Rove's Missing E-Mails

This is pretty darn shocking:

According to Mr. Kelner [RNC counsel] . . . as a result of unspecified legal inquiries [Fitz probably], a "hold" was placed on this e-mail destruction policy for the accounts of White House officials in August 2004. Mr. Kelner was uncertain whether the hold was consistently maintained from August 2004 to the present, but he asserted that for this period, the RNC does have alarge volume of White House e-mails. According to Mr. Kelner, the hold would not have prevented individual White House officials from deleting their e-mail from the RNC server after August 2004.
What kind of "hold" is that? I wonder if Fitz knew about this.

Mr. Kelner's briefing raised particular concems 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.

Holy crap! Um, Fitz, you got any questions about this?

< Imus Fired By CBS | Brian Williams Brings Left and Right Together >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The lies have gone too far this time (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by t2002 on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:57:06 PM EST
    The White House will not be able to dance themselves out of this one.  E-mail retention is something all of us deal with everyday.  If I -- and every friend, family and co-worker I know -- can keep our emails secured and undeleted, it is hard to imagine the White House having so many bogus problems.

    I guess maybe they need a special solution to their problem.

    And the question is (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:22:51 PM EST
    Why would you want to keep all your emails???

    The law (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:24:50 PM EST
    Presidential Records Act Jim.

    You being an expert on the Logan Act I felt sure you would be an expert on the Records Act too.


    To me, here;s the question: is Rove (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:24:52 PM EST
    a mastermind at IT along with politics?  

    You obviously never worked in a large (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:24:55 PM EST
    organization with office politics. Throw real politicans into the mix and it is obvious why an individual would want to keep his emails.


    It's the law ... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:07:41 PM EST
    ... and they had previously LIED ABOUT IT and said they did.

    Oh, please, PLEASE, ask for the same freakin' links I've provided before.


    Here's one theory (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:14:31 PM EST
    So that you're not violating the law that requires you to do so?

    Long answers to short questions (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:29:31 PM EST
    Why would you want to keep all your emails???

    Because it costs nothing and takes no effort and takes up all the space of a postage stamp, and because you have nothing to hide and may need to refer to old correspondence for any number of reasons, including but not limited to answering a congressional subpoena.

    On the other hand, why would you want to expend time and money to get rid of them when they get stored in so many places that you'll never be able to delete them all?  It just makes you look like you're trying to hide something.



    Fitzgerald (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by mjvpi on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:01:29 PM EST
    said "inactive" not closed with respect to the Plame investigation. Hope springs eternal.

    Some questions at least (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:02:25 PM EST
    Fitzmas this close to Easter (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TexDem on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:11:58 PM EST
    Wow, this year flew by.

    I'm sure Fitzgerald is watching. He's still trying to get that sand out of his eyes.


    and so he did, didn't he? (none / 0) (#13)
    by orionATL on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:19:14 PM EST
    This weeks news..... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:52:17 PM EST
    I've been glued to the computer for ages now. This week is almost as good as the Libby trial!

    Same Thing (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:37:50 PM EST
    Isn't it?

    Do you really think so, though? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:46:40 PM EST
    The more I think about this, the more important it is.  Rove charged with destruction of evidence is huge.

    However did that felled silo make it with (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:57:32 PM EST
    so much interesting competition?

    adding things up (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by orionATL on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:17:45 PM EST
    let's see now

    recently the congress asked pat fitzgerald to come in and talk with them about his plame investigation.

    fitzgerald asked his bosses at doj for permission to do so.

    permission denied.


    Heh! You need CL's graphic (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edger on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:09:16 PM EST
    of Rove standing in the flames with walls closing in ... on with the flames a little higher and hotter.

    Or... this one.

    I'll go out on the limb and say Rove either resigns or is busted. It may take awhile, but he's toasted this time, I bet.
    I've got the apolitical blues
    And that's the meanest blues of all