Henry’s Dates: Two Data Points from the Plame Investigation

Update: We’re getting increasingly strong confirmations that the missing emails were discovered as part of the Plame matter, such as this line the AP’s coverage of the story today:

The White House says the e-mail matter arose in October 2005 in connection with the Justice Department’s CIA leak probe.

I promised I would consider the significance of the dates of missing email archives wrt the Plame investigation. But first of all, I wanted to look at two data points to establish what these dates offer us. As a reminder, here are the dates for which an entire White House office is missing email archives.

For the White House Office: December 17, 2003, December 20, 2003, December 21, 2003, January 9, 2004, January 10, 2004, January 11, 2004, January 29, 2004, February 1, 2004, February 2, 2004, February 3, 2004, February 7, 2004, and February 8, 2004.

For the Office of the Vice President: September 12, 2003, October 1, 2003, October 2, 2003, October 3, 2003, October 5, 2003, January 29, 2004, January 30, 2004, January 31, 2004, February 7, 2004, February 8, 2004, February 15, 2005, February 16, 2005, February 17, 2005, May 21, 2005, May 22, 2005, May 23, 2005.

The first, more simple data point I want to look at is the Mayfield-Martin email exchange that took place on October 1, 2003, but which wasn’t printed out until February 2, 2006. When Jeff first saw the date and the Bates number on the email exchange, he concluded that the email was probably one of the 250 pages worth of emails turned over to Patrick Fitzgerald on February 6, 2006–the emails that had not been archived properly. (Incidentally, we’ve only got two pages of the email, but it was apparently 13 pages when printed out, so presumably that leaves 237 more pages of emails that weren’t discovered in earlier searches.)

Waxman’s list appears to validate Jeff’s conclusion: October 1 is indeed one of the days for which there were no OVP email archives.

Furthermore, the rest of the emails submitted as trial exhibits reinforce this argument. There’s an October 1 email from Laura Mylroie to Mayfield passing on an awful Cliff May’s "Valerie wasn’t covert" column–but that email was printed out on October 1, kept in a file, then turned over as a hard copy. All other emails introduced as evidence come from earlier–when there are no complete days without email archives.

So Waxman’s list explains the very limited set of emails entered into evidence at the trial. It does not, however, explain the other big email anomaly from the investigation, the seeming non-discovery of the Rove-Hadley email until Rove turned it over when he testified in October 2004. After all, the email was written on July 11, 2003, well before the earliest complete day when there was no archived White House email. So even though the White House was reusing all their backup tapes (so therefore there is no backup file of emails form July 11), there was still an archive of emails from that period, as the presence of emails from Cathie Martin written on July 11, but discovered in February 2004, apparently from the archived copy, shows.

That leaves several possibilities:

The email was turned over, and the prosecution team just never realized what it was. I still think this is unlikely, since the FBI was focusing on Rove from early on, was focusing on Time from early on, and Fitzgerald’s willingness to let Cooper limit his first testimony appearance to his conversation with Libby, which suggests he didn’t know about the Rove-Cooper conversation at all.

The email was sent to and from RNC email addresses, and was destroyed by the RNC’s "document retention" policy of purging all emails every 30 days, but the email remained on Rove’s computer, but not Hadley’s. Here’s what Rob Kelner told Waxman about the RNC email retention practice.

According to Mr. Kelner, the RNC had a policy, which the RNC called a "document retention" policy, that purged all e-mails from RNC e-mail accounts and the RNC server that were more than 30 days old.

[snip]

Mr. Kelner’s briefing raised particular concerns about Karl Rove, who according to press reports used his RNC account for 95% of his communications. According to Mr. Kelner, although the hold started in August 2004, the RNC does not have any e-mails prior to 2005 for Mr. Rove. Mr. Kelner did not give any explanation for the e-mails missing from Mr. Rove’s account, but he did acknowledge that one possible explanation is that Mr. Rove personally deleted his e-mails from the RNC server.

So we know that, if the email was an RNC email, the RNC would not have Rove’s side of it [Update: and, as Jeff reminds us, the first email available on the RNC server was the day after Rove’s assistant printed out the email, which sure looks mighty suspicious], and probably wouldn’t have one from Hadley, either, since they destroyed emails every thirty days. But this possibility is inconsistent with what we know of the RNC server, since Hadley has never been included among the list of people who had an RNC email.

July 11 is one of the days for which the White House has only a partial archive of emails. The list Waxman gave is only a partial list of the complete days when there were no archived emails for a particular office of EOP. In addition, we know there are many more days during which the email archive is incomplete. So it’s possible that July 11 is one such day, and that this email was among those not archived properly. If so, then once again, it would appear that the email remained soley on Rove’s computer.

They were using personal accounts. Rove, at least, had a personal account in addition to his White House and RNC account. Perhaps Hadley did too. If they were using personal accounts, that might explain why the email was not found in a search (though Hubris specifies that it was printed off of Rove’s White House computer).

I’m probably missing a possibility or two, which I hope you will correct. The point is, though, as we look at the dates on which we know no White House archive of emails exist, we should remember that the missing archives are just one of the several things that seem to be making White House email disappear.

image_print
115 replies
      • FrankProbst says:

        Doh! That’s what I get for not reading the dateline. Josh linked it from his main page, so I assumed it was new.

        Here’s a question about subpoenas: The Bush Administration has been pretty much ignoring subpoenas it doesn’t like, on the theory that Congress is full of weenies and won’t hold anyone in contempt, and the DOJ wouldn’t enforce it even if they did. So what happens if a Dem wins in November, and the new Attorney General decides that he WILL enforce any contempt citations?

  1. bmaz says:

    Greetings Earthlings! You all are doing fine work. But I know the question you are dying to have answered, and it doesn’t involve Henry Waxman and/or email. You want to know if we are ready for some football! Indeed we are and trash talk will be along shortly. Its okay if you guys get the wrecking crew impeached and convicted before I am back though. Really. I promise I won’t be upset. Carry on.

    • bmaz says:

      And keep yer powder dry on the football comments until it gets here too; else I get demerits from EW for busting yet another thread!

      A round of applause for Sen. Leahy!

      • BayStateLibrul says:

        For his endorsement?

        Clemens has added to his Team….
        Batting 2nd… a Washington National lawyer, wearing No 22
        (as Soxster he had 21 which has been set ablaze)

        • bmaz says:

          Smart move by Rusty. I would add in local counsel expert at Congressional process too, and Breuer is very good. I don’t think this means all that much other than Rusty Hardin knows what he is doing.

    • GulfCoastPirate says:

      This is from the story you linked:

      “The declaration, which the White House was forced to file pursuant to court order, disclosed that before October 2003, the White House recycled computer backup tapes containing e-mail. Such a process would overwrite large numbers of e-mails. The White House said it began preserving backup tapes in October 2003, but had recycled them before then.”

      Let me see if I have this correct. A large IT organization, which I assume is nonpolitical, and briefed on the legal requirements with regards to keeping records, is going to systematically reuse backup tapes so that all previous records are destroyed, and not a single grunt working the midnight shift questioned this policy or did a single thing to cover his/her own ass?

      Am I missing anything?

      • Rayne says:

        Depends on whether the IT corporation is more apolitical than not.

        Don’t you think there’s a difference between IBM and Northrop Grumman, depending on which is the vendor that supplied the system and/or the service?

        • GulfCoastPirate says:

          I’m not talking about the IT organization as an entity itself. I’m talking about the people. If anyone wants to know whether the WH is lying or not why don’t they just ask the people who were using the tapes? Something like:

          1. Mr/Ms IT person – when you went to work at the WH were you briefed on recordkeeping requirements?

          2. Mr/Ms IT person – did you reuse previously used backup tapes and if so who specifically instructed you to do this.

          3. Mr/Ms IT person – if you were briefed this was illegal and did it anyway did you do anything to cover your ass in case we found out and hauled you in here to ask you these questions.

          As an individual I can only say I can’t imagine anyone asking me to do something like this and not doing things to protect my own ass. Would you?
          So why are they messing around trying to get answers from these WH political types? Just go ask the right people.

          Mr/Ms IT person – are you telling us you chose IT as a profession and you didn’t read a single log for two years to see if the archiving was completing successfully? Is that what you want us to believe?

          Some of this is simply mind boggling. That’s why I’m beginning to believe Waxman doesn’t really want to know because then he’d have to actually DO something.

          The article said there were what, 578 users? And someone here said they spent 60 million (is that the correct figure)? I can put you in touch with 20 people in the Houston area who can set up an Exchange system for <600 users for <50000 (more likely 25 or 30) and with a small, weekly marginal cost (which isn’t included in the 60 million either, nor will you need to spend 59 million+ to bring over old data) you won’t lose two years worth of data unless you instruct someone to lose it (or more likely lose it yourself because none of the 20 would do it for you).

          The Democrats don’t want to know and we’re all getting rolled by them just as much as we are by the Republicans.

          • Rayne says:

            How do you know that Leahy hasn’t already had that chat with Joe Sixpack IT technician?

            There’s a lot of information appearing in letters like Waxman’s that strongly suggest to me he’s already gotten a lot of information from the IT folks at grunt level.

            But he’s not looking for wrong-doing at that level; he’s looking for it much higher.

            I also don’t think you are taking into consideration that some of the folks on the Dem side of the fence — and likely not Waxman — have been extorted/bought in some fashion into compliance. The most obvious to me is Lieberman; he holds the chairmanship that is the Senate’s counterpart to Waxman’s chairmanship on the House Oversight Committee. Why aren’t you complaining about the fact that Lieberman is not conducting investigations as Waxman is? Wouldn’t it be easier if Waxman didn’t have to carry the entire load himself, could rely on someone on the Senate side to bat when he can’t?

            Think about it: Rove calls Lieberman after he loses the primary to Lamont. The money for his campaign is there to run against Lamont, as are the Republican voters. Why’d Rove call? To keep Lieberman from doing his freaking job as chair of Senate Gov’t Affairs Committee? If we looked in Lieberman’s donations, would we see any donors who’d have a vested interest in the lack of investigations?

            • GulfCoastPirate says:

              Rayne wrote:

              ‘How do you know that Leahy hasn’t already had that chat with Joe Sixpack IT technician?

              There’s a lot of information appearing in letters like Waxman’s that strongly suggest to me he’s already gotten a lot of information from the IT folks at grunt level.

              But he’s not looking for wrong-doing at that level; he’s looking for it much higher.’

              And when he finds it what’s he going to do? The same as Waxman, write another letter asking the WH folks to please play nicely?

              That’s what got me started today after reading some of what different folks wrote yesterday and before. There is not a single person in the WH who gives a flying frak how many letters Waxman and/or Leahy write. If either of them have already spoken with the grunts then DO something other than write letters. And if they haven’t then, at this point, they are just as incompetent/corrupt as the Republicans.

              Rayne also wrote:

              ‘I also don’t think you are taking into consideration that some of the folks on the Dem side of the fence — and likely not Waxman — have been extorted/bought in some fashion into compliance’

              That’s exactly what I said from the very beginning although I included Waxman in the group also. So I ask again, after all the ignored supoenas, the letters, the hearings that never completely get to the issue involved but rather clang around the edges of an issue, what exactly have the Democrats done?

              And the answer is – not a darn thing. They’re doing just enough so we all get excited and they get elected but other than that – nothing.

              We’re being rolled – they don’t intend to do anything.

              • Rayne says:

                Have you considered at all that the folks who can do something may not have all the tools they need, or that they have been trying to do their work as quickly and quietly as possible, so that the criminals they are hunting do not destroy even more evidence because they’ve been tipped off…or worse, that the criminals might feel pushed into doing something incredibly rash, of a magnitude and scale unknown before, in order to cover up their tracks as the investigation follows them?

                We’re dealing with something far worse than the Mafia here. It’s the Mafia with the ability to access perfect knowledge about the investigation, with the ability to stop nearly any investigation with more pixie dust, armed with powers and money the mob could only dream of.

                Let’s assume that the criminals can read every email, hear every phone conversation that investigators exchange with each other as they chase the criminals. What would it look like out here to us?

                Keeping that in mind, I’m just not willing to throw out our only other hope besides solving the mysteries of these crimes ourselves.

                • GulfCoastPirate says:

                  Yes but they aren’t without tools of their own – the power of the purse for one. If we didn’t work in 2006 to elect Democrats in order to have this confrontation then what did we work for at that time?

                  • Rayne says:

                    The power of the purse does not exist with a 49-49 majority in the Senate. That is the biggest single hurdle that must be cleared in November: a veto-proof majority.

                    jdmckay (56) — yeah, and Ralph Reed hired as MSFT’s lobbyist, too. Should look to see if he came on board as lobbyist before or after the migration from Lotus to Exchange, eh?

                    • bmaz says:

                      Hey Rayne – I still have a bug in my butt over the Mitnicks that I raised here? Any clue or any idea how to find out if they are related? I couldn’t tell from teh Google, but I am lame….

                    • GulfCoastPirate says:

                      The power of the purse does not exist with a 49-49 majority in the Senate. That is the biggest single hurdle that must be cleared in November: a veto-proof majority.

                      I’m so sick of hearing this I want to scream. The Republicans certainly don’t seem to think this way. If they can’t find the emails, enforce Congressional subpoenas or prosecute crime then shut the Dept of Justice down. No more money until they do so. If they’re worthless why keep giving them money?

                      A veto proof majority – what a joke. When, since Jan, 1981, have the Republicans enjoyed such an outcome? Yet, in that time they’ve managed to subvert the Constitution, entangle the US in Middle East alliances which are certain to go down to defeat, borrow trillions of dollars to pass on to the wealthy, send the manufacturing infrastructure of this country overseas in search of cheap labor and yet the Democrats say they need a veto proof majority in order to be able to carry out their Constitutional duties?

                      No offense but I’m speechless.

                    • Rayne says:

                      How exactly does the House Oversight Committee enforce a subpoena? They ask law enforcement via DOJ.

                      How exactly does the DOJ’s funding get cut off to ensure compliance? Congress passes a bill that does so, but it has to be veto-proof AND you have get Republicans who are likely tangential targets and subjects of DOJ investigations to cooperate. (They may go along with shutting off funding, but how do you get it turned back on?)

