White House Deleted Some RNC Emails

[Skeptic Ginger]

What law?

I know that if the RNC were a government agency, there are some statutes on record handling that are federal law (laws I had to abide by while working in an acquisition office) on archiving, etc, but isn't the RNC a non governmental organization?

Is there a specific statute that you are aware of that covers that?

I ask in ignorance, having never worked for a political party.

DR

There are two problems you must look at for legal ramifications.

One, if government business goes through secret back channels and my understanding is there was a violation here but whether it was merely ethical or whether it was legal, I'll have to check.

The other comes from Congressional orders not to destroy any documents. These orders are given when investigations are initiated. There were orders not to destroy some documents related to Rove (maybe more than one investigation, but the Plame investigation was one). Those orders would include the RNC regardless of private vs public status if they were covered under the wording of the order.


And, as is often the case, I should have looked for other answers before posting mine. Maybe I should read threads from the bottom up instead of top down. And how could I forget the fired attorney scandal. Sheesh, Plame was sooo yesterday.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Bush must be more prolific than we ever though to have had over five million emails to lose.

Bush doesn't use email, the emails were on an RNC server. Thus, the RNC or others who had access "lost" a lot of data.

 

[Unabogie]

Ah, got it, thanks to you all for the reply.
http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html
Similar rules in DoD.

My brain says the White House chief of staff, at the least, and perhaps the AG, would be charged, if not others further up.

DR

No problem. And Daredelvis has it right. The problem is not just why the 8 were fired (and it may actually be more than eight) but rather why some were kept on. Evidence is piling up that the DOJ was micromanaging USA's based on the party affiliation of those involved.

Another case is the NH phone jamming case, where NH Repubs hired a telemarketer to spam the phone banks of Dem get-out-the-vote organizations. This is illegal, and two people were convicted for it.

But it took a very long time for the USA to act on this, even though an obvious crime was committed. The USA didn't interview the prime and only suspect for over a year. He then accepted a plea deal from the other person but never got any cooperation in nailing anyone higher up.

 

[Unabogie]

Leahy and Specter suggest a "mutually trusted computer forensic expert" to help find the missing emails.

Anyone wanna bet the White House bristles at this?

 

[Schneibster]

I spent half an hour on this and didn't find the penalties section of the Presidential Records Act. I suspect it's a felony, but I'm not curious enough to tell. I wonder if this would constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors."

 

[Unabogie]

I spent half an hour on this and didn't find the penalties section of the Presidential Records Act. I suspect it's a felony, but I'm not curious enough to tell. I wonder if this would constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors."

That is defined as whatever the Congress thinks it is. For my money, we passed that threshold years ago when we first learned of the warrantless spying, but certainly the systematic perversion of the DOJ and destruction of evidence ought to do it as well.

 

[Unabogie]

Ok, this is getting good.

The White House is now saying they won't hand over the RNC emails.

Fielding also appears to be trying to head off an attempt by Conyers to obtain e-mails and documents from the Republican National Committee regarding the firings. Roughly 50 White House officials, including 22 curent aides, used e-mail accounts controlled by the RNC to send messages, including some related to the prosecutor firings, and Conyers asked RNC Chairman Mike Duncan to turn over those records today.
Fielding also said that "it was and remains our intention to collect e-mails and documents from those [RNC-controlled] accounts as well as the official White House e-mail and document retention systems" as part of a broader deal with the two committees on staffer testimony.

Could they do anything at all to look more guilty than they do? I swear, these guys bear no resemblance to the always-under-control guys who had such strict message control just a few years ago. They are circling the drain, here.

Are they really willing to defy a congressional subpoena?

 

[ponderingturtle]

What law?

I know that if the RNC were a government agency, there are some statutes on record handling that are federal law (laws I had to abide by while working in an acquisition office) on archiving, etc, but isn't the RNC a non governmental organization?

Is there a specific statute that you are aware of that covers that?

I ask in ignorance, having never worked for a political party.

