What Fresh Hell Is This?

June 19, 2007

White House Erases E-mails

The Washington Post is on it:
White House aides made extensive use of political e-mail accounts for official government business, despite rules requiring that they conduct such business through official communications channels, according to new evidence disclosed yesterday by congressional investigators.
I'm thinking the term "rules" is a little weak here. My understanding is that they're laws.

It's the law that official government business must be handled only through official government channels. This administration had been discussing official business (appointments and the like) using Republican National Committee e-mail accounts.

So the Administration broke the rules by conducting business via unofficial political channels - the RNC e-mail servers.

Initially, the White House said "only a handful" of WH officials had been sending emails via the RNC. Turns out it's at least 88. Some hands.

From Congressman Waxman's Oversight Committee Interim Report:
There has been extensive destruction of the e-mails of White House officials by the RNC. Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC e-mail accounts, the RNC has preserved no e-mails for 51 officials. In a deposition, Susan Ralston, Mr. Rove’s former executive assistant, testified that many of the White House officials for whom the RNC has no e-mail records were regular users of their RNC e-mail accounts. Although the RNC has preserved no e-mail records for Ken Mehlman, the former Director of Political Affairs, Ms. Ralston testified that Mr. Mehlman used his account “frequently, daily.” In addition, there are major gaps in the e-mail records of the 37 White House officials for whom the RNC did preserve e-mails. The RNC has preserved only 130 e-mails sent to Mr. Rove during President Bush’s first term and no e-mails sent by Mr. Rove prior to November 2003. For many other White House officials, the RNC has no e-mails from before the fall of 2006. [emphasis in original]
It gets worse:
There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC e-mail accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records. In her deposition, Ms. Ralston testified that she searched Mr. Rove’s RNC e-mail account in response to an Enron-related investigation in 2001 and the investigation of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald later in the Administration. According to Ms. Ralston, the White House Counsel’s office knew about these e-mails because “all of the documents we collected were then turned over to the White House Counsel’s office.” There is no evidence, however, that White House Counsel Gonzales initiated any action to ensure the preservation of the e-mail records that were destroyed by the RNC. [emphasis in original]
Waxman himself:
The Presidential Records Act requires the President to “take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented … and maintained as Presidential records.” To implement this legal requirement, the White House Counsel issued clear written policies in February 2001 instructing White House staff to use only the official White House e-mail system for official communications and to retain any official e-mails they received on a nongovernmental account.
See? it is the law!

More lawlessness from the Bush Administration.


Sherry said...

" laws? we don't need no stink'n laws!"

that is their belief and so far they've been right and if the democrats in congress can't find some "intestinal fortitude" as the nuns at st. scho's used to say, well then, they are pretty much right.


Schmuck Merd'pierre said...

Ma Cheri, vous avez (or may I say "tu as"?) pris les mots de ma bouche même. Merci.

Rules, laws, and the Rule of Law mean nothing to the despots. Nor does Congress understand the meaning of courage, rectitude, or Constitutionality.

Sherry said...

; )

i took 4 years of spanish many many years ago so french, geez

bouche means mouth, merci, thanks

you have me on the rest.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

You have taken the words from my very mouth.

"Vous avez" is the formal form of "you have." "Tu as" is the familiar.

Anonymous said...

You mean the same documentation Hillary Clinton couldn't find when questioned regarding file gate?

Her answer?

"hahahahaha, I don't know...I wish I did know...hahahahaha"

Or how about Harry Reid's "hush hush" over his land and bridge deals, which you know damn well if that were a Republican doing it, the liberal media and liberal blogs such as yourself would be all over it.

Or how about the hardcore proof of Rep. Jefferson and the $90,000.00 in his freezer?

Or how about Bill Clinton committing perjury and witness tampering, and obstruction of justice? All the while the likes of Bin Laden were planning 9/11 under HIS watch? Does any of that count?

Or how about your Democrats who want to put a time line on the war in Iraq, which basically gives the enemy a time line for victory because all the enemy needs to do is sit back and wait. That action by the Democrats would be known as treason during any other time, but not today.

And last, but not least by any means, how about the Democrats double standard and uproar over Bush firing EIGHT U.S. Attorneys when Clinton had his pet Janet Reno fire all NINETY THREE U.S. Attorneys? What a short term memory you have, David. What? Nothing to say about Clinton firing ALL NINETY THREE U.S. Attorneys? Bush fired a minuscule THREE and the Democrats are all whining and firing up the investigations and issuing subpoenas. What the hell?

He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones, David.

So summing it up, let's see:

- 24 million freed in Afghanistan
- Auaddafi put in his place and out of the nuclear business
- FIVE years without a terrorist attack in this country.
- Lower taxes for the MIDDLE CLASS as well as for those who hire us/create the jobs.
- Historic job creation levels and record low unemployment levels.

And Bush is so bad because .... ?

I'll give you ONE guess. Let's see if you can properly answer it instead of putting a "spin" on everything you respond to.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

So very angry for one so young and tender. It's no wonder your Mom took your blogging privileges away for a while, Master Lie. You needed to re-charge your vitriol.

Sherry said...

thanks. i wasn't quite sure about the french. : )

and to anon.

it's becoming clear that you view politics as a sport.
you have your team and you are a diehard fan who would defend any of your team's members no matter their conduct on or off the field, wether unlawful or just unethical or immoral.

that's not dangerous for a football fan or a basketball fan etc.
BUT it is dangerous and shortsighted for a voter.

politics is not a game, even with the "winning is the only thing" attitude we have had lately.

you have to be young.
sad. i hope you become wiser with age.

now go ahead and call me names or get snarky.

it doesn't matter much to me and it just makes you look worse.

Anonymous said...

Shitrock, only one such as yourself would interpret what I said as "angry," only because you disagree with it.

Care to try again, Mr-I-Cannot-Talk-About-The-1992-Video-Showing-Al Gore-Talking-About-Diplomacy-In-Iraq?

Or would you care to simply answer my question with a question, in true liberal fashion.

Hard to breathe in that tight corner eh, Shitrock?

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Poor Master Lie hangs around a blog where he knows he will never make an impact and will only get abuse, condescension, and ridicule. One wonders what sort of person gets pleasure from that sort of behavior, doesn't one? (The words repression, masochism, and self-loating come to mind, but I'm no shrink.)

Perhaps these are simply symptoms an exceptionally difficult adolescence; but in any case this blog is certainly not doing him any good. What if we simply stopped responding to him altogether? Would that be best for all concerned? But that might drive him into a full-blown frenzy and maybe cause him to do damage to himself.

Anybody have an idea what to do about an obviously sick, delusionaly, megalomaniac troll?

Anonymous said...

Allow me to translate what Shitrock is saying:

"I do not know how to answer Master Lie, so I will resort to personal attacks, even though I accuse Master Lie of the very same thing."

Shitrock, I'll make a personal attack of my own in return:

You sir, are an even bigger jagoff than I originally thought. You claim to be all high and mighty on the smartshit scale, and yet, you can only respond to my previous inquiries with more sarcastic, patronizing bullshit all while launching personal attacks on me, which by the way you yourself accused me of doing to you. Well, I might as well live up to what you accuse me of, right?

Schmuck Shitrock said...

You "might as well" live up to it? Master Lie, I fear you have no choice in the matter. Your illness has completely taken over.

As to not knowing how to answer you, you are correct. I don't, in fact, know how to answer incoherent ravings, except to amuse myself by driving you further and further into muddled frustration.

It is very cruel and unchristian of me to taunt a mentally disturbed person, but you know how cruel and unchristian those damn libruls are.