                      It’s just not that easy. I am as exasperated as you are speechless that we f*cked ourselves so badly, but we did by allowing progressivism to coast on autopilot for years while the fascist authoritarians worked over decades to obtain a critical mass of power and lockdown on all three branches of government.

                      To be more blunt, you don’t seem to realize there was a coup and we still haven’t had a revolution to overturn the occupying force.

                    • bmaz says:

                      Boy, howdy; I agree with that. With one exception. They have the power to impose inherent contempt, which does not require the DOJ or the Federal courts; but they not only won’t use the power, they won’t even freaking discuss it. Dereliction of duty and oath of office is being to kind.

                    • GulfCoastPirate says:

                      To be more blunt, you don’t seem to realize there was a coup and we still haven’t had a revolution to overturn the occupying force.

                      LMAO – I realize it and can’t argue with it.

                      Getting it turned back on is a problem but getting it turned off is not. If they aren’t doing what they are supposed to be doing then let them run out of money and force a crisis. Same thing that can be done with Iraq. If you don’t lead the revolution you speak of by forcing the issue then you are submitting to the coup.

                      They aren’t going to get a veto proof majority in November either. What excuse will they use then?

            • brendanx says:

              This exchange addresses the question I have. Is there any evidence one way or the other who Waxman has contacted on that level?

        • jdmckay says:

          Depends on whether the IT corporation is more apolitical than not.

          Don’t you think there’s a difference between IBM and Northrop Grumman, depending on which is the vendor that supplied the system and/or the service?

          Reminds me, I’ve long been suspicious of backroom dealings under which Ashcroft made DOJ’s MS anti-trust suit go away. I thought Fed’s had a good case. Among other things, M$’ lobbying budget increased exponentially during that period.

          Seems all but forgotten now.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        GCP,

        You are only missing that the fact that towards the Clinton administration they got busted by the GAO for recycling backup tapes and losing emails.

        • GulfCoastPirate says:

          If you didn’t see it on the other thread I’m down in League City – South Shore.

          No, that’s part of what has me fluxxomed, flabbergasted – whatever you want to call it. Clinton’s admin was doing this and now you’re telling me the smirkies came behind them and did the exact same thing and no IT person asked ‘what the frak’? Despite the legal requirements?

          The only way I can see their story being believable is if Cheney was down in the tape room loading (tossing) the tapes himself. I know I wouldn’t have done it for him. Would you? So why even ask them what they did? Just call up the grunts and get the story from the sources.

  2. FrankProbst says:

    Other news: Dick’s Secret Service detail is in hot water over an incident that I hadn’t really heard about until now.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01…..ref=slogin

    I’m curious as to whether or not any of these agents were on duty the day Dick shot that old man in the face. If so, it would make any plea-bargaining negotiations much more interesting.

  3. Jeff says:

    And let’s not forget that, according to Hubris, the July 11 Rove-Hadley email was printed out for Robert Luskin on November 25, 2003, while, according to Waxman, the first Rove email they have from the RNC account is dated November 26, 2003 – the very next day!

    My main question on the OVP emails is whether Fitzgerald is satisfied that, once he got the previously unproduced emails from OVP in February 2006, he then had all the relevant emails from OVP that should have been turned over to investigators.

    • emptywheel says:

      One thing I realized when I wrote this is that Martin was gone from OVP and I think Mayfield was too. Which would mean they got the email reconstructed from somewhere else.

      • radiofreewill says:

        It’s deja vu, deja vu – in the Gallant deposition, she tells the story of Mail2, under Clinton/Gore. IIRC, the original ‘issue’ was raised by the Web guy wondering if web-mail (yahoo, hotmail, etc) was getting archived into ARMS – it wasn’t, and that’s when they debugged into “case sensitivity” set to “on” and Back-Up Domain set to MAIL2 = No Archiving for that User ID.

        Also, the Tape Re-cycling System over-wrote data that was more than two years old, essentially erasing and pasting header files, and laying fresh data tracks right on top of the old data – which was re-coverable.

        If Mail2 was still around during the Bush Administration, Rove could ‘delete’ his e-mail, but he still had the problem of how to get rid of any archival copies on the system (even if he deleted an e-mail ‘off the server’ within seconds of receiving it, it could have already been journalled off to create an archival record, that would be ‘recoverable by normal SysAdmin means for two years [allthough still ‘un-seen’ by ARMS], and then the Tape Re-cycling would have stripped the headers and ‘plowed under’ the data, which was then (somewhat?) still ‘recoverable’ by the NG Reconstruction Process after that.)

        The Gallant deposition says that Northrop Grumman had come up with a ‘reconstruction’ process that ‘un-ravelled’ the over-layed data tracks but left blanks for the un-recovered headers. So, running the reconstruction process would produce a long block file containing hundreds, or thousands, of data files (the “To, From, Date, Time, Subject, Body” part of an e-mail – separated by blank space, indexed by (blank) header file number and Reconstruction Process Run Date, not e-mail date.

        So, the end-product of the Reconstruction was something like a microfiche that had to be block-searched, hit by hit – which may explain why the Goopers were always asking the Dems for ’search terms.’

        And, this is assuming Mail2, or Son of Mail2, was in-service ‘01-’05 – but, it would explain:

        – an initial document dump from ARMS
        – Fitz finds the hardcopy Mayfield-Martin exchange
        – interviews IT and discovers Mail2, or its successor
        – NG runs the ‘Reconstruction’ Process
        – the Records Manager sifts the new material
        – and responds with a second document dump
        – returning the responsive, recovered e-mails

        My guess is that Clinton pulled the original “Mail Server Ate My Documents, now give me some reasonable and relevant search terms” obstruction maneuver.

        And, it would be So Bush to return the (patently illegal) nose-thumbing, tit for tat – but, this is all jmho.

    • BayStateLibrul says:

      Yeah… that’s the sad story of Fitzy never filing a final report
      (lessons learned) which in retro, was a fatal flaw in the law/rules that he
      was working under…

      • skdadl says:

        But a “final report” would imply that the case is closed, and Fitzgerald has never said that, AFAIK. He said at the time of the Libby verdict that it was “inactive,” and he emphasized that word. There has also been a certain amount of further activity, at least between Fitzgerald and congresscritturs. I’m assuming he still has his antennae quivering, yes?

        • BayStateLibrul says:

          Yes. Fitzy is still our ace in the hole?
          Which leads me to the status of AG Mukasey’s letter back to
          Waxman on other Plame (non GJ) testimony?
          Isn’t it about two weeks late (due on January 5th)?

  4. merkwurdiglieber says:

    Is it not true that all email goes through NSA and some telecom server,
    giving selected access to a ghost archive?

  5. Leen says:

    wondered when Hadley’s name would come back up.

    “http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Adviser_was_Woodwards_source_1116.html
    “National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was the senior administration official who told Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA officer, attorneys close to the investigation and intelligence officials tell RAW STORY.”

    Laura Myrolie”* An obscure academic, derided as a virtual crackpot by U.S. law enforcement and the intelligence community, greatly influenced top Bush administration officials, who adopted her farfetched theory that Saddam was the source of most of the terrorism in the world, including the 9/11 attacks. But, oddly, this researcher, Laurie Mylroie, had once been a Saddam apologist and had engaged in secret, back-door diplomacy aimed at brokering a peace accord between Israel and Iraq. After Saddam invaded Kuwait, Mylroie developed bizarre allegations about Saddam and terrorism. Her theories were debunked by the CIA and FBI, yet Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz embraced them, cited them in official meetings, and repeatedly pressed the agency and bureau to come up with evidence to substantiate Mylroie’s work.”

