Digby had a nice post on this. See

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/incompetence-dodge-by-digby-josh.html

Perhaps they should ask the NSA if they saved a copy of any of the the emails in question. I understand they've been "vacuuming up" most of the email on the Internets-tubes for several years now. You never know which of our citizens are actually Terrrrist Killers" plotting an attack on Branson, Missouri, you know. So we can't go grantin' them the right of privacy... Surely the NSA or DHS must have caught a few with the name "Rove, Karl" in the "Sender" field, right?

but then I remembered the administration we're dealing with.

But the administration initially told Congress that the transcript for the Aug. 29 call -- the call congressional investigators were most curious about, given that it occurred as the hurricane was actually battering the Gulf Coast—did not exist, with officials initially telling Capitol Hill that someone at FEMA or Homeland Security forgot to push the button on a tape recorder.

Forgot to "push the button?" Jesus H. Christ, I've heard better excuses from my neighbor's four-year-old. I feel sorry for the writers at The Onion; trying to parody these people has got to be the toughest job in the world.

...in the literal sense. I used to work on corporate Outlook email auditing software, losing anything at all like this many internal emails would be a DISASTER by corporate standards, those things are supposed to be retained for potential auditing, as evidence in case of potential crimes committed by employees, and as a matter of internal record for decision reviews, conflict resolutions, business process analysis, etc, etc.

I don't believe for a second they "lost" anything. If the emails were removed from the mailservers, emails would almost certainly be retained on the end-users computers unless there was a concerted effort among the staff to systematically remove them.

Even then, a substantial proportion likely could be recovered though disk forensics or even simple "undelete" software like what is available in the TRK bootable linux package (trinityhome.org).

If, by some amazing chance, cosmic rays wiped out all the relevant records, this is a screwup so bad that people should be fired for not retaining adequate backups.

Glenn,

I'm a long time reader: keep up the great work! I'm no lawyer, but I have a few years of experience as a paralegal, with a question about this RNC/White House email fiasco.

Why doesn't the appropriate committee just walk over to the District Courthouse and file a preliminary injunction motion to "seize" the RNC servers/computers/email records and so on before they are destroyed by political operatives? Or at least, request that they be turned over to a special master, who can then go through them and week out responsive documents?

Times a wasting-- isn't it? The RNC is going to figure out how to cleanse the records completely...

George

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjQ4M2Y0ZjgxNzBlMDI2ODRhY2M3NzY0Mjk5N2RlNDQ=

Boy, it sure would be easier to defend this White House's innocence if they would quit acting so guilty.
- - David Frum

Wow, it sure would be unfortunate if all these wealthy Bush Jr. Republicans had also somehow managed to lose any record of their income, gifts, and thus the taxes for which they'll be liable.

Gosh, that would be inconvenient. They'd just have to pay a much lower tax rate because they had accidentally misplaced or erased any reference to a lot of other valuables they had received.

These guys are so, so unlucky.

whether the emails being funnelled through the RNC were in the clear? If they weren't encrypted, any subjects they discussed would appear to have waived executive privilege, since they can be picked up by anyone with the interest and the time over the net. It be like claiming confidentiality to a conversation yelled over rooftops.

And if they were encrypted, wouldn't the issue of confidentiality come up in reverse: what the hell would secure documents of governmental character be doing on a private organization's server?

That's not even to bring up the national security issues of having "confidential" discussions, and the pattern of communictations (that can't be encrypted) available to system admins without security clearance.

I'm so glad we've narrowed down the choices. Even Bushies are starting to feel the need to pick one.

George W. Bush, June 21, 2006:

It's a -- we're a transparent democracy. People know exactly what's on our mind. We debate things in the open.

Of course, if one insists that the Executive be vested with near-dictatorial powers, it would naturally follow that any and all adherence to laws and principles is subordinate to the Executive's wishes. And currently, the Executive's wishes are to not be caught at attempting to secure its near-dictatorial powers.

It's like a kid that's been caught with chocolate all over his face, but has no recollection of any chocolate-eating activities. The empty wrapper (with the culprit's fingerprints, no doubt) has been strangely lost. And the friends of the accused are quick to point out that the accused has absolutely no desire for chocolate as far as their unnamed sources tell them and in any event, c'mon, this isn't really important to anyone, is it? It's just god-damn chocolate, people! Get a life.

Something I never thought of: it takes a long time to burn papers, but if one wishes to misplace a gigabyte of damning e-mail, all one has to do is wipe the hard-drive. On the other hand, one never knows who kept what... perhaps the most damning of e-mail would survive as quotations in someone's reply. E-mail is sticky stuff, it can be found everywhere: servers, hard-drives, etc. And it's easier to create in huge, unmanageable quantities. My hope is, no matter how hard these goons try to wipe out all the evidence, all it takes is one phrase, e.g.: "The Pres would like you to proceed with your actions re: atty's..." and boom. Jail.

Good hunting, Congress.

To claim that the RNC system once automatically deleted all e-mails after 30 days is absurd to anyone who has used e-mail for any length of time - I don't know of a business, much less a personal account that doesn't keep messages for months or years. I am sure that political and policy communications between various people stretch out for months on end until the topic is resolved - even longer the more important a topic is.

So my question is this: Is this obvious lie an absurd attempt to buy time (denounce this claim after Gonzales testifies on the 17th?), or an attempt to mislead some segment of the population that still isn't e-mail savvy? What gives?