To attack Karl Rove and others in the Bush administration over some conversations that could have just as easily (albeit more time-consuming) been handled over a few conference calls and never recorded is dragging out a distinction that is slowly losing relevance.
It is not only emails that have been lost in the rush to accuse Republicans of covering up the reasons why 8 U.S. Attorneys were fired. What's also been lost is a meaningful look at the policy of requiring everyone who works in government to keep thousands and thousands of emails under an archaic public records law that never anticipated email. Public records laws were passed many years ago for the purpose of ensuring that documents such as contracts and official correspondence were preserved and not hidden from the public.
Phone conversations were deliberately exempted from these laws. Today, technology has changed, and instead of picking up the phone, it's faster and more convenient to use email. The law has lagged behind these advances, but exceptions are being gradually carved out from public records laws, beginning with exempting routine matters like scheduling meetings, then notes jotted on yellow stickies were exempted, and more recently personal emails. Not all of this has been established firmly in each state, and some states are more progressive than others.
While the private sector is conducting the majority of its communications over email today instead of telephone, with email records backed up for usually 60-90 days, it is archaic to expect public sector employees to conduct the majority of their correspondence over the telephone as was done a generation ago. It is still completely permissible for a government employee to conduct virtually all of his or her communication over the telephone, legally never creating a record (the only exception possibly being leaving a voicemail). So to attack Karl Rove and others in the Bush administration over some conversations that could have just as easily (albeit more time-consuming) been handled over a few conference calls and never recorded is dragging out a distinction that is slowly losing relevance.
As a private entity, the RNC most likely backs up its email servers for 30-90 days. After that, it may be technically impossible to restore emails older than that. Unlike a backup on your personal computer at home, email servers are backed up every night with countless new patterns of emails. On a personal computer, someone may have deleted an email a year ago which is retrievable because that sector on the computer has only been modified slightly since then with a few changes, and because the size of a user's hard drive is large compared to the frequency and number of changes that are made, many modifications can be preserved going back quite a length of time without having to rewrite over earlier saved portions.
On email servers, millions of emails are saved in different sectors every night, using up close to full capacity on the servers. After a year, so many patterns have been saved over and over on the same limited server space, it is impossible to recreate earlier versions; there simply isn't the capacity to store every version. Both government and private companies don't find it economically reasonable to purchase and run servers capable of recreating snapshots every evening of the given emails present on a particular day. And since most backups aren't performed until the evening, in order to disrupt users the least, emails that are deleted during within the day they are received or sent are never retained at all.
This email inquisition presents a good opportunity to revisit how public records laws need to be updated in order to reflect current technology, which is continuing to evolve. One government employee who has encountered this dilemma handles it by refusing to reply back to any emails he receives, and only takes notes on yellow stickie notes in illegible handwriting. He also spends most of his day on the phone. This is not how we want our public servants to behave. It is a waste of taxpayer resources to frighten civil servants into spending extra hours on the phone that could be more efficiently and productively spent instead with short emails. A reasonable compromise needs to be made in this area, and a major step could be made by discussing how to avoid this situation in the future, instead of diverting the issue of the U.S. Attorneys' failed performances into an attack on the Republicans for not having emails discussing in further detail what has already been made quite clear.
It’s been five years since I left government service, so maybe things have changed; but they told us then that e-mail is not official.
It varies from government to government. Arizona has an extremely open public records policy. For example, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors sends ALL of their weekly emails to the local newspaper each week, as part of an ongoing public records request.
1. It’s interesting to note that publicly traded companies are required to hold onto all correspondence–electronic and paper–for a period of two, three, four, and seven years depending on the company and type of record under current regulations.
The reasons for having these laws are no different than the current rules governing public trusts such as our federal government.
1A. These requirements helped to ensure public trust.
1B. In cases of wrongdoing they help to establish where responsibility lies.
1C. In cases where there are simply questions surrounding “perceived” wrongdoing, the evidence trail can help demonstrate a person’s innocence and lend legitimacy to his or her claims; or it can help to demonstrate guilt and undercut blatantly outrageous claims.
I don’t see why the Federal Government, which is a federal trust, should be held to a substantially lower standard than a publicly traded company. Having these systems in place will result in operational costs, but the long-term benefit of having these systems seem to dwarf the short-term operational costs.
2. As far as it relates to Maricopa County, I would agree that that email policy is a little ridiculous. If you wanted to do a request of the Federal government under FOIA requirements you wouldn’t be able to state “I want everything that you have from 1990 to 1994″. You would need to tailor your request as it relates to a specific matter.
3. The question as it relates to Rove isn’t “Why don’t we have any notes from his phone conversations?” But “why did his emails get deleted from RNC servers in violation of the 1978 Presidential Records Act?”
It is a mistaken assumption, in my view, to assume that Rove’s emails would necessarily implicate him in criminal wrongdoing, or that alternatively that the email trail would necessarily exonerate him. I would much rather have the evidence trail, and come to a conclusion, than to convict someone for simply “losing” evidence in violation of federal law. Usually when people act in good faith they don’t inadvertently “delete” emails, or lose records–especially if they were commanded by a federal officer to retain their records in a separate matter as recently as two years ago.
4. Btw, a technical point: The issue isn’t that the RNC “backs up” its systems every 30 to 90 days. The issue is that the RNC apparently erases its email every 3o to 90 days; and that members of the White House political staff were using their RNC accounts to conduct official White House business (in their capacity as Federal employees who are paid with U.S. taxpayer dollars).
JR37:
“The issue is that the RNC apparently erases its email every 3o to 90 days…”
So what? Why is it a crime to erase their own e-mail?
“…and that members of the White House political staff were using their RNC accounts to conduct official White House business…”
While it is probably illegal to use government resources to conduct RNC business (like Al Gore using the White House phones to conduct DNC business), I don’t think there’s anything illegal about using non-government resources to conduct government business (while it might not be a good idea in some cases). I routinely used my own vehicle to run government errands simply because the base taxi was so unreliable. Someone like you would look at that and claim I didn’t want a record of where I went and when. Who knows how many government managers send e-mails to their employees’ home computers, and vice-versa, or call them on their home phones, and vice-versa, or employees make employee-to-employee calls on their home phones? In fact, where I worked, an employee was REQUIRED to have a home phone (NOT deductible either). I attended many, many briefings on fraud, waste, and abuse in government, and not once was the use of personal resources even mentioned, much less mentioned that it was illegal.
You made three references to “evidence,” which I object to. The term “evidence” carries a connotation of a crime having been committed. Unlike “Filegate,” there are no indications of any crime having been committed, only wishful thinking in the devoid, brain-dead heads of Democrats who don’t have any ideas on how to solve the “problems” they accused Bush of causing. In short, they have no issue and are trying desperately to draw attention away from that fact by inventing false ones.
Sedonaman,
1. “Evidence” carries no connotation of guilt or innocence.
Evidence is something that you use to establish the facts of a case. Evidence may be shaky, or it may be strong; it may support innocence or it may support a guilty conviction, but “evidence” in and of itself is nothing more than a tool used to support or refute a claim. This is the way “evidence” is used in a scientific, legal, and professional setting where issues are open to debate. This is how I am using the term.
One way to look at this:
A. A person asserts a “claim”. That claim is then either accepted or rejected.
B. If the claim is rejected, then the person provides evidence to support his or her claim.
C. If the person accepts the evidence as being valid, then certain conclusions will necessarily follow from that agreed understanding.
D. If the evidence is seen as shaky, then the ground facts remain in dispute.
Sometimes a mind is closed to evidence unless it comes from “approved sources”. Or it might be closed to evidence period (maybe the evidence is so far removed from that person’s experience that he or she just can’t believe it regardless of how well it is established).
2. For political matters Rove would actually be required to use his RNC email account, computers, and RNC phones. This was actually something that the Clinton White House did in order to be in compliance with the 1978 Presidential Records Act. That’s not what is at issue here.
Rove by his own admission uses his RNC email account for “about 95% of his White House work,” according to an article in the National Journal in late March of this year. To the extent that Rove’s use of email relates to his work as a federal official, those emails are the property of the U.S., not the RNC. The law is not ambiguous.
JR37:
I take it you would have no problem with your wife saying to you, “Admit it; you had lunch with another woman.”
Like the word “admit”, the word “evidence”, while not technically meaning someone did something illegal, it carries the CONNOTATION.
I suppose you also had no problem with the Clintons having in their White House a stack of FBI files on their political opponents. You should be more concerned about the fact that this is a fishing expedition by Democrats throwing everything up against the wall hoping something will stick.
Interesting analogy: “I take it you would have no problem with your wife saying to you, “Admit it; you had lunch with another woman.”
When using analogies, it’s important to use a relevance test. In reference to this current situation it wouldn’t be relevant for my wife to say out of the blue: “Admit it; you had lunch with another woman.”
My wife is smart, so she wouldn’t say something like that without a good reason.
The reasons in this situation are:
1. That this question has come up before in different forms, and my answers haven’t exactly washed. There was the time a couple weeks ago when she asked me: “Why did you come home so late last Thursday?” And I told her: “I was working. Another tough day, lot of unexpected projects came up last minute.” To which she responded: “I called your work, and they tell me that you were not there.” To which I responded: “Oh, I misspoke, I meant to say that I was with some friends getting a late dinner at Frankies.” To which she responds: “I called Frankies several times and they said you weren’t there either.” To which I respond: “Oh, did I say I was at Frankies? Sorry, I misspoke again, I meant to say that I was getting groceries.” “But why didn’t you bring home any groceries?,” she asked. “Well, I left the groceries at the grocery store. Forgot to include that detail. Hope I don’t do that again.” Now by this time, I hope my wife is starting to consult a good divorce attorney, because she doesn’t deserve to be with such a weasely, double-dealing schmuck. (See Alberto Gonzales and the DOJ statements as the relevant analogy).
But let’s say, she still gives me the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, there are other reasons for her suspicion.
2. I have changed the billing address for both my cell phone and credit card bills. These were once going to our house, but for some reason they are now going to my work address. Well, one day, my wife asks why the credit card and cell phone bills are no longer coming to the house. She asks if she can see them. I tell her no. I even threaten to take her to court if she wants to see them. Well, that’s kind of strange, wouldn’t you think? (reference the situation with the White House emails and testimony of White House officials in connection with the assertion of Executive privilege for the relevant analogy here).
Now if my wife were extremely innocent and naïve there’s a good chance that the question — “Admit it; you had lunch with another woman.” – never would have entered her mind. I am after all her prince. And my actions are always beyond suspicion because I am just such a wonderful guy (wouldn’t that be nice?). Sure I may not have a good explanation for my new behavior, but she trust whatever I say. She’s being played like a dupe, quite frankly, and the truth is things will only get worse for the two of us and my infidelity would likely become even more flagrant.
Now it may turn out that I am still being perfectly faithful to my wife. Maybe there is a slightly more innocent explanation for my bizarre behavior. Maybe I’m a push-over and a schmuck and I’m simply lending my line of credit and phone to my boss, because he’s having an affair, and I feel some sort of perverse obligation to assist him in not getting caught (in this case I would look more in the direction of Karl Rove and his people for the relevant “boss” analogy than to George W. Bush—we actually have Rove and Scott Jennings emails to the DOJ indicating involvement in the U.S. Attorney firings).
I guess in some sense it may be a little better as far as my wife and my situation are concerned, but what I’m doing still isn’t right. I’ve still seriously compromised myself, and the truth is that some spouse is getting cheated on because of my cooperation.
So if my wife says: ““Admit it; you had lunch with another woman,” I would hope that I could come clean and give her an honest, coherent explanation for why I had given her many “misstatements” about my actions, and why I was unwilling to let her look at the cell phone and credit card bills.
I think an infidelity analogy has a great deal of application to this situation. Our public officials swear an oath to protect the Constitution and to faithfully execute the laws of the land. That doesn’t give them the right to do whatever they want for whatever reason. When they make questionable maneuvers – especially in a situation involving domestic affairs – they are doing what is in the interests of the country if they come clean post haste without equivocation and/or evasive actions which only further destroy the public trust. It’s hard to respect a politician or a man who hides behind a stone wall.
The FBI files situation is another interesting analogy. I posted a copy of the independent prosecutors report for you a few weeks ago, which stated that there was no wrong doing on the part of the Clinton’s. I’m not a big fan of independent prosecutors given the way they wasted tax dollars during the 90s on only marginally relevant investigations. However, I think it would be highly appropriate for a special prosecutor with more narrow authority to look into this U.S. Attorney matter.
JR37:
I think your analogies are less relevant than mine. In yours, your wife doesn’t start out presuming you’ve committed a crime. Those with BDS presume Bush has committed a crime simply by being born.
Well, Sedonaman, you’ve understood my analogy, but you’ve ignored the facts that make the analogy relevant to both my own point of view and this U.S. Attorney’s situation (1. The administration’s inconsistent statements and evasiveness; 2. The administration’s threat to litigate over the release of documentation and testimony; 3. The unprecedented nature of the firings and 4. the surreptitious nature the changes to the 2005 Patriot Act renewal in reference to the U.S. Attorney appointment process).
If the law is on your side, you argue the law. If the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, then bang the table and scream BDS! BDS!
JR37:
Your guy lost the election of 2000, so obstruct! obstruct! obstruct!
Sedonaman, it’s true McCain probably would have been a much better president than George W. Bush had he been elected in 2001. I suspect most thinking conservatives would agree with this assessment. The past 6 years, and the 2006 election seem to bear out this fact as well. I would not be surprised to see a similar outcome in 2008.
All this is well and good, but it still doesn’t explain why George W. Bush and/or his subordinates decided to fire 8 U.S. history mid-term for the first time in U.S. history. It also doesn’t explain why his subordinates have been evasive in their answers, poor in their recollection of events, and unable to produce a document trail that might explain the reasonings behind these actions.
I appreciate that you do not have a good answer to this question, nor based on your responses are you likely too. Your generation may have this luxury. Mine does not.
JR37:
“I appreciate that you do not have a good answer to this question, nor based on your responses are you likely too.”
And I appreciate, based on your responses, that you will never consider any answer as a “good answer” short of Bush confessing to “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and him, Cheney, and the whole lot resigning so liberal Democrats can take over, since they have a divine right to rule. Any outcome involving less will never be “good” enough.
From my perspective, the reason is quite clear: it is only “fair” (as I define “fair”) that he could do it since Bill Clinton fired the White House travel staff because he “felt” like doing it, and liberals should accept this because as you know, “fairness” and “feelings” are all that count, not producing results or anything else except winning, for through winning is the only way to compel your notion of what is “fair”. Only in Bush’s case he didn’t “feel” that it was “fair” to beat up on some little folk and fabricate criminal charges against them. If you need further explanation on this concept, Dr. Phillip Ellis Jackson explains it well here http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/the-looney-liberal-chronicles-chapter-8 how fairness guides liberal actions. Therefore it is only fair (again, as I define “fair”) that you accept this.
“Your generation may have this luxury. Mine does not.”
I haven’t the faintest idea what this means.