Cheney's subpoenaed e-mails missing

[Amazon 7]

From the We are Above the law of the land crowd.. yet again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23367672

Vice President's e-mail lost for key week in CIA leak probe

WASHINGTON - When Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald wanted to find out what was going on inside Vice President Dick Cheney's office, the prosecutor in the CIA leak probe made a logical move. He dropped a grand jury subpoena on the White House for all the relevant e-mail.

One problem: Even though White House computer technicians hunted high and low, an entire week's worth of e-mail from Cheney's office was missing. The week was Sept. 30, 2003, to Oct. 6, 2003, the opening days of the Justice Department's probe into whether anyone at the White House leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

That episode was part of the picture that unfolded Tuesday on Capitol Hill, where Democrats on a House committee released new information about one of the Bush White House's long-running issues, its problem-plagued e-mail system.


Email recovery
For the first time, a former White House computer technician went public with the details. Steven McDevitt revealed in written statements submitted to Congress how a plan was developed to try to recover the missing e-mail for Fitzgerald.

Ultimately, 250 pages of electronic messages were retrieved from the personal e-mail accounts of officials in Cheney's office, but whether that amounted to all the relevant e-mail is a question that may never be answered.

McDevitt made clear that it was a sensitive issue inside the White House.

"I worked with ... White House Counsel on efforts to provide an explanation to the special prosecutor," McDevitt wrote. "This included providing a briefing to the special prosecutor's staff on this subject."

McDevitt provided no details of the meetings with White House Counsel Harriet Miers and others in the counsel's office in late 2005 and early 2006. The White House refused to comment on those meetings.

White House on defensive
The White House put the best face on a bad hearing Tuesday of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, defending the administration's handling of its electronic messages.

McDevitt said that one estimate from a 2005 analysis was that more than 1,000 days of e-mail were missing from January 2003 to Aug. 10, 2005. McDevitt said "the process by which e-mail was being collected and retained was primitive and the risk that data would be lost was high." The "low end" estimate was about 470 days, he added.

The White House says a substantial amount of what had been believed to be missing e-mail had been located.

"We are very energized about getting to the bottom of this" issue, Theresa Payton, chief information officer at the White House Office of Administration, testified to the committee.

"This is a form of sandbagging," replied Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who pointed out that by the time the White House fixes its e-mail problems, "you'll be out of office."

E-mail shortcomings
McDevitt's statements detailed shortcomings that he said have plagued the White House e-mail system for six years. He said:

The White House had no complete inventory of e-mail files.
There was no automatic system to ensure that e-mail was archived and preserved.
Until mid-2005 the e-mail system had serious security flaws, in which "everyone" on the White House computer network had access to e-mail. McDevitt wrote that the "potential impact" of the security flaw was that there was no way to verify that retained data had not been modified.
A new e-mail archiving system that would have addressed the problems was "ready to go live" on Aug. 21, 2006.
Payton told Waxman's committee she canceled the new system in late 2006 because it would have required modifications and additional spending. An alternative system is under way, she said.

[kallend 2,146]

Bad Intel

Bad Email

Maybe it's really just

Bad Boys in charge.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

McDevitt said that one estimate from a 2005 analysis was that more than 1,000 days of e-mail were missing from January 2003 to Aug. 10, 2005. McDevitt said "the process by which e-mail was being collected and retained was primitive and the risk that data would be lost was high." The "low end" estimate was about 470 days, he added.

There are only 950 (give or take one) days between Jan 1 2003 and Aug 10, 2005. Pretty impressive to lose over 105%.

The SEC forced all financial companies to archive all mail a long time ago - no excuse for the White House not to do the same.

[tbrown 26]

Maybe the secretary had to reach to answer the phone and her foot accidently hit the "Delete" button for the entire week. It's happened before.....a whole 18 minutes of bugged telephone conversations back in 1972......there was even a picture to prove how it could have been done.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[longtall 0]

If it quacks like a duck............................................P.S What did Clinton get impeached for again?...........................

" 90 right, five miles then cut."---Pukin Buzzards

[mnealtx 0]

Maybe they should check Sandy Burglar Berger's pants again....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[piper17 1]

I guess Cheney is taking a lesson from the Clinton adminstration regarding missing/deleted emails.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I guess Cheney is taking a lesson from the Clinton adminstration regarding missing/deleted emails.

