GOP E-mails Lost? Congress Can Find Them, If It Looks, Now

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Corruption Cases
Posted on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:37:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bumped. -BTD See also barb
Reuters via CNN.com reported last night that the e-mails Congress seeks that were sent on the GOP system to avoid the government e-mail system, and, therefore, accountability, were deleted or otherwise lost.

Some White House staff wrote e-mail messages about official business on Republican Party accounts, and some may have been wrongly deleted, the administration said Wednesday in a disclosure tied to the inquiry into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
The White House said it could not rule out the possibility that some official e-mails relating to the firings had been deleted and are lost.

Democrats in Congress have been seeking copies of e-mails from the Republican National Committee as part of an investigation into whether the firing of the prosecutors last year was politically motivated.
"Some official e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake the White House is aggressively working to correct," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters.
Asked whether some of the lost e-mails could be related to the firings of the U.S. attorneys last year, Stanzel said: "That can't be ruled out."
Democrats reacted with scorn.

The FBI's computer forensics teams can recover them. I've got clients in prison who can attest to that.

It does not require the FBI--any competent computer forensics person with access to the server can recover them, or at least most of them. Therefore, Congress should issue a forthwith subpoena duces tecum for the server itself.

Update: Leahy: Bush Aides Lying About Lost E-Mails on CBSNews.com posted less than one hour ago. The same headline appears on CNN.com.

< Cheap Shot | Imus Fired By CBS >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

GOP E-mails Lost? Congress Can Find Them, If It Looks, Now | 45 comments (45 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Forensics imaging has already been requested (5.00 / 5) (#1)
by profmarcus on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:47:32 AM EST

conyers has already requested that forensic images be made of every goddam hard drive, laptop or desktop, whose keyboard has been touched by the fingers of the suspects, particularly karl rove...

[T]he Committee urges the Department to image forensically the work stations, laptops, and/or other personal computers of key custodians at the White House likely to have material regarding the controversy surrounding the dismissals.

And, yes, I DO take it personally

: one karl rove. . . (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by the rainnn on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:50:30 AM EST

ding!
exactly!

dog, ate. homework. and other lies. . . (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by the rainnn on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:49:29 AM EST

sen. leahy's comment on this
was flawless -- and pefectly
pitched -- to express the in-
credulity that ought to arise
in every american's working
fore-brain, while reading the story:

. . .it sounds like "the
dog ate my homework!". . .

exactly. much more here on
what happens when the AG-for-the-
moment, alberto gonzales' staff
admits to destroying/deleting
e-mails that were clearly covered
by the house judiciary committee
subpeona duces tecum, served upon his
office only one day ago. . . back-to-
back, as it were. . .

who wants to bet that -- once recovered
from the back-up servers at the RNC, the
greatest number -- and most-damning of
content -- all came from/were authored
by. . . one karl rove?

PoorRepublicans (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:53:18 AM EST

They are just not used to oversight. Waaahh. Doesn't seem like they are adapting very quickly either.

Its hard to have a Rosemary Woods (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:58:51 AM EST

incident with email.

Just in case anyone doesn't know: Rosemary Woods

Get on it Congress (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:43:33 AM EST

Let's get that subpoena issued. Ugh, listening to Don Imus on CNN saying he got caught in a slow news cycle and it didn't snow on Christmas so he is fired. I think he's fired because he needed to be fired.

Abby (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Che's Lounge on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:56:02 AM EST

Don't you find it a bit troubling that the congress is trying to peek into the mail server of a political party on no more basis than an assertion that something just might possibly be amiss?

Not at all. We got used to this type of congressional investigating in the 90's. But you thought it was OK then.

: Che (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:28:40 AM EST

Yes they did.
And they actually found a guy who couldn't remember who hired him to collect around 1200 personal files on ..... are you ready??
Republicans.
Point.
Politics then.
Politics now.

E-mail retrievals (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by naschkatze on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:13:24 AM EST

Thank God the Democrats seem to be more computer savvy than the Republicans, many of whom, I believe, think that the Internet works by tubes. KKKKarl may just be foiled for once!

If the e mails were created using Novell (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by oculus on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:57:05 AM EST

Groupwise, the IT department can "recreate" the targeted e mail user accounts. This just occurred in a case I handled.

A bit troubling (1.00 / 2) (#8)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:04:04 AM EST

Don't you find it a bit troubling that the congress is trying to peek into the mail server of a political party on no more basis than an assertion that something just might possibly be amiss? It is my understanding that the law prohibits the use of the federal e-mail system for party business. If that is true, it appears this is a complaint about Rove complying with the law.

firing US attorneys ... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:46:32 AM EST

... is not party business ... or at least it wasn't until rove was in the WH. And it is a bipartisan investigation.

Besides, it's not a fishing expedition, and they are limiting the scope and they have proof:

Last year, Scott Jennings, an aide in the White House political affairs office, used an account he had set up at the Republican National Committee instead of his official White House account to help plan the firings of eight U.S. attorneys who had run afoul of the administration. A copy of that email, among others, has surfaced in the subsequent flap over those firings.

There's also the political presentations, the emails with abramoff etc.


sailor (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:12:42 AM EST

.. is not party business ...

sailor... pleaseeeeee

AG appointments are one of the best plums that a party can give....

Who do you think makes the recommendations to hire, and to fire, Presidential appointments?

Your fake naive comments are, well, just funny.


it was exec branch business ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:42:20 AM EST

... not the RNC's business. And they've lost any possible claim of exec priv by using rnc accounts.

Besides, your allegation has been denied by gonzo et al who have stridently claimed that the firings were NOT political and that they were shocked, shocker I tell you that anyone would think that they were.

Not to mention the attepts to hide and obstruct the abrmaoff connections.

They also promised the rnc emails wouldn't be destroyed ... and now they claim the dog ate their homework.


which is kind of silly (none / 0) (#24)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:32:10 AM EST

...gonzo et al who have stridently claimed that the firings were NOT political

Firing a political appointee is inherently political. Of course the firings were polotical. Thats why we have elections and prosecutors that serve at the pleasure of the president. They were not addressing the presidents priorities. Ergo, the ax. Thank god these folk serve at the pleasure of the prez. We don't need anymore Nifongs.


So (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by scarshapedstar on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:01:25 AM EST

These were quantum firings, simultaneously political and non-political?


Phony Baloney, scar (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:07:46 AM EST

Watch my lips.

AGs serve at the pleasure of the President.

That means he can fire them at any time, on his own, or on anyone's recommendation.


Really? (none / 0) (#39)
by scarshapedstar on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:09:58 PM EST

So if the President made it official policy to fire any prosecutor who indicted a Republican... would this be improper?


scar (1.00 / 1) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 08:26:56 AM EST

Do you sill beat your wife?

Having the right to do anything.
Doesn't make anything "proper" or "improper."

: Huh? (none / 0) (#45)
by scarshapedstar on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:53:49 PM EST

You been drinking again? No idea what that comment was supposed to mean.

sailor (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:04:27 AM EST

You don't believe Gonzales on other things, why this??

And I don't believe the method of transmission has anything to do with privelege... If that was true, everything that was typed had none... or written with pen and ink.

President Jefferson. Is it true you wrote a letter to President Adams on using that quill?

BTW - I didn't say the firings were political,just that "political partues" have influence on appointments and firing. Again. Who do you think makes recommendations to the Pres?

Politics then.

Politics now.


since you continue to have a comprehension problem (none / 0) (#30)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:18:06 AM EST

firing US attorneys is not party business ... or at least it wasn't until rove was in the WH. And it is a bipartisan investigation.
Besides, it's not a fishing expedition, and they are limiting the scope and they have proof:

There's also the political presentations, the emails with abramoff etc.

And I don't believe the method of transmission has anything to do with privelege

then you would be wrong, as always.


sailor (none / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:56:46 PM EST

You can kid your friends and I'll kid mine.