DR

Well the rules are complicated. If it was official business they need to keep a record, if it was party business they are not allowed to use public assets for it.

So they got blackberries, but if the email is about their official business they need to keep a record.

There have also been email from people who clearly used the RNC email as a way to comunicate off the record.

All things concidered had a fairly good story on this yesterday link

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

I'm interested, I'm just generally too disgusted with this Administration to talk about it rationally right now.

Bad Upchurch. What have we told you about using those words in the same sentence???

Bush must be more prolific than we ever though to have had over five million emails to lose.

Yeah, but they were mostly forward of chain mails promising money or that Robert Tilton farting video.

My brain says the White House chief of staff, at the least, and perhaps the AG, would be charged, if not others further up.

At the time now-gone Andy Card was CoS. Would they have any leverage on the new guy? If not BushCo has a built-in sacrifcial lamb.

 

[Beerina]

I'd like to add "executive privileges" as well ...

Charlie (like Nixon) Monoxide

Well, seriously, you do have two conflicting, and truly valid reasons here.

- On the one hand, you want to keep records so you can do a post-mortem analysis of things that went on, in hopes of improving them.

- On the other hand, these meetings do have lots of b******t in them, and other power brokering. Would Congress put up for a second with recording all their backroom deals of "Ok, if you vote for this pork barrel thing for my district, I'll vote for yours."? An oil corporation might very well want to tell Cheney that if this law is passed, it will reduce profits 8%, and, oh, by the way, we're donating to your campaign. Should that voice be silenced? Pushed off to a meeting over dinner with no recording? What's the point?

 

[Beerina]

Ollie North and Fawn Hall for fifty, Alex. Reagan's memory erasure, aka "I don't recall." And so on.

It's a standard Washington ass covering ploy. I'd be shocked if they didn't do it.

DR

"I don't remember" translates as "I do remember, I did it, but there's no proof that I know of at the moment, at least that any antagonist is aware of, but I don't know that such proof won't be discoverd some day, to turn me into a perjuror."

 

[Upchurch]

Bush must be more prolific than we ever though to have had over five million emails to lose.

I'm sure that probably includes things sent to him, solicited or otherwise. I get a massive amount of emails in a day and I'm a nobody from the midwest.

 

[pgwenthold]

Sorry if gross abuse of power isn't interesting to anyone here, but some of the missing emails appear to be regarding the almost fired USA in Wisconsin, Steve Biskupic.

Apparently Biskupic was on the purge list and somehow got himself removed. Right before the elections, he indicted and convicted a staff member if the incumbent Democratic Governor.

That conviction was overturned due to razor thin evidence being used in a conviction (which calls into question that trial, to be sure) but also the prosecution, especially since Biskupic had previously declined to bring such a case.

But now we find that someone has tipped off Congress that there was a series of emails regarding why Biskupic was on the list and how he got off it, but those emails have turned up "lost".

Is this picture getting clearer? The attorney purge was about abusing the power of USA's to help Republicans and hurt Democrats, and they're covering that up by lying to Congress and destroying evidence.

But here's the snippet from Congress' letter.

I had heard this story the other day, about how the Fed Appeals court overturned the conviction on the day they heard the arguments, seeing how the evidence was so very weak (and this was not a very liberal appeals court, like District 9). It was a nearly unprecedented action by an appeals court, that's how blatent it was.

Now, this is all important because, remember, the AG's initial claim was that the attorney's were fired because they were doing a bad job. Yet, here is an AG who carried out an embarrassingly bad prosecution, but is not canned. Wouldn't "getting your case laughed out of court" be considered a misstep?

This is actually grounds for canning a guy for incompetence, yet he survived (and apparently survived BECAUSE of it). So much for being assessed on the quality of their work.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Well, seriously, you do have two conflicting, and truly valid reasons here.

- On the one hand, you want to keep records so you can do a post-mortem analysis of things that went on, in hopes of improving them.