    • Jeff says:

      Um, Leen, I know you are a fan of Larry Johnson, which is fine, but that Rawstory report and its sources have been utterly discredited. It is flatly false, and whoever told Rawstory that was propagating falsehood, knowingly or not. Hadley was not Woodward’s source – Armitage was Woodward’s source.

      • spy4hire says:

        Jeff
        We Larry Johnson types have a question for you:

        What was it like smoking Murray Waas’ cock all those months? How much did you enjoy it when he bent you over?

        You see, Jeff, Larry is a personal friend of the Wilson’s. Joe and Valerie. You’re Murray’s bitch.

        By the way, you and Murray sold a couple of hundred copies of that door-stopper from what I understand. I can see why you’re so upset. But should you ever want to suck Larry’s dick I am sure he’d oblige.

        • bmaz says:

          If you are going to leave vitriolic screed like that here, do not ever come back. First off, I am as much of a regular here as there is, and I am not aware of anyone here, including Jeff, that has any personal problem with Larry Johnson. I read No Quarter regularly and every now and then comment, although not frequently. I am pretty sure that Larry and Leslie, at a minimum, would recognize my name enough to confirm that I am a friend to the blog. Jeff is tough on the details of the Plame case; he is also extremely knowledgeable and well versed in them. You, on the other hand, if you are arguing that that Raw Story article is correct, are not. The arguments here are on the facts, not against people, and Jeff is correct that said Raw Story article has been completely disproven. I would hazard a guess that Larry would agree. Until you learn your ass from a hole in the ground, can argue with accurate facts and a cogent voice, and learn how to write, don’t come back under any of your chickenshit fraudulent identities.

        • Jeff says:

          Thanks, folks, for the backup. I don’t quite get why spy4hire is so pissed.

          Look, this – “Larry is a personal friend of the Wilson’s.” – is a point I have made several times myself; Johnson is a good and loyal friend of the Wilons, and that’s admirable. (Whether it makes him the most objective commenter on the attack on the Wilsons is, of course, another matter.)

          As for the Rawstory article – and spy4hire you’ve mentioned you were in the same room when Leopold spoke on the phone with Mary McCarthy, a pretty sensitive source, so you’re clearly close – the simple fact of the matter is that Alexandrova and/or Leopold were given downright false information about Woodward’s source by “attorneys close to the case” and “intelligence officials.” Not only has that story never been corrected, but you’d think a reporter might be interested in disclosing who was feeding him/her egregiously false information and explaining why, or what the mistake made by multiple sources was about. Some explanation is in order, don’t you think?

          Look, these sorts of things happen. As I’ve mentioned before, none other than Bob Novak’s old partner Rowland Evans was punked by source(s) regarding purported forthcoming indictments in Iran-Contra in precisely the same way that your pal Leopold was in the CIA leak investigation. (I still find that parallel extraordinary.) But it seems to me reporters owe their readers some kind of explanation when these things happen.

          • spy4hire says:

            You took a dig at Larry, Jeff, and you’ve done it many times before particularly on The Next Hurrah. You’ve been critical of what Larry says he knows about the leak. Do not attempt to divert attention away from your intended criticism of Larry. You said above “um….Leen, I know you’re a fan of Larry Johnson, which is fine…” That is how you began your screed. And that was intended as a dig at Larry. As I have said, Jeff, you have written comments critical of what Larry has said. Your knowledge of this case, Jeff, is based entirely on reading the media reports or talking to Murray, which I am still unsure how you can do that when he has his dick in your mouth.

            So, again, do not try and change the subject. You intended to criticize Larry with your comment and that would not be the first time.

            And as for Mary McCarthy, I am sure you are aware that she signed a letter with Larry, and others like us in the intel community, opposing Mr. Mukasey’s confirmation. It’s a small community, Jeff, and we’re a tight knit group.

            • Rayne says:

              So, again, do not try and change the subject.

              If anybody’s changing the subject, you are. Do you have something to say about the missing emails or the methodology by which they should be obtained?

  6. BayStateLibrul says:

    OT, Let us pray?
    This should belong on the weekend edition of Trash Talking

    Our Favre,
    Who art in Lambeau,
    Hallowed be thine arm.
    The bowl will come,
    It will be won.
    In Phoenix as it is in Lambeau
    And give us this Sunday,
    Our weekly win.
    And give us many touchdown passes.
    But do not let others pass against us.
    Lead us not into frustration,
    But deliver us to the valley of the sun.
    For thine is the MVP, the best of the NFC,
    and the glory of the Cheese heads,
    now and forever.
    AMEN

    • phred says:

      Bless you my friend : )

      Frank Probst @8 — I remember reading about this incident when it happened. Mr. Howard was walking his kid to piano lessons at the time. So being arrested was a real problem, what with his son being there. The Secret Service didn’t do a thing until 10 minutes after the encounter, after Mr. Howard had walked away. What do you bet our vindictive VP insisted the SS arrest the man for having the nerve to express his opinion. Now to read that the agents involved are turning on each other and that Darth is refusing to be deposed, well, it just warms my heart…

  7. JodiDog says:

    Again, again, again to the dry well!

    Hope springing eternal that here at last the “smoking email.”

    “It must be somewhere. It must, it must” they blog feverishly!

    “The Plame of hope will burn, must burn forever!”

    “Can’t you just let it go, emptywheel might say Dr Phil?

    “Never, never, never, never, never, never, …”

  8. chetnolian says:

    This may be a stupid question, but is it significant that only two (I think) dates (Feb 7 and Feb 8 2004) in the lists co-incide? Is there anything that might be important not to be in WH and OVP archives around then?

    • emptywheel says:

      Yes. Just in the Plame leak, for example, that’s when they would have been responding to a subpoena asking for materials relating to a slew of journalists.

  9. sojourner says:

    In re: “According to Mr. Kelner, the RNC had a policy, which the RNC called a “document retention” policy, that purged all e-mails from RNC e-mail accounts and the RNC server that were more than 30 days old.”

    There is a very important point that must be remembered here! They purge email from the Exchange servers, which does not affect a user’s personal email archive folders… For instance, I have personal email archive folders that I use to move mail off the servers and retain it for later reference. The purging is performed so that the servers do not become overloaded, and partly for security reasons.

    Just because the email was purged from the servers themselves does not mean that they no longer exist. They are on someone’s desktop or laptop computer in a so-called .pst file (a personal archive).

    • emptywheel says:

      Right, which is presumably how ROve may have been able to get it–though if the RNC deleted all his emails on November 25, just after he printed off the Hadley email, he may have actually accessed the email on the server and not his own computer.

      I still want to know why Hadley didn’t turn it over, if he didn’t

      • BillE says:

        hard drive forensics is a very cool thing. unless you melt it down they can find almost anything ever stored on a magnetic media.

        • JodiDog says:

          That is plain rubbish!

