This is the Archive site for Firedoglake. To go to the main site please click on the following link

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Let's See...Who Was It that Thought He'd Be Indicted?

Oh yeah, it was Stephen Hadley.

I've been going over and over the Libby motion filings in my brain since my first pass on everything last night. And Hadley's name keeps popping into my thoughts. Just why was Mr. Hadley so worried about being indicted? Could it have anything to do with the improperly archived e-mails from the offices of the Vice President and Executive Office of President?

Pure speculation on my part. But it does make one wonder...Hadley was, after all, involved on one end of the Rove/Hadley e-mail that was missing for so long.

And I wanted to point out a great catch from Jeff in the comments on which officials might have been the blabbers with Dickerson on the Preznit's trip to Africa:
As for Dickerson, it's unclear where Fitzgerald is getting his information, but note that he says they understand this, which suggests they didn't get the info directly from Dickerson's testimony. But here's what Dickerson, who was on Bush's Africa trip, wrote on October 31 2005:

More astonishingly, we learn from the Fitzgerald indictment that Ari Fleischer knew about Plame and didn't tell anyone at all. He walked reporters, including me, up to the fact, suggesting they look into who sent Wilson, but never used her name or talked about her position.

And here's Howard Fineman from last summer:

on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip.

So pretty obviously the government officials are Bartlett and Fleischer, though that still raises the question of how the special prosecutor understands that plural government officials talked with Dickerson, and why they understand it rather than being aware of it, as they are with regard to knowledge of the other reporters' knowledge. Does this come from Bartlett's testimony? I've thought that Bartlett was a likely suspect as Pincus' July 12 source, who we know has identified himself to Fitzgerald.
And then there was this comment from reader hello regarding the type of system the WH was using for e-mail back-up as late as 2000:
Ok, searching a bit of history, the White House was using Lotus Notes as late as 2000 as part of a system called ARMS (automated records management system)....

"The White House likely will have to spend 170 days and $1.8 million to $3 million to reconstruct thousands of e-mail messages that are available only as raw data on server backup tapes, White House counsel Beth Nolan said last month in a letter to the House Government Reform Committee. "

So it seems even if the e-mail does not make it to the archives, there likely is a backup...
Well, that's quite interesting, now isn't it? As Davis X. Machina pointed out last night in the comments, "the document retention rules for the White House were changed, and e-documents were made subject to the same rules as paper documents in '98." So the National Archives may also have some copies of things. Curiouser and curiouser, no? And that doesn't even account for the activity logs, as Paul Lukusiak points out.

Really great work -- and examples of how superb our commenters truly are. Jane and are are so lucky to have all of you.

NOTE: Hearings currently going on in the Senate Intelligence Committee on C-Span, dealing with some of the domestic spying issues from the illegal FISA/NSA end-run.

UPDATE: Digby has more on the archiving of e-mails. Good stuff, as always.

UPDATE #2: Mark Kleiman has more on the broad discovery requests and Fitz's use of anti-graymail provisions of CIPA. And why removing e-mail is a very, very bad thing to do.