More Missing Emails at DOJ?

I’m still working on a big post on the DOJ IG Report on domestic spying. But for the moment I wanted to call attention to a footnote that seems to suggest the emails from FBI employees in Pittsburgh who had conducted surveillance of the Thomas Merton Center and/or invented an excuse for doing so after the fact were unavailable when DOJ’s IG asked for emails in association with this investigation. The foonote (see PDF 60) reads:

We requested all e-mails from the Pittsburgh employees connected with this matter for the relevant dates. However, the FBI provided none that pertained to this matter.

We know there should be some emails, because we know that the supervisor the report calls “Susan Crosetti” received emails from the Counterterrorism Division in 2006 as they were trying to respond to Pat Leahy’s questions about the surveillance. The IG got the emails from CTD–including one asking the question, “do we know who was being investigated at the rally?” But neither Crosetti’s version of the email, nor its response, ever got turned over to the IG.

  1. JamesJoyce says:

    Did not the FBI investigate coal miners seeking to unionize! Did not the coal mine owners “Kill” miners seeking to organize and better their condition in life! Government becomes the agent of corporate interest by labeling anyone opposed to corporate abuse a threat and worthy of spying on Americans? This 2010 not the early 1900s right?

  2. JamesJoyce says:


    Any chance you are keeping a third eye on the Eric Scott coroner’s inquest in Las Vegas? Missing emails and missing Costco video? Its a sad that law enforcement can actually get away with this crap! Eric Scott shot twice in the chest and 5 times in the back by three cops. It is all part of the same dysfunction!!!!

  3. MadDog says:

    Is there any federal agency, department or organization that understands that by law, they are required to keep all federal records including email?

    As the FBI is part of the Department of Justice, then this must be relevant to the FBI’s retention of email:

    What is a Record?

    The Federal Records Act states that a federal record is documentation that:

    Is created or received in any medium by an agency of the U.S. Government pursuant to law or in the transaction of business.

    Is preserved, or appropriate for preservation, because it provides evidence of an Agency’s organization, functions, decisions, procedures and transactions. (44 U.S.C. 3301) For the statutory definition of a record visit…

    Can Electronic Mail (E-mail) be a Record?

    Records come in all media – format is irrelevant to the determination of record status. The DOJ E-mail system is simply a transmission pipeline – it can carry records or non-records. An E-mail message is a record if it contains information that relates to the business of your office. The creator or recipient of an E-mail communication must determine whether the message fits the definition of a record.

    An E-mail is probably a record if it:

    1. Documents agreements reached in meetings, telephone conversations, or other E–mail exchanges on substantive matters relating to business processes or activities

    2. Provides comments on or objections to the language on drafts of policy statements or action plans

    3. Supplements information in official files and/or adds to a complete understanding of office operations and responsibilities

    4. Will be needed by you or your successor in carrying out your responsibilities

    If you determine that an E-mail is a record, it must be filed appropriately. Unless your component has approved procedures for electronic retention of E-mail, you must print the E-mail message and file/store it in accordance with DOJ’s overall policies and guidance…

    Of course, as this DOJ OIG investigation concerns itself with a timeframe during the Bush/Cheney regime, it is likely that the FBI took note of the White House’s missing email and at the lack of penalties for such retention failure.

    And determined that what’s good for the goose must be good for the gander.

  4. Mary says:

    While they fuss over a lot, the one thing CIA, DOJ lawyer, FBI etc. can all agree on is disappearing the docs. And there is never, ever, any consequence.

  5. MadDog says:

    OT – The National Security Archives has a new modest document dump of 14 documents on the Bush/Cheney regime’s intent to go to war with Iraq today:

    THE IRAQ WAR — PART I: The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001

    Prior even to 9/11, there’s Document 6 (4 page PDF) which the National Security Archive summarizes thusly:

    U.S. Defense Department Memo from Donald Rumsfeld to Condoleezza Rice, “Iraq,” July 27, 2001.

    Rumsfeld recommends a Principals Committee meeting and then a National Security Council meeting on Iraq, because sanctions are failing and Iraq’s air defenses seem to be improving. He lists policy options, and says, “Within a few years the U.S. will undoubtedly have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons” (he also says that Iran will “almost certainly” have nuclear weapons by 2006) and that “If Saddam’s regime were ousted, we would have a much-improved position in the region and elsewhere.”

    (My Bold)

    Rummy was so farsighted…not!

  6. Peterr says:

    Again I have to wonder about what role, if any, the US Attorney for Pittsburg at the time may have played in this little drama: Mary Beth Buchanan.

    If the name doesn’t ring a bell, see here for some tidbits to jog your memory.

    Hint: Think Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling.