Here are the 1301-1b references

b. General subject files consisting of correspondence, reports, and other records relating to all aspects of records administration, including records disposition policies and procedures, NARA-sponsored training, files maintenance, agency program evaluations, and similar matters. Arranged alphabetically by subject.

Has DoJ OPR reviewed this 03May2007 S:file related to the unauthorized destruction?

Has DoJ compared the S:File listed above, with the CFR 1228.104 requirements here?

Thanks for your feedback. The comments posted are from the RNC-related links. I might consider posting comment elsewhere if they weren't related.

This isn't about "my analysis" of the link; it's about pointing the readers to newly disclosed information showing the RNC's claims at the original TPM blog make no sense. Is it your position that the links to the content have "no relationship" with the RNC claims, even though it was the RNC in the White House, as documented at the links?

The point of the links is this:
1. The 2008 assertions today the RNC has are at odds with thier "efforts" 2002-2008 to find something;
2. "out of the blue", the RNC says in 2008, "We're not going to bother," after the repeated memoranda/meeting notes saying they were "making progress"
3. WH EOP/legal counsel were involved with many reviews; but we're asked to believe since 2002, RNC legal counsel and the RNC email system "reviews" was "totally diferent"

Obviously, the RNC "unitary theory" of leadership -- in having the Presidentin charge of the White House and the Party -- was ineffectual. RNC would have us believe that they are a separate entity, otuside EOP, and unrelated to the law. That may be their view and how they operated, but that has no legal foundation.

The point of the above links: During these discussions within the EOP, there should have been some leaderhsip, and cross flow of information related to these memos as the links, to personnel inside the RNC:
- Here's what's going on;
- These are the legal requirements;
- This is the recrods rentention policy.

Along all the links, you'll see WH legal counsel was well involved; and that the legal requirement of EOP under the National Archives requires were well understood, but RNC today would have us believe, "Oh, that's not us, we're totally unrelated." Non-sense.

- Once RNC legal counsel learned from the "unitary executive" of the WH Counsel's invovlement with this planning since 2001 (see links above), what documents within RNC were created to review the legal requirements, guidance from EOP, and other feedabck from the National Archives?

- How can anyone argue that the links above related to OVP are "unrelated" when the point of the law and links was to show that the OVP were involved, and their assertions in 2007-8 that they were "not subject" to the records retention requirements are contrary to their internal deliberations, as evidenced by the links above?

The links and commentary above show the RNC's assertions today are absurd; and destroy the OVP claims that they had no obligation under the statute to do anything. Rather, given the plans developed, we have to wonder where RNC has been since 2002 when this known problem with records retention was known. It's as if each reveleation or a problem suddenly wakes people up, "Oh, you mean that's related to us? Well, we'll have to study that. We'll get back to you in six years."

Where is the unitoary executive; where is the Presidential leadership; whwere is the cross flow of information from the RNC into the White House? Again, this is the same "problem" we're asked to believe occurred with the US Atty firing. The problem goes the other way: Once WH Counsel is involved with the records, and it is known that there is a [a] political; [b] legal; and [c] public affairs coordination on the US Atty firings, then we cannot credibly accept the RNC position in 2008 that they "didn't do anything". They were well involved with these planning meetings, were connected with the political office, and would have been well positioned to get access to these problems in 2002.

The point of the links above is to show that all this planning was going on, the EOP counsel was well involved, and the RNC cannot credibly ask us to believe its in the clear. It has had well documented CFR requirements, did attend planning meetings, and the WH legal counsel knew or shoul dhave known about the CFR requirements imposing a reporting/investigation requirement on the DOJ AG and RNC.

The statutes and CFR are clear. The RNC claim of "we're not going to do anything" is a subsequent violation. Don't argue that the links above are "unrelated": They're the evidence of who in the WH EOP legal counsel officer knew and should ahve forwarded this information to their counterparts within the political, legal, and public affairs units. This coordination happened with the US Atty firings; and the DOJ Staff reviews as documented in the workflows.