          That is why the bloggers and the Democrats keep saying that you can’t delete emails. Foolish statements like that from people who know how to “undelete” a file, or run a program to do same.

          You assume that nothing is every written over the undeleted area, or that it is not written over again, and again, or written over and erased, again, and again.

          It doesn’t have to be intentional even.

          And finally you assume that there is something to hide where no one has come up with a copy or a leaked copy or even a sighting of something incriminating.

          • Rayne says:

            And finally you assume that there is something to hide where no one has come up with a copy or a leaked copy or even a sighting of something incriminating.

            How do you know what the investigation has, Jodi?

            You don’t.

            • JodiDog says:

              I assume that since I haven’t heard anything, there is nothing!

              Are you assuming that since you haven’t heard anything there is something?

              Or perhaps you have heard something, and are willing to share?

  10. BlueStateRedHead says:

    A dream, a fantasy really.

    In 2004 at the Convention they trained lawyer volunteers in election law.
    In 2008, the same lawyers volunteered, and were briefed on the presidential records law, documentation retention case law, and on how to search the archives of [email protected].

    Election night, the Democratic winner is called by the President. He is told that a bus is standing at the gate with a phalanx of lawyers with sleeping bags and they are moving in until to assure that all the losses that occured at the last two transitions do not reoccur.
    With the assurance that the Bush Library will get a copy of everything they save.
    the have ventilated man-sized safes where they will put any admin. flunky caught deleting.

    Now, let us really pray.

  11. BlueStateRedHead says:

    If anyone is still there,
    Does executive privilege extend to the Ms/Mr. IT. The basis is his ability to have unimpeded advice from his counsellors, right.
    So it doesn’t. Even in the fourth branch.

  12. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Verifying that Rove accurately and consistently used his multiple e-mail accounts in the manner as he claims, the possibility that official business is intermixed on all his accounts seems high. Consequently, one would think that ALL of Rove’s and other targets’ e-mail accounts would have been searched and copied or ordered preserved.

    I’ll also say again that no one destroys e-mails on a thirty-day schedule. Disaster recovery back-up tapes or disks may run on that schedule, but mail is usually on servers for considerably longer than thirty days.

    The RNC is an organization that plans events weeks and months and years in advance. E-mail communications about them would be voluminous. A thirty-day “records retention policy” would make that work impossible. Since the RNC implements such events with supercomputer-like precision, it suggests that they preserve communications over longer than thirty day intervals. Which would make any full destruction at thirty-days policy highly selective, outside the ordinary course of business, and possibly obstruction.

    • JodiDog says:

      It depends.

      There are parameters that can be set.

      For example the email may be erased from the mail server once it is POPed down to the user’s computer or it may be left there indefinitely. gmail for example has that capability. You can then use the web mail facility to get it.

      Sometimes the server will save a copy for a period of time (i.e. 30 days or so) in case there was a problem with the POP down to the user’s computer.

      The only real criteria of what is done is “good service to the customer” and how much he is paying for that kind of service.

      • GulfCoastPirate says:

        What a frakking idiot.

        Rayne,

        Did you read this? I try to stay positive, I really do, but we’re losing to people like this. He/she/it is probably one of the smarter ones but still, it’s getting harder and harder for me to believe the losing isn’t intentional.

          • GulfCoastPirate says:

            I wasn’t making a point, only an observation.

            Or didn’t you notice, assuming you know the difference?

            • JodiDog says:

              I looked at everything you said not just the 4 word sentence, but I won’t get into analyzing your sentences, paragraphs and posts except for this glancing reference.

              Don’t become myopic. It is boring.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Yup. Apart and aside from the fact that Rove is such a venal ratfvcker it’s a sure bet he keeps emails on the side for future ‘blackmail opportunities’. He seems to have that kind of ‘payback’ mindset.

      Too bad for the WH that quite a few of us on the blogs have worked in environments where:
      (1) we couldn’t even access workspace without our keycards — so there’s no doubt about who has access to a workspace or computer,
      (2) we can’t access our work without passwords and we’re paid to leave good comments and notes about what we’ve done,
      (3) backup systems and redundancy are designed into the architecture,
      (4) we would be (justifiably) fired on the spot, escorted out off the premises, and almost certainly sued by an employer for data corruption or related ‘theft’ or ‘damages’.

      And we’re supposed to roll over and believe this kind of sh*t from the WH – and then watch as Congress and DoJ don’t do a damn thing…?

      It just gets more insulting by the day.

      • Rayne says:

        Apparently “industry best practices” doesn’t mean what we think it means.

        Perhaps it’s not pixie dust as EW postulates, but a parallel universe into which the junta can slip in and out, a backwards one featured in old Superman comics from time to time. “Industry best practices” in that world must look a lot like the black hole we see in lieu of emails.

      • JodiDog says:

        Perhaps you have never worked with or in the Vicinity of the Mighty. Usually an “Officer of the Company.” Particularly a Vice President (civilian) or more.

        The rules don’t apply.

        I remember once that I found I was shorted by a company I had done work for, and actually went over to the main office to get it straight since I was in town, and I had a keen, keen interest in quick action.

        Unfortunately the man I really went to see took that Friday afternoon off, and wouldn’t be back until the next week. I tried to explain my problem to some local potentate, but got the “Our Policy says such and such.”
        I explained patiently several times why that didn’t apply.
        I got the haughty “Our Policy” again and again.

        Exasperated, I (with great zeal) said. “Look! I don’t care why this was done. I don’t care what the policy usually is. I have a contract signed by an Officer of the Company and when so and so gets back Monday please indicate that I want it straighted out. And by the way, he should have a copy of that paper and signature since it was signed in his office.” I gave the little potentate a big smile, and then wheeled on out of there for my own weekend.

        First thing Monday, I got a plaintive call from the person that had implemented that Policy, who asked somewhat testily why I waited so long to indicate the problem. I said I had been busy, and hadn’t noticed it. I was then told that it was totally straightened out and they were sorry I had been troubled.

        Karl Rove like Dick Cheney can do what they wish, as they wish, and f**k the protocols mortal men might obey.

        And that is not unusual at the top of any enterprise.

        • skdadl says:

          Karl Rove like Dick Cheney can do what they wish, as they wish, and f**k the protocols mortal men might obey.

          And that is not unusual at the top of any enterprise.

          Heh. You been taking seminars from Conrad Black? Heh.

        • Rayne says:

          Could you point out exactly where it says that we are residents of the “Incorporated States of America,” please?

          Right there is the fundamental problem with conservatism in America; it has mistaken consumerism and corporatism for democracy. Cheney and Rove were both on OUR dime, not the other way around, and a little gawddamned piece of paper called the Constitution makes that clear.

          I am also picturing the wry smirk on EW’s face at the notion of anyone using the title “Mr.” in addressing me. My kids will certainly be amused.

  13. maryo2 says:

    February 5, 2004 – George Tenet gave speech saying Iraq was not imminent threat.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/…..script.ap/

    Tenet: “My provisional bottom line today: Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon, he still wanted one, and Iraq intended to reconstitute a nuclear program at some point.

    We have not yet found clear evidence that the dual-use items Iraq sought were for nuclear reconstitution. We do not yet know if any reconstitution efforts had begun. But we may have overestimated the progress Saddam was making.”

  14. klynn says:

    EW,

    I’ve been looking at the AIPAC court filing. Some of those dates seem to fall into the email timeline too. But I am not sure…

    For example:

    12. On or about January 15, 2004, FRANKLIN met the FO and again asked the FO to provide some type of letter for his daughter for her travel to the Middle East, including the Foreign Nation A.

    13. On or about February 13, 2004, FRANKLIN met the FO at the POAC. At this meeting, the FO suggested to the defendant that he should meet with a person previously associated with an intelligence agency of Foreign Nation A who was then running a think tank in Foreign Nation A. The FO also gave the defendant a gift card.

    14. On or about February 20, 2004, FRANKLIN met in the cafeteria at the Pentagon with this person previously associated with an intelligence agency of Foreign Nation A and discussed a Middle Eastern country’s nuclear program.

    15. In or about late February 2004, the defendant and the FO exchanged telephone calls about certain foreign organizations.

    16. On or about May 13, 2004, the FO faxed a letter from his Embassy office to Franklin’s Pentagon fax relating to the defendant’s daughter’s travel to Foreign Nation A.

    17. On or about June 8, 2004, FRANKLIN and the FO met at a coffee house in Washington, DC At this meeting, the defendant provided the FO with classified information he had learned from a classified United States government document related to a Middle Eastern country’s activities in Iraq. The defendant was not authorized to disclose this classified information to the FO.

    18. On June 23, 2004, FRANKLIN met the FO and another official from Foreign Nation A at the Pentagon. The parties discussed the military situation in Iraq. The defendant provided the FO with an unclassified copy of a speech and list of questions that a senior United States government official was to give that day or the next before the Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee.

    19. Between December 2003 and June 2004, at an unknown location, FRANKLIN disclosed to the FO classified United States government information relating to a weapons test conducted by a Middle Eastern country.

    The filing is here:

    http://www.physics911.ca/USDOJ….._Espionage

    Since so much of this case weaves to other issues, it made me question…Especially the many concerns that the case goes higher in our government…

    • brendanx says:

      “Goes higher” is an understatement. However, one thing publicly and unambiguously revealed, in the press thus far is that it went at least up to Feith, who was the subject of an IG investigation.

  15. JohnLopresti says:

    The October 1 email to Mayfield containing the NRO article also contains a private email address* at a midsize internet service provider for Mayfield’s correspondent.

    Waxman’s oversight committee’s June 2007 report, link from post, shows the congressional group thought to send preservation requests to 25 agencies** “so far”, for emails from RNC and BushCheney2004 origins; the agencies receiving Waxman’s request included*** EPA, DOT, GSA, FEC. I would expect even congressional committee Republican party members’ assistants might have been occasional recipients of emails from RNC et al. accounts for purposes of strategy before hearings. I have yet to view the crew chart which Payton claimed to be unreplicable in its depiction of many millions of erased emails, though the sparseness of the Waxman oversight committee’s report’s claimed found records of patterns of use of offsite accounts seems to extrapolate fairly reasonably to a total well into the millions. I would expect IT at TheCompsny to have been aware of the illicit disregard of Presidential Records Act rules and regs by the administration, and to have implemented measures to study the sources of email sent to their officials from the political offsite accounts. The year 2002 has seemed to be an early exercise of administration excesses in the tortcha arena, as well as with the preparations for the Iroq invasion. Waxman’s report omits the names of the 21 other agencies with which he is arranging some measure of production of documents for his enumerated null dates. One approach could be thematic, as the post re the Plame identity outing attempts to do. I would expect the email trail to be reconstructable for each of the many scandals that have plagued the unilateralist policies of the first term BushCheney administration. I thought of, e.g., the April 2002 RoveCheney coordinated effort with Department of Interior which led to 70,000 spawning salmon dieoff in a river on the CA-OR border**** as an interesting investigation to illuminate with recovered emails at DOI; that disastrous policy innovation RoveCheney engineered involved the usual array of regulatory agencies, so there will be emails in many places to trace the concept from inception to implementation.

    ———-
    *p1 in sender line; email from Mylroie.
    *p4 Committee on oversight, report.
    **p9 Committee on oversight, report.
    **** link is to Rahall’s house natural resources committee’s last missive on the topic in a July 2007 hearing; e.g. Interior’s Deputy IG, Mary Kendall’s email tape archive likely would have some fragments of interesting elements of Rove’s participation in the ill-advised effort to divert water to a reclamation project in that contentious issue.

  16. klynn says:

    EW, I look forward to your breakdown of this email in regards to Plame. It appears the February 7 2004 dates fall near Fitz and John Hannah. I may have this wrong…

  17. maryo2 says:

    Waxman’s beautifully structured list of dates is reminiscent of emptywheels timelines. It is almost an implicit hat tip. When I saw it, I felt like Waxman was saying, “I’ll see your timeline, ew, and raise you one list. (wink)”

  18. Mary says:

    OT – skdadl, I did see your post from the Fratto thread. Thanks for the info and the links. Gates isn’t well served by his “NATO? We don nee dno stinkin NATO” and he’s figuring it out. The Pentagon briefing was “amusing”

    • skdadl says:

      These stories keep on giving. The American ambassador, David Wilkins, is all miffed at the torture-states list, but it is a little late to put that cat back in the bag. The whole affair would be funny if only we didn’t know whose side our government is on.

  19. Mary says:

    8 – I put up links on an earlier thread, but by the time that incident occured, there was already a Fed Dist ct decision from the SD of IN arising out of a matter here in Evansville, IN where the SEc Ser pressed local police on a policy that resulted in them arresting a lone guy with a sign, more than ablock away from the building CHeney was in and the city was very hot bc they got left holding the damages bag for the illegal/unconstitutional arrest. That case and the liability associated with it might have been on the minds of the sec serv agents who bactracked on being a part of the complaint for the 2006 incident. BTW – my money is on Reichle telling the truth, only bc I figure it is the truth that generally pisses of Cheney and the administration and apparently Reichle, well,

    Mr. Reichle, who has since been transferred to Guam

    seems to have pissed someone off.

    • Rayne says:

      And if I were Reichle and pissed off about the pissed-off party, I’d be only tooooo happy to do some investigating into CNMI while in Guam, pick up where Frederick Black left off abruptly.

      jodi — don’t strain your brain too much. They’ve got multiple data sets in Waxman’s office to compare, including at a minimum but not limited to:
      – Abramoff-related emails, sent from EOP and RNC domains and likely others
      – Publicly-available emails produced during the Libby trial
      – what records the WH/OA has produced, although unwillingly

      There’s quite a bit of information right there; we can already see from one email by Abramoff openly mentioning Ralston’s error sending government business to an RNC address that they were actively hiding their handiwork. We don’t have the emails not because they never existed; we don’t have them in our hands because they’ve hidden them and continue to do so. Stop wasting our time.

      • greenbird4751 says:

        Q Out of an abundance of caution they used their RNC accounts to do official business?

        rayne, doncha love that sentence?!!

      • JodiDog says:

        Well I am excited.

        Either I will be right, and there are no emails that are a problem, or there are emails that prove everything this blog has said all along. And then I will stand down.

        Mr Rayne, do you want to hold your breath? I wouldn’t advise it.

