« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Judge Presses White House on Emails
The White House has three days to explain why it shouldn't be required to copy its computer hard drives to ensure no further e-mails are lost, a federal judge ordered Tuesday....The order, issued Tuesday morning by a federal magistrate judge in Washington, D.C., comes in a case brought against the Bush administration by the National Security Archive, a nonpartisan group affiliated with George Washington University....
Judge Facciola rejected as "draconian" a proposal by the Archive that would have forced the White House to quarantine every computer workstation it had. Instead, Facciola proposed the White House make a "forensic copy" of all preservable data on every computer that could have been used by an employee between 2003 and 2005, the period in question....
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the White House "fully intends to comply" with the order, which is currently being reviewed.
Josh
Zachary
There is one good reason:
Last time they "copied" the files, they destroyed them.
March 18, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
" Book'em Dano ..."
Apparently you can run but you can't hide all the e-mails on the "internets tubes " that have & will criminally implicate many minions from GWB 43.com ...
March 18, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lawyers making this promise are asking us to believe something which they know is meaningless. The issue turns on the definition of "intent" or "intended". Where did he hear this before:
- Geneva
- POW abuse
- warrants
- FISA violations
- FISA Court procedures
- Rendition
- Bybee Memo
- Frivolous legal counsel memoranda in re above
Look at this dubious standard on "intent" in re DC Disciplinary Board. Using the lawyers' words, there's no standards of conduct defining what "fully intend" means for an attorney:
Despite the public corruption in DC, nobody's been able to have a case heard to decide, from an attorney ethics perspective, what "intend to disrupt" means in the District of Columbia.
Whether the "unintended" by-product of that allegedly reckless conduct is non-compliance with the court is of apparent little interest to former and currently assigned WH legal counsel. The rule doesn't mean that others -- non-attorneys, "unknown" to the attorneys -- are prohibited from secretly, without detection disrupting the discovery. Note this exception, which the DC Attys are not bound:
- When WH counsel says they "intend" to comply, does this mean they will refrain, stop, cease, and decist from all conduct that might, could, probably, likely foreseeably disrupt the discovery?
- Even if the attorneys were to disrupt this discovery, can they point to any rule governing them under the DC Disciplinary rules which would sanction them? No.
March 18, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The White House staff was operating on RNC accounts from both the GWB43.com as well as the Georgewbush.com domains.
The Office of Political Affairs and senior staffers were big gwb43com users - but many people also had the georgewbushcom address which was a Bush-Cheney campaign funded address.
Karl Rove was partial to georgewbush.com . So was David Rachelson, who, as a WH staffer, was a key figure in the vote caging efforts in 2004.
March 18, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The White House staff was operating on RNC accounts from both the GWB43.com as well as the Georgewbush.com domains.
The Office of Political Affairs and senior staffers were big gwb43com users - but many people also had the georgewbushcom address which was a Bush-Cheney campaign funded address.
Karl Rove was partial to georgewbush.com . So was David Rachelson, who, as a WH staffer, was a key figure in the vote caging efforts in 2004.
March 18, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's some of David's work:
(http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/DNC-Memo-RNC-emails.pdf)
Rachelson was also the White House contact for coin swindler and fraudster Tom Noe.
(http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050707/SRRARECOINS/307070079/-1/SRRARECOINS2)
It really would be interesting to see more of David's emails.
March 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well this is just dandy; but why didn't Fitzgerald or the DOJ do this years ago when the emails were first discovered missing?
March 18, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Technology update: if five-year-old computers are still being used by senior staff, we have a completely different problem in the Executive Administration Buildings! Worse, the PCs in 2003 were (most likely) the new-issue computers they got in 2001, when they arrived. Think those computers are still around? Average Joes get theirs replaced every three years. Think Cheney is using a Pentium III?
Of course another rhetorical question: Why was this broadcast to the world? A gag order would be far more effective to actually preserve data,also remotely pulling all data from the computers can be done overnight, without ever touching a machine. No one has the chance to delete anything!
Forensic backup can be later, but why tempt fate by telling everybody that there will be local backups turned over to authorities, "sometime soon...really soon...almost ready...(as people are rabidly swapping out hard drives).... OK.... Now!"
Kinda like keeping the cops from a shooting scene until the next day, when everyone had their lines memorized.
March 18, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a former police officer and one intimately familiar with forensic data analysis, let me just say his:
Uh, right. And those key staffers are brushing up a quickly as they can on the the concept of forensic data analysis, while working overtime trying to figure out how to 'dump' the data in an untraceable manner. Good look with that, lackeys.
Of course, they do have all those sharp minds at the NSA and RNC available to help them. This could be interesting.
March 18, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This decision doesn't make any difference. These criminals act without shame or fear of consequences. They'll dump whatever they want to. Book it.
March 19, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
Poll Results Now Instant!
New vids, and New Polls Posted Weekly!
March 19, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
Poll Results Now Instant!
New vids, and New Polls Posted Weekly!
March 19, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink