Rove Defied Fitz’s Repeated Document Preservation Orders.

[leveymg]

Rove’s RNC e-mails Erased For 2 Years Despite Fitz's Order

Ten weeks before issuing a subpoena for records in Vice President Cheney’s office, Patrick Fitzgerald notified Karl Rove and other aides to President Bush to retain e-mail and other documents, including data in all computer records in his “possession”, that might be related to the Plame investigation.

Despite that notice, Rove deleted e-mails during the next two years from his RNC account, including messages after the RNC put his account on “hold” in 2004 due to “unspecified legal inquiries”. According to letter from Henry Waxman, during the next year, Rove’s RNC e-mail was not automatically purged, but someone manually deleted those messages. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070412145715.pdf

The specific instruction from Fitzgerald issued in September 2003 to the White House counsel’s office was for Rove and others to preserve all relevant records: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/whouse/gonzalez100303email.html

“. . . in the possession of the Executive Office of the President, its staff, or its employees, wherever located, including any documents that may have been archived in Records Management.”

Recently released document preservation orders issued in the Plame case show that investigators probed the President’s office prior to the issuance of formal subpoenas to Vice President Cheney’s staff. This bolster the widely-held belief that Karl Rove was the initial focus of Fitzgerald’s leak investigation, rather than Scooter Libby, who ended up being convicted of Obstruction charges..

A September 30, 2003 Alberto Gonzales memo informed White House staff that Fitzgerald had requested the preservation of all records potentially related to the Plame investigation. Nonetheless, all e-mails on Karl Rove’s RNC server continued to be deleted until August 2005, when Karl Rove was cut off from the ability to make further deletions. Document erasures on Rove’s account continued despite an August 2004 “document hold” instruction after Fitzgerald’s office contacted the RNC.

It had been reported that Rove had been subject to a document preservation order issued by the Department of Justice on December 16, 2003. That was, in fact, a separate order issued as a subpoena to the Office of the Vice President (OVP). See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x646941

Hat-tip to emptywheel for pointing out that Rove received a “request” letter from Fitzgerald rather than a subpoena for his communications records related to the Plame investigation. That letter was distributed to Rover and other Bush by a series of memos starting on September 30, 2003. An October 3 memo to the President’s staff, signed by Alberto Gonzalez, stated:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/whouse/gonzalez100303email.html

White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez's Oct. 3, 2003 Memo to all
White House Employees About Deadline to Provide Documents to Counsel

On September 30, 2003, you received two memoranda from me directing you to preserve and maintain certain documents. In a letter received yesterday evening, the Department of Justice has requested that we provide those documents to prosecutors and FBI agents assigned to this investigation.

To ensure compliance with the time deadlines imposed by the Department of Justice, you are directed to provide to the Counsel's Office, by no later than 5 p.m. on October 7, 2003, copies of the following documents, created during the time period February 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003, inclusive:

1. All documents that relate in any way to former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, his trip to Niger in February 2002, or his wife's purported relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency; and

2. All documents that relate in any way to a contact with any member or representative of the news media about Joseph C. Wilson, his trip to Niger in February 2002, or his wife's purported relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency; and

3. All documents that relate in any way to a contact with any or all of the following: reporters Knut Royce, Timothy M. Phelps,
or Robert D. Novak, or any individual(s) acting directly or indirectly on behalf of them.

For purposes of this memorandum, the term "documents" includes
"without limitation all electronic records, telephone records of any kind (including but not limited to any documents that memorialize telephone calls having been made), correspondence, computer records, storage devices, notes, memoranda, and diary and calendar entries" in the possession of the Executive Office of the President, its staff, or its employees, wherever located, including any documents that may have been archived in Records Management. However, at this time, you do not need to provide to Counsel's Office copies of the following, provided that they have not been marked upon in any way and are not accompanied by any notes or other commentary:

(a) press clips or articles, whether in hard copy or e-mail or electronic form, or (b) either of the two memoranda I sent on September 30, 2003, regarding document preservation.

You are also directed to complete and return the attached Certification by 5 p.m. on October 7, 2003. Note that you must complete the Certification whether or not you have responsive documents. All documents and Certifications should be hand-delivered to EEOB Room 214. Room 214 will be staffed from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. today; from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday October 4 and Sunday October 5; from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Monday October 6; and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesday October 7. Appropriate procedures will be in place to handle classified documents.