- On the other hand, these meetings do have lots of b******t in them, and other power brokering. Would Congress put up for a second with recording all their backroom deals of "Ok, if you vote for this pork barrel thing for my district, I'll vote for yours."? An oil corporation might very well want to tell Cheney that if this law is passed, it will reduce profits 8%, and, oh, by the way, we're donating to your campaign. Should that voice be silenced? Pushed off to a meeting over dinner with no recording? What's the point?

You're absolutely right. In fact I was reading (not sure where), that the president is required to retain copies (and originals?) of all correspondence (letters, taped meetings etc.) that will be sealed for 5 years after the president leaves office or revealed before by order of Congress.

This administration has been the most secretive of any administration (IMHO). They'd like to justify that by calling it "national security", but I prefer
"keeping BS under wraps".

Charlie (open source government needed) Monoxide

 

[Unabogie]

I'm sure that probably includes things sent to him, solicited or otherwise. I get a massive amount of emails in a day and I'm a nobody from the midwest.

Except that you have a situation where there are exactly ZERO emails from Karl Rove from 2004. And that's after learning that Rove used the RNC account for 95% of his emails. This is even more unbelievable considering the fact that Rove was ordered in 2004 to keep all of his emails by Patrick Fitzgerald, and even after that, it appears he personally deleted every last email from that year.

I doubt it was all regarding Nigerian bankers with an extra $25,000,000 and penis enlargers.

(Yet one never knows with Rove)

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

Now, this is all important because, remember, the AG's initial claim was that the attorney's were fired because they were doing a bad job. Yet, here is an AG who carried out an embarrassingly bad prosecution, but is not canned. Wouldn't "getting your case laughed out of court" be considered a misstep?

Moreover, if Unabogie's post correct, then doing such a crappy job got him removed from the to-be-fired list. Not only does it simply refute Gonzo's and the DOJ's claims, it's proof to the contrary.

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

Except that you have a situation where there are exactly ZERO emails from Karl Rove from 2004. And that's after learning that Rove used the RNC account for 95% of his emails. This is even more unbelievable considering the fact that Rove was ordered in 2004 to keep all of his emails by Patrick Fitzgerald, and even after that, it appears he personally deleted every last email from that year.

They had to single out Rove's account to stop him from deleting his own mail from the server, even after the RNC was told to stop deleting them.

Which brings up a question to my ignorant-of-the-law mind. How much information, that could be considered evidence, has to be destroyed before it's considered obstruction of justice? Any?

Edit: Clarity

 

[Mephisto]

How many times around the world would 5 MILLION emails go?

(edited to wonder) I wonder how many NEW scandals those 5 millions email would uncover? Can you say, Deborah Jeane Palfrey?

 

[King of the Americas]

For ALL of America to 'care' about this, someone has to sum it up into a 15 second sound bite.

And it has to be catchy...

'Don Imus calls Rutger's basketball players "a bunch of tatooed nappy-headed hos"...'

What we need to know is WHO exactly deleted/shredded what, and WHY they did it.

Someone needs to write a quality lead for this story, because right now it is under the radar.

Personally, I find this Administration to be more than secretive and or simply abusive. In fact, I find myself losing rational thought, simply because they have envoked so much passion to scream out about their 'mis-steps'...

-First mistake, the President/Comander in Cheif is told we are under attack, and he decides to finish reading his goat book to a bunch of kids. I thought this was no less than deriliction of duty.
-Then they abandon the War on Al Ceada to put us into a War with Iraq that they don't know how to get us out of.
-The VP shoots his friend in the face, and doesn't even go to the ER with him
-Now they are destroying records that could be used against them in a court of law.

These are just a few highlights, but my point is that they are in no way clean of corruption, to say the very least.

5 MILLION e-mails...'accidently' deleted from a server...???

Are you kidding me!?

To permanately 'delete' an e-mail, one would have to intentially do so. Putting everything into the trashcan, and clearing your history isn't going to do it...

In fact, I am not toally convienced that these e-mails can't be recovered.

How 'easy' is it to do such a thing, to the point of untraceability???

 

[firecoins]

Double post.

hey this post disappeared!