Disappearing White House Emails Timeline

Jeff kicked my arse on a timing related issue yesterday, so I thought I better lay out the disappearing White House email timing all nice and neat like. Much of the detail on emails relies on some very cool work Jeff did on the emails.

I’ll move this over into a permanent timeline after you guys tell me what I’m missing (Jeff, I’m looking at you).

February 26, 2001: Gonzales informs White House staff they must preserve their email.

April 2001: GAO report on problems with ARMS and emails from the VP’s office in the Clinton Administration.

June 4, 2001: Bush announces plan to name CIO to manage and monitor email.

2001, unknown date: Susan Ralston prints off Rove email in response to Enron inquiry, gives that email to Alberto Gonzales, presumably alerting him to Rove’s use of RNC servers for official emails.

Late 2001 to early 2002: White House deactivates ARMS system put in place by Clinton Administration to archive emails.

Between 2002 and 2003: White House converts from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange.

March 2003: Starting date of period during which White House has incomplete archives for emails.

July 11, 2003: Rove writes Hadley email immediately after his call with Matt Cooper.

September 26, 2003: DOJ starts an investigation into Plame leak.

September 29, 2003, morning: Scottie McClellan claims ignorance of a DOJ investigation into the leak.

September 29, 2003, evening: John Ashcroft informs Alberto Gonzales of investigation.

September 30, 2003, morning: Alberto Gonzales informs White House staff of investigation.

September 30, 2003, 6:15 PM: Alberto Gonzales informs White House what to retain.

October 2003 (unknown date): White House CIO stops "recycling" backup tapes.

October 1, 2003: Mayfield to Martin email passing on transcript from that day’s Press Gaggle; the email was not apparently turned over until February 2006, presumably among the emails "not archived properly."

October 2, 2003: DOJ requests White House turn over materials relating to Wilson, his Niger trip, Novak, Royce, and Phelps.

October 3, 2003: Gonzales informs White House to turn over materials by October 7.

October 5, 2003: Date on which Martin to Fleischer email printed out, apparently by Martin. It was originally written on July 7, 2003 and contained OVP talking points on Wilson for Fleischer to use in his press briefing, including the words, "Niger" and "Joe Wilson." Probably turned over to DOJ on October 9, 2003.

October 7, 2003: Reporter asks Scottie McClellan whether White House officials have to turn over emails they’ve deleted.

Q No, I understand that. I’m just saying how would this work? Let’s say I remember — I’m an official, I remember sending some email about this, but I’ve long since deleted it. How —

[snip]

Q I just want to be clear, though, the White House is obligated to provide emails that may have been deleted by the individual but are still archived by the White House —

MR. McCLELLAN: Look back — it said what is in the possession of, I believe, in the White House, the employees and staff.

October 13, 2003: Date on which July 11, 2003 Martin to Michael Anton email printed out. The email was apparently discovered in a search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Niger" and "Wilson."

November 25, 2003: Per Hubris, date on which Rove aide B.J. Goergen prints out Rove-Hadley email (eventually turned over on October 14, 2004). The email mentions "Cooper" and Niger."

November 26, 2003: Oldest Rove email preserved by RNC.

February 2, 2004: Addington drafts a letter to Keith Roberts, Acting General Counsel, Office of Administration, listing the new terms for a search of the OVP domain. If "Joe Wilson" or "Niger" were mentioned in the October 1 gaggle, the October 1 Martin to Mayfield email should have been found in this search.

February 11, 2004: Date on which June 11, 2003 Martin to Mayfield email printed out. The email was apparently discovered in a search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Pincus" and "Niger."

February 11, 2004: Date on which July 11, 2003 Martin and Cooper email exchange printed out. The email was apparently discovered in search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Cooper" and "Niger." Cooper’s initial email was printed out, probably on July 11 or 12, though it has no date; Libby wrote notes on it on how he would respond to Cooper.

March 2004: FBI begins probe into Abramoff scandal.

March 24, 2004: Fitzgerald asks Libby about email, suggesting Fitzgerald was surprised by the lack of email he received as evidence.

Q. You’re not big on e-mail I take it?

A. No. Not in this job. I was in my prior job.

May 8, 2004: Date on which Abramoff-Susan Ralston email using the RNC server printed out by Greenberg-Traurig. This may have been the first public indication that White House employees (Ralston) were using the RNC server to bypass the more public White House server.

June 2004: Senate Indian Affairs Committee issues its first subpoena in its investigation into Abramoff scandal.

August 2004: In response to "unspecified legal inquiries," RNC stops its automatic email destruction policy.

October 2004: Per Hubris, Rove lawyer Robert Luskin first notices the Rove-Hadley email.

Rove’s office had given Luskin a folder full of e-mails that included the one Rove had sent to Hadley. But Luskin hadn’t noticed the important Hadley e-mail until October 2004, just before Rove was about to go back to the grand jury for the third time. (402)

October 14, 2004: Per Hubris, Rove turns Rove-Hadley email over to Patrick Fitzgerald.

…on this day [Rove] turned over what he claimed was a recently discovered copy of the July 11, 2003, e-mail he had sent to Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. (377)

2005, unknown date: RNC terminates Rove’s ability to delete his own email.