If you have any questions, please call Associate Counsels Ted Ullyot or Raul Yanes in the Counsel's Office.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT


CERTIFICATION
(To be returned by no later than 5 p.m. on October 7, 2003)


I certify, to the best of my knowledge, that

____ I have produced to the Office of the Counsel to the President
all documents in my possession that are required to be produced
by the memorandum to which this Certification was attached.

____ I have no such documents.



I further understand that this Certification is for purposes of a federal criminal investigation and that intentional false statements may result in criminal penalties or other sanctions.


NAME (please print):

SIGNATURE:

DATE:

OFFICE:

PHONE NUMBER:


Note: The attorneys in the Office of the Counsel to the President are attorneys for the President in his official capacity and are not private attorneys for anyone. The attorney-client privilege does not extend to communications by government employees to government attorneys, including attorneys in the Office of the Counsel to the President, when such communications are sought for a Federal criminal investigation.
All documents and Certifications should be hand-delivered to
EEOB Room 214

According to RNC's counsel, Rob Kelner. the RNC stopped deleting all of the White House staff's emails in August 2004 in response to "unspecified legal inquiries". In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales today, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Waxman’s letter to Gonzales is reprinted in TPM. See, http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002998.php :

According to Mr. Kelner, the RNC had a policy, which the RNC called a "document retention" policy, that purged all e-mails from RNC e-mail accounts and the RNC server that were more than 30 days old. Mr. Kelner said that as a result of unspecified legal inquiries, a "hold" was placed on this e-mail destruction policy for the accounts of White House officials in August 2004. Mr. Kelner was uncertain whether the hold was consistently maintained from August 2004 to the present, but he asserted that for this period, the RNC does have a large volume of White House e-mails. According to Mr. Kelner, the hold would not have prevented individual White House officials from deleting their e-mail from the RNC server after August 2004.

Mr. Kelner's briefing raised particular concems about Karl Rove, who according to press reports used his RNC account for 95%o of his communications. According to Mr. Kelner, although the hold started in August 2004, the RNC does not have any e-mails prior to 2005 for Mr. Rove. Mr. Kelner did not give any explanation for the e-mails missing from Mr. Rove's account, but he did acknowledge that one possible explanation is that Mr. Rove personally deleted his e-mails from the RNC server.

Mr. Kelner also explained that starting in 2005, the RNC began to treat Mr. Rove's emails in a special fashion. At some point in 2005, the RNC commenced an automatic archive policy for Mr. Rove, but not for any other White House officials. According to Mr. Kelner, this archive policy removed Mr. Rove's ability to personally delete his e-mails from the RNC server. Mr. Kelner did not provide many details about why this special policy was adopted for Mr. Rove. But he did indicate that one factor was the presence of investigative or discovery requests or other legal concerns. It was unclear from Mr. Kelner's briefing whether the special archiving policy for Mr. Rove was consistently in effect after 2005.

[lovuian]

1. And Fitz let him get away with it

hmmm
and Fitz was not fired either out of all the attorneys

I'm saying Fitz needs to really come out and say what he knew here

[orpupilofnature57]

5. They have every reason to believe they can do anything ,dangerous.

[lovuian]

7. Rove is absolutely out of control

working in the Military CIA or Justice Department must be HELL right now

[leveymg]

6. There are several possible explanations

The most attractive of which is that Rove cut a deal for himself by rolling over on his "superiors".

Note that the records of Bush's staff, unlike Cheney's office, weren't delivered subsequent to a subpoena.

[lovuian]

12. A pig in a poke

for Rove how appropriate

but he got the BEST deal as well as ARI
and Cheney was NEVER delivered

just LIBBY and soon the Plame case will poof be just a dream in the background

but Fitz was smart he left the door open to cover his Butt

[malaise]

15. You bet that Fitz knew Rove would

hang himself with these same seleted emails. KO is having a feast reading the new dumped emails. Gonzo is fugged.

[proud patriot]

2. I want that headline above the fold across America

:grr:

[H2O Man]

3. Interesting.

One note about this:

"Hat-tip to emptywheel for pointing out that Rove received a “request” letter from Fitzgerald rather than a subpoena for his communications records related to the Plame investigation. That letter was distributed to Rover and other Bush by a series of memos starting on September 30, 2003."

Mr. Fitzgerald was not on the case for another three months. The FBI was doing an investigation, and things had not gone to court. That would seem to account for someone, though not Mr. Fitzgerald, making a request, rather than a subpoena.

