attorney Rusty Hardin said, “a tremendous vindication” for the firm. And it’s certainly not for the thousands of employees who’ve suffered for Andersen’s sins.

The above is from gergles link. As stated the verdict was overturned because of a technicality. It in no way vindicates Arthur Anderson for improper actions.

Yes the dems are fishing in an ocean of scum and unconsionable dolts. The reputation of these people proceeds them Jack. I fully expect investigations to continue. To turn a blind eye imo would only condone the sort of reprehensible behaviour these people have exhibited for some time now. To avoid possible corruption investigations would only add to the notion that government is beyond reproach, which is not what the american people expected when they decided to change course. I do realize that there is no proof of crime at this point. But there is indication of possible crime. Without investigation we will never know for sure and we will be telling government that corruption is okay.

How you and others can turn a blind eye and deny what has been so blaringly staring you in the face for so long is beyond me. There have been too many half truths, deceptions, questions, self investigations and arrogant unvalidated denials to just look the other way. And the questionable actions started long before the elections.

The dems are not fishing Jack. It is called responsible and accountable governance.

Posted by: ILdem at April 13, 2007 8:44 AM
Comment #216372

gergle, Houston/Dallas same state, same BS out of it no matter where it is, Houston,Dallasssss or Crawford.

Posted by: KT at April 13, 2007 8:51 AM
Comment #216375

They were close enough that Bush called Ken Lay Kenny-Boy. Also, let’s not forget two things: Ken Lay operated out of the state he just got finished being Governor of, and Republicans had Congress for six years before Enron, and did not choose to re-regulate. Weren’t you guys the ones trumpteting this kind of deregulation anyways?

Additionaly, concerning Fitzmas, the sheer negligence concerning National Security matters was damaging enough, as was the fact that one guy got convicted for lying to investigators and the grand jury.

Plus, it was established that the leak occured within the White House, and that Rove and Libby participated in it, intentionally divulging the identity of an agent whose occupation was a classified secret, and not otherwise well known. There just weren’t any charges brought.

But you know, the American people know this: Charges don’t have to be brought for something to be wrong, immoral, or counterproductive.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 13, 2007 9:19 AM
Comment #216376


As to the chronology, remember where Bush came from? Phil Gramm was from here, too. His wife was an Enron board member. He conviently resigned as the Enron debacle broke. Bush wasn’t Enron’s only bought and paid for politician

Oh yeah, he WAS governor of……..Texas!

Clinton was not deeply associated with Kenny boy. There were critical decisions made in Texas that allowed Ken Lay and Co to mount their fraud. It started long ago in England.

Clinton did allow deregulation to continue, as have states and the U.S. to date. The fraud isn’t over yet. Frontline did a story back in 2001 about the appointment of Pat Wood to FERC and deregulation in general. It’s an informative piece.

Enron committed stock fraud also, remember, not just energy related theft.

Enron and others were heavily involved in promoting the deregulation debacle that led to their thievery and it has not been fixed yet. We continue to be robbed by these charlatans.

I don’t think Clinton was directly involved in Enron’s history as Bush was, but he certainly wasn’t against deregulation.

Posted by: gergle at April 13, 2007 9:29 AM
Comment #216378


I’m from Texas. It ain’t all the same to me. Location had little to do with it.

Posted by: gergle at April 13, 2007 9:32 AM
Comment #216381

I borrowed Woody’s post to yesterday to raise my own questions about G.W. and all the rest of the Republican Presidents.Here is a copy. (BTW_ again thanks Woody);_ylt=AnwuKicnCT1LjBoz4AQWRPRZ.3QA

Senate panel seeks missing White House records Thu Apr 12, 11:29 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. congressional panel investigating the firing of federal prosecutors authorized subpoenas on Thursday for e-mails the White House has declared may be missing.

I’d like to read what folks here think of the “missing e-mails” that the Senate has now issued subpoenas to the White House.

Something about this just doesn’t seem to click right in my brain.

Seems to me we’ve had a lot of Republican Presidents who have some type of brain deficiencies.

Nixon lost a tape, Ford pardoned Nixon before he was charged with a crime, (thus dismantling any chance he had of getting elected) Reagan simply couldn’t remember the Iranian Contra Affair - come to think of it neither could Bush Sr., although he’s the one who forgot about the “I will not raise taxes” speech, and now George W. can’t seem to find his e-mails.