You really want to make the case that the above links belong "somehwere else"? That's the very problem the RNC has right now: These links have been buried, and they've been able to say, "That doesn't relate to us." That is part of the problem; burying it elsewhere where it "doesn't interrupt the conversation" is the same non-sense the WH-EOP-OVP gave to justify inaction.

Is that what you want: Bury the links where it won't "interrupt" you? Go visit the links against, an dreconsider the RNC's assertions today. Stop playing their game of "we don't want to hear those diruptive facts about the meetings that we should have known about but didn't respond to." It's an insult in 2008 to have someone say, "Go away." Same thing happened with the JAGs in re Geneva. You really want these links from EOP to "go away". You go away, and make your own sandbox.

Stop changing the subject from whether the RNC does or doesn't have a credible position to do nothing.

"You've obviously got a lot to say on this subject - but would you consider posting this info in your reader blog (and posting a link)?"

No, I will not post the comments "elsewhere" when the comments relate to the original thread: The RNC not responding. The links show the RNC should ahve been well involved since 2002. If you don't wnat to read the links, that's fine. But don't ask anyone to repeat the same problem the RNC-EOP has been doing:
- Pretending that these facts are "not what we want to hear"
- Asking people to "go away" when those links/facts related to 2002-2008 EOP efforts need to be contrasted with what the RNC is now saying in 2008.

Is it your position that the RNC comments are "unrleated" to the links? If that's the case, then you apparently don't undersatnd the non-sense the DOJ AG was doing in re the US Atty firings. The US Atty firings did coordinate with the WH political, legal, and public affairs offices. One of those offices -- the political office -- would involve, in theory, the RNC. Why are you asking that we "bury" this?

That's the same silly argument the President's been giving to avoid reality: "Oh, that doesn't relate here, it's a different topic." Baloney. The links stay. Said another way, despite posting that many links showing the RNC's statements today in 2008 are not consistent with the information flows 2002-2008, when the RNC should ahve bgeen involved, we apparently have people who do not see the connection between:
A. The RNC's statemetns in 2008; and
B. The links 2002-2008 to memoranda showing the RNC should have been well involved through the EOP-OVP communication channels about what was going on.

"Because what you're doing here, posting a sixty-part dissertation in a comment thread, is interfering with the dialog.

Obviously the "dialog" isn't focusing on the links which show the RNC has been involved/doing one thing; then out of the blue they say, "The CFR doesn't apply to us."

What "you're doing here" is doing what the RNC was doing: Buring things.

No offense, just hoping you'll consider. Thanks!

TYhe point of the links is to shorten the comments, as opposed to posting a long comment. Regardless what you're getting it appears someone is going to complain. If you don't like it, then feel free to post a summary comment in your blog.

As soon as the information was obtained, and seen to contradict the RNC position in 2008, it's posted here. You want it buried? You go bury it. You can make a long blog comment on your own blog.

MsJoanne,

Thank you for your interest. You asked for a Cliff Notes Version.

RNC Inaction in 2008 Contradicts RNC Stated "Concern" 2002-2007

The RNC would have us believe in 2008 that they're not going to bother providing e-mails. This comes as as a surprise. Since 2002, they've been intimately involved with the planning for the "security" of the WH e-mails. The links above clearly establish the RNC was involved since 2002. Yet, in 2008, we're asked to believe, they're not going to bother.

The RNC has been present since 2002 at the many documented meetings. The RNC legal counsel should have been well coordinating with the WH-EOP-OVP legal counsel, who attended these RNC e-mail preservation meetings. The RNC, as you may recall, were intimately involved with the US Atty firing. This is shown through the US Atty emails which did coordinate with the political arm of the White House.

RNC 2008 "Inaction Plan" Contradicts RNC's Known Reporting Requirements To Archivist To Act

Curiously, one of the meetings specifically cited a report developed under the Code of Federal Regulations. This CFR cites specific reporting requirements when data is not available, or goes missing. This means the RNC would have a legal requirement to report missing emails. Here is the relevant language within the Code of Federal Regulations. This references was lifted directly from the e-mail working groups where the WH Counsel attended, and knew of this legal requirement.

This link is another example showing the WH Counsel well knew of their requirement to comply with the National Archive requirements. Note closely, the highlighted text at the link which emphasizes the EOP is aware of this legal requirement. This means the President, when he says he is "not" subject to the archivists' requirements, is lying: His own words/assertions contradict what his own legal counsel were privately agreeing to at these email retention meetings.

President's Public Assertions Contradict WH Counsel's Comments AT RNC Email Retention Meetings

The President has asserted that the RNC emails are protected by "executive privilege". This is a fatal assertion: He's not making an excuse, but opening himself up to a problem. The CFR imposes on the RNC and him a legal requirement to report to the National Archives when data is missing, or not available.

Revelations of WH Counsel and RNC knowledge of Reporting Requirements Means The Records, Conversations Are Not Protected By Privilege

The revelations at the many links above at TPMM are fatal to the President. Once these meeting details are revealed, the President cannot claim he is protecting anything.

Executive privilege can only protect what is hidden. However, once the details of those meetings are disclosed -- as have been done with the many links, and information provided to the House Oversight Committee on the WH-EOP-RNC emails -- then there is nothing to shield.

Inadvertent Disclosures Are Exceptions To Hearsay Rules

Rather, the rule of "inadvertent disclosure" applies. Once something is disclosed, even by accident, the President cannot claim that that subject is protected or shielded. Rather, the public can cite these disclosures as the basis to request additional details through the FOIA process.

Improper Presidential Motivate Behind Court Filings

The President's assertions do not appear consistent with the law, the WH counsel's stated positions, or with the understandings of the President's legal counsel about those legal requirements. The President's claim of "privilege" isn't to hide internal deliberations, but are more with an effort to hide information that shows he, as President, has been lying to Congress; and that he was publicly asserting things which contradicted what the WH Counsel was privately agreeing to.

The President's claim of "protecting internal deliberations" is not connected with a real interest to hide deliberations and ensure candid advice to him, as President; but with the opposite: To hide from Congress and the voters the meeting minute evidence showing the RNC and WH Counsel knew they were not meeting their legal requirements to provide information to the Archivist. The Presidents' public statements are not supported by what his own legal counsel were agreeing to. This is important for decision makers to consider or known as a "material" problem because it relates to important information related to a decision.

Alleged False Statements To Congress: Public Assertions Contradict Meeting Minutes On Legal Compliance Issue

However, rather than comply with this requirement, the President has asserted the opposite: Saying that he's "not subject" to the National Archive requirements; and "not subject" to the Archivists' audit. That's impossible. He can't have it both ways. He cannot argue the data is 'Protected' as a Presidential record; but then reverse himself, and say that he will not report to the archivist when those documents go missing, especially when legal counsel well discusses that legal requirement at a documented meeting.

Memoranda Destroy Credibility Of OVP Legal Assertions In Re OVP Document Retention Policies

There was no legal basis for EOP, OVP, or RNC to block the archivists audits of these records. There is no legal basis for the OVP to assert, in public, that various standards do "not apply," especially when EOP legal counsel asserted at these meetings that they knew they had retention requirements. Rather, the links support the conclusions that the OVP assertions that they are "not" in the Executive branch -- as an excuse to hide information -- is not supported by the legal counsel's understanding that the records act did apply.

Alleged Legal Counsel Frivolous Statements: Raising Prospect Of Attaching OVP Legal Counsel To Unlawful Conduct

This would raise the issue of alleged "frivolous legal counsel arguments". When legal counsel make frivolous legal arguments, the courts can attach those attorneys to the underlying illegal activity. In this case, the meeting minutes would likely support the conclusion that the OVP legal counsel have been making frivolous legal arguments, and that they are allegedly linked with the underlying illegal activity: Non-compliance with the National Archives' records retention requirements. This is a subsequent offenses DOJ OPR could refer to the DC Atty disciplinary board for purposes of disbarring OVP legal counsel. This alleged illegal activity could explain why one OVP legal counsel has resigned.

