Slashdot Log In
White House Must Answer For Missing Emails
Posted by
Soulskill
on Thu Feb 14, 2008 09:03 PM
from the show-me-the-deleted-emails dept.
from the show-me-the-deleted-emails dept.
Lucas123 writes "A District Court judge this week ruled in favor of a Washington-based watchdog group, allowing them to question White House officials about missing emails involving controversial issues. The subjects include the release of the identity of a former CIA operative, the reasons for launching the war in Iraq and actions by the US Department of Justice. The group had filed suit [PDF] last May against the White House Office of Administration, seeking access to White House email under the federal Freedom of Information Act. The discovery ruling is bringing to light issues of email retention in businesses and other private organizations. We've previously discussed the White House's difficulties with email."
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: Thousands of White House E-mails Deleted 799 comments
kidcharles writes "The Washington Post reports that in the midst of an investigation by the U.S. Congress into the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the Department of Justice, numerous White House e-mails have been lost. Among them are communications from presidential adviser Karl Rove. Parallels are being drawn with the infamous '18 minutes' missing from the Nixon Watergate tapes. Also at issue is the use of Republican National Committee e-mail domains (such as gwb43.com and georgewbush.com) rather than the official White House domain. This is a violation of the Presidential Records Act."
[+]
Politics: White House Tape Recycling Possibly Erased Emails 251 comments
Pojut points us to a Washington Post story which details the White House's admission that it routinely recycled backup tapes from 2001 to 2003, possibly destroying e-mail records from that time period. While the tapes are being analyzed to determine if any of the data can be recovered, the White House also indicated that some e-mail through 2005 may not have been preserved. We discussed the beginnings of this investigation a few months ago. From the Post:
"During the period in question, the Bush presidency faced some of its biggest controversies, including the Iraq war, the leak of former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson's name and the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said he has no reason to believe any e-mails were deliberately destroyed."
[+]
Politics: White House Says Hard Drives Were Destroyed 411 comments
wanderindiana brings us an update on the White House missing emails mess, which we have discussed before. It seems the hard drives of many White House computers are gone beyond the possibility of recovery. Is it unusual in your experience for, say, a corporate IT department to destroy hard drives by policy? "Older White House computer hard drives have been destroyed, the White House disclosed to a federal court Friday in a controversy over millions of possibly missing e-mails from 2003 to 2005. The White House revealed new information about how it handles its computers in an effort to persuade a federal magistrate it would be fruitless to undertake an e-mail recovery plan that the court proposed."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Recycling (Score:3, Funny)
Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry folks, but political operators learned from nixon. Don't keep evidence of malfeasance. Don't lie explicitly, just claim to not remember or not be in the loop. Delay, delay, delay, delay. This isn't going to be a watershed event. Odds are if those emails really ARE incriminating, then they are long, long gone.
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
We agree on one thing, there was (and still is), very little oversight. It should stand as our enduring shame that senate and house oversight committees are spending time going after baseball and football scandals while our constitution burns.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Funny)
You don't get it, do you? When you mess with the Presidential Records Act, you're messing with the entire National Archives system. That means they take away your National Archives Library Card. Want to check out that official copy of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, or the Marine Mammal Protection Act? Sorry, buster. You're gonna have to make do with a photocopy. And guess what? Without that card, you can still get in to see the Constitution... but not after hours.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Huh, and I was just talking [slashdot.org] about wingnut hypocrisy, too. You talk [slashdot.org] about how Clinton was impeached for lying under oath (which he didn't do [huppi.com]) and two minutes later you blow off any impeachment of Bush and Cheney (who have broken many laws and Constitutional amendments) as "political witch hunt"? You're even faster than Pudge. [slashdot.org] You need to be taken out back and pistol whipped for being intolerably full of shit. Repeatedly.
Re:Expected answer (Score:4, Interesting)
Unlike previous witches, there are strong indications of guilt for these.