        : )

        Actually I expect that there are no new emails, or there will be nothing of importance and there will still be a witch hunt for MORE emails!

        So I can then say

        There are NO MORE emails!

        What are you betting, Mr Rayne?

  20. masaccio says:

    I am really disappointed in the quality of our trolls. Don’t we deserve better? What are we doing wrong?

    • greenbird4751 says:

      a mighty wind…bloweth them away? they have melted beneath their scorching truthiness? they quietly make ammo? they have been transmogrified into toads?

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      ; -)

      Indeed, one would like to think that local trolls would have enough self-respect to read basic physics and grasp the implications of BillE @31.

      I sheepishly admit that it’s kind of a kick to feel like a smarty in view of the ignorant remarks the troll(s) leave here.

      Fluffs my vanity; let’s hope it doesn’t become a guilty pleasure.
      I’d really hate it if the trolls made me feel dumb

  21. Rayne says:

    greenbird — ah, but only the most selective of employers will grok that designation.

    bmaz — I know, I’ve been stewing on it, but I don’t know how we’d go about checking. Kevin was from LA, don’t know if there’s enough published about John M. to confirm his place of birth assuming they were from the same birthplace.

    Interestingly, John ended up at Raytheon. Yeah…nice “hide out” there on the dime of the military-industrial complex…

  22. bmaz says:

    Yeah. I tried. Which, for me, means I Googled well past the first or second page of results and checking each one. I went pretty far and couldn’t find squat on either one’s primary family/background. Usually you can find some kind of decent hint; but not here. Pinhead that I am, that made me suspicious that both were scrubbed for a reason……

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      You might try giving a shout out to JohnLopresti, who is always busy, but appears to be quite skilled at ferreting out hidden and hard-to-find things.

  23. bmaz says:

    Further proof that Mike Hayden and the Bush Administration are bald faced serial liars that hold the American public and the United States Constitution in complete contempt:

    Attorneys for a former detainee at a secret CIA prison said in a court filing this week that intelligence officials had falsely claimed in public statements that his interrogations were not videotaped, that all videotaped interrogations stopped in 2002 and that only a small number of CIA detainees were subjected to unusually harsh interrogation techniques.

    The basis of the assertions was redacted from the filing by the Bush administration, under an unusually stringent security order that blocks the attorneys for Majid Khan from disclosing evidence of the alleged falsehoods or detailing how Khan was treated while in CIA custody.

    Khan, one of 14 detainees whom the CIA secretly imprisoned before transferring them last year to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has said he was systematically tortured. His attorneys at the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights have been pressing for a court order to prevent the government from destroying evidence of his treatment.

    “Inaccurate statements by senior intelligence officials about the tape destruction, and false statements about Khan’s experience in CIA custody, raise substantial concern that torture evidence in this case may be lost or destroyed absent a court order,” attorneys Wells Dixon and Gita Gutierrez wrote.

    The three statements that Khan’s lawyers said were false were made by CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and unnamed intelligence officials quoted in news reports.

    Rayne, I’ll be back in a minute on inherent contempt.

    • skdadl says:

      Attorneys for a former detainee at a secret CIA prison said in a court filing this week that intelligence officials had falsely claimed in public statements that his interrogations were not videotaped, that all videotaped interrogations stopped in 2002 and that only a small number of CIA detainees were subjected to unusually harsh interrogation techniques.

      I figure this must be true, broadly true. Else why would Bradbury have been directed to write his secret memos in 2005, apparently this time with the knowledge and approval of the AG?

  24. bmaz says:

    Rayne, This is a great, and very complete primer (PDF file) on the Congressional Contempt Power; see pages 12-20 for inherent contempt.

    In a nutshell, however, Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned upon a majority vote. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.20 Between 1795 and 1934 the House and Senate utilized the inherent contempt power over 85 times, in most instances to obtain (successfully) testimony and/or documents. The inherent contempt power has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years. This appears to be because it has been considered too cumbersome and time-consuming to hold contempt trials at the bar of the offended chamber. Moreover, some have argued that the procedure is ineffective because punishment can not extend beyond Congress’s adjournment date.

    • Rayne says:

      Thanks for the legwork on the inherent contempt.

      I think we’re still going to have enormous difficulty with enforcing subpoenas by way of inherent contempt. An un-exercised power is one that can too readily be ignored or defeated. Would the Sergeant-at-Arms actually follow through? Would the DOJ stay out of the way? What effective punitive actions could be taken that would actually stick and hurt?

      On the other hand, it’s worth a shot; we certainly don’t have much else to lose at this point, and we don’t have many other options.

      • bmaz says:

        Yeah, that is a decent point as to using or losing a power. On the other hand, it is less of a problem when it is one of these Congressional procedural rules. They pull arcane stuff out of their ass all the time. And the caselaw is pretty clear as to the power. Yes, I do think that if ordered to do so, the Sergeant-at-Arms would do the deed. The punitive action modality I have in mind is jail. Pure and simple. Jail. To the best of my knowledge, they still have one in the basement of Congress. Probably needs a JiffyMaid to spruce it up; but the Goopers are always whining about being hard on detainees/incarcerated people, so no reason to do much. Heh, we have a local Gooper sheriff here that actively campaigns on the fact that he feeds moldy bologna (and little else) to the jailbirds. Let the goops reap that which they have sewn. Alternatively, Congress can just contract out the detention to a DC district jail; no problem at all, all jails do this for other jurisdictions all the time.

        • Rayne says:

          Alternatively, Congress can just contract out the detention to a DC district jail; no problem at all, all jails do this for other jurisdictions all the time.

          Wouldn’t that contracting require a vote by both houses, though?

          And what keeps a local jurisdiction from intervening into any attempt to take persons into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms?

          Very messy, particularly without recent precedent. I tend to think this is why it hasn’t happened; attempting this becomes precedent for the next time it is used, and doing so makes it easy for a Congress elected in a backlash against a Democratic majority Congress to misuse it. I suspect that this weighs considerably on decision-making regarding subpoena enforcement.

          • bmaz says:

            No, no jurisdictional problems with other entities. There process is more established than you think; even though rarely used. There is a usually a daily per diem rate for the jails calculated out by each one; although very rarely ever billed for something like this. Furthermore, since the district is entirely Federally funded, I just don’t see any problem there. As to being afraid to use the power; fuck that, the fact that the Dems were too timid and afraid would NEVER stop the Goopers. It is like impeachment, if it is the right thing to do, and the only way to protect the Constitution, you do it. End. Of. Story. (Heh heh, end of my story anyway…)

  25. cinnamonape says:

    I found it odd that while OVP emails for 10/1/03, 10/2/03 and 10/5/03 have disappeared the orders from the WH Counsel Gonzo appear to have been archived.These fall into the dates that bracket and intercede between the above dates. http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/leakmemos.html

    Weren’t a whole bunch of these preserved in Addington’s materials provided in the Libby case?

    It thus seems that emails were selectively lost…both immediately after Gonzo said “preserve and submit”…then some after he clarified what was to be preserved. It’s as if there was discourse about the investigation and what materials should be preserved (or destroyed) and then destruction of those emails that discussed them. But since Gonzo’s messages were GENERAL and on-the-record they had to be preserved.

