MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: RE: Those Missing White House Emails

« FCC Levies Largest Collective Fine in History of U.S. Broadcasting | Blog Index | The Last, Last Hope? »

RE: Those Missing White House Emails

Subpoenas have been authorized, the press is swarming, the Bush administration's flacks are taking a pounding — I think it's safe to say that the White House email controversy has officially blossomed into a full-blown scandal. This week the White House acknowledged that it may have "lost" an unspecified number of emails that were sent by staffers who used non-governmental, RNC-issued email addresses in what seemed at times a conscious effort to prevent their correspondence from becoming public record. "We screwed up, and we're trying to fix it," White House spokesperson Dana Perino told the press yesterday. She noted that only "a small slice" of the president's staff — among them Karl Rove and his deputies — used email addresses, along with BlackBerrys and laptops, supplied by the RNC. However, no mention has been made — and it's possible that in the end there may be no way of knowing — of just how many administration officials were circumventing the White House servers by using conventional Web mail services, such as Yahoo! or Gmail. This also appears to have been a fairly common practice among staffers who, as one administration official told U.S. News & World Report in 2004, "don't want my email made public."

As the White House comes under increasing scrutiny, the picture just keeps getting bleaker. We learned yesterday, for instance, that until August 2004 the RNC had a policy of deleting emails on its servers that were more than 30 days old. After "legal inquires," presumably those of CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the committee began saving the correspondence of White House officials. So, since Karl Rove is said to use his RNC address 95 percent of the time, and is a well known email fanatic, the RNC should have quite a hefty record of his communications, right? Strangely, the RNC doesn't have records of a single Rove email until 2005, which, as the committee's counsel Rob Kelner told members of Henry Waxman's Government Reform Committee, may have been because Rove was deleting them himself. This, it seems, is what led the RNC to remove Rove's ability to delete his messages and place an automatic archiving function solely on his account. Today, Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin explained that his client didn't intentionally purge his emails — rather, in the course of routine housekeeping, he would delete emails to keep his inbox in order. "His understanding starting very, very early in the administration was that those e-mails were being archived," Luskin said.

Beyond Rove's missing emails, and others the White House believes may have been lost due to the RNC's email purging policy, it seems there is another trove of emails that are unaccounted for — millions of them, actually. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington reported yesterday that, according to two sources, "in addition to the so-called political emails sent through private accounts, there are over five million emails sent on White House servers over a two-year period that are also missing." In 2005, according to CREW, the White House Office of Administration discovered a problem with its archiving system and, after looking further into the issue, realized "there were hundreds of days in which emails were missing for one or more of the EOP [Executive Office of the President] components subject to the PRA [Presidential Records Act]." Though a plan was drawn up to recover the missing emails, CREW says, no action was ever taken to retrieve the lost messages.

In its report, CREW also raises two issues that I brought up in my original story on the controversy. The first is the Hatch Act "excuse," as CREW puts it. The White House has maintained (and the press hasn't challenged) that administration officials with political duties were using a separate, RNC-administered email system in order to avoid breaching Hatch, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity on the job. This certainly seems like a reasonable explanation, unless you actually read the law. It states clearly that Senate-confirmed presidential appointees and staffers whose salaries are paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President (read: White House officials) are allowed to engage in political activity that is otherwise prohibited to other federal employees — for instance, they are allowed to talk strategy with the RNC anytime, anywhere — as long as the associated costs are not picked up by taxpayers. While in the Clinton White House separate computer terminals were apparently set aside for staffers with political duties, the use of partisan email addresses is a new and highly unusual wrinkle. As Steven Aftergood, the director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy told me a couple weeks back, "It shows how closely intertwined the White House is with its partisan allies. The fact that the White House and the RNC are working hand in hand and White House officials are using RNC emails is itself remarkable."

