what happens when someone destroys subpeonaed e-mails. . .

. . . or, how "the dog ate my homework!"



via talkingpointsmemo.com, we learn
tonight that the AP is reporting that
some e-mails clearly relevant to the
house judiciary committee's subpeona,
served on alberto gonzales just yesterday,
have -- erhhh, ummm -- "gone missing. . ."

notably, the lost little e-mails were
from the republican national committee
accounts -- the gwb43.com domain. . .

. . .staffers used their RNC accounts instead of White House accounts to discuss the prosecutor issue or conduct other official business for several reasons, including extra caution about complying with the Hatch Act as well as the convenience of using one account instead of several. [RNC Spokesman Scott] Stanzel said he could not speak to whether anyone was intentionally trying to avoid White House archiving because he had not spoken to all those involved.

Stanzel said some e-mails have been lost because the White House lacked clear policies on complying with Presidential Records Act requirements. . .

Before 2004, for instance, e-mails to and from the accounts were typically automatically deleted every 30 days along with all other RNC e-mails. Even though that was changed in 2004, so that the White House staffers with those accounts were excluded from the RNC's automatic deletion policy, some of their e-mails were lost anyway when individual aides deleted their own files, Stanzel said.

He could not say what had been lost, and said the White House is working to recover as many as they can. The White House has now shut off employees' ability to delete e-mails on the separate accounts, and is briefing staffers on how to better make determinations about when -- and when not -- to use them, Stanzel said. . .

disgusting. but not surprising.

let's take a look at what AG-for-the-moment-
alberto-gonzales has been ordered to do, and
all before april 16, 2007, at 2 p.m. e.d.t.,
under the subpoena duces tecum, above,
to comply with the order of the house judiciary
committee, shall we? yes -- let's!



we see that a bevy of detailed
information -- as to each known
deleted or destroyed e-mail -- must
be provided to the judiciary committee,
as per page 4 of the subpoena, above
and page 5, below -- click each to
open an enlarged view. . .



can you say "contempt of congress
for failure to comply with the terms
of a lawful subpoena?" sure you can.

developing -- LATER. . .

the new york times' reporting put it
rather succinctly this thursday morning:

. . .“This sounds like the administration’s version of the dog ate my homework,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the dismissal of the prosecutors.

“I am deeply disturbed that just when this administration is finally subjected to meaningful oversight,” Mr. Leahy said, “it cannot produce the necessary information.”

Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has asked the White House to produce records relating to nongovernment e-mail accounts by April 18. But a Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House told Mr. Waxman’s committee on Wednesday that it would not be able to comply fully.

Mr. Waxman issued a brief statement: “This is a remarkable admission that raises serious legal and security issues. The White House has an obligation to disclose all the information it has.”

The flap grows out of the investigation into the dismissals of the prosecutors. E-mail messages provided to Congress in that inquiry showed that Scott Jennings, a deputy political director for Mr. Bush, used his national committee address, ending in gwb43.com, to discuss them with aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, including D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned amid the ensuing uproar.

In January, an assistant to Mr. Jennings used a gwb43.com account to circulate a document discussing Democrats who are being singled out for defeat in 2008. “Please do not e-mail this out or let people see it,” the e-mail read, adding, “It is a close hold, and we’re not supposed to be e-mailing it around”. . .

astonishing. or perhaps, not so.

the hearing on april 17 is going to
be particularly explosive on this issue. . .

and josh marshall,once again, positively
nails. it. to. the wall. as to why it ought
to be an explosively-indignant line of cross-
examination to which mr. gonzales submits,
under the kleig lights, on april 17, 2007.

josh's is a great explanation of what the
"forest looks like, through all the trees"
of subpoenas, lies about dogs eating home-
work, and the like. . .

some u.s. attorneys in wisconsin were bringing
federal charges against a woman who had
signed two voter registration cards, at
the insistence of polling place oficials,
in order to vote -- no one voted "twice." and, just
fyi, the polling place was in milwaukee -- all democrat,
like chicago, all the time. . . of course, the judge
promptly dismissed this charge, as a plain abuse of
process. . . the local assistant u.s. attorneys
were being used for pit-bull political bully-tactics,
to reduce turnout on heavily democratic, and minority,
wards. . . that is clearly where this is going to lead.

shameful.