But if you think that the DNC and RNC, not to mention the ACLU, NAACP, and other political organizations from the Left and the Right do not have influence on their respective favorite political parties and people, then you really are naive, not just acting.

As to the claim of privelege being based on the transmission method, I don't think it has been adjudicated based on executive use.

(Obviously private communications over an employer's system is something else.)


The adults were talking about ... (none / 0) (#36)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:35:26 PM EST

... the gop and the WH 'losing' the very emails they said they would archive. Try to keep up.

I don't believe him on this ... but it's his story and he's sticking to it and the WH backs him. It's nice to know that you're calling him a liar also.


sailor (none / 0) (#41)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 08:48:29 AM EST

You are the king of calling people liars, so don't put words in my mouth.

Now try to understand this.

Believeing or not believeing has nothing to do with:

Whether or not a statement is correct or incorrect.
Whether or not you think the person "lied."
Whether or not the person actually lied.

I wrote:

That was a question, not a statement saying I didn't beleive Gonzales. I believe anyone can see that.

So why did you write this?

It's nice to know that you're calling him a liar also.

Again. Why did you write that? It has no basis in fact, and I think you knew that. Now. What does sailor call people sailor believes have said something incorrect?


: OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#44)
by Sailor on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 03:55:43 PM EST

and still another comment consisting of nothing but a personal attack.
And Jeralyn's pet troll gets another pass while violating TalkLeft rules.

Actually, I do (3.00 / 2) (#14)
by sphealey on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:00:47 AM EST

Actually, I do find it troubling. Unfortunately, the RNC seems to have chosen to ignore the Executive Records Act and host Office of the President documents without taking the necessary precautions required by federal law (I also have to wonder about security and classification laws/regulations). That makes them subject to investigation. It would have been better for them to have kept their political activities in their own realm; then they could argue that the communications were privilaged.

sPh


Good point (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:01:24 AM EST

Avoiding the appearance of impropriety (none / 0) (#28)
by scarshapedstar on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:04:32 AM EST

Whatever happened to that?


scar (1.00 / 1) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 08:51:43 AM EST

Improprietary went out

When Monica went down.

So why don't you try another talking point??


: Maybe, but then 9/11 changed everything again (none / 0) (#43)
by scarshapedstar on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 03:28:32 PM EST

nice try, though.

GOP (none / 0) (#31)
by Edger on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:27:09 AM EST

and BushCo: "Impropriety R Us"


E-mail systems and recovery (none / 0) (#6)
by sphealey on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:18:19 AM EST

I apologize for not have time to write a detailed description of large e-mail systems. But some quick points: most e-mail systems are not set up for archival recovery of any message at any time; most are set up for disaster recovery only [1]. It is possible to set up an e-mail with no archiving. It is possible to set up an e-mail system with automatic purging. And in large-scale storage systems, when data is deleted it is gone: there is no "undelete" utility as there is on MSDOS-based systems (Windows PCs).

Given the attitude of the alumni of the Nixon Administration toward Watergate, I would be reasonably sure that the RNC servers were set up for no retention, no local stores, and automatic purging.

sPh

[1] I am sure the lawyer types here can do a better job than I of explaining the FRCP change that occurred this year. But many older e-mail systems in service do not meet that standard.
[1]

Doesn't email exist on more than 1 server? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:51:06 AM EST

If it you can set email to be purged as you describe, how do you remove it from all the other servers and ISPs? Wouldn't every ISP and server the email passed through have to be purged? And what about the paranoid (often with good reason) types who keep every email they ever got?

A decade or so ago, a friend of mine was blamed for the meltdown of a cellphone system in a major market. My friend was the local regional engineering manager. The meltdown was the result of a policy instituted by higher ups over my friend's objection. Naturally the person who instituted the policy was promoted. My friend was fired. Employee at will, etc.