The other question I raised has to do with an intriguing line in a January 2006 letter from Patrick Fitzgerald to Scooter Libby's defense team that's buried deep in the USA v. Libby docket. In it, Fitzgerald informs Libby's lawyers that the prosecution had "learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system." Karl Rove's lawyer told the AP today that Fitzgerald had access to emails from Rove's various accounts. He also noted that, in addition to the White House, the prosecutor subpoenaed records from the RNC and the president's reelection campaign. "There's never been any suggestion that Fitzgerald had anything less than a complete record," Luskin said.

Considering that we now know that millions of White House emails are potentially MIA, all of them drafted during a time period that would have been relevant to Fitzgerald's investigation, if that hasn't been suggested before it certainly will be now.

Comments

During this period wasn't Alberto Gonzolas Chief White House Counsel? Wasn't that office responsible to make sure the White House staff was fully informed on all legal policies? -OR- Did he use this office, with the help of Cheney-Rove, to notify the staff how to get around the law?

Did we destroy all those records? Hmm? Didn't know we weren't suppose to. (That's what you say.)

Posted by: Dave W on 04/15/07 at 6:55 AM

Above the doors of the National Archives in Washington DC appears the following; "The Past is Prologue". Now I don't expect the folks here on Mother Jones to be very objective, but I wonder if the same outrage was expressed 7 years ago when the following appeared in the Washington Post (sorry the link is dead)

Washington Post 8/18/00
E-mail searches skip private Clinton, Gore accounts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46858-2000Aug17.html

by Neely Tucker
President Clinton, Vice President Gore and their wives have had private electronic mail accounts under pseudonyms since the administration took office nearly eight years ago, but the accounts have not been searched despite a court-ordered investigation of computerized messages, a White House computer consultant testified in federal court this week.
A White House spokesman said there are no hidden messages in the accounts, and President Clinton has said he doesn't use e-mail, because of security concerns.
"I have no reason to think there's anything that's not on either backup tapes or the electronic archives," said White House spokesman Jake Siewert.
"We have searched the entire e-mail system to be as responsive as possible."

Posted by: pak152 on 04/15/07 at 9:46 AM

Yeah, pak152, what you describe is exactly the same thing. Exactly. Gore's wife, Tipper, vs. 5 million missing White House emails. Clearly, you are in the wrong job. Your talents are going to waste. Your country needs you!

Posted by: Rich on 04/16/07 at 12:34 AM

The misplaced A, B, C’s of "DESIGNED TO HARM. 4/17/07

SUMMARY.
In 2007 duplicated is the U.S. Senate’s stated Department of Defense (DOD) misplaced "experiments that were designed to harm" records? [6] This is by the in 2006 established CIVILIAN Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). [8] Under its "NATIONAL SECURITY MISSIONS" is the advancement of the DOD Project 112, SHAD "Biomedical" lessons learned. [7] BARDA, under the present war cover, also lacks the oversight and accountability of the past wars DOD Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD) experiment. That it ""WAS NECESSARY "TO CONCEAL THESE ACTIVITIES FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN GENERAL," BECAUSE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE "UNETHICAL AND ILLICIT ACTIVITIES WOULD HAVE SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS IN POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC CIRCLES AND WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS MISSION."" says it all!! See Footnote 4, U.S. Supreme Court STANLEY military experiments case, Page 688. [3] Each "designed to harm" project completes the Research and Development (R&D) process: A. Prior R&D is reviewed, e.g., Project SHAD. The resulting Scope of Work defines what each experiment is "designed" to accomplish. The how, where, when and who is identified. B. The conducted RESEARCH cause and effects are closely followed and also recorded. C. From the results are DEVELOPED safe production, in-the-field use, treatment and protection. AT THE TIME, AND LONG AFTER THESE PROJECTS ARE OUT-OF-DATE, THIS EXPERIMENT REVEALING CAUSE AND EFFECTS ARE NOT IN A SUBJECT’S MEDICAL HISTORY.