Just a few things that come to mind:
- Lying about the reasons to wage a war - the executive branch sure had intel that showed there were little reason to believe Iraq had acquired WMDs and sure they want it to be hidden, thus the violations of the PRA.
- Asking the Congress to authorize a war based on presumably known faulty intelligence.
- Destroying any good will the US had after the 9/11 attacks in a frivolous war. More people hate the US now than probably ever and it will be ages before you recover from it.
- Assigning reconstruction contracts, according to shady criteria, to political allies.
- Compromising positions in Afghanistan because resources are being spent on a war that worsens things even more.
- Overthrowing the only non-theocratic regime in the region, giving way to a civil war that will eventually result in another theocracy. The US should have negotiated with Saddam. It's not that hard to negotiate when you can nuke someone.
- Shielding themselves from prosecution behind a "national security" veil. Misuse of this veil compromises its credibility and is extremely erosive to civil rights.
The current office is a disgrace for the US. I used to have more faith in your democracy.
There will be a lot of rebuilding to do after they are gone.
Parent
It wasn't the sex (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Expected answer (Score:4, Insightful)
And what are the telcos being granted retroactive immunity for again?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So if you have evidence with which to impeach Bush (and I'm not disputing that), then why isn't he impeached? Who is eligible to start the impeachment procedure in the USA?
For that matter, who is eligible to bring War Crimes charges against Blair in the UK? Something he is also guilty of for lying about WMD to get a war started.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.google.com/search?q= [google.com]"i+do+not+recall"
I wonder if the questioning will be under oath & videotaped.
At the minimum it'll make for a funny highlight reel.
/dev/null (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Interesting)
In fulfilment of a legal obligation. a request will be made to administrators and office staff to check their email accounts for the 'missing email'. The managers will accept the word of the staff under them, who will typically eyeball their inbox in Outlook before reporting 'no, haven't got it'.
Don't assume they're grepping through their servers because if they're just responding to a freedom of information request, they're not. They will restrict themselves to a search that seems 'reasonable' in the eyes of a technological illiterate, that's all.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From this point, it depends on several external factors, such as whether there's a general understanding around the office that if the email(s) are found, it could mean trouble for an individual with seniority, or a general sort of trouble for people involved in the matter. Also, it
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
They just smashed the joint up. They fired or forced to resign what amounts to hundreds to thousands of person-years of experience in government. They politicized every office they could get their hands on. they enriched cronies in brazen fashion. They used a national fucking tragedy to secure political control of congress. They pushed a TRIPLE FUCKING AMPUTEE who was a Vietnam veteran out of office because he had the temerity to stand up to their bullshit. They completed the circle of lobbyist control in congress started by Tom Delay. they made supine the court system and the legislature, and now they stand to do it again.
Getting dome in the white house doesn't begin to compare. We will go decades and not be able to access the wreckage honestly.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Informative)
Not even remotely true. [commondreams.org] I have work tomorrow and it's late. You're a blatant troll and I don't have time to discredit all of the obvious Clinton lies you've spouted. It should be enough to just throw out your first argument... but I'll even add a bonus link... Clinton Did not fire attorneys in the middle of their terms. [thinkprogress.org] Yes, all presidents fire attorneys when they begin... but only the current president hid conversations using RNC accounts and fired attorneys in the middle of their term for purely political reasons (The only attorneys fired in the middle of their terms from 1981 to 2006 were for misconduct... which was never cited as a reason for the current firings).
Like I said, it's late and I have work. Quit trolling and read some real information.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, the GP was not arguing Clinton vs. Bush, so all of your parent's arguments are straw men.
Second, none of his points make the case that the incidents in question had lasting, significant repercussions for the political atmosphere of the nation and the role of the executive office, so your parent is also offtopic for the thread.
I personally disagree with the GP, b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was a troll, it should have been marked that way. But the only way is would have been is if his parent was a troll also. The point wasn't Clinton vs. Bush either. It was that it isn't the end of the world of the worst thing ever like the his parent post claimed. Either way, it doesn't matter because I help draw enough attention to it that mods made it appropriately to it before my post was buried. Which was
Re:"I do not recall." (Score:5, Funny)
Why don't you make fun of Roosevelt for not jogging on the Whitehouse lawn?
Parent
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't a witch hunt. The fact that the democrats are willing to excercise a modicum of oversight should come as a slight relief, not rejected. Think about it:
This is what CLinton did:
Lied about getting dome in the white house while under oath. Suggested that his mistress lie under oath in order to protect him.
This is what bush did:
Used political operatives in the white house and the justice department to prosecute democrats during election seasons. Fired uncooperative prosecutors.
Used 9/11 to illegally wiretap large volumes of conversations over telephone and email. Didn't even use a secret court designed for such surveilance SIMPLY TO DECLARE THAT THE WH WAS BEYOND THE REACH OF THAT COURT. Lied about it even after it was discovered by the NY times 4 years later.
Deliberately moved a detention facility outside of US court jurisdiction in order to prevent detainees from getting basic human rights afforded to them. Violated the geneva conventions. authorized and lied about torture.
Replaced government professionals with political operatives and like minded conservatives. Used appointed officials to stifle press releases AND to eliminate oversight, resulting in (likely) the mine collapse disasters and the mismanagement of Katrina.
The list could go on. Those aren't partisan accusations. They aren't crazy conspiracies. They aren't unsubstantiated attacks. they are fucking facts, confirmed by former WH officials, members of congress, informants, or statements of the presidents adivsors while still in office. I didn't even include most of John Woo and David Addington's rape of our constitution or the iraq war. How has the partisan, liberal, democratic congress responded to these blatant examples of misconduct? About as meekly as a churchmouse.
Parent
How will they enforce it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shit, I'm forgetting what the the request was but Congress asked the Attorney General to investigate someone. The reply: "That was a pointed and direct request so I will make sure my answer is pointed and direct: no."
So, what's the next step, send the sgt. at arms to haul their asses in?
Re: (Score:2)
Technically the congress could order the sgt. at arms to haul the people in to testify, but it is more likely that they will sue the white house, as I think the last time they compelled testimony w/o the DC US attorney
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:5, Informative)
Wilson Livingood [wikipedia.org] or Terrance W. Gainer [wikipedia.org]
I say send in Gainer to 'em soften up before Livingood can come in and finish the job.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its a House contempt proceeding so it would be Livingood's office.
No, its Not. The Sgt At Arms is responsible for the safety and security of congress critters, senators, visiting dignitaries. That's all.
Unless they see a threat to lives of congress critters, they won't do a job of arresting anybody.
However, the House could order DC Sherrif to prosecute Bush and Cheney as individuals maximum.
I bet it would be one helluva gunfight to watch DC cops battle it out with Secret Service.
I can see the headlines in Fox TV now: "President under attack by crazy cops. 11 dead. News a
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, here it is. We don't torture, never tortured, oh wait, we tortured three people. So now will we investigate? No. Fucker.
Parent
Re:How will they appeal it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And, IMO, the imminent threat theory is a terrible, terrible, terrible legal justification, what a shame that no one is in a position
Re:How will they appeal it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Torture is wrong.
Its what the enemy is supposed to do, not us (or I should say you, since I'm Canadian), it doesn't matter if you can magic the constitution into yet-another-bible to be interpreted into supporting whatever you feel like.
And frankly, if you do torture someone to get important info, and you get caught: you say "sorry, it was wrong," and you fire/jail the guy that did it. What kind of government are you running down there anyway? Why are these guys still in power?
I was watching Red October the other day, and was amused that the 1st officer was looking forward to defecting because he could go from state to state without papers.... we'll see how long that lasts...