[lovuian]

4. Who was that person? Any name attached to that request

Gonzales??? And why didn't Fitz subpoena Rove when Cooper came out and said he was contacted by Rove???
at first Rove was suspect to perjury?

thats why Miller was imprisoned to get LIBBY
they decided Libby should go down over ROVE

Libby was right

[H2O Man]

9. In the documents

that were made public during Libby's trial, some of these letters were posted. Then Gonzales circulated the request. If memory serves me correctly, it was in response to the requests made by the FBI investigators. I do not have the files near me, but the FBI request was made in a proper manner. The way Gonzales responded was questionable, I thought.

[H2O Man]

10. dupe/delete

[leveymg]

11. That seems to be the case, as I pointed out to Louvian. above.

The items called for in the OVP subpoena are also much more specific than in the EOP request.

[lovuian]

14. This is a very KEY point and why am I not surprised the

name Gonzales is on that request...he should have NOT EVEN been involved


CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

[Bitwit1234]

8. From what they say Fitzgerald did not know about the RNC emails.

And I suppose he took rove at his words when rove told Fitz he gave all the emails he "had".

But when it comes down to it..rove will get away with this, the whitehouse will skate thru the crisis like they always do. bush will serve out his two years and cause more ruination. I don't expect congress to do one damn thing. They can get these guys if they moved. But it seems like they aren't.

[leveymg]

13. Fitz knew about the RNC e-mails no later than 2004, but the deletions

continued, nonetheless. That may have given Rove some more rope, which Fitz later used to force a deal, I believe.

[lovuian]

16. A deal that Rove got off to massacre the Attorneys later

Fitz must be proud of that one
to see your fello attorneys get fired
had to hurt

[Gabi Hayes]

17. so what's going on here, then? Fitz is either a major fuckup, a ringer, or....

he's got something up his sleeve, which he's pretty much denied, right?

can you please enlighten me on this, as this makes Watergate, on the surface, look like small potatoes, vis a vis obstruction of justice/destruction of evidence

Ollie and Fawn are made to seem like pikers by this

[H2O Man]

18. I'd be cautious

about assigning blame to Mr. Fitzgerald for a request that was made three months before he was assigned to the case.

[leveymg]

20. You know, it was his choice not to subpoena EOP records

Fitz could have issued a follow-up subpoena at any time. But, he chose not to. Maybe, he got what he was looking for?

[H2O Man]

21. I do not think

that there is enough information available to say. But it may become clearer in the summer months.

[Gabi Hayes]

25. that's why I had the third option there. I yield to your knowledge of the subject,

but, didn't he pretty much discourage the idea of further investo in this sad case?

I hope I'm wrong, but everything I've seen since even before the trial makes me feel less and less sanguine about an outcome that will redound to the benefit of our nation

what's your take, or is it just too early to speculate?

and is there some concise explanation as to why he let Rove keep coming back to testify (ostensibly to 'correct' faulty testimony)? Does it have something to do with the emails, or are these two entirely separate matters?

and....does he have any brief to investigate this latest matter?

thanks, and thanks for all you do/have done

[H2O Man]

34. A couple of things

come to mind. The first is that had Richard Nixon burned his tape collection early on, he would have been in a better position. A much better position.

On December 5, 2003, a "senior White House official" was quoted in the Financial Times as saying, "We have rolled the earthmovers in over this one." That was Rove, talking about the Plame scandal. This was, of course, before Mr. Fitzgerald was assigned to the case.

I think it is likely that from October of 2005 to May of 2006, Karl Rove was providing Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury with information relating to his knowledge of VP Cheney's role in the scandal. It may be that this played a role in Mr. Fitzgerald's decision to not indict Rove.

Mr. Fitzgerald made it clear that there was a cloud over the VP's office, both in the pretrial documents made public, and during the Libby trial. It is fair to question why he did not indict Cheney. If I were to speculate, I would think that he did not believe he had a strong enough case to justify charging the vice president. I suspect he believes that the case against Cheney should be brought by the House, and tried in the Senate.

I would not be surprised if one of the current congressional investigations brings other information to light this summer.

[leveymg]

19. Hard to disagree with the way you lay the options out, Gabi.

Personally, I prefer Door #3.

[Gabi Hayes]

27. wow...that makes me feel......smart! or something. I, too, prefer

door number three, as the other two are too depressing to even contemplate

that said, having paid fairly close attention to Watergate, if the media ever BEGIN to do their job, this has all the trappings of Water....LOO!!!!

har de HARRRRRRRR

could this be Friday the 13th for the Bush Junta?

[Me.]

22. Do You Have A Link For Fitz Knowing

about the RNC emails?

[H2O Man]

23. I am curious, also. n/t

[H2O Man]

24. Here:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/13/132711.shtml?s=lh

WASHINGTON -- Karl Rove's lawyer on Friday dismissed the notion that President Bush's chief political adviser intentionally deleted his own e-mails from a Republican-sponsored server, saying Rove believed the communications were being preserved in accordance with the law.

The issue arose because the White House and Republican National Committee have said they may have lost e-mails from Rove and other administration officials. Democratically chaired congressional committees want those e-mails for their probe of the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

"His understanding starting very, very early in the administration was that those e-mails were being archived," Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said.

The prosecutor probing the Valerie Plame spy case saw and copied all of Rove's e-mails from his various accounts after searching Rove's laptop, his home computer, and the handheld computer devices he used for both the White House and Republican National Committee, Luskin said. The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, subpoenaed the e-mails from the White House, the RNC and Bush's re-election campaign, he added. "There's never been any suggestion that Fitzgerald had anything less than a complete record," Luskin said. .....

[Spazito]

28. Oh my, I just posted an article with quotes from Luskin where

he says the opposite re "There's never been any suggestion that Fitzgerald had anything less than a complete record,"

snip

Robert Luskin, personal attorney for Rove, told CNN Friday that he "has no reason to doubt" Fitzgerald's assertion that some White House e-mail was missing.

"You're quite right," Luskin said in a telephone interview. "There was a gap there."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/

[Gabi Hayes]

30. I can't WAIT for your very last sentence to be explored in DETAIL.

but, as Ed Henry said tonight on CNN, the dems had better be CAREFUL about how deeply they dare delve into RNC depredations against the law, the constitution, etc., because it will HURT them politically to be seen by the voters as being, well, too.....politically motivated!

where have we heard that one before?

[Me.]

32. So He Did Subpoena The Records

"Patrick Fitzgerald, subpoenaed the e-mails from the White House, the RNC and Bush's re-election campaign"

[Spazito]

26. It may well be coming from the letter Fitzgerald sent to the Libby defense team

in 2003, which is referred to in a CNN article dated today:

snip

Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case, disclosed last year that some White House e-mails in 2003 were not saved as standard procedure dictated.

In a January 23, 2006, letter to the defense team of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald wrote: "We advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."

Robert Luskin, personal attorney for Rove, told CNN Friday that he "has no reason to doubt" Fitzgerald's assertion that some White House e-mail was missing.

"You're quite right," Luskin said in a telephone interview. "There was a gap there."

End of snip

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/


Edited to correct error: I mistakenly attributed the article to the WP when it was from CNN

[sam sarrha]

29. he won get away with this one... pray some were interstate emails... the pharma one are RICO

:woohoo:

[Gabi Hayes]

31. put that fucker Abramoff on a waterboard, re: email that went to the WRONG

ISP, in which he freaked out.

remember that one?

he needs to be FORCED to spill the beans on that one

[napi21]

33. FWIW, the CFO of the co. I worked for got fined and damn near went to jail

because our Co. was under order to "preserve all documents" and the CFO (my boss at the time) authorizedthe destruction of a bunch of cash register tapesthat were taking up a LOT of space, and irrelevant to anything. If you've ever tried to read one of those damn things, and you don't know exactly what transaction you're hunting and the day and approximate time it occurred, forget it...they're useless! Well, the court didn't see it that way. I saw the subpoena that was issued to my boss to appear in court and explain just WHY he disregarded a direct order to preserve ALL documents. He went to court, and was litterally smacked down by the judge, fined, and managed to avoid jail time ONLY because our co. provided him with 4 GREAT but very expensive attorneys to save his butt!

Theremay well be some serious consequences to the "loss" of all those emails! The law moves very slow, but also very deliberately.

[DemReadingDU]

35. What if the judge/lawyers for the other side

are Bush supporters, and interpret the law for them and against us? With the DOJ scandal, we can see that the intent was to have the courts setup with Bushies.

[napi21]

36. well, the order was issued by Fitz, and I presume through the judge

in the Libby court, so I don't see that as a problem in this case.

Of course, if nobody persues a charge, Rover will have no problems.