Their resulting disabilities are not in the Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) "schedule of ratings for disabilities". [5] This Veterans Court Chief Judge’s "may not review" [5] cause and effects are not available for past, present and future veteran diagnosis and treatment: 1. By civilian HMO and VA Physicians'! 2. For each group’s long term "to harm" follow up, that would alert the victims. This is the from 1944, 63 YEARS of lost, individual and group benefiting lessons learned! Thereby, lost is treatment for the original and additional injuries. And 3. For use as evidence during U.S. Executive (DOD & VA) and Judicial Branch processes! The subjects’ never the wiser become, e.g., Congress’s recent "Veterans Right to Know Act" failures.

CHRONOLOGY.
H.R. 4259 [109th]: Veterans Right to Know Act to establish the Veterans' Right to Know Commission bill was proposed in the 2005 & 2006 Congresses. At the end of each session all proposed bills that haven't passed are cleared from the books. This bill never became law.

The from 1944 DOD "designed to harm" are documented by the 1994 U.S. SENATE REPORT! [6] The conducted on "hundreds of thousands" needed for treatment evidence is not in their Medical History! REPORT NOTES (No.'s 72, 168 & 169) cite, "The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code, Human Rights in Human Experimentation.." Not addressed by the U.S. Congress and U.S. Courts are the many conducted in direct disobedience of the DOD Secretary's 1953 ‘Nuremberg’ order; "The Nazi Doctors" pages 343-345. [2] With the Secretary’s of all U.S. Military Services and the DOD R&D Board then known! This ignored order was TOP SECRET until 1975, 22 YEARS LATER. The subjects by its "need to know" are prevented from finding out. The 1994 Report noted that rights be restored. To-date not done!

"The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule.", i.e., the needed for treatment "designed to harm" causes and effects! [6] The Veterans Court Chief Judge's statement during 17-18 Oct. 1994. [5] His severely "may not review" restricted is a Congress's 12/18/88 established Legislative ‘no teeth' Article I Court. [9] Their oversight and accountability response to the 6/25/87 STANLEY experiment. One of the U.S. Judicial Branch Supreme Court decisions on: 1. The DOD STANLEY 1953 order disobeyed 1958 confirming Congress is responsible Case. [3] And 2. The 1950 FERES Case that prevents recourse on DOD "harm" as "incident" to service. [1] Made very clear is that UNLESS CONGRESS CHANGES IT, BY REASON OF MILITARY SERVICE VETERANS’ LOST ARE PRIOR TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! They are given to convicted rapists and murderers. [4] These cases assume that the DOD and VA "disabilities" coverage provides remedy. Not addressed is the withheld R&D "experiments...designed to harm" identifying, needed for treatment evidence! Congress's 12 December 1974 Privacy Act censored the names of all injury witnesses from surviving and future service records. The 12 July 1973 National Personnel Records Center fire destroyed "to harm" service records. The victims never the wiser become!

Will BARDA's needed for treatment "NATIONAL SECURITY" evidence be part of YOUR Medical History?

A politically contrived justice denied for the greater good, end justifies the deliberate "to harm" means. Make the checks and balances within and between our branches of government work! Only when you hold your members in the U.S. Congress responsible will this happen!

REFERENCES:
[1] Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950)

[2] DOD Secretary's 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, "The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). In REFERENCE [6] as NOTES 72, 168 & 169.

[3] U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY, 107 S. CT. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). In REFERENCE [6] cited in NOTE 169.

[4] U.S. State Dept., "U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7".

[5] Chief Judge and colleague statements, Court of Veterans Appeals, Annual Judicial Conference, Fort Meyer, VA., 17 & 18 October 1994. www.goodnet. com/~heads/ nebeker.html

[6] December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 "Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century." Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session. With NOTES 1 to 170.

[7] "Project 112 (Including Project SHAD) Home"; www1.va.gov/ shad/ Starting in 1962 DOD chemical and biological experiments.

[8] Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). Became law 19 December 2006.

[9] Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 38, Part V, Para. 7252. Jurisdiction; finality of decisions.

Posted by: David H. Marshall on 04/17/07 at 1:05 PM