(I'm not wearing my tin foil hat, so posting anonymous)
Parent
Re:How will they appeal it? (Score:5, Insightful)
And that was our mistake. We should have stuck with people who know what the constitution says. The US constitution, even with all it's shortcomings, at least provides some protection. Even allowing for differences in interpretation, it still provides some protection.
But if you put a guy in office who believes that he can do anything as long as it is right for his country, and who further believes that he gets to determine what is right and nobody can second guess him, then he can do anything.
You see, the issue is not 'is torture wrong?', the issue is 'is torture unconstitutional?'
We had a close call a few years back, almost impeaching a guy for a blow job. We scared ourselves on that one. Each self-rightous politician was determined to be greater in his criticism of the prez than the next guy, and it kinda got out of hand. Everybody knew that we really shouldn't do it, but nobody seemed to know exactly when to stop. I mean, nobody wanted wanted to be the guy who said 'Hey, I think blow jobs from interns are ok.' But eventually, enough people realized that if it went through, they wouldn't be getting blow jobs in the future, so it fell apart. When asked why they were changing their minds, they couldn't really come out in favor of blow jobs, so they invoked the constitution, noting that he really hadn't reached the constitutional definition of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Like a sailor who tacks back and forth across his intended course, sometimes to one side, sometimes to the other, we sort of follow the constitution. Sometimes we are too liberal, sometimes too cautious.
Right now, post-blow-job, we are erring on the side of being too cautious. So faced with a president who probably does deserve to be inpeached for incompetence and the pointless deaths of 4000 of his countrymen, we pretend that the best way to get rid of him is just to let him serve out his term and then we will put someone else in by election.
Parent
Re:How will they appeal it? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea of the constitution is to limit the government. This means that sometimes you have to let the guilty go free, because an unrestrained government is far more dangerous than the few criminals who go unpunished.
What Scalia is saying is the opposite: that you can ignore the constitution based upon individual circumstances: in particular, that you can duck the constitution based on an imminent threat. Who gets to decide if the threat is credible? Who gets to decide if it is really imminent? Well, apparently, the president. As Scalia sees it, the president can order the torture of anyone with no judicial or congressional review. This is what I mean by completely ignoring the constitution.
By contrast, interpretation of the constitution would be something like saying 'waterboarding is not cruel and unusual.'
Parent
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:5, Informative)
If you're referring to John Conyers asking Mukasey about the CIA tapes, then that was the question. Conyers asked if Mukasey was prepared to begin an investigation into the possibility of criminal wrongdoing in the case of destroyed CIA tapes. Mukasey said "that's a direct question, so let me give a direct answer: no I am not."
The Daily Show may be a fake news show but there's information there.
Parent
Emails? (Score:3, Insightful)
So am I the only one holding my breath? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
How do you lose email? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you *have* to conspire to completely delete emails of such mass quantities, then why isn't this all just a matter of finding the guilty party?
If they build their systems so that no trails are left, then that in itself is evidence of an intent to conspire.
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course given the nature of email, it's probably not provable that the email is genuine. And it doesn't help that Palast has a bit of a muckraker reputation. From what I've seen, he does have a bit of a bias, but I've never known him to fabricate his evidence. Personally I'm inclined to believe the emails are real, but, like I said, I'm not sure you can prove that. Unless of course they also turn up in the White House archives.
Oh, right. Nevermind.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
theywontanyway (Score:5, Insightful)
This administration needs a slap in the face with a nail-filled board. I don't see these courts doing that any time soon... although I'm sure that "they really mean it this time, you have to give it to us!" Unfortunately, that'd be compromising "national security". Must say I'm not sure how rigging an election qualifies as national security, but since I don't quantifiable know what's in those emails, I'll just take your word Georgie.
Sigh. If this is the price, I'd rather watch out for myself - it's cheaper that way.
OT: hardware? why?
Waterboarding anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Except that, due to oversight, it will not be left to the Attorney General.