That says "are you sure you want to delete all 5,000,000 emails?". I always do.

Well, the punishment would depend on what the final charge turned out to be, which is still very much up in the ari. At very least it's obstruction of justice if it happens in the course of an investigation. So if Fitzgerald's investigation has been affected by it... that could be a few years prison time, right?

but personally, I'd prefer charges of racketeering and fraud. Interferring with election officials. I mean, who knows what's actually in those missing emails, right?

up in the *air*. preview, not publish.

Well if BJ gets you near impeachment--it seems precedent would hold that--yes--this is at least rises to the level of "...and misdemeanor..." although I think one would have to find George's fingerprints on the Delete button to get it to stick...

I bet the over.

Remember, anybody who bet, last fall, on the FBI, and against CREW, lost their bet.

I'd like to see Congress check the email accounts of Bush political appointees overseeing other formerly professional agencies like the EPA and the FDA, to look for politically created "facts," cover-ups, hidden agendas, and destruction of records.

For a very brief treatment, see Paul Krugman's 2005 column, All the President's Friends.

www.nytimes.com/2005/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?ex=1284177600&en=0c54af00e2103ffd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss.

5,000,000 e-mails lost during a period of probably less than a year in 2002-2003 -- and this is only the amount now grudgingly admitted. Does this suggest that the total might be stretching upwards of and beyond 30 million documents "lost" in the past six years of this administration?

Was this post just featured on CNN?

Off-topic, apologies, but just saw this, and as ever, relevant to so much of what Glenn has written about and we've all discussed.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13210904.htm

Bush asks Congress to alter 1978 eavesdropping law

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON, April 13 (Reuters) - The Bush administration asked Congress on Friday to expand the number of people it can subject to electronic surveillance in the United States.

The request was contained in a proposed bill authored by intelligence and Justice Department officials that also protects companies that cooperate with spy operations.

(more on the article available at the link noted above)

Ok, now just waiting for the monarchy apologists to show up and explain how it's all for the good, there's nothing to worry about. Take it away, fellas!

In the meantime, I'm out for the weekend. Best to you all, thanks again bebop-o for that wonderful piece earlier, and thanks again, Kurt, wherever you are, or aren't. I'll miss you, but I'll always have your words.

No kings,

Robert

Congrats Glenn and to Digg User "yugandhar" who submitted this post, because it has hit the big time as far as Digg goes. Currently at 744 Diggs.

Clearly just doing a cut and paste of the Administration's obstructions of justice is compelling enough to a great many concerned citizens. No extensive commentary necessary.

If we assume an additional 100 people "dugg" this article, and 100 high RWAs "buried it" we're almost at 1000 free eyeballs. To say nothing of readers who may not have dugg or buried it.

I'd like to commend yugandhar for ably retitling the post and synopsizing it such that it catches attention. If you're going to submit a Greenwald post, take the time to edit the submission from the defaults Digg provides!

For anyone watching the Digg side, most times Glenn's posts get frozen at about 15-20 Diggs. Like DailyKos recommends there is some threshold where it becomes "popular" and dramatically more people will read it. So let that be a reminder to fans of Glenn's writing to make the effort to register a free Digg account, and head over there to "digg" the submissions.

This is not just a popularity contest: This type of readership expansion is what gives an opinionist like Glenn "power" and why high mucky mucks like that tool from ABC news actually answer his emails now, instead of disregarding him as merely a "blogger." Each digg submission that reaches the popular list, will bring another few regular readers in addition to the one-timers.

Glenn's post on the ABC/Anthrax story also hit the popular list for digg, as well as the FBI Lawbreaking post.

http://digg.com/politics/The_unresolved_story_of_ABC_News_s_false_Saddam_anthrax_reports

http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_significance_of_the_FBI_s_law_breaking

It's a small thing we can do to promote Glenn's work which we know is for the good of the United States, and ultimately the world. Not to hyperbolize, but it all matters, and if we're so sick of the obtuse and dishonest punditry of the gang of 500, we'll need to create our own voices.

Glenn,

Would you consider sharing some of the readership figures for this blog? Do things like Digg spikes show up noticably in the figures?

Can you give us some idea how much more readership you get at salon versus what you had at Unclaimed Territory?

... the "Oops!" Administration, leading the way to a new platinum standard in the realm of electronic butterfingery.

Glenn,

FYI I've mentioned your Salon blog as an example of a journalist doing excellent and needed work, in particular your media criticism such as this post.

Here's the permalink if you're interested:

http://until.joe-perez.com/2007/04/what-good-religion-journalism-should.html

Thank you for your work and KEEP IT UP!

Best wishes,

Joe Perez

http://until.joe-perez.com/

P.S.: I don't have your email so I hope this comment/letter is an appropriate way to share this link and comment with you.

The Presidential Records Act doesn't contain explicit penalties for violations, and violating the P.R.A. may or may not constitute obstruction of justice, but the P.R.A. may be covered by some provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in which case the Sarbanes-Oxley penalties may be applicable. Sarbanes-Oxley applies to record-keeping requirements, whether or not any "official proceeding" is active or pending.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/sarox1.htm

Field Guidance on New Criminal Authorities Enacted in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (H.R. 3763) Concerning Corporate Fraud and Accountability

Section 802. Criminal Penalties for Altering Documents

Previous law: . . . While prosecution of obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 does not require "corrupt persuasion," it does require the existence of a pending proceeding . . .

Amendment: Section 802 adds two new criminal provisions, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 1520. Section 1519 expands existing law to cover the alteration, destruction or falsification of records, documents or tangible objects, by any person, with intent to impede, obstruct or influence, the investigation or proper administration of any "matters" within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, or any bankruptcy proceeding, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or proceeding. This section explicitly reaches activities by an individual "in relation to or contemplation of" any matters. No corrupt persuasion is required. New Section 1519 should be read in conjunction with the amendment to 18 U.S.C. 1512 added by Section 1102 of this Act, discussed below, which similarly bars corrupt acts to destroy, alter, mutilate or conceal evidence, in contemplation of an "official proceeding." . . .

New 18 U.S.C. § 1519 provides: Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Sec. 1102. Tampering with a Record or Otherwise Impeding an Official Proceeding.

Previous Law: Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512, in part, provides a 10 year maximum term of incarceration for an offender who corruptly persuades another person with the intent to, in part, destroy or alter evidence.

Amendment: The amendment adds new subsection (c) to Section 1512 and renumbers existing subsections (c) through (i) as (d) through (j). New subsection (c) imposes a fine and/or a term of imprisonment of up to 20 years on any person who corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record, document or other object with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding, or who corruptly otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes an official proceeding. Section 1512, as amended, should be read in conjunction with the new Section 1519, added by section 802 of this Act, which criminalizes certain acts intended to impede, obstruct or influence "any matter" within the jurisdiction of any Department or agency of the United States, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter. The term "corruptly" shall be construed as requiring proof of a criminal state of mind on the part of the defendant.

New Section 1512 (c) provides:
(c) Whoever corruptly-
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

I wonder if Fred Fielding has been boning up on Sarbanes-Oxley lately.