Posted on 02/02/2006 12:31:36 AM PST by STARWISE
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is raising the possibility that records sought in the CIA leak investigation could be missing because of an e-mail archiving problem at the White House.
The prosecutor in the criminal case against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff said in a Jan. 23 letter that not all e-mail was archived in 2003, (((GET THIS: ***the year the Bush administration exposed the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.***))))
(They aren't even faking journalistic integrity in leaving out the word "allegedly.")
Lawyers for defendant I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby this week accused prosecutors of withholding evidence the Libby camp says it needs to mount a defense.
"We are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libby which has been destroyed," Fitzgerald wrote in a letter to the defense team.
But the prosecutor added: "In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system." His letter was an exhibit attached to Libby's demand for more information from the prosecution.
Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, said the vice president's office is cooperating fully with the investigation, and referred questions to Fitzgerald's office.
(snip)
The Presidential Records Act, passed by Congress in 1978, made it clear that records generated in the conduct of official duties did not belong to the president or vice president, but were the property of the government.
(SNIP)
"Bottom line: Accidents happen and there could be a benign explanation, but this is highly irregular and invites suspicion," said Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists government secrecy project.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Ding Ding Ding
Well, this is not good; this is the same thing we raised holy hell about the Clinton White House doing.
You pinged me to this? Me, the turd in the punchbowl? I think Libby has an uphill climb. Hopefully the judge is harsh against Fitz - we'll find out in a week or so.
I don't believe the WH would've done anything subversive .. but I sure understand what you're saying.
Well did you see the ad or not? =)
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Libby did a thing wrong. But this "missing emails" stuff looks bad.
Why do I have a feeling THAT will be the next subject of interest--that Pelosi will demand a special prosecutor to look into THAT?
I'm right with ya.
It's certainly wise to avoid hypocrisy, but Fitz isn't exactly jumping up and down about anything. I am not at all sure that I believe him. Let's see what the White House says.
The story contradicts itself. On the one hand, it says that the Nation Archives" takes custody of records "after the President leaves office, but then the guy quoted above seems to be blaming the archivist.
By the way, did you notice who the author of this piece was?
No biggie. They're on the table next to the billing records. Either that, or Miss Woods hit the wrong button and erased them.
I am sorry, but I am not buying this garbage. I want to know why Fitz brought charges against Libby, especially if he knows that there was a problem with email archives? If Fitz believes that he did not have all of the facts, how could he, in good conscience, bring charges against someone? Perhaps the missing emails will exonerate Libby?
Fitz is playing a little game here. The Dems demanded someone's head on a platter and Fitz obliged them. Now when the defense is asking for the evidence, suddenly, Fitz cannot find it. Fitz sure found plenty of evidence to charge Libby, now where did that evidence go? Fitz has decided to blame an email problem, for not turning over all of the evidence.
My first reaction was to share your discomfort, but then I remembered this email story isn't new. Way back last summer and fall there were " Karl Rove/White House/lost email" stories all over the MSM. So it's not new, and to have it conveinently re-appear on a slow news day, smacks of politics to me.
But just to refresh memories, the following is a good read.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldiscovery/digdisc_library_6.html
But Fitzgerald is using the conditional. They may have been lost.
What I'd like to know is if he doesn't know for sure, why is he opening his yap?
This should be the definitive sentence in the article, but I would be more comforted, if along "defendant Libby", Fitzgerald had included Rove and Cheney.
This doesn't pass the smell test
I think this is great. It will get the lefties all riled up. This case was about nothing to begin with. The fact that certain emails were not archived, and not relevent according to Fitz, is meaningless.
However, I do think McChellan should bring the "LAN Guy" (Rove's nephew?) to the press briefing today to explain things.
The difference here is that it's Libby's lawyers that are accusing the prosecutors
"Lawyers for defendant I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby this week accused prosecutors of withholding evidence the Libby camp says it needs to mount a defense"
In Clinton's case it was the other way around ... it was the prosecutors that were accusing the Clinton's
Funny that Fitzgerald made no mention of the missing records until Libby requested them.
This investigation is being run quite sloppily.
I believe your right. This is fodder for the dims' next "crisis du jour."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.