I’ll grant you the Democrats aren’t a whole lot better, since none of them seem to be able to keep their pants on and zipped, but at least none of their flaws seem to negatively affect the average citizen, or our nations welfare. Of course those involved in the affairs may have different opinions…

Just something I thought might need to be pondered.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 13, 2007 9:38 AM
Comment #216382

5 millions of emails lost at White House?
Woa. The people there have way too much time if they share joke emails that much.

I can imagine some emails titles…

Fw: Our WMDs found in Iraq!
Fw: Enlarge your Dick Cheney (Spam?)
Fw: Where is Poland? (Was: Who’s Poland) (URGENT)
Fw: Shareware: Nukolar spellchecker
Fw: No grass found in Bagdad’s green zone
Fw: Freedom fries (Was: Freedom flies (Was: Freedom lies))

Your turn…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 13, 2007 9:45 AM
Comment #216387

“Your turn…”

Fw: Don’t hide info in same place hillary did

Posted by: kctim at April 13, 2007 11:11 AM
Comment #216390

Fw: President’s vaccation at Texas Ranch extended (Was: Golf contest results (Was: OBL immediate threat on US soil))

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 13, 2007 11:46 AM
Comment #216391

This Whitehouse used the RNC computers because they mistakenly thought that they were clever and that the rest of the country was a bunch of idiots. They used those computers for one reason and one reason only - to get around the law requiring keeping all official communications. Had they had the lapdog Congress that they had in the first 6 years it might have worked but that is not the case anymore. If they weren’t doing anything dishonest then why did they go to these lengths to cover their tracks? The answer is that they are dishonest, disingenuous, and think that they are above the law. On top of that they are grossly imcompetent.

Jack - I knew you would find a Clinton angle to this as most of your arguments seem to do - it is tiresome. The administration you defend has made the Clintons look honest and forthright by comparison. Though it would be hard to find an administration that was less competent or less honest than this one.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 13, 2007 11:50 AM
Comment #216392

FW: I am the decider? (always thought it was Dick)

Posted by: ILdem at April 13, 2007 11:54 AM
Comment #216393

Philippe: Your e-mail jokes are exquisite… thanks for raising my spirits…..

GWB: What time is it?
KR: 4:20.
GWB: Great! Then we can plot some more wars at 4:35.
KR: Yep.
GWB: Isn’t life grand?! Gotta love being the Decider.
KR: Yes, Mr. President.
GWB: Now, where is that bong? Did the grounds boys try it first? I don’t like bad grass.
KR: It’s good stuff, Mr. President. I tried it myself.
GWB: Well, give it to me. I need to inhale.
KR: Don’t smoke it all, Mr. PResident. Remember what they said on Sesame Street this morning: Share. And you know how Dick hates not getting his 420.
GWB: Oh, I do.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 13, 2007 12:03 PM
Comment #216400
don’t complain if Republicans aren’t willing accomplices in shredding the US Constitution

Spare me your fake concern for the Constitution, LO. You guys have been zip-lipped about Republicans using it for toilet paper going on six years now.

Finally: the issues here are not Rep vs Dem issues, they are Congress vs Executive as intended by the Framers of the Constitution who created this tension by design because they wisely did not trust executive power.

Thank you, Paul.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 13, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #216413

I agree AP, Paul really nailed it with that single comment. The Right just doesn’t like all this oversight and investigation into their cesspool of partisanship and corruption after all these years. They thought that they could continue to have no one put the skids on anything the president, his administration, or the Republican members of Congress wanted to do, but are sadly mistaken. To quote my state Senator’s recent smackdown to the right:

You’re not making the rules. You used to when you did this. Elections have consequences.

They certainly do.
As for the e-mails, I have a feeling they can be recovered — quite unlike the gravely besmirched, stained, and bedraggled reputation of the Republican party at present.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 13, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #216426

Some quotes from various Yahoo stories:

The White House revealed this week Rove and 21 other White House officials have for years kept e-mail accounts through the RNC to conduct political business without violating the Hatch Act, which forbids government employees from using government property for partisan activities.

The White House has acknowledged that Rove and others at times conducted official business on RNC accounts and that some of this e-mail traffic may wrongly have been deleted, including some related to the firing of the U.S. prosecutors.

WASHINGTON - Karl Rove’s lawyer on Friday dismissed the notion that
President Bush’s chief political adviser intentionally deleted his own e-mails from a Republican-sponsored computer system.

The attorney said Rove believed the communications were being preserved in accordance with the law.

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

And sorry, I don’t believe that Rove didn’t know that emails weren’t saved on the server, perhaps he should have asked????? Such bullshit!