    • emptywheel says:

      They weren’t necessarily archived. What we’ve got is the copy printed out on October 1. That’s why I say, in the very limited set of emails we’re looking at, there’s no example of an email that was archived from those dates. The only one that wasn’t printed out immediately is the Martin-Mayfield one.

  26. JohnLopresti says:

    Since the email erasures are reprising a lot of events, I thought of leaving 4 dates again, which Walton eventually denied Libby could cite in his busy defense, though Wells made a broad stroke at what they were about in the opening statement. July 29, 2003; August 20, 2003; November 21, 2003; late-December, 2003; there is one December 2006 thread at TNH that explored the four dates generically in the CIPA context but without anything more explicit. The thickly redacted SCSI phase II document also has dates stringed through the first few chapters; but Waxman’s highlighted dates are a useful framework for review.

  27. cinnamonape says:

    Here are some dates in the Plame affaire that might relate to the disappearing emails.

    OVP 9/12/03 ~ Cheney appeared on Meet The Press on 9/14/03 denying that he sent Wilson to Niger. I believe that this was his first public declaration about Wilson.

    9/30/03 ~ WH Counsel Alberto Gonzalez emails WH employees about identifying and preserving all relevant materials to the DOJ leak investigation

    OVP overwritten email 10/1-2/03 and 10/5/03

    On 10/3/03 Gonzalez sent an email regarding the deposition of all the relevant materials to the WH Counsels office…

    For purposes of this memorandum, the term “documents” includes
    “without limitation all electronic records, telephone records of
    any kind (including but not limited to any documents that memorialize
    telephone calls having been made), correspondence, computer records,
    storage devices, notes, memoranda, and diary and calendar entries”
    in the possession of the Executive Office of the President, its
    staff, or its employees, wherever located, including any documents
    that may have been archived in Records Management.

    [Note that it did not include the “OVP”, which they have argued is a seperate, co-equal branch of government]

    Email overwritten WH 12/17/03; 12/20-21/03 ~ This approximates the recusal of John Ashcroft and the appointment of Fitz
    Emailoverwritten WH 1/9-11/04~ This coincides with the transmission to WH staff the “waiver of confidentiality” forms

    Both emails from WH and OVP 1/29/04 overwritten~ same day WH Counsel Gonzalez emails (how recorded?) WH Staff regarding the January 22nd DOJ subpoenas re Niger and media contacts

    OVP 1/30/04~ Grand Jury subpoenas all email communications b/w OVP and 25 named Journalists;
    Comey establishes that Fitz has “Plenary Powers” of the Attorney General

    Lost emails: WH 2/1-3/04; both OVP and WH 2/7-8/04 [possible discussions of above?]

    2005
    @ 2/13/05 Addington gives FBI Interview; Ari cops an immunity deal re. Libby discussions
    OVP~deleted email 2/15-17/05

    It’s downright odd that emails are lost that directly follow the express directives to PRESERVE relevant documents that face subpoena.

    • emptywheel says:

      Ari’s immunity is 2004, not 2005.

      But there’s an even more interesting coincidence on that February 2005 date (yup, there’s a very detailed timeline coming, with what you’ve got on it already). That coincidence? When the Appeals Court tells Judy she has to testify.

  28. pdaly says:

    spy4hire, your comments above are out of place.
    If they are a defense of Larry Johnson (it’s impossible to tell from your approach) then you should realize Jeff was not dissing Larry. Jeff was debunking a myth.

    • bmaz says:

      This asshat isn’t about Larry Johnson, he is about Jason Leopold; who, if you check that completely wrongheaded and discredited Raw Story article at issue above, is the author of the same.

  29. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Thx bmaz.
    I’ve read Jeff’s comments going on 18 months now, and remain agog at his mastery of Plame details. Nor do I recall him being uncivil here at any time.

  30. pdaly says:

    I read Jeff’s comment re: this Raw Story. Being aware of Jeff’s mastery of the Plame details was enough for me to skip the link until now. As you say, learning the author of the Raw Story article now makes sense of comment 84’s drivel.

    BTW, Murray Waas has a new article up (hooray Murray!) this week about Hillary’s performance in the Michigan primary at Whatever Already!

  31. Jeff says:

    This is off topic, but both the Post and the Times have stories on a filing from Majid Khan (from January 4, just released) contesting some of the key claims in Hayden’s December 6 statement, notably that torture stopped in 2003, that recording of it stopped in 2002 (his being taped, he claims apparently) and that only a small number were subjected to harsh interrogation methods.

  32. Xenos says:

    Mylroie developed bizarre allegations about Saddam and terrorism. Her theories were debunked by the CIA and FBI, yet Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz embraced them, cited them in official meetings, and repeatedly pressed the agency and bureau to come up with evidence to substantiate Mylroie’s wor

    As a bit of conspiracy mongering/dot connecting, does anyone know if Mylroie has been named by Sibel Edmonds?

    There is crazy, and then there is crazy like a fox. Her various statements lack internal consistency, but are all directed toward manipulating the government and media to policy aims held by foreign governments.

  33. TheraP says:

    I’ve been thinking a lot about the dynamics of trolldom – especially on this thread, but also on this blog.

    Lots of troll posts suggests to me the importance and threat value of the discussion and research going on here. And it must present an interesting dilemma to the “other side” from whence comes the pet troll commune. On the one hand the other side does not want to tip its hand. Thus the poverty of thought, the repetitious nature, and the appalling lack of a good opponent in the troll posts. Yet, rather than simply read and keep track of what this blog is accomplishing (the Pirate’s rants notwithstanding), there seems to be a need to somehow diminish – for your average reader perhaps – the impact and importance of what this group is doing. So, put yourself in their shoes, if only for a moment. This blog is a threat. Yet can’t be shut down. And must be disrupted… if possible… somehow. Therein lies the problem for them. We know there’s an interest in this thread and others, particularly those that are going after the main crimes and the main ways of covering up the crimes (JMHO here).

    Of course there may be other distractions going on – and I apologize for this “somewhat off-topic” distraction. Yet it seems to me that allowing for the pet-troll as annoying as that is, allows for monitoring the other side. Naturally they can never provide a “good opponent” because that would necessitate giving away too much from their side. Idiocy remains their only tool. Unless occasional posters might try to plant inaccurate info – which IMO is unlikely to fly here.

    This thread appears, based on troll activity, to be a hugely important line of inquiry. And as much as we remain in the dark, apparently the other side can see that we are locating valuable veins of ore and mining them all too well or too closely for comfort.

    So you don’t need me saying this, of course, but carry on!

    And as for the other side, you may be able to hide emails and pretend video info is gone for good, but this blog and others, as wel as incriminating info, will remain for posterity. Of what worth is the life of “troll” spent trying to disrupt instead of accomplishing something positive? Waste your time here if you like… but those working hard on a selfless task to expose wrong-doing have something to look back on and feel proud of. Patriots all!

    • klynn says:

      TheraP,

      I agree. Once during the Libby trial, there was a TON of “other side” postings.

      My policy: casually track the number of them. Don’t read the content. But make note where they fall in the course of the postings and reread the significant postings of information.

      Additionally, it’s usually that EW is spot on. And I just move on and focus on EW’s content.

      Yes, Patriots all!

Comments are closed.