October 2005: White House Office of Administration discovers not all email has been archived properly.

According to CREW’s sources, in October 2005, the Office of Administration ("OA") discovered a problem with this email retention process. The OA undertook a detailed analysis of the issue, which revealed that between March 2003 and October 2005, there were hundreds of days in which emails were missing for one or more of the EOP components subject to PRA. The OA estimated that roughly over five million email messages were missing.

OA briefs Harriet Miers and Patrick Fitzgerald on the email retention process. October 2005 is also the end-date of the period during which White House emails were not preserved properly.

October 25, 2005: Peter Zeidenberg asks Adam Levine about a conversation he had with Rove just before or after Rove’s conversation with Cooper.

October 28, 2005: Libby indicted. Rove avoids indictment with, among other things, last minute explanation for email discovery.

January 23, 2006: Fitzgerald informs Libby that not all emails were archived properly.

In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.

February 2, 2006: Date on which Martin to Mayfield email accompanying Scotte McClellan transcript printed out, apparently by David Addington. The emails themselves do not mention "Joe Wilson" or "Niger,"though it is unclear whether the transcript included in the email mentions those words (the press briefing from that afternoon mentions "Wilson" but not "Niger"). The date and the high Bates number suggest this email was one of those "not archived properly."

February 6, 2006: According to Bill Jeffress, Fitzgerald received the missing emails.

I may say we are also told that there are an additional approximately 250 pages of documents that are emails from the office of the vice president. Your Honor, may recall that in earlier filings it was represented or alluded to that certain e-mails had not been preserved in the White House. That turns out not to be true. There were some e-mails that weren’t archived in the normal process but the office of the vice president or the office of administration I guess it is has been able to recover those e-mails. Gave those to special counsel I think only on February 6 and those again are going to be produced to us.

May 2006: Theresa Payton begins as White House CIO.

January 30, 2007: Fitzgerald asks Judy Miller whether she corresponded with Libby via email.

Spring 2007: Emails turned over as part of Waxman’s GSA investigation and HJC’s USA Scandal investigation reveal ongoing use of RNC servers for official government business.

March 13, 2007: A DOJ document dump includes a Scott Jennings’ email–pertaining to the hiring and firing of US Attorneys–sent on the RNC server. 

April 2007: RNC terminates the ability for White House employees to delete their own emails.

April 12, 2007: CREW releases "Without a Trace" reporting the loss of millions of emails supposedly saved on White House servers.

April 13, 2007: Dana "Pig Missile" Perino press briefing on White House emails.

April 13, 2007: "Gold Bars" Luskin reveals that Fitzgerald made a copy of Rove’s hard drive, from which he may have been able to reconstruct emails that were deleted off the server.

June 18, 2007: Waxman releases report on White House email use.

August 22, 2007: White House claims OA exempt from FOIA.

November 12, 2007: Judge issues restraining order preventing White House from destroying backup tapes.

December 20, 2007: Waxman renews request for information on White House emails.

January 8, 2008: Judge gives White House five days to reveal what emails are recoverable from backup tapes.

January 15, 2008: White House CIO submits statement admitting the White House "recycled" backup tapes before October 2003.

image_print
78 replies
  1. nomolos says:

    Holy Mackerel EW! Late 2001 for disabling the ARMS system would seem to be when the WH realized they had to wipe out all traces of “collusion”/”knowledge” of the collapse of the WTC towers. I still do not believe that, with access to the taping system, a competent company could not retrieve some if not all the damaging emails. I guess we will never no though unless we impeach the bastards.

    However as a lifetime Mac user this

    Between 2002 and 2003: White House converts from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange.

    could well have been the real problem *g*

  2. AZ Matt says:

    It is intereting that Former AGAG as White House councel told everyone to preserve your e-mails. They didn’t do that. A lot of folks should be hauled in and asked who directed them to do all the crap they did. Too bad we don’t have more Waxmans.

    • MadDog says:

      It is intereting that Former AGAG as White House councel told everyone to preserve your e-mails. They didn’t do that. A lot of folks should be hauled in and asked who directed them to do all the crap they did. Too bad we don’t have more Waxmans.

      If one only were able to read Fredo’s words, one might believe that was an official order.

      However, in real life, it was probably accompanied by a “wink and a nod” so that its meaning was the opposite of what was said.

  3. Hans says:

    Thanks for the helpful timeline, this will be food for thought. I’ve found myself thinking that the CIA tape destruction timeline might overlap interestingly with a Plame timeline… involving the same crowd of usual suspects — twisting arms only metaphorically of course.

  4. radiofreewill says:

    Let me guess – the OVP Records Manager was Addington?

    And, he ‘retreived’ the ‘found’ e-mails from a closet in the VP’s ‘Ceremonial’ Offices?

  5. MadDog says:

    Thanks for all the timeline info and links EW!

    The link to Pig Missile’s gabble has some interesting stuff in it that I’d not run into before:

    Q Okay, this is a quick two-parter. Karl Rove, I’m told, has multiple email accounts during this whole time at the White House, and he’s conducted business over multiple accounts, not just two.

    MS. PERINO: It’s our understanding that those all funnel into one place.

    ~snip~

    Q How many email accounts did Karl have?

    MS. PERINO: I don’t know. (Laughter.) Can I do the week ahead, please? (Laughter.)

    Q Is there a Hotmail? (Laughter.)

    I’m not aware that the answer on just how many email accounts Rove had has ever been answered.

    I’m guessing that for most of the questions that Pig Missile (and her predecessors in the Deadeye [SECRET] Administration), “promised” to get back with answers, have in fact never been answered.

    • emptywheel says:

      MadDog (and all you other technowhizzes)

      Please take a look at the emails I’ve linked. I think I’m correct in concluding those are the print dates, but I’m wondering if some of the searches will tell you what archive they were working off of.

      • MadDog says:

        I’m looking, but I’m not sure my brain is functioning today. *g*

        One thing I would note is that a Cathy Martin email search was done via a secure query.

        The proof of that is in the first few characters of the query which are “https” where the “s” means one had to do a secure logon to get into the query system.

        The other email queries all start with “http” which means that these queries were done without having to logon, thus are relatively “public”, at least within the executive branch.

        I have no idea where this “find” points to. Could mean queries were conducted in both “unclassified” and “secure” email systems.

        Could mean that some OVP Joe Wilson attack info was “hidden” by Deadeye’s [SECRET] communications system for other than security reasons.

        Who knows? I don’t. *g*

          • MadDog says:

            Yup, that makes sense. And might even point to a “fact” that some folks, like those who were working in NSC had only one email account; a “secure” one.

            Otherwise Cathy Martin would have contacted Mike Anton at his “public” WH email account since the topic was not “National Security”.

            Or perhaps in Deadeye’s mind (ugh!), anything wrt to Joe Wilson was by definition “National Security”.

        • jdmckay says:

          One thing I would note is that a Cathy Martin email search was done via a secure query.

          The proof of that is in the first few characters of the query which are “https” where the “s” means one had to do a secure logon to get into the query system.

          The other email queries all start with “http” which means that these queries were done without having to logon, thus are relatively “public”, at least within the executive branch.

          Just to clarify, “secure” in this case (eg: https) means SSL or TLS (eg: encryption and “signing” protocols) layer on an HTTP server. WH email clients (outlook, apparently) can be set up so SSL/TLS is seamless (requires no intervention by use) . I have no idea if SSL is WH protocol, but would make sense AFAIC.

          However, IMO https line you reference doesn’t necessarily mean returned email (Martin’s) was “secure”, only that the access to server being queried was. There’s no header info for that email, so no way to tell if it was SSL/TLS encoded. I’m aware that some email/Exchange implentations now use https, however I’ve written and seen a lot of it and usually it goes through standard email protocols (SMTP), customized raw TCP/IP… could be through VPN, STUNNEL etc.

          MS’s proprietary mail protocol (MAPI) has assignable ports built on TCP/IP, not HTML. It can be plugged into html(s)… usually for use w/browser based mail clients, but even then it would surprise me.

          Any idea what the domain (eg: owarm) in that search link you reference may be?

          Thing is, this search indicates to me they pulled this email for some data-store w/a remote query… sorta’ makes me think they do have a secure store of these things hidden somewhere behind these layers of semantic obfuscations.

          • radiofreewill says:

            “Any idea what the domain (eg: owarm) in that search link you reference may be?”

            jd – I’m guessing that’s a recovery directory: Short for Over-Written Automated Records Management (owarm) file directory.

            The deposition in my 52 alludes to the Northrup Grumman Contractors having a ‘reconstruction’ process for Mail2.

            owarm is what I would have named my Target directory as output for my script to recover the data with over-written headers, but that’s only a guess by me.

          • MadDog says:

            Just to clarify, “secure” in this case (eg: https) means SSL or TLS (eg: encryption and “signing” protocols) layer on an HTTP server. WH email clients (outlook, apparently) can be set up so SSL/TLS is seamless (requires no intervention by use) . I have no idea if SSL is WH protocol, but would make sense AFAIC.

            However, IMO https line you reference doesn’t necessarily mean returned email (Martin’s) was “secure”, only that the access to server being queried was. There’s no header info for that email, so no way to tell if it was SSL/TLS encoded. I’m aware that some email/Exchange implentations now use https, however I’ve written and seen a lot of it and usually it goes through standard email protocols (SMTP), customized raw TCP/IP… could be through VPN, STUNNEL etc.

            My wording was perhaps adding to the confusion, but what I “meant” was that whoever was doing this querying, had to logon to do it wrt to this “https” query.

            My take is that this is a web-based application running on the White House’s Intranet (not Internet) that is only available on the EOP network and that it requires one to “logon” in order to do the query. It may also need the “logon” because it is accessing “secure” content.

            This is instead of this query which apparently can be accessed, again via a web-based application running on the EOP network, by anyone on that network. No “logon” to the web-based query application is required for this query, hence the normal “http” URL. I would guess that using this EOP network-based web application, one can only access stuff that is deemed “unclassified”.

    • phred says:

      Sounds like Rove lied to Fitzgerald then, eh?

      March 24, 2004: Fitzgerald asks Libby about email, suggesting Fitzgerald was surprised by the lack of email he received as evidence.

      Q. You’re not big on e-mail I take it?

      A. No. Not in this job. I was in my prior job.

      Why would a guy who doesn’t need email have so many accounts?

  6. Jeff says:

    Oh come on, it wasn’t that big of an ass-kicking.

    One thing probably worth noting: the timing of a lot of the emails that were handed over to investigators can be tracked with the subpoenas that were issued (and that were included, for the most part, in evidence entered at Libby’s trial, through David Addington – most of them were collected in GX65). Obviously, both the Rove-Hadley email and the October 1, 2003 email traffic handed over in February 2006 are exceptions.

    I had no idea the Office of Administration had briefed Miers and Fitzgerald’s staff in October 2005. Amazing. Do we know what led them to figure it out – presumably something to do with Fitzgerald?

    Fitzgerald’s questioning of Miller at Libby’s trial about email is one of the very few passages at the trial that remains a puzzler to me. Do you really think he was genuinely asking for information? Because most of the other initially puzzling questioning can be plausibly attributed to Fitzgerald trying to set up or head off a future line of questioning of the same or another witness.

    • emptywheel says:

      I’m putting in your dates for when the emails were turned over.

      I think he asked Judy for the same reason he asked Novak a lot of the questions he did–he didn’t believe her and wanted to make sure the record was clear for when he comes back and starts indicting wildly for perjury.

      • Jeff says:

        I think he asked Judy for the same reason he asked Novak a lot of the questions he did–he didn’t believe her and wanted to make sure the record was clear for when he comes back and starts indicting wildly for perjury.

        Ha ha. But I was thinking precisely of Novak: he asked those questions of Novak to tee up the possible cross-examination of both Rove and Libby, as well as to set in contrast some of Libby’s grand jury testimony.

        And also as a secondary consideration perhaps to throw a bone to the public (all three of us) paying close attention, so that we learn, for instance, from Novak under oath that Rove knowingly leaked classified information to Novak, even if it was overclassified information (the CIA trip report from Joe Wilson’s mission to Niger, among other things). Still, there it is for all of posterity and history. Good to know.

        • Peterr says:

          There’s also the possibility that Fitz was asking about the emails in anticipation of testimony from Dick Cheney. You know, the testimony that Team Irving promised in the pre-trial hearings and again in the opening statements. The testimony that would come during the defense’s portion of the trial, the promise of which caused Judge Walton to rule on various motions in certain ways.

          Oh, wait — Dick didn’t testify after all, did he. But when Fitz was questioning Novak and others, Fitz THOUGHT that Cheney was coming.

          Perhaps Cheney could see what Fitz was laying the groundwork for, and told Wells “don’t even think about calling me.”

          • Jeff says:

            when Fitz was questioning Novak and others, Fitz THOUGHT that Cheney was coming.

            Yes, those are the lines along which I’m thinking, and Cheney can be added to Rove and Libby as potential witnesses Fitzgerald would have to deal with, but with whom he didn’t have to in the event. The point, though, is that such an explanation is, I think, at odds with what ew is suggesting, that Fitzgerald genuinely didn’t know and was actually interrogating Miller on the witness stand.

            • emptywheel says:

              No, I’m SURE he wasn’t interrogating her on the stand. I’m sure, given all the other evidence, he asked her about email in one of her two GJ appearances or at least her discussions with him beforehand.

              The question is, did Fitz think more evidence was coming to light IN THIS TRIAL about emails? I think not.

              But did Fitz think more evidence about emails might come to light down the road? More likely. Perhaps he had asked Judy previously, in their discussions before he released her, but not before the GJ, so he just wanted to take that opportunity to get it under oath. In case a bunch of Judy emails came out of the woodwork somewhere.

              • Jeff says:

                Ok got it. Looking back over the trial passage, I wonder if the explanation for Fitzgerald asking Miller about (not) emailing with Libby is as simple as that Fitzgerald wanted to preempt any argument from the defense that the lack of email contact between Libby and Miller is indicative of the lack of importance of Miller to Libby. Or the lack of email from Miller documenting any of it undermines any of her testimony.

                • bmaz says:

                  I have nowhere near the grasp of the intricate details of the matter that you and EW do; but that said my general take is that the prosecution/Fitz was just locking down Miller much as you describe here @43. There are only so many ways to communicate between Miller and Libby, and he was buttoning down the story to only that which she had testified to in order to prevent Libby from testifying differently or, more significantly Libby’s lawyers from arguing extraneous facts. There was not much more of a chance that Libby would actually take the stand than there was with Cheney, but there was at least a little.

          • bmaz says:

            I kind of doubt Fitz really thought Cheney was taking the stand. I find it somewhat hard to believe anybody thought he would take the stand short of Fitz subpoenaing him.

  7. JohnLopresti says:

    May be relevant to cf the fas extrinsic legislative history of the Ashcroft Patriot inspired White House ongoing waiver from foia compliance, maybe specifically the cite to the TomDavis quote about exempting wh from foia for the duration.
    Also, since KRove seems to have traversed an epoch of being adroit with e-comms, we might do well to Vernier the timing of his vacation, the one interrupted by the Hadley email, a topic which QS seemed to address in a generic discussion during May 2006.