Posted by: womanmarine at April 13, 2007 3:27 PM
Comment #216428

Sounds like Rosemary Woods is back from the grave. Maybe that’s the voice in KRs head?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 13, 2007 3:44 PM
Comment #216438

If there is any proof of obstruction bring it out in the open and prosecute. If I were one of those attorneys who got fired and was investigating a corruption case I’d be singing to the media. If this is a fishing trip all those involved should be repremanded.If those E mails can be retrieved, retrieve them but 5 million e mails can’t all be about attorney firings.

Posted by: KAP at April 13, 2007 4:20 PM
Comment #216446
If there is any proof of obstruction bring it out in the open and prosecute.

That, in fact, is what the investigation is trying to do.

I’m quite amazed by the attitude that some have presented here that an investigation is only warranted if a crime has been proven. That’s putting the cart before the horse - an investigation is necessary to determine whether and by whom a crime was committed.

It’s a good thing that our police detectives and the FBI don’t use this standard. Can you imagine how hard it would be to start an investigation into a potential crime if you had to first have the results of the investigation in hand?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 13, 2007 4:50 PM
Comment #216451

I’m glad police detectives and the FBI don’t use this standard either. But the fact is there is no proof of any wrong doing. All the democrats have is a lot of speculation and heresay. Did any of the fired attorneys even hint at investigating any corruption case? Or any of the other 80 some U.S. attorneys. I still think all this is a waste of time when congress has more important things to do.

Posted by: KAP at April 13, 2007 5:22 PM
Comment #216460

No proof of wrongdoing? We have plenty of evidence that our friends in the White House were encouraging US attorneys to pursue voter fraud cases. We also have the dismissals themselves, highly irregular, and in most cases against US Attorneys with sterling or exemplary records. In a number of cases, they accused them of being lax on prosecutions, when in fact they had been diligent.

We have calls from representatives and senators, a no-no because it could put political pressure on US Attorneys who are supposed to be evenhanded in how they prosecute cases.

As for US attorneys even hinting at pursuing corruption cases? You must not have heard about Carol Lam. You know, the one who was prosecuting Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham? That was one of the cases that really embarrassed the GOP.

As for the general issue, What Bush and his people were encouraging were meritless accusations of Voter Fraud, most of which turned out to be nothing. We also have the case brought against Senator Menendez, among others. What is right about a President, or any of his staff, encouraging a frivolous use of the courts by the Justice department in order to interfere with elections?

You can talk about there being no proof of wrongdoing, but isn’t that just the standard boilerplate to repeat in the face of charges?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 13, 2007 5:51 PM
Comment #216477

Stephen D
Bob Ney and Cunningham are both in Jail and by rights should be, but the attorneys were fired for not persuing the cases the President wanted them to persue. I didn’t hear of the President interfering in the Ney and Cunningham cases.

Posted by: KAP at April 13, 2007 7:12 PM
Comment #216493

No proof of wrong doing? No reason to investigate?

Documents: Justice Department considered political credentials for prosecutors

Some quotes:

The Justice Department weighed political activism and membership in a conservative law group in evaluating the nation’s federal prosecutors, documents released in the probe of fired U.S. attorneys show.

“This is the chart that the AG requested,” Monica Goodling, Justice’s former liaison to the White House, wrote in a Feb. 12 e-mail to two other senior department officials. “I’ll show it to him on the plane tomorrow, if he’s interested.”

Gonzales lied.

Goodling resigned last week, refusing to testify to Congress about her role in the firings and citing her constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

Goodling pleads the fifth.

The 2,394 pages of e-mails, schedules and memos released Friday included a few hand-scribbled pages of notes of reasons why some of the eight were ousted _ notes that Justice officials confirmed were written by Goodling.

Trying to come up with phoney reasons to fire effective, well ranked justices, and trying to smear them by saying they didn’t do a good job.

Under Iglesias’ name, Goodling wrote: “Domenici says he doesn’t move cases” _ a reference to Sen. Pete Domenici, the six-term Republican from New Mexico accused of pressuring the prosecutor on a political corruption investigation. That allegation has been one of the factors driving Democrats’ claims that the firings were politically motivated.

Pressuring justices by Congressional members — illegal.

The documents also included indications that senior department officials had replacements in mind for the outgoing prosecutors nearly a year before the ousters, seemingly contradicting testimony last month by Gonzales’ former top aide.

More lying? This time, under oath?

The new batch of documents _ adding to more than 3,400 previously released _ came amid questions about missing White House e-mails, including some from presidential counselor Karl Rove and other administration officials. The Democratic-controlled Congress is seeking those e-mails as evidence for its inquiry into the firings.

Cover up.

Democrats are questioning whether any White House officials purposely sent e-mails about official business on the RNC server _ then deleted them, in violation of the law _ to avoid scrutiny.

Violating the Law.

Plenty of reasons to investigate and search for proof of wrong doing.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 13, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #216494

Watchdog to Fitzgerald: Re-open Plame investigation in light of Rove’s ‘missing’ emails

From the link:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a Washington-based legal watchdog organization, has called on Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to re-open an investigation into White House adviser Karl Rove’s role in the identity leak of former CIA agent Valerie Plame.

“It looks like Karl Rove may well have destroyed evidence that implicated him in the White House’s orchestrated efforts to leak Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert identity to the press in retaliation against her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson,” said Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director.

Plot thickens.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 13, 2007 9:20 PM
Comment #216497

A little bias in the links.

Posted by: KAP at April 13, 2007 10:07 PM
Comment #216517

The record proved that accusation wrong. Lam, if I remember correctly, was actually brought out as an expert concerning immigration cases, despite that being one of the proferred reasons. Records indicated were going to put Iglesias up as an immigration judge. No, what the President and other Republicans wanted them to do was unethical, immoral, and illegal. They may serve at the pleasure of the President, but their authority and duties are prescribed by more than just presidential whim. The law matters.

As for bias in the links? Try telling us whether the facts are wrong first. Bias only matters when it prevents people from learning the full facts. The only bias that seems to be preventing people from learning the facts on this case seems to come from the other side of the aisle.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2007 12:27 AM
Comment #216518
Did any of the fired attorneys even hint at investigating any corruption case?

Yes, KAP.

Carol Lam had just finished putting Rep. Cunningham in jail. When she informed the DoJ that she was also going after Republican financier Brent Wilkes, CIA procurement administrator Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and Representative Jerry Lewis, Alberto Gonzales’ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, called a meeting with White House officials to discuss “the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.”

Lam was subsequently fired. Sampson and Gozales lied about the reason for the firing and now emails relating to the firing have been destroyed.

To any objective observer, that sequence of events screams obstruction of justice.

Here’s more info from the Washington Post, “Prosecutor’s Firing Was Urged During Probe”

Posted by: American Pundit at April 14, 2007 12:34 AM
Comment #216569

“A little bias in the links.”

KAP, the first link is a report written by Associated Press writers, even if it did appear in Huffington Post.
The second is link is from a legal watchdog agency, and yes, they serve as legal counsel to Joe and Valerie Wilson in their civil suit against Karl Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage, but they are raising an excellent question in that press release:
Did Patrick Fitzgerald see ALL of Rove’s e-mails (or all of those of other people involved in that case) having to do with the outting of CIA agent Plame, or just the ones that weren’t written on the RNC laptop(s)? You know, the four years worth of e-mails we now know that Rove deleted?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 14, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #216582

To all wingnuts: Using the probable cause standard, the current Administration appears to have obstructed justice and committed perjury vis-a-vis the USA scandal. By its own admission, the Administration has violated the Presidential Records Act in its deletion of e-mails. By its own admission, Karl Rove & Harriet Meiers, de minimus, have violated the Hatch Act. All three cases call for prison time.

Keep this in mind: the Congress does not need probable cause to investigate. The Constitution gives the Congress the power to investigate anything it wants to investigate including, but not limited to, the mating behaviors of blackbirds in Chicago (which, by the way, are 1/3 homosexual).

Keep this in mind: the Framers made the Executive the weakest branch of the 3-branch system. The Executive can do nothing without the approval of the Legislative branch and the concurrence of the Judicial branch. They learned their lessons from George II & III in anticipation of GeorgeWB.

Keep this in mind: while appellate courts (including SCOTUS) have always recognized the existense of executive privilege, they’ve yet to find a case where the executive has adequately demonstrated it vis-a-vis the Executive vs the Legislative.

Keep this in mind — and I repeat: e-mails have no expectation of privacy (similary for cell phone calls) and are never privileged. There is a good reason that GWB and Dick Cheney do not use e-mail… they recognized that e-mails are not privileged.

A NOTE TO ALL: Never correspond with you attorney by e-mail — it does not have the protection of attorney-client privilege. Never correspond with you attorney by cell phone — it does not have the protection fo attorney-client privilege. If you are a member of the Administration, do not correspond by e-mail or cell phone, because it has no claim to executive privilege. Under current law, attorney-client privilege is limited to in-person conversations, telephonic communication over land lines, and first-class mail. Under current law, executive privilege is limited to in-person conversations with the President.

Posted by: Paul at April 14, 2007 2:09 PM
Post a comment