White House opposes court order in e-mail case

[Robbien]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration is aggressively pushing back against a federal court order instructing the most important offices in the White House to preserve all of their e-mail.

In court papers late Friday, the administration argued that a federal court has no authority to impose such a requirement on the offices of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the National Security Council.

. . .

The issue arose Wednesday after U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy directed the White House to issue a notice to all employees to surrender any e-mails from March 2003 to October 2005.

. . .

In the lawsuits over possibly missing e-mails that may number in the millions, two private groups are seeking to force the White House to engage in a recovery effort and to establish an electronic archive for e-mail.

The White House said this week that it had located 14 million e-mails thought to have been missing. But the White House has provided no details to support this assertion.

The two private groups suing the Executive Office of the President are the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsG0M...

---

The court order came out Wednesday but Bush's push back didn't come out until two days later on Friday afternoon after all workers had handed in their badges and left the building for the very last time. Offices are now closed. The next time the lights go on new staff would be manning the computers and a new president would be sitting in the oval office.

It should get interesting.

[Solly Mack]

1. Oh, now there's a shocker

hehehe

[ananda]

2. heheh

We don't acknowledge no laws and
no stanky courts.

[rurallib]

3. One final middle finger to the constitution and the law.

[acmavm]

4. They're aggressively 'pushing back'? I'd be willing to bet the farm that

they're doing everything in this world to drag it out until the pardons start to fly.

[santamargarita]

7. Then Obama better reverse the pardons and lock these asshole up!

Legally he can do that.

[acmavm]

8. He can?

[santamargarita]

9. I heard of a President doing that - either Randi Rhodes or Thom Hartman...

commented on that...

[kevsand]

13. No, he can't.

There's no provision for that in the Constitution.

[acmavm]

20. Thanks. I was wondering how I missed that. But I imagine that there's a

lot of misinformation floating in the media nowdays. It's got to be a topic on the top of everyone's mind in the media.

Holy smokes, if people thought the Clinton or Watergate hearings were big, wait till investigations of this bunch start. They will be thought of as nothing compared with the potential charges that could be filed against these people.

[Divine Discontent]

10. one can only hope his current talk about 'good guy' and how he didn't think anyone did things on

purpose, are just rhetoric. These SOBs have committed major crimes and this email scandal where they're flipping their fingers up at the courts just tells me there's plenty to hide! They're PAID GOVERNMENT EMLOYEES HIRED BY AMERICAN CITIZENS and we clearly have the right to have their emails in the archives. They're terrified of course.

[Milspec]

17. Presidential pardons are irrevocable

and can not be challenged in court.

[pleah]

5. I am sooo shocked.

NOT.

[machI]

6. Like a British secret agent speeding away leaving a bushel basket of tacks spread across the roadway

Ya' want them emails do ya'? Well here ya'go!

The Bush administration tosses a box of computers with the covers off and wires hanging out onto the floor in front of the investigators.
<>

[Jefferson23]

11. Ha ha, as if there was any chance these criminals would have done anything less.

[nodramamama]

12. Bush's White House seems to want to move forward, not go back

It's a popular view these days.

[IndianaGreen]

14. The issue is what is Obama's White House going to do?

I expect them to honour the court's ruling.

[8 track mind]

15. Hhmmm

why we wouldn't be trying to HIDE something would we?????

[kag]

16. Sorry folks

...but they took magnets to those computers months ago. If they know nothing else, they know how to COVER THEIR ASS! Fuckers.

[No Elephants]

23. Agreed. Whatever they produce, if anything, will have been scrubbed.

[Swede Atlanta]

18. Yep but sometimes criminals are convicted of lesser crimes

Agree these assholes have probably wiped everything clean. So the evidence may not be available to convict them of the serious crimes. But as we saw with Scooter Libby (absent the Bush commutation), folks can be convicted of crimes of "process". The WH is always under a duty to preserve, non political communications as public assets. I can't recall when the first court order was issued to preserve this information but it is clear that at a minimum we can prove they wiped things clean and as such have committed a crime. The crime and the penalty may not be as severe as that of the underlying infraction but it is a way to nab these criminal traitors at their game.

[givemebackmycountry]

19. Gee, what a surprise...

They ain't done yet.
These guys have a couples of aces tucked away in their pant legs that ain't played yet.
It's coming.

I hope we got better cards.

[struggle4progress]

21. "White House said . it . located . e-mails . But . provided no details"

Who's buying their bu11$#!t?

[VP505]

22. What bothers me more than the arrogance

of the Booo$h criminal cabal to think that "a federal court has no authority to impose such a requirement" is that Pelosi and the others that have over site responsibility seem to show no inclination to push back. I have NO doubt in thinking that should Obama/Biden even give the slightest indication that they were going to stray even slightly past acceptable limits of Presidential authority the Republickers would be up in arms threatening to impeach.

[DCKit]

25. After colluding with the Unitary Executive for eight years...

it's going to look transparently petty when they try to reign in Obama and Biden. But we can be damn sure they're going to try. And we all know it wasn't just Republicons enabling the cabal.

When it's all said and done, I don't believe either Obama or Biden have any deep-seated need for the power Dick and Dumbya lusted after. In all seriousness, what did either of them gain but our - and the world's - derision?

[No Elephants]

24. Will the court send the White House a stern letter? Or do we need to call Reid?