Watchdog to Fitzgerald: Re-open Plame investigation in light of Rove's 'missing' emails RAW STORY Published: Friday April 13, 2007 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a Washington-based legal watchdog organization, has called on Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to re-open an investigation into White House adviser Karl Rove's role in the identity leak of former CIA agent Valerie Plame. "It looks like Karl Rove may well have destroyed evidence that implicated him in the White House's orchestrated efforts to leak Valerie Plame Wilson's covert identity to the press in retaliation against her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson," said Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director. Earlier today, RAW STORY reported on an admission by a lawyer for the Republican National Committee (RNC) that four years of emails sent by Rove from an RNC-issued email account have been "lost." Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, has denied that Rove intentionally deleted the emails. In light of the missing emails and what they might contain, Sloan urges that Fitzgerald "should immediately reopen his investigation into whether Rove took part in the leak as well as whether he obstructed justice in the ensuing leak investigation." The CIA leak trial that Fitzgerald prosecuted -- which caused a media sensation given the high-profile political figures involved -- ended with the conviction of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's former Chief of Staff. When asked after the trial ended if any further investigation was planned, Fitzgerald replied, "If new information comes to light, of course we'll do that." http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Groups_requests_Plame_investigation_reopened_in_0413.html
Ooops, looks like Bush was aslo directly involved... this should make Al G's testimony really fun to watch... Sunday, April 15, 2007 Domenici Sought Iglesias Ouster http://www.abqjournal.com/news/special/554986nm04-15-07.htm By Mike Gallagher Copyright © 2007 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Investigative Reporter Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired after Sen. Pete Domenici, who had been unhappy with Iglesias for some time, made a personal appeal to the White House, the Journal has learned. Domenici had complained about Iglesias before, at one point going to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before taking his request to the president as a last resort. The senior senator from New Mexico had listened to criticism of Iglesias going back to 2003 from sources ranging from law enforcement officials to Republican Party activists. Domenici, who submitted Iglesias' name for the job and guided him through the confirmation process in 2001, had tried at various times to get more white-collar crime help for the U.S. Attorney's Office— even if Iglesias didn't want it. At one point, the six-term Republican senator tried to get Iglesias moved to a Justice Department post in Washington, D.C., but Iglesias told Justice officials he wasn't interested. In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out. Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president. At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president. Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue. The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7. Iglesias' name first showed up on a Nov. 15 list of federal prosecutors who would be asked to resign. It was not on a similar list prepared in October. The Journal confirmed the sequence of events through a variety of sources familiar with the firing of Iglesias, including sources close to Domenici. The senator's office declined comment. The House and Senate Judiciary committees are investigating Iglesias' firing as well as the dismissals of six other U.S. attorneys. Gonzales, the embattled attorney general whose job is likely in the balance, is scheduled to testify Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senate and House Democrats have focused on a telephone call Domenici made to Iglesias in October. Iglesias testified before the congressional committees that Domenici called him at home and asked if indictments were imminent in a public corruption investigation of Albuquerque's Metropolitan Courthouse construction. Iglesias told him indictments were not expected anytime soon. Iglesias testified that Domenici said, "I'm very sorry to hear that." And then hung up. Iglesias said he felt "pressured" and "violated" by the telephone call but did not report it to Justice Department headquarters as required. Domenici has admitted and apologized for making the call, but he denied pressuring Iglesias. He has also said he didn't mention the election. Democrats have accused Domenici of attempting to influence the outcome of a tight congressional race between incumbent Republican Heather Wilson and former state Attorney General Patricia Madrid. Wilson won the election by fewer than 900 votes. Iglesias could not be reached for comment. He was reportedly out of the country on Navy duty. A spokesman for Domenici's office said they were not prepared to comment at this time. Looking for a paper trail Exactly how Iglesias' name came to be included on a Nov. 15 list of U.S. attorneys to be fired has been a mystery House and Senate Democrats have been trying to unravel. There are gaps in documents provided to Congress by the Justice Department about the firings and other records are severely redacted. Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, said he couldn't give a reason for Iglesias' firing during his testimony before Congress last month. He did say that if a U.S. attorney wasn't succeeding politically, he wasn't succeeding. Documentation that has been turned over to Congress doesn't indicate problems with Iglesias' performance from the Department Justice point of view. The documents reveal Domenici called Gonzales and his deputies on several occasions in 2005 and 2006. In one undated memo, a Gonzales aide wrote, "Domenici says he doesn't move cases," in reference to Iglesias. New Mexicans who complained directly to the Justice Department about Iglesias said they learned he was held in high regard by Gonzales and his staff. At least one memo shows Iglesias was offered a job heading the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys in Washington, D.C. Iglesias turned the job down. That job offer, according to several sources, was made at the prodding of Domenici. According to sources, Iglesias was also considered for U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., and other administrative posts at department headquarters. Iglesias was apparently unaware that Domenici was unhappy with his job performance when he turned those jobs down. White-collar crime In September 2005, Iglesias announced the arrests of state Treasurer Robert Vigil and his predecessor, Michael Montoya, on extortion charges. Both are Democrats in a state where Democrats control the Legislature and most statewide offices. Republicans who had complained about political corruption in the state for years saw an opportunity to do more than complain. And this was an issue with political traction. The point man would be Iglesias. During one of his few news conferences while U.S. attorney, Iglesias called political corruption "endemic" in New Mexico. The FBI also put a high priority on public corruption, naming it its top priority behind terrorism. According to Justice Department memos turned over to congressional investigators, Domenici approached Iglesias in late 2005 and asked if he needed additional prosecutors for corruption cases. Iglesias, according to the memo, told Domenici he didn't need white-collar crime prosecutors. He needed prosecutors for immigration cases. Domenici was disappointed in the response. After that conversation, Domenici decided he would try to get Iglesias help, whether Iglesias wanted it or not. In 2006, Domenici asked Gonzales if he could find additional experienced white-collar crime prosecutors to send to New Mexico. Gonzales had a number of prosecutors who were finishing the ENRON prosecutions and were quite experienced at complex white-collar crime cases. None was sent here. Within Iglesias' own office, prosecutors suggested moving more attorneys into the White Collar Crime-Public Corruption section in 2005 because the FBI was developing more cases and leads than the section could handle in a timely fashion. Iglesias was initially enthusiastic about the idea but didn't follow through after consulting senior staff. Treasurer's Office scandal Montoya and others pleaded guilty in the Treasurer's Office scandal. Vigil went to trial in April 2006. After more than five weeks, a mistrial was declared. Several jurors said one holdout prevented conviction on at least some charges. The second trial in September ended in one conviction on attempted extortion and acquittal on 23 counts. Vigil has been sentenced to 37 months in prison. After the first trial, then-Attorney General Madrid indicted key prosecution witnesses in the federal case based on their testimony. She said Iglesias hadn't been tough enough in cutting plea deals and hadn't worked out an agreement with her office. As a result, one key witness refused to testify in the second trial. During this time, the much-publicized courthouse investigation was essentially put on the shelf. The lead prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office was handling both the Vigil trials and the courthouse investigation. Delays in the courthouse case led to frustration among Republicans who had tried to make Madrid's track record on ethics and corruption cases an issue in the Madrid-Wilson race. Indictments in the courthouse case were announced last month.
The meat of Al G's op-ed in today's WaPo... So he can recall with clarity the length of briefings he received, but he can't be completely sure of whether he made decisions about the resignations?
The missing email may be a crime in itself. Using a political party email account for WH business is also likely illegal. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/#postid-updateH4 Anonymous Liberal notes the perspective which any litigator (assuming they are speaking honestly, rather than with the intent to defend the administration) would have of this matter: And that is particularly true if -- as is true for the Bush administration -- the party claiming to have "lost" or "mishandled" such key evidence had a long history of making such claims repeatedly with the effect of blocking investigations. And the presumption of corrupt intent would be stronger still if, as in the case of the Bush administration, one of the party's highest officials was recently found guilty of multiple counts of obstruction of justice and false statements for lying to FBI investigators and to a federal grand jury. A.L. also notes that as a result of the "missing" emails in the Plame matter, "the White House's dual email system was almost surely the subject of intense discussion in early 2004." Thus, efforts to circumvent that system by deleting other emails and using RNC email systems were almost surely intentional. In fact, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled long ago, in the 1994 case of Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President (summary here), that the White House was required by the Federal Records Act to preserve all of its communications via e-mail (other than "presidential records"). And this April 7, 2000 article from the Christian Science Monitor -- detailing the Clinton White House's extensive efforts to preserve all -- demonstrates that the legal obligation to preserve White House emails has been a much-discussed topic in Washington for years: Rove and company were well-aware of their legal obligations to preserve their communications, and were equally aware that using their White House emails to communicate would result in such preservation. This lengthy record by the Bush administration of finding ways to "lose" key documents relevant to investigations and judicial proceedings ought to leave little doubt about the corrupt intent motivating this behavior.
Well, now there is a good use for Guantanamo bay: send Gonzales there for interrogation. Preferably using techniques he approved for the extra irony factor. What we are dealing with here a treason. At the very least, some of these loonies need to be send to Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Excellent! White House to RNC: Don't You Give Those Emails to Dems By Paul Kiel - April 17, 2007 The White House and Democrats in Congress are both pushing for emails kept by the Republican National Committee, and the RNC is caught in the middle. The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), wants to get its hands on those RNC-issued email accounts used by Karl Rove and other White House personnel. Congressional investigators want to know about Rove's and his deputy's involvement in the U.S. attorney firings. But the White House insists that it review the emails first, before handing anything over to Democrats. Last week, Conyers warned the RNC not to do that, saying that it would be "an unjustified delay" and "potentially... an obstruction of our investigation." And today, in a letter to the RNC, the White House made their position clear: you have to give them to us first. There "exists a clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest" in the emails on the RNC-issued accounts, wrote Emmet Flood, Special Counsel to the President. Conyers isn't buying it: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003033.php the letter
I really hope we get to the bottom of this. I can't believe the flagrant disregard of the Presidential Records Act in the least, and am even more peeved at the possibility of other crimes.
ive said it before and ill say it again - this is the most invasive administration we have ever had and at the same time, the most secretive. those who support the president's claim that he can spy on american citizens always fall back on "well i have nothing to hide!". why dont they apply that same standard to their decider? “I tend not to email or — not only tend not to email, I don’t email, because of the different record requests that can happen to a president. I don’t want to receive emails because, you know, there’s no telling what somebody’s email may — it would show up as, you know, a part of some kind of a story, and I wouldn’t be able to say, `Well, I didn’t read the email.’ `But I sent it to your address, how can you say you didn’t?’ So, in other words, I’m very cautious about emailing.” THE DECIDER
Patrick Fitzgerald took Rove et al to task for bypassing the PRA via the RNC email accounts. Rove et al promised to obey the law and proceeded not to. One wonders if Fitzgerald will take notice and revisit this issue. Who knows? It is sad and pathetic, the precedents that this administration is setting. They do whatever they want. When Congress attempts oversight, they lie, withhold records, and claim executive privilege. Worst. President. Ever.
RNC to White House: Don't You Worry -- The RNC deferred yesterday to White House requests that all documents from administration officials who used RNC e-mail accounts first be reviewed by Bush's lawyers. Congress has requested several years' worth of e-mails from top White House advisers, including Karl Rove, as part of its investigation of the prosecutor firings. In letters to the House and Senate Judiciary committees, an RNC lawyer said those documents belong to the White House. "Recognizing the unique and significant nature of the potential privilege issue raised by the committee's requests, the RNC has agreed to the White House's reasonable request," Robert K. Kelner, an RNC lawyer, wrote to Conyers. Conyers responded that the action was "a clear attempt on the administration's part to delay this process." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7/04/17/AR2007041701984.html?nav=rss_politics
I wouldn't want to be making that decision. At some point you would think the blind loyalty to this failed administration will start to crack
This is probably a stupid question but wouldn't the use of non-WH e-mail servers (RNC servers) void any claim to executive privilege because the communication is now shared with potential third parties?
Executive privilege is the smokescreen the WH is hiding behind. Using non-archived third party email servers is against the law (Presidential Records Act) for all email that is government business.