  8. phred says:

    I have to say EW, of all your timelines, I find this one the most confusing… If the reason that email can’t be produced from March 2003 to October 2003 is because they were recycling backup tapes during that period (according to the midnight filing this week), then that suggests the emails during that period were also constantly deleted (as opposed to being tucked in folders for later retrieval by the users of those accounts). Hence, no copies remain. Because if they were kept in folders, then they would end up on the non-recycled back-up tapes starting in November 2003, so there wouldn’t be a problem. So, that means that email had to BOTH be deleted by the user AND the back-up tapes had to be recycled over that six month period for the emails to be gone.

    So then, how is it that they found emails to turn over to Fitzgerald in February 2006?

    • emptywheel says:

      There are a number separate factors going on:

      1) the use of RNC servers
      2) the destruction of emails through 2003 from RNC servers, as well as the ability for Rove to destroy at will (which continued through 2005)
      3) the improper archiving of emails on White House servers between March 2003 and October 2005
      4) the destruction of backup tapes from March 2003 through October 2003

      Yet even if an email was unavailable (or not originally turned over) because of one of those factors, it may be available on someone’s hard drive. I’m hoping one of the geeks here looks at the search, bc it looks like on at least one of them (the Martin to Mayfield on Pincus), you can tell what archive they used to do the search. But that appears to be a different archive than the one they got the Cooper email out of.

  9. BayStateLibrul says:

    OT,

    Thanks guys for your kind words.
    I just came back from a 5 mile jog with my Republican neighbor.
    We were actually civil to each other. Usually, we have wicked fights,
    and the time flies by. We have a beer after and kiss and make up.
    A favorite writer of mine, Kurt Vonnegaut says “When I’m being funny, I try not to offend.” He goes on to say that “Even the simplest jokes are based on tiny twinges of fear, such as the question, “What is the white
    stuff in bird poop?” The auditor, as though called upon to recite in
    school, is momentarily afraid of saying something stupid. When the auditor hears the answer, which is, “That’s bird poop too,” he or she dispels
    the automatic fear with laughter. He or she has not been tested after all.”

    This community is the best part of my day.
    I’ll drink to that…

  10. JodiDog says:

    A stab at clearing up some questions.

    No matter what is happening on the servers, the RAIDs (nested or not) or on the tape machines, or in the back rooms, people could still have emails on their personal “separate” computers, or printed out in a physical folder or binder or on a CD, DVD, removable hard drive, flash drive for reference. Heck even a little floppy.

    My point all along was that emails go places, copies go places, many people have the emails or the point of communication is lost. No one has yet brought forth a “damning email” that they received from some one that a prosecutor could ask that sender about.

    As for being admonished about deleting or keeping emails, I suspect that this would only rate a “Oh God. My Bad!”

    Ok, I guess their boss could reprimand or fire them.

    Forget about the emails people. They are gone! If the ones you are so interested in ever existed at all.

  11. WilliamOckham says:

    A couple of quick points:

    The Clinton-era ARM wasn’t fully deactivated in late 2001 – early 2002, at least not for the OVP. That Cathy Martin-Michael Anton email was printed off it (that’s what that https url means). I’m fairly sure that the Lotus Notes system continued to feed the ARM until it was deactivated.

    The Notes to ARM process was never that stable. Just go read the GAO report from the very end of the Clinton Administration to see what I mean.

    Thanks to ew’s timeline, I have a working theory about what has been going on with the WH email. I have to run to a meeting (gotta prevent my current employer from making a mistake that’s about as stupid as what OA did with respect to preserving email). To make a long story short, a combination of poor IT practices, lack of high-level management support for a critical function, and users who deliberately tried to circumvent the official policies, the WH has a real disaster on its hands. I deal with crap like this on a daily basis. Back when I was a consultant, I would strongly recommend to our sales folks that they avoid getting tangled up in situations like this until the customer had a management change….

  12. Mary says:

    March 2003: Starting date of period during which White House has incomplete archives for emails.

    Isn’t that roughly the starting period for the CIA IG torture investigation as well?

    • emptywheel says:

      Technically Fitz didn’t subpoena for that early. Though there was a Rummy document that used Joe Wilson’s report on March 8–basically an attempt to keep the Niger claim alive in spite of the forgeries being declared as such. It was never proven that OVP (and probably Dick) had reviewed Wilson’s report by this period in conjunction with Rummy’s report, but I strongly suspect they did, there’s just no paper trail for it.

    • JodiDog says:

      Sorry, I used the answer for you on someone else.

      Anyway–

      “No one has yet brought forth a “damning email” that they received from some one that a prosecutor could ask that sender about.”

      Is stating the facts now evil? Shame on your logic.

  13. Jodi says:

    JodiDog

    Your hogwash takes the cake as usual.You are truly a prolific idiot. A priceless piece of eternal shit stain, You personally are condoning illegal/criminal acts. WHY? Why do you condone criminal behavior in the most important job in the world. What kind of derangement has invaded your thin skull? Is Bush your hero and Karl Rove your role model. Stop acting like a Republican imposter and release your inner moron for the rest of the world. Please more half-baked trite. Please, more of it -I’m begging. You are not the real JODI. YOU ARE A FAKE JODI. IMBECILE IMPOSTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • bmaz says:

      So, a proper suitor would bring flowers AND a timeline to your door? Ralph Waldo Emerson said “Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm”. Based upon your timeline joy, I do believe we are headed for great things here…..

  14. maryo2 says:

    nomolos @ 1,

    I am very curious about this statement in the 9-11 Commission Report, Chapter 3, page 12 of 46 (below). My question is – Why was the ISD on its last legs *before* 9-11-2001? Did restructuring start under Clinton or did Bush begin deconstruction of FBI’s ability to handle international terrorism matters? We know Cheney wanted control of all intelligence so that he could filter it before Bush saw it, so did Cheney start taking apart the FBI’s ISD? Or was this just a needed change spurred by OIG reports to the FBI over the 1990s?

    “When asked why he did not recommend including any IRSs on the attention line, “Frank” told the OIG that the Investigative Services Division was “on its last legs” at the time and that there were very few IRSs in the ISD still working on analysis.”

    IRS = Intelligence Research Specialists
    ISD = FBI’s Investigative Services Division
    OIG = Office of the Inspector General
    OIS = Intelligence Operations Specialists
    EC = Electronic Communication (email)

    Footnote says: “ISD was created in November 1999 and housed the FBI’s analytical resources, such as the IRSs who handled counterintelligence matters, organized crime and white collar “crime matters, and domestic and international terrorism matters. In addition, ISD included an Intelligence and Operations Support Section that was responsible for administering the field’s analytical program and training and automation requirements. ISD as eliminated in the beginning of 2002.”

  15. maryo2 says:

    33 is pertaining to the July 10, 2001 email (EC) sent from the Phoenix FBI field office about potential terrorists attending flight schools. The question being addressed was what happened after the email was sent in July 2001, who got it, what’d they do with it.

    The whole thing has been played off as the FBI and CIA having problems sharing information and having territorial disputes, and the supposed fix has been the creation of DHS and appointing a DNI.

    But the whole thing seems just a little too convenient. And I wonder if it is a cover-up: a cover-up at the very least of Cheney’s desire to strangle-hold all intelligence (for example, the 16 words in the SOTU that the State Department was literally powerless to remove), and at most how the “next Pearl Harbor” was allowed to happen on September 11, 2001.

  16. Jodi says:

    hi moron JodiDog…it is a federal law that all e-mail is officially archived. it is illegal to do otherwise. you are confused with some other issue/some other discussion with someone else. you have not stated any facts. just bland obfuscation. get your mind together-MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • phred says:

        My money’s on your tenacity. Besides I got to get used to being on opposing sides with Neil, what with the Super Bowl coming up (knock on wood for the Pack)…

        • Neil says:

          Oh Phred, you don’t have to align yourself with IT2 instead of IT1 just because your cheering for the Pack and not the Pats. What if IT2 is cheering for the Pats, what will you do then?

          • phred says:

            Now Neil, what fun would a troll-off be without a bit of trash talk? ; )

            I don’t think the trolls care much for football, and even if they do, I reckon they’re what… Dallas fans? Now, if you excuse me, I better run, freepatriot will be along any time now to castigate me for putting the troll in the company of his ‘Boyz ; )

            • Neil says:

              IT2 likes the Titans. We won’t hearing anything about football from IT2. IT1’s football affiliation is undeclared. I felt so bad for Tony Romo and his TEAMMATE “TO”. That poor man was lip-quivering, holding back the tears, man crying for the way the press got on Tony Romo for his sexcapade in Mexico during the bi-week (sic)

              • phred says:

                The Titans? Really? On purpose? Who knew? ; )

                Yeah, I think it was just as well that the Cowboys’ season ended when it did — the stress was clearly too much for them ; )

  17. maryo2 says:

    Between 2002 and 2003: White House converts from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange.

    Blackberries do support Lotus Notes. I don’t think we know why the White House switched over to MS Exchange.

  18. Hugh says:

    Is anyone going to ask the brainless idiot and CIO Theresa Payton why she put in place a system clearly in violation of the PRA that allowed emails to be deleted from it? And then to add insult to injury why she allowed allowed the backup tapes which might have captured some of these deletions to be regularly wiped? What is this industry best practices crap she is slinging? They don’t apply and I doubt she is quoting them accurately anyway. She works for the government and the government has laws concerning this and those laws specifically the PRA determine for her what her best practices are.

    • Neil says:

      She works for the government and the government has laws concerning this and those laws specifically the PRA determine for her what her best minimum practices are.

  19. JohnLopresti says:

    All background and variously OffTopic, ostensibly: The Seattle Law Review has a draft article 31pp by exUSattyMcKay looking at a much later timeframe in mainDoJ comms than the maze during migration from Notes to the MS platform, though Sampson photocopied AGoffice email header has a formal address eop in one footnote. The article has ample footnotes with weblinks; ht LSolum. A former prosecutor has an article elaborating ways for Mukasey to improve DoJ, which provides interesting perspective on many live topics, among which I find piqueing some references to WHcounselMiers.

  20. Mary says:

    bmaz – further to your comments below threads about the duty to preserve and my state of innocent wonder *g* at the lack of reference to DOJ, I do go back to this story from 05,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01…..ref=slogin

    which indicates that when Chertoff headed the Criminal division at DOJ, he was the “go to” guy for CIA authorizations of torturecoercion.

    Michael Chertoff … advised Central Intelligence Agency on the legality of coercive interrogation methods on terror suspects under the federal anti-torture statute

    Mr. Chertoff’s previously undisclosed involvement in evaluating how far interrogators could go took place in 2002-3 when he headed the Justice Department’s criminal division. The advice came in the form of responses to agency inquiries asking whether C.I.A. employees risked being charged with crimes if particular interrogation techniques were used on specific detainees.

    Funny how his name is off all the lists about the discussions of torture tapes.

    The 05 story says there were agency inquiries to the head of the Criminal Division at DOJ(maybe Muller campaigning DOJ the way he did over the killings of the female missionary and her baby?) in 2002-2003, specifically about whether or not CIA employees risked being charged with crimes under the federal anti-torture statute. All that was taking place while *other* discussions going on about destroying evidence of those interrogation techniques, but DOJ never knew of the tapes or of any evidence of harsh interrogation?

    That joins pigs and snakes on the list of things not likely to fly.

    • bmaz says:

      Precisely. This was a top down decision that was so freaking malevolent that even the Torquemada torture brigade at OLC wouldn’t sanction it. What we are seeing now is simply the best cover ruse they could piece together. Whether they will cop to it or not, you can bet that the whole cabal, including Skeletor and the “really loyal Bushies” at DOJ were in on it to some extent or another.

    • nomolos says:

      Just to be pedantic…

      That joins pigs and snakes on the list of things not likely to fly

      From flyingsnake.org

      Flying snakes are a small group of species of tree snakes that live in South and Southeast Asia.

      • bobschacht says:

        In response to Mary @ 47
        Just to be pedantic…
        That joins pigs and snakes on the list of things not likely to fly
        From flyingsnake.org
        Flying snakes are a small group of species of tree snakes that live in South and Southeast Asia.

        Ha! I’ll bet they’re from Thailand!

        Bob in HI

    • Hugh says:

      You can take it to the bank that if Michael Chertoff is even tangentially involved in something it will turn into an f-ing mess.

  21. Mary says:

    31 – Technically Fitz didn’t subpoena for that early. I was more thinking about a non-Plame reason as to why they might want to be scrubbing some emails from WH and OVP. Of course, if you start thinking along those lines, the timeline would look more like a chapter from the Recording Angel’s book.

  22. radiofreewill says:

    I went off looking into the e-mails and found this nifty little deposition (it’s from Drudge, ugh!) The first version of the depo is unformatted, but the second version (2 pages in) is formatted:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo…..2e228f.htm

    The summary: Kathleen Gallant, Associate Director for the Information Systems and Technology Division of the Executive Office of the President’s Office of Administration, in June 1998 (under Clinton), became aware of a problem with the Mail2 Server – it wasn’t being captured under the ARMS system for archiving purposes, and as a result, hundreds of thousands of e-mails were not being included in Subpoena and Discovery Searches – all depending on how the ‘User ID’ was set-up.

    The system was technically administered by Northrup Grumman, but the Contractors were threatened with Jail if they spoke about the Mail2 problem (known as Project X.) Gallant requested funds to upgrade the hardware so that the Mail2 problem could be fixed, but no funds were available. I’m guessing, but she probably began Backing-up Mail2 Locally by itself on a dedicated set of Tapes, which could only retain 2 years of data. So, next she requested more Tapes so they wouldn’t have to do a rolling ‘Tape Over’ of the Tapes that were two years old, but no luck there, either – and still, some of the then-most-recent Archive Tapes from the time of the Lewinsky Affair managed to get ‘over-written.’

    My guess is that Clinton had his fair share of e-mails he wanted to hide around the time of the Lewinsky Affair, and the Mail2 Server was a convenient place to do business ‘out of sight’ from Legal Searches – he was never really interested in ‘fixing’ the problems, so much as keeping the Mail2 System a Secret.

    In comes Team Bush, and they discover the Mail2/Project X Secret E-mail System. Instead of ‘fixing’ it, they appear to have exploited it by adding New Domains – all out of sight of prying eyes. They ‘ran’ with the Secret System until late 2001/early 2002, when they migrated the WH Official E-mail System from from Lotus Notes to MS Exchange – and, at the same time, appear to have shifted the Secret System from Mail2 to the RNC – a Rovian ‘improvement’ over the Clinton Secret System, which left a Trail that could be ‘reviewed’ by the next incoming Administration.

    And, if Rove was able to ‘recover’ the Mail2 e-mails from the Clinton Era, then there’s no telling what kind of blackmail material he may have to keep Bill and Hillary in-line and well-behaved.

    But, this is all jmho…MadDogs, what’s your take?

    • WilliamOckham says:

      rfw,

      Get the whole story from the GAO.

      I suggest the following addition to the timeline:

      April 2001 – GAO report on problems with ARMS and emails from the VP’s office in the Clinton Administration.

      • radiofreewill says:

        Wow, WO!

        That was certainly a well-documented Clusterfuck!

        So, basically, the Saga of Mail2 was but one sorry episode of several that resulted in, as I read the timeline, a net five out of the eight years of the Clinton/Gore Administration, OVP had serious Tape Back-Up issues. In the case of Mail2, the “case-senitivity” and “names starting with D” problems were bad enough, but the real damage got done through a penny-pinched Tape-cycling process that, effectively, ‘disappeared’ archival data no more than two years after its creation, and in some cases, much sooner.