I think that both Clinton or Bush have no obligation to hand over emails. Especially to a power hungry congress

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

I guess Cheney is taking a lesson from the Clinton adminstration regarding missing/deleted emails.

I think that both Clinton or Bush have no obligation to hand over emails. Especially to a power hungry congress

ofc only the citizens are accountable for their communications and have no expectation of privacy at all...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I think that both Clinton or Bush have no obligation to hand over emails. Especially to a power hungry congress

I guess those of you in the ultra right wing are not down with the part of the constitution that calls for ADVISE and CONSENT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent

Quote

The Founding Fathers of the United States included the language as part of a delicate compromise concerning the balance of power in the federal government. Many delegates preferred to develop a strong executive control vested in the President, while others, worried about authoritarian control, preferred to strengthen the Congress. Requiring the President to gain the advice and consent of the Senate achieved both goals without hindering the business of government.

You guys may just get your wish with a dictator with absolute control yet. I believe the Executive branch.. ESPECIALLY this group of fascist swine... need to have oversite....but it seems you prefer to have overlords.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I guess Cheney is taking a lesson from the Clinton adminstration regarding missing/deleted emails.

I was taught by my mother, sometime around the age of 5, that "Billy did it too" was NOT an excuse for bad behavior.

I guess they don't teach that in Texas.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

From the We are Above the law of the land crowd.. yet again.

You have some, perhaps surprising, folks agreeing with you ...

From the Congressional Record, (pp H1065-H1072), 26 February 2008:

Excerpts:

Representative Dana Rohrabacher: “Madam Speaker, I come to the floor tonight with a heavy heart. The nature of the allegations I make speaks poorly of this administration. In my heart of hearts, I have always wanted this administration to succeed, but the issue at hand is of such magnitude that the American people need to know what is being done and what precedents are being set.

“In my tenure as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, both as chairman and ranking member of an investigative subcommittee, I have witnessed firsthand behavior by the Bush administration which I find deeply troubling.

“The disdain and uncooperative nature that this administration has shown toward Congress, including Republican Members, is so egregious that I can no longer assume that it is simply bureaucratic incompetence or isolated mistakes. Rather, I have come to the sad conclusion that this administration has intentionally obstructed Congress' rightful and
Constitutional duties.

"This administration is setting a terrible precedent. What people have to understand... is when there is a liberal Democrat in the White House, the President will have set [the precedent] that Members of Congress can simply be dismissed, and that when they are trying to do a congressional investigation need not be cooperated with, in fact, can be obstructed. Is that the type of President that we want? Is that acceptable? It shouldn't be acceptable to Democrats and it shouldn't be acceptable to Republicans.

"When I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle accusing this administration of stonewalling, of coverups, or thwarting investigations, I sadly must concur with them."

Rep. Rohrabacher describes a series of incidents in which the Bush Administration blocked – in his words - congressional initiatives or failed to meet his expectations. I explicitly chose not to excerpt some of the most incendiary characterizations (to put it diplomatically) that Rep. Rohrabacher used.

For those who don't remember, Dana Rohrabacher was Special Assistant in President Reagan's administration and is generally credited with having been a driving force/advocate behind the "Reagan doctrine" against Communism, including support for the Afghan mujahideen.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,110]

>What did Clinton . . .

The neo-cons are falling down on the job! A whole four posts before an irrelevant CDIF is thrown out there.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"This administration is setting a terrible precedent. What people have to understand... is when there is a liberal Democrat in the White House, the President will have set [the precedent] that Members of Congress can simply be dismissed, and that when they are trying to do a congressional investigation need not be cooperated with, in fact, can be obstructed. Is that the type of President that we want?

So Marg, do you think he suddenly found the light only because he fears that the Democrats will win in November? His relevation has an 11th hour feel to it, as though he was content to have an Imperial President so long as it was from his own party.

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

I guess Cheney is taking a lesson from the Clinton adminstration regarding missing/deleted emails.

I was taught by my mother, sometime around the age of 5, that "Billy did it too" was NOT an excuse for bad behavior.

I guess they don't teach that in Texas.

Here in Texas, we learned from our momma's, "To error is human, to blame someone else is more human".