Maladministration: Impeachable Offenses

The many delays in responding to the Archivist appear less to do with "confusion" about the law, but with a failed Presidential decision to not effectively manage his reporting/retention requirements which he well knew, or should have known, applied to him, based on legal counsel's disclosures at these meetings. One basis to charge a leader with maladministration in re impeachment is to show there was not effective leadership to address known problems; and that he was not responding to known legal requirements.

Regardless whether a President is or is not removed by a conviction in the Senate, someone subject to impeachment proceedings cannot be pardoned. The above links support the reasonable course of action: An impeachment proceeding against the President and Vice President; and a denial from them of any chance of a pardon. It boggles the mind that the DNC leadership in the House are afraid of denying the VP, President, and others any chance of a pardon when the EOP-OVP legal counsel's memoranda well supports an investigation and impeachment proceeding.

If the House leadership will not enforce the law, then the other option needs to be discussed: Bringing charges against the DNC leadership for their alleged complicity with, and refusal to enforce the Constitution. Either the House leadership enforces the law against the President and VP; or they becomes subject of subsequent charges for alleged malfeasance per alleged violations of their oath of office, 5 USC 3331.

RNC Asks For Approval of Inaction Decision Despite Legal Requirement On RNC To Act

The RNC would ask the public to accept in 2008 their decision to not fully meet their legal obligations. However, they cannot argue that these legal requirements were unknown or did not apply. The records from the meetings between the RNC-WH counsel and outside parties clearly establishes the opposite: The legal requirements were known; and the RNC-WH counsel were well involved with the discussions on the data retention requirements. They cannot argue that they were confused, out of the loop, or unaware.

Rather, the written records contradict the President's assertions to the public and Congress. The President has been abusing "executive privilege" not to hide internal deliberations, but to do what the privilege claim does not permit: Hide evidence of illegal activity, violations of the code of federal regulations, and prevent the public from discovering information showing maladministration, incompetence, and legal recklessness.

Reasonable Basis To Question Legality of WH-EOP-OVP-RNC Legal Counsel Professional Conduct

These are not simple issues of reporting related to records. There are also issues broadly connected with legal counsel, their conduct under the attorney standards of conduct, and questions of whether the White House legal counsel have or have not been thwarting their legal obligations as legal counsel under the District of Columbia attorney standards of conduct. Legal counsel, when the write memoranda that advocate frivolous legal positions, become attached to the underlying illegal activity. In this case, it appears legal counsel privately knew they were not meeting their legal obligations, but in written memoranda to Congress WH Counsel would have us believe the opposite: That there was confusion, that documents were not related, and that Congress had not legal basis to review the information.

The links above raise substantial questions about the claims the WH Counsel has provided to the court; and substantially destroy the legal basis for the WH Counsel to deny the Congress access to the relevant documents. This information, when presented to the court reviewing the FOIA requests, could substantially destroy the RNC and Wh legal counsel's arguments or claims before the Court. This is a major credibility problem. The links substantially support legal arguments before the court that the President has been lying, not meeting his legal obligations, and WH-RNC legal counsel have not been timely responding to legal discovery related to alleged misconduct and violations of the Presidential records act.

Speculation: Other Lines of Evidence Object To Impeachment Investigation

These conclusions are well supported by the above links. However, this only relates to a single situation. Going forward, we can only speculate how many other meeting minutes exist on other issues which would also support the same conclusions: That WH legal counsel has been lying; that the former DOJ AG Gonzalez has failed to recused himself as required; and the RNC has been part of a massive effort to obstruct lawful review of evidence which the public should have access related to voting decisions.

The information sheds light on the RNC legal counsel, the DoJ AG, and the lines of evidence DoJ OPR should be reviewing. It appears the White House counsel well knows they have been delaying complying with the legal requirements not because of "technical challenges" but because there has been no leadership or effective coordination since 2001 to fully comply with clearly promulgated requirements.