        These are Records subject to the PRA!

        And, going by the Gallant deposition, Clinton and Gore weren’t really interested in ‘fixing’ the problem, much less ‘righting the wrong’ by restoring the Mail2 e-mails to ARMS – which it appears was never actually accomplished.

    • JohnLopresti says:

      Maybe the furnitureMZM contractor who did someIT as well in some of the cases ew followed from the vicinity of Duke and Lam, helped preserve the unmigrated emailServers; the way I remember, a lot of the early incidents were in the relevant timeframe, though Lam’s eventual ascent up the $MM LewisLadder occurred during the principalPurge2006 of usAttys. I rarely hear of the tabloid stuff, but evidently the atty on that case is a known conspicuous advocate for the lurid. I think there was a shell airCorp part of that investigation, as well.

  23. bmaz says:

    Hot off the press at the NYT:

    A federal judge said Thursday that he was “disappointed” about how investigators from the Central Intelligence Agency handled videotapes documenting the harsh interrogation of Al Qaeda detainees, and that he was considering questioning agency officials who watched the tapes about why they made no record of them in their files.

    The judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said from the bench that he was stunned that the C.I.A. investigators had not kept records about the tapes, which were destroyed in 2005, even though the tapes were an important part of an internal C.I.A. review into interrogation methods.

    “I’m asked to believe that actual motion pictures, videotapes, of the relationship between interrogators and prisoners were of so little value” that was no record of them was kept in C.I.A. investigative files, Judge Hellerstein said during a hearing over a freedom of information request involving the tapes.

    “I just can’t accept it. If it came up in an ordinary case, it would not be credible,” the judge said, adding, “It boggles the mind.”

    • phred says:

      Thanks for NYT link bmaz — looks like I’ll have to tidy up some of the vitriol I spewed over Hellerstein not finding the CIA in contempt. Perhaps I don’t have to give up on the Judiciary quite yet…

  24. Mary says:

    53 – I have actually had some experience with flying snakes, oddly enough. That’s why I just went with “not likely” – but I can’t think of Chertoff and DOJ without thinking of reptiles these days, so I had to tuck snakes in. Apparently, sometimes snakes also fly by plane. Someone should make a movie … or maybe not. *g*

  25. Mary says:

    50 – What we are seeing now is simply the best cover ruse they could piece together.

    Really – the article has this weird set of comparisons about how the Criminal Division didn’t advise anyone of what they could or couldn’t do in the interrogations, just what the pocket prosecutors would or wouldn’t prosecute them for. Saying, ‘heck no pal, we wouldn’t dream of prosecuting you for replicating war crimes and domestic violations of the anti-torture statute or war crimes act, for lil ol things like sending someone to their shackled death from hypothermia, burying them alive, or messing with their mind for a few YEARS’ is very very very different from giving them advice to actually do those things. Saying the prosecution is in your pocket id you decide to engage in the crime is, after all, very different from encouraging the commission of the crime.

  26. Neil says:

    OT but near and dear to our hearts, Re: EW’s “Bank of America Buys Big Chuck of the Shitpile

    .
    Waxman to hold hearings on executive compensation resulting from big shitpile merger consolidation.

    As part of its ongoing investigation into executive pay, the Oversight Committee asked Countrywide Financial, Citigroup, and Merrill Lynch to provide documents relevant to the compensation of Angelo R. Mozilo, Charles Prince and E. Stanley O’Neal. In addition, the Committee invited the chairs of the compensation committees at these companies to testify on February 7 about how the compensation and severance packages for these executives were determined and on what basis they were approved.

  27. PetePierce says:

    Another excellent timeline Marcy. My concept of the emails and everything else Bushie/DOJ complicit coverup facilitated now by Sylvio Dante Mukasey is very simple. They ain’t savin’ notin’ ’bout notin’ and damn the at least two federal code sections that say they had to.

    Hatch Act/Presidential Records Act–Addington and Gillespie and Fielding’s Response–*g* to the 64th power—”You want it friggin when?”

    Ordinary citizen or company destrying emails the US Attorney wants in a run of the mill case =TOAST. But not the Bushies.

    There is a loan commerical where executives are shooting the tiny people asking for loans around like paper wads.

    Every time something like this comes up, probably about once a month, Addington, Cheney, Fielding, Gillespie and sometimes Lil Bushie gather and all but the Born Again teetotaler swig some of the favorite booze laughing at all the fretting over little things like destroying email and tape backups.

    Fortunately, I got hold of Marcy’s book today, so I’ll have the opportunity to get a nice fresh look at the Fitz investigation that stopped so short–possibly largely because the White House Lawyers and DOJ obstructed justice by destroying emails–because of the US Attorney scandle, and because of the Plame leak and a gamut of other issues, and I suspect a big part of why Fitz did not indict Cheney and Rove was that he couldn’t get the emails that they of course either deleted, or just won’t give him (same with the tape backups). It’s not exactly the situation where they get a warrant to search some bimbo’s (Deomcatic Congressman–same thing) house and freezer with $96,000 in it.

Comments are closed.