But this email shit, is nothing new, when it comes to government oversite the Dems and Reps are always subject to being drug through the mud.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I think that both Clinton or Bush have no obligation to hand over emails. Especially to a power hungry congress

Ohhh, you SO deserve to have Hillary in the White House.
It would almost be worth it.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

So Marg, do you think he suddenly found the light only because he fears that the Democrats will win in November? His relevation has an 11th hour feel to it, as though he was content to have an Imperial President so long as it was from his own party.

No. First, I function under the assumption that he (or any other Congressional Representative or Senator) is saying what he or she truly believes is best for the nation.

(And to be explicit, lest there be any confusion – I disagree with many of the positions of the Orange County Republican, particularly his acquiescence to supporting torture and extraordinary rendition, among other substantive social and foreign policy issues).

Second, I think that he is genuinely frustrated … and pent-up frustration is finally being expressed because the Bush administration is ‘winding down.’ Most of the ‘big-gun’ neo-cons (Feith, Wolfowitz, etc) left at the end of President Bush’s first term or the beginning of his second term. There are lots of civil servants in “Acting” positions that should be Class A political appointees (i.e., the ones that require Senate Confirmation). That may be the "11th hour" feel.

If you read the full Congressional record testimony, he details cases that he has brought to the DOJ that have gone nowhere, in his opinion/perspective. Even when I disagree with him, I acknowledge that he’s a smart guy and he’s very knowledgeable w/r/t foreign policy & counterterrorism. And, since all politics is local eventually, one of the cases which he has met resistance (he would likely characterize it more pejoratively) involves constituents from his district.

Finally, the reality is that the main divide in DC politics is not Republican vs Democrat. It’s the Executive Branch vs. Congress. No one likes oversight.

At a simplified level but with a critical spark of truth: the Executive Branch and Departments think it’s “their” money that Congress won’t give them (to execute programs, etc), and Congress thinks it’s “their” money that the Executive Branch won’t expend they way they want (as representatives of the American citizens). The “Beltway bandits” (i.e., contractors) play each off of the other.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

he was my Rep for years - I can't say I give him credit for anything. Though when I think about OC Reps, B-1 Bob Dornan is the one that really comes to mind.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I think that both Clinton or Bush have no obligation to hand over emails. Especially to a power hungry congress

Ohhh, you SO deserve to have Hillary in the White House.
It would almost be worth it.

Oh, now there is a point with a stick on it

But I see the point.

True oversite I have no problem with. Unfortuantly, both sides of the aisle use it to intimidate. When requests are for a which hunt, I have a problem with it. Otherwise, what ever the law states.

As for Hillary? Hitler would not have even deserved that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[auburnguy 0]

My evil alter ego is delighted by this news.

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I guess Cheney is taking a lesson from the Clinton adminstration regarding missing/deleted emails.

I was taught by my mother, sometime around the age of 5, that "Billy did it too" was NOT an excuse for bad behavior.

I guess they don't teach that in Texas.

Oh yes they do!


Chuck

[Alias 0]

Quote

>What did Clinton . . .

The neo-cons are falling down on the job! A whole four posts before an irrelevant CDIF is thrown out there.

Well, he was impeached for obstruction. I found that comment pertinent.

Carpe Diem

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

>What did Clinton . . .

The neo-cons are falling down on the job! A whole four posts before an irrelevant CDIF is thrown out there.

Well, he was impeached for obstruction. I found that comment pertinent.

Explain why it is pertinent.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>What did Clinton . . .

The neo-cons are falling down on the job! A whole four posts before an irrelevant CDIF is thrown out there.

Well, he was impeached for obstruction. I found that comment pertinent.

Explain why it is pertinent.

Perhaps due to Waxman's complaints in the article?:

Quote

"This is a form of sandbagging," replied Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who pointed out that by the time the White House fixes its e-mail problems, "you'll be out of office."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>What did Clinton . . .

The neo-cons are falling down on the job! A whole four posts before an irrelevant CDIF is thrown out there.

Well, he was impeached for obstruction. I found that comment pertinent.

Explain why it is pertinent.

Perhaps due to Waxman's complaints in the article?:

Quote

"This is a form of sandbagging," replied Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who pointed out that by the time the White House fixes its e-mail problems, "you'll be out of office."

I still don't see why anything Clinton did is relevant to this case. Will it be admissible in court, for example? Is "someone else once did something bad" a legal defense? Can we bring up Nixon too? Or Iran Contra?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.