A class action suit by several business which were adversely affected by the meltdown was instituted and my friend was subpoened for depostion. My friend pulled all his emails (he was one of those paranoid types) to review the matter and brought them with him to deposition.

Turns out the company was claiming the server had died and had been replaced and they didn't have any emails from the relevant time period. The plaintiff's lawyer was pleasantly surprised when my friend pulled out hard copies, he had printed out from his personal lap top, where he had stored them for his own protection. My friend pointed out the many of the emails were probably on the server of the office to which the local region. So even if the local server had been replaced.

The telecom would have painted my friend as a disgruntled employee, but the emails included a prediction of what happened before it happened by ... you guessed it....my friend. Telecom settled.

Once it is out of your hands... (none / 0) (#10)
by sphealey on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:42:43 AM EST

Yes, it is of course correct that once an e-mail leaves your own systems you have no idea how it will be stored, archived, etc. One of my family members works at a large SEC-regulated financial company and she reminds everyone regularly that every e-mail sent to her is archived forever. As I used to say in e-mail training: "If you don't want your words published in the New York Times, the National Enquirer, or both, don't send the e-mail".

However, I suspect that that this entire system was set up so that the majority of communications could be kept entirely within the "gwb43" constellation and no key person would ever have to send anything outside servers controlled by the RNC.

: www dot archive dot org (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:29:59 AM EST

But, but, but ... (none / 0) (#9)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:39:28 AM EST

The White House and RNC said the RNC is preserving the emails generated by White House officials on the RNC's computers, and that they are exempt from the RNC's normal policy of erasing emails after 30 days

You mean they lied!? Again!?


washing drives (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:08:33 AM EST

there is no "undelete" utility as there is on MSDOS-based systems (Windows PCs

There are numerous programs that will wash hard drives completely to various standards...


: Yes ... (none / 0) (#35)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:31:47 PM EST

... but not without leaving fingerprints of when and how they were wiped.
I'd love to do a forensic analysis of the disks on te servers that emails were 'lost' on.

In any (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:58:51 AM EST

organization of more than, say 500-1000 people in multiple cities running an MS based network, the email system is going to require 5-10 MS Exchange Servers... AND their daily/weekly tape backups, AND more servers as the number of email accounts needed grows. The servers 'mirror' each other as far as I know.

Then there are the servers that are that networks gateway to the internet. Then there are the servers on the networks at the receiving end of the emails. And ALL the hops (each one a server) in the internet between the sender and receiver of an email.

THEN there is the NSA. And the FBI.

Sure they are lost. Sure they are....

"Mrs. O'Kelly, do you believe in fairies?" "No, I don't -- but they're there."
-- Irish aphorism

GOP E-mails Lost? (none / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:31:53 AM EST

Sure they were.... sure....

Depends on the meaning of 'lost'.

Ollie North (none / 0) (#32)
by Ben Masel on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:28:05 PM EST

More than the Nixon fiasco, I'm reminded of Ollie North's efforts to disappear the record. The Fawn Hall underwear/shredder epispode followed his deletion of emails from the White House system.

Didn't take long for printouts to turn up at Congressional offices, presumably courtesy of the NSA.

: At that time, the WH... (none / 0) (#33)
by sphealey on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:32:52 PM EST

> Didn't take long for printouts
> to turn up at Congressional
> offices, presumably courtesy of
> the NSA.
At that time, the White House was using PROFS e-mail, a typically over-engineered IBM mainframe product. I am sure it came with archiving turn on by default (and may not have had an option to turn it off!). Congress only had to asks the system administrator for the logs.
sPh

The L Word (none / 0) (#37)
by scarshapedstar on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:18:49 PM EST

Holy cow! Did a Democrat actually accuse the White House of lying? Somebody bring out the smelling salts and the fainting couch in advance. The Broders of the world are going to have the vapors.

: Yes! (none / 0) (#38)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:59:35 PM EST

We have to have a serious discussion about civility ... while completely ignoring the obscenity of war, torture, wounded vets being sent back to iraq, etc.