I wonder what those emails said?

February 1, 2006

Josh Marshall noted today that the New York Daily News had an interesting nugget in its story about Scooter Libby (remember him?), his legal defense, and Patrick Fitzgerald’s prosecution.

Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby’s request, said in a letter to Libby’s lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney’s office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy.

That does seem a bit odd. As Josh noted, Fitzgerald’s letter says that “we have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.”

The only thing I’d add to this is that on Friday, Sept. 26, 2003, the CIA directed the Justice Department to launch a criminal probe into the Plame leak. Three days later, on Monday, Sept. 29, 2003, the WH counsel’s office was formally notified about the investigation, though news reports and blogs reported the news widely on Friday. It was then 12 hours after the WH counsel’s office heard from the DoJ that Alberto Gonzales told White House staff to preserve materials.

I’m not specifically accusing anyone of anything — I’m just not in a position to know — but Bush aides had several days notice between learning of the criminal investigation and official word that they should preserve relevant documents. If, for example, someone had emails that were possibly incriminating, he or she had the whole last weekend in September to discard, delete, and/or destroy materials.

Just sayin’.

For what it’s worth, the duty to preserve evidence attaches at the moment that litigation seems *likely*, not the point at which official notice is received.

That is to say, it would be against the law to delete emails when one has reason to believe that a legal action may be commenced, regardless of whether one has been served or otherwise notified.

(But that’s not legal advice).

  • Aren’t we at the point yet where there’s an assumption of guilt when Bush does something like this? There was no doubt in my mind at the time why they were give a grace period before they were ordered to preserve evidence. It’s kind of like refusing to get a warrant to tap someone’s phone line, even retroactively. Duh! They want to listen to conversations they couldn’t get a warrant to listen to!

    Trust me. It’s impossible to think too lowly of these people. There’s no one in this country who thinks less of the President than I do, and the only time I’m surprised is when I give the guy too much credit. There is no decision that has ever been made by this administration that wasn’t purely cynical, political, or decided only according to their own selfish self interests.

  • Not surprised. Did the same thing during Irancontra. A certain VP of Reagan’s avoided hard questioning about his role in Irancontra due to some hard drives containing critical emails that went missing.

    If Abramhoff warned his clients thanks to Savarin then Ashcroft’s zampolits in the Justice Departments would have done the same thing.

  • “Oh James, I can’t wait until later this evening, when in our secret undisclosed location our warm bodies, slathered in mayo, rub endlessly and gently against each other. Just the thought of your ‘eight inches cut’ makes my defribulator roar! And I WILL pay you double if you do that very special thing that drives me wild…

    Yours patriotically,

    Dick”

  • The plot continues to sicken. Nice to hear from Fitz, though. Was beginning to wonder what he was up to, if anything.

  • Wonder if there are any system backups that might contain the “missing” e-mails?

    and… “archive” and “backup” are often different and serve totally different purposes.

  • Electronic communications are never truely deleted. I bet teh NSA could find them. I wonder if FISA would grant a warrant?

  • Bush has said that this is why he never uses email – cause he don’t want anybody rootin’ around in there (as he put it). I suspect that would still be his position even if he did know how to use email.

  • Electronic communications are never truely deleted. I bet teh NSA could find them. I wonder if FISA would grant a warrant?

    Brilliant! After all, there may be some emails to a potential terrorist.

  • Another wrinkle on the Cheney emailgate?

    Hmmm…. wonder if Libby’s lawyers asked whether any records had been destroyed? See Fitzgerald’s letter – he writes in his January 23 2006 letter: “We are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libby which has been destroyed.” Then he goes on to say: “In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.” This reply might be consistent with an answer to such a question by Libby.

    Now, if Libby did ask that question, why would he? Just to be careful, in case this had happened?

    Or because he knew of any such destruction, and wanted it outed?

    Who might have destroyed any such evidence?

    And, if Libby did raise it through his lawyer’s request for discovery, why did he do so? To put pressure on whom? On Cheney? On Bush?

    Is this a shot in the “real” argument which Libby might be making: the argument in the Court of King Bush, begging for pardon?

    And just who was sending or receiving emails in the “Executive Office of President”?

  • In Washington, it’s not the original misdeed, but the cover-up that brings the mighty down….and with the sneaky sleezy braintrust behind Bush who have so much to hide…..there must be an infinite regression … the cover up… of the cover up…… of the cover up…..

    Now Bush knows that the investigation is sniffing around in the White House e-mails… It’s time for him to promote Fitzgerald to a federal judgeship.

    • Comments are closed.