Friday, May 25, 2007

rove's e-mails not "really" lost, after all? -- senators leahy and specter ask mr. rove's counsel. . .

just why would rove's e-mails have
been available to patrick fitzgerald,
but -- as claimed -- now be "lost. . .
or destroyed
"? archival copies of
the plame/libby investigation materials,
as files, ought to be in many places -- not
the least of which would be the r.n.c.'s law
firm, or mr. rove's own personal lawyer,
from the plame/libby investigation. . .

again, someone seems not to be
telling the whole truth, here,
cough. . . mr. karl rove.

let's just get to it, then:

May 24, 2007

Robert D. Luskin
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Luskin:

The White House has confirmed that an unknown number of e-mails, including those of your client, Karl Rove, from both White House accounts and those sent or received using political Republican National Committee accounts, have not been archived. You stated publicly that Mr. Rove’s emails were turned over to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as part of the investigation into the leak of the identity of a covert CIA officer by officials in the Administration that led to the conviction of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

The Department’s response to the Committee, however, suggests that these emails were not in fact turned over permanently to Mr. Fitzgerald. According to the Department, Mr. Fitzgerald only obtained access to the “electronic media” containing these emails to do a search for documents related to the Plame investigation and then he returned this electronic media to you in a sealed condition.

Do you retain possession of this electronic media and will you provide the Committee with Mr. Rove’s emails related to our investigation voluntarily?



No comments: