Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

The George W Bush White House 'Lost' 22 Million Emails

5 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

For 18 months, Republican strategists, political pundits, reporters and Americans who follow them have been pursuing Hillary Clinton’s personal email habits, and no evidence of a crime has been found. But now they at least have the skills and interest to focus on a much larger and deeper email conspiracy, one involving war, lies, a private server run by the Republican Party and contempt of Congress citations—all of it still unsolved and unpunished.

Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails. “It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters. “If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers’ emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC. Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails set up on a private DNC server?”

Most troubling, researchers found a suspicious pattern in the White House email system blackouts, including periods when there were no emails available from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

“That the vice president’s office, widely characterized as the most powerful vice president in history, should have no archived emails in its accounts for scores of days—especially days when there was discussion of whether to invade Iraq—beggared the imagination,” says Thomas Blanton, director of the Washington-based National Security Archive.

The NSA (not to be confused with the National Security Agency, the federal surveillance organization) is a nonprofit devoted to obtaining and declassifying national security documents and is one of the key players in the effort to recover the supposedly lost Bush White House emails.

The media paid some attention to the Bush email chicanery but spent considerably less ink and airtime than has been devoted to Clinton’s digital communications in the past 18 months. According to the Boston social media analytics firm Crimson Hexagon, which ran a study for Newsweek, there have been 560,397 articles mentioning Clinton’s emails between March 2015 and September 1, 2016.

In 1978, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which mandated that all presidential and vice presidential records created after January 20, 1981, be preserved and that the public, not the president, owned the records. The following year, the Reagan administration installed the White House’s rudimentary first email system.

Despite the PRA, neither the Reagan nor the George H.W. Bush administration maintained email records, even as the number of White House emails began growing exponentially. (The Bush administration would produce around 200 million.) In 1989, a federal lawsuit to force the White House to comply with the PRA was filed by several groups, including the National Security Archive, which at the time was mostly interested in unearthing the secret history of the Cold War. The suit sparked a last-minute court order, issued in the waning hours of the first Bush presidency, that prevented 6,000 White House email backup tapes from being erased.

When Bill Clinton moved into the White House, his lawyers supported the elder Bush in his effort to uphold a side deal he’d cut with the National Archives and Records Administration to allow him to treat his White House emails as personal. At the time, George Stephanopoulos—then the White House communications director—defended the resistance, saying his boss, like Bush, didn't want subsequent, and potentially unfriendly, administrations rooting around in old emails.

The Clinton White House eventually settled the suit, and White House aide John Podesta—now Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman—even invited members of the National Security Archive into the White House to demonstrate how the new system worked. If anyone tried to delete an email, a message would pop up on screen indicating that to do so would be in violation of the PRA.

“We were happy with that,” recalls Blanton, who edited a book on the Reagan-Bush email evasion, White House E-Mail: The Top Secret Messages the Reagan/Bush White House Tried to Destroy.

Eight years later, in 2003, a whistleblower told the National Security Archive that the George W. Bush White House was no longer saving its emails. The Archive and another watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (which had represented outed CIA agent Valerie Plame in her case against the Bush administration), refiled their original lawsuit.

The plaintiffs soon discovered that Bush aides had simply shut down the Clinton automatic email archive, and they identified the start date of the lost emails as January 1, 2003. The White House claimed it had switched to a new server and in the process was unable to maintain an archive—a claim that many found dubious.

Bush administration emails could have aided a special prosecutor’s investigation into a White House effort to discredit a diplomat who disagreed with the administration’s fabricated Iraq WMD evidence by outing his CIA agent wife, Plame. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who was brought in to investigate that case, said in 2006 that he believed some potentially relevant emails sent by aides in Cheney's office were in the administration's system but he couldn’t get them.

The supposedly lost emails also prevented Congress from fully investigating, in 2007, the politically motivated firing of nine U.S. attorneys. When the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed related emails, Bush’s attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez, said many were inaccessible or lost on a nongovernmental private server run by the RNC and called gwb43.com. The White House, meanwhile, officially refused to comply with the congressional subpoena.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) called the president’s actions “Nixonian stonewalling” and at one point took to the floor in exasperation and shouted, “They say they have not been preserved. I don't believe that!” His House counterpart, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), said Bush's assertion of executive privilege was unprecedented and displayed “an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government.”

In court in May 2008, administration lawyers contended that the White House had lost three months’ worth of email backups from the initial days of the Iraq War. Bush aides thus evaded a court-ordered deadline to describe the contents of digital backup believed to contain emails deleted in 2003 between March—when the U.S. invaded Iraq—and September. They also refused to give the NSA nonprofit any emails relating to the Iraq War, despite the PRA, blaming a system upgrade that had deleted up to 5 million emails. The plaintiffs eventually contended that the Bush administration knew about the problem in 2005 but did nothing to fix it.

Eventually, the Bush White House admitted it had lost 22 million emails, not 5 million. Then, in December 2009—well into Barack Obama’s administration—the White House said it found 22 million emails, dated between 2003 and 2005, that it claimed had been mislabeled. That cache was given to the National Archives, and it and other plaintiffs agreed, on December 14, 2009, to settle their lawsuit. But the emails have not yet been made available to the public.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was operating on a different track but having no more luck. In a bipartisan vote in 2008, the committee found White House aides Karl Rove and Joshua Bolten in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas in the investigation of the fired U.S. attorneys. The penalties for contempt are fines and possible jail time, but no punishment was ever handed down because a D.C. federal appeals court stayed the Senate’s ruling in October 2008, while the White House appealed. Rove’s lawyer claimed Rove did not “intentionally delete” any emails but was only conducting “the type of routine deletions people make to keep their inboxes orderly,” according to the Associated Press.

By then, Obama was weeks away from winning the election, so the Bush administration basically ran out the clock. And neither the Obama administration nor the Senate committee pursued the matter.

The committee’s final report on the matter was blunt: “[T]his subversion of the justice system has included lying, misleading, stonewalling and ignoring the Congress in our attempts to find out precisely what happened. The reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover-up, and the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort.”

At the time, some journalists and editorialists complained about a lack of transparency on the White House’s part, but The Washington Post, in an editorial, accepted the White House explanation that the emails could have been lost due to flawed IT systems.

The mystery of what was in the missing Bush emails and why they went missing is still years away from being solved—if ever. The National Archives now has 220 million emails from the Bush White House, and there is a long backlog of Freedom of Information Act requests already. But not all of the emails will be available to the public until 2021, when the presidential security restrictions elapse. Even then, with currently available archiving and sorting methods, researchers still have years of work to figure out whether Cheney deleted days’ worth of emails around the time of the WMD propaganda campaign that led to war, Blanton says.

“To your question of what’s in there—we don't know,” he says. “There was not a commitment at the top for saving it all. Now was that resistance motivated by political reasons? Or was it ‘We gotta save money’?”

Like Leahy, Blanton has doubts that the emails were ever truly “lost,” given that every email exists in two places, with the sender and with the recipient. But unlike watchdog group Judicial Watch, which has been relentless about forcing the State Department to publicly release Hillary Clinton’s emails, Blanton and his fellow researchers have decided not to press their fight for the release of the Bush emails.

Blanton says he has no idea whether the Bush email record will be found intact after 2021, when his group will be allowed to do a systematic search and recovery process in the National Archives. “Did they find all of them? We don't know,” he says. “Our hope is that by that time, the government and the National Archives will have much better technology and tools with which to sift and sort that kind of volume.”

Blanton says he’s not expecting that kind of upgrade, though. “Their entire budget is less than the cost of a single Marine One helicopter,” he says. “It’s an underfunded orphan.

”Meanwhile, the episode has been nearly forgotten by almost everyone but the litigants. A source involved with the stymied congressional investigation recalled the period as “an intense time,” but the Obama administration didn’t encourage any follow-up, devoting its political capital to dealing with the crashing economy rather than investigating the murky doings that took place under his predecessor. Since then, no major media outlet has devoted significant—or, really, any—resources to obtaining the emails, or to finding out what was in them, or what, exactly, the Bush administration was hiding (or losing).

*************


Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Wow.....current events.
Next you will tell us the emails were not on a secure server. So, now I understand why you are so upset about what Hillary has done......with classified information, unsecured servers, deleting emails, wiping out emails,  and smashing phones with a hammer.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


THE GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ‘LOST’ 22 MILLION EMAILS

BY NINA BURLEIGH ON 9/12/16 AT 7:31 AM

You really are a piece of work. This is a direct comparison. A PRIVATE SERVER belonging to the RNC. I'm guessing you didn't bother to read it.

RealLindaL



Floridatexan wrote:
THE GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ‘LOST’ 22 MILLION EMAILS

BY NINA BURLEIGH ON 9/12/16 AT 7:31 AM

You really are a piece of work.  This is a direct comparison.  A PRIVATE SERVER belonging to the RNC.  I'm guessing you didn't bother to read it.


I'm guessing Joanie doesn't read much of anything.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Kind of like ignoring Hillary deleting subpoenaed emails, using bleach bit, and smashing 13 Blackberrys with a hammer....

Bush emails are nothing but a diversion and you both know it. I do read and I resent your unkind words. This is political and you want it to be personal.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Joanimaroni wrote:Kind of like ignoring Hillary deleting subpoenaed emails, using bleach bit, and smashing 13 Blackberrys with a hammer....

Bush emails are nothing but a diversion and you both know it. I do read and I resent your unkind words. This is political and you want it to be personal.

On the contrary, this IS personal. Whoever sits in the White House for the next 4 years has immense power, not only in the US, but in the world. We don't need a thin-skinned, narcissistic crook running our country. We already had that, and you voted for him twice, didn't you?

Guest


Guest

It won't be cankles

Guest


Guest

And you are right,
This is personal. 
No more Clinton's

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Floridatexan wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:Kind of like ignoring Hillary deleting subpoenaed emails, using bleach bit, and smashing 13 Blackberrys with a hammer....

Bush emails are nothing but a diversion and you both know it. I do read and I resent your unkind words. This is political and you want it to be personal.

On the contrary, this IS personal.  Whoever sits in the White House for the next 4 years has immense power, not only in the US, but in the world.  We don't need a thin-skinned, narcissistic crook running our country.  We already had that, and you voted for him twice, didn't you?

You are not a politician and neither am i....your comments are directed at making our communication personal. I couldn't care less who you vote for. No one on this forum is going to "see the light" and change their position based on posts made here.

RealLindaL



Joanimaroni wrote:No one on this forum is going to "see the light" and change their position based on posts made here.

So then why do we all bother, Joani? (Serious question.) It's apparently a colossal waste of our precious time.

knothead

knothead

RealLindaL wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:No one on this forum is going to "see the light" and change their position based on posts made here.

So then why do we all bother, Joani?  (Serious question.)  It's apparently a colossal waste of our precious time.

Gotta side with joani on this point Linda . . . . . I cannot think of a single forum member who demonstrated any change of their ideological beliefs here. As we all know politics is a never ending battles of ideas and persuasion, I do enjoy hearing others' views and the attendant wrasslin' matches . . . .

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

It is highly unlikely that any of us who post here will change our opinion on political matters at least not due to anything coming from those on the other side of things. I agree with Knot-head in that I get value from reading the other side's point of view. I sometimes can almost see their point(s) but generally find their positions to be based on false or partial information.

Information is power. In the case of the 22 million lost Bush Cheney emails it appears we will know more in 2021 at which time I strongly suspect those of us on the liberal side of things will have the dubious fun of saying "I told you so" regarding the ginned up wars little W got us into creating the huge pile of a mess we now see in the Middle East.

This control of information can be blamed on the cavernous political split we now see in the public debate over the 2016 race. I always say GIGO, garbage in, garbage out, and can hold the majority of those with a right wing bias to only part of the fault of their position. They are making decisions based on the information they have and that information is not serving the country well. It may be to the benefit of the PTB but it is not benefiting the majority of Americans. It is really not in our National Interest, whatever that is. Here's what President Obama had to say recently about the media.


President Obama says "misinformation" fed by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and right-wing web sites partly explains why the presidential race is such a nail-biter. At a fundraiser at Danny Meyer's home in NYC Sunday night, Obama said: "This should not be a close election, but it will be. And the reason it will be is not because of Hillary's flaws, but rather because, structurally, we've become a very polarized society. If all you're doing is watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading some of the blogs that are churning out a lot of misinformation on a regular basis, then it's very hard for you to think that you're going to vote for somebody who you've been told is taking the country in the wrong direction."

RealLindaL



knothead wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:No one on this forum is going to "see the light" and change their position based on posts made here.

So then why do we all bother, Joani?  (Serious question.)  It's apparently a colossal waste of our precious time.

Gotta side with joani on this point Linda . . . . . I cannot think of a single forum member who demonstrated any change of their ideological beliefs here.  As we all know politics is a never ending battles of ideas and persuasion, I do enjoy hearing others' views and the attendant wrasslin' matches . . . .  

Knot, you misunderstand me.  There's no "siding" involved here.   As I stated, I was seriously wondering why we all spin our wheels here if there's no chance in the world of influencing another person -- which you all seem to agree is the case.  I'm not arguing with you.  I'm asking why, then, do we bother?  For some I know it's the thrill of the battle, living for the gotcha, seeing other people squirm, or just plain spreading hate.  But for the serious contributors, why do we continue?  Even though my question was directed at Joani, I appreciate your response and will now read othershoe's.

RealLindaL



othershoe1030 wrote:
President Obama says "misinformation" fed by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and right-wing web sites partly explains why the presidential race is such a nail-biter. At a fundraiser at Danny Meyer's home in NYC Sunday night, Obama said: "This should not be a close election, but it will be. And the reason it will be is not because of Hillary's flaws, but rather because, structurally, we've become a very polarized society. If all you're doing is watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading some of the blogs that are churning out a lot of misinformation on a regular basis, then it's very hard for you to think that you're going to vote for somebody who you've been told is taking the country in the wrong direction."

And I suppose anything said by anyone here to counter that major misinformation is mere dust in the wind. So it's useless and hopeless.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum