GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY. Is Everyone in the WHITE HOUSE Going to the "OUT" House?

[L. Coyote]

Did years of White House e-mail evaporate into a cyber black hole because EVERYONE
was using dot.gov accounts to do Bush Cheney 2004 campaigning on the taxpayers dime?

OR, Will they ALL have to RESIGN? YES, if they were campaigning on the taxpayer's clock?
Perhaps we have been missing what has been obvious to Waxman, et.al., all along.

What constitutes a Hatch Act violation? ANY political activity on USG time, ANY.
It does not matter if it is a dot.gov or rnc.com e-mail if the person is on the clock,
at work in an official capacity. If anything at all is done on a CAMPAIGN it is a
Hatch Act violation. Read ILLEGAL. Read a CRIME. Read getting flushed!!

While researching Tim Griffin---the vote-caging, Rovian, just-resigned, Patriot Act implant
USA in Arkansas---and his vote caging e-mail that landed in the lap of Greg Palast, I noticed
that some of the e-mails had dot.gov addresses AND were being used to conduct campaign business.
This adds one huge illegal dimension to the mis-directed e-mails in addition to voter caging,
Hatch Act violations. Inquiry into the Hatch Act made me aware of the scope of the law's reach.

Here is the "catch-all" georgewbush.org e-mails site I was reading: http://2004.georgewbush.org/deadletteroffice/headers.asp

Example--one to the entire Florida GOP--showing this could impact way more than all the White House personnel:

To: FL GOP COS FloridaGop @mail.house.gov
.... a FL briefing this Thursday, July 22nd at 8:30 AM at the RNC ... with Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove ...

It is definitely time to reexamine the "MISSING" e-mails issue in light of the "EVERYONE IS GUILTY" possibility!!!

It is also time to examine how we were SPUN into the such a narrow focus, ROVE,
and how the issue of years of missing e-mail has gotten lost in all that spinning.

What does Waxman know, and how long has he known it?
Here follows an excerpt from the archived compilation:
Email-Gate FACTS: Felons, georgewbush.com, gwb43.com , et. al.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x523978

========= Waxman acts to preserve evidence =========

The Washington Post March 27 article incorrectly attributed to Susan Ralston a
warning that e-mail messages by lobbyist Jack Abramoff should not be put into
the White House e-mail system "because it might actually limit what they can do
to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc." The author of the
2003 e-mail was Jennifer Farley, who was a deputy in the White House Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs.

GOP Groups Told to Keep Bush Officials' E-Mails
Democrat Cites Investigation of Firings
By R. Jeffrey Smith - Washington Post Staff Writer - Tuesday, March 27, 2007; Page A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601979.html

A Democratic House committee chairman yesterday told the Republican National Committee
and the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign to retain copies of all e-mails sent or received by
White House officials using e-mail accounts under their control....

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said his broadly written request was based on evidence
that White House officials -- particularly aides to top political adviser Karl Rove --
have used their politically related e-mail accounts to hide the conduct of official
business regarding the prosecutor firings and other matters being investigated by Congress....

"The e-mails of White House officials maintained on RNC e-mail accounts may be relevant
to multiple congressional investigations," Waxman wrote to the group's chairman, Mike Duncan .....

===============================================

I just sent this to appropriate Congress Persons.
With 36 Congressional Inquiries in progress, perhaps they do not need more work.
Or, this may assist in issuing subpoenas.

=========================================================================
WAXMAN's House Committe on Oversight and Government Reform Investigations
White House Use of Private E-mail Accounts
http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?ID=251

After three congressional investigations – the investigation into Jack Abramoff’s contacts
with the White House, the examination of politicization of the General Services Administration,
and the investigation of the firings of eight U.S. Attorneys – brought to light the White House’s
extensive use of nongovernmental e-mail accounts to conduct official business, the Committee
directed the RNC and the Bush Cheney ’04 campaign to preserve e-mails to or from accounts held
by White House officials.

In order to ensure compliance with both the Presidential Records Act and the Hatch Act, the
Committee asked the RNC to produce e-mails that related to the use of federal agencies and
federal resources for partisan political purposes.

Following staff briefings with the White House and the RNC, the Committee has reason to believe
that many e-mails related to official government business may have been deleted from the RNC’s
servers. As a secondary measure to obtain these e-mails, the Committee asked federal agencies to
preserve any e-mails they received from or sent to these political accounts.

Chronology .......

[Tom Joad]

1. who will send them there? their co-conspirators in Congress???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[L. Coyote]

2. The complicitous Republicans in Congress who violated laws can resign too

and if they do not, they will face the wrath of you and I in November of 2008, if not beforeso in the primaries.

Expect the 2008 primaries to be like none before, with Republican integrety candidates challenging the Culture of Corruption.

[Tom Joad]

3. Every person who voted for the IWR should be sent to the Hague.

every damn one of them.

[L. Coyote]

4. LOST? Right! = "more than 5 million e-mails between 2003 and 2005..."

Lost? A data-recovery specialist discusses whether missing White House e-mails can really be gone for good.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18097374/site/newsweek/

Web Exclusive by Brian Braiker - Newsweek - April 13, 2007

The White House had bad news this week for Democrats ... messages, including missives from senior adviser Karl Rove, may have been lost, the Bush administration claimed ... staffers may have deliberately used Republican National Committee accounts to avoid normal review.

The e-mail furor deepened Thursday when the independent watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington reported that the White House itself may also have lost more than 5 million e-mails between 2003 and 2005—a claim the White House did not immediately refute.

Is it possible to “lose” an e-mail? ..............

[L. Coyote]

5. CREW: "White House counsel’s office was advised of these problems in 2005"

12 Apr 2007 // Washington, DC — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
today has released a report, WITHOUT A TRACE: The Missing White House Emails and the
Violations of the Presidential Records Act, detailing the legal issues behind the
story of the White House e-mail scandal.

# 04/12/07: "Without a Trace" Report // 2.6 mb - http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27605
# 04/12/07: "Without a Trace" Executive Summary // 81.7 kb - http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27604
# 04/12/07: "Without a Trace" Exhibits // 4.6 mb - http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27608

In a startling new revelation, CREW has also learned through two confidential sources that
the Executive Office of the President (EOP) has lost over five million emails generated
between March 2003 and October 2005. The White House counsel’s office was advised of these
problems in 2005 and CREW has been told that the White House was given a plan of action to
recover these emails, but to date nothing has been done to rectify this significant loss of records.

............ http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27607 ..........

[L. Coyote]

6. U.S. Office of Special Counsel: "Restrictions on political activity by federal government employees.

Political Activity (Hatch Act). Restrictions on political activity by federal government employees,
and by employees of certain state and local government agencies, under the Hatch Act....
http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm

Hatch Act for Federal Employees - http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm

* Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Participate in Partisan Political Activity
* Agencies/Employees Who Are Prohibited From Engaging in Partisan Political Activity
* Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Not Participate in Partisan Political Activity
* Hatch Act Regulations
* Penalties for Violating the Hatch Act
* Advisories for Federal Employees
* Frequently Asked Questions and Answers for Employees Who May Engage in Partisan Political Activity

Hatch Act for State and Local Employees - http://www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm

* Permitted Activities
* Prohibited Activities
* Penalties for Violating the Hatch Act
* Advisories for State and Local Employees

OSC Role - http://www.osc.gov/ha_role.htm

* Advisory Opinions
* How to File a Complaint Alleging a Violation of the Hatch Act
* Enforcement

[L. Coyote]

7. Evidence of Hatch Act violations on display on the Internet. What will happen next?

Here follows the no-brainer, obvious cases that first caught my attention, with the dot.gov e-mails
used in relation to a campaign activity. Others can be easily identified by noting if 1.) the activity
is campaign related, and 2.) either the person is at work, or using a government computer (se the IP numbers).

From: http://2004.georgewbush.org/deadletteroffice/headers.asp
(NOTE: spaces added and mailto code deleted to disable the links.)
====================================================================
From: "Ford, Jon (Collins)" Jon_Ford @collins.senate.gov
To: "Vail, Bill (Collins)" Bill_Vail @collins.senate.gov
"McCarthy, Sarah (Collins)" Sarah_McCarthy @collins.senate.gov
"Murphy, Tom (Collins)" Tom_Murphy @collins.senate.gov
"Card, William (Collins)" William_Card @collins.senate.gov
"Bosse, Philip (Collins)" Philip_Bosse @collins.senate.gov
Cc: RBumps @georgewbush.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2004 15:23:09.0301 (UTC) FILETIME=

-----Original Message-----
From: Ford, Jon (Collins) Jon_Ford @collins.senate.gov
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:23 AM
To: Vail, Bill (Collins) Bill_Vail @collins.senate.gov ; McCarthy, Sarah (Collins) Sarah_McCarthy @collins.senate.gov ; Murphy, Tom (Collins) Tom_Murphy @collins.senate.gov ; Card, William (Collins) William_Card @collins.senate.gov ; Bosse, Philip (Collins) Philip_Bosse @collins.senate.gov
Cc: RBumps @georgewbush.org
Subject: RE: Pineworks- Auburn

you are some smooooth!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vail, Bill (Collins)
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:08 AM
> To: McCarthy, Sarah (Collins); Murphy, Tom (Collins); Card, William
> (Collins); Ford, Jon (Collins); Bosse, Philip (Collins)
> Cc: 'RBumps @georgewbush.org'
> Subject: RE: Pineworks- Auburn
>
> I'd suggest an op-ed piece written by a" friend" that exposes the
> injustice of these attacks on a local family owned business.
> The friend could focus on the notion that Kerry supporters are
> apparently willing to damage local businesses and families in their
> effort to stifle free speech.
> Pineworks isn't sponsoring the anti-Kerry piece right? They are simply
> buying ad time on the local channel.
>
> Politics is however, a contact sport.
==========================
MORE: Other names/addresses in the catch-all in possible violation.

ashley.snee @gov.ca.gov (CA)
pstevens @who.eop.gov (US)

Subject: touching base on the convention

Greetings,
I look forward to speaking with each of you within the next 24 hours to review our mission and your specific assignment for the convention. Your role in enabling effective coverage of our convention on the major networks is a critical one and we've got a great team. We've got a lot of work to do in the coming weeks, but hopefully will have some fun too.

==========================
Yes indeed, to quote an R, "Politics is however, a contact sport." More like forensics these days!

Famous last words: "Didn't anyone noticed that large Oversight Bus in the rear-view mirror?"

[malaise]

8. So when will they be locked up?

I'm tired of waiting for Rethugs to be imprisoned for high crimes.

[L. Coyote]

9. Hatch Act won't do that, but it will get a lot of documents subpoenaed, plus resignations

A lot of people may find that they wish they had foreseen oversight, and those who dumped the e-mails may join Libby behind bars.

The e-mails over on the Congressional side are still there!! Time to start that Hatch Act inquiry.

[JeffR]

10. Rec 5

thank you for this post

[L. Coyote]

11. Hatch Act: "the lightest sentence under the law is a 30-day suspension without pay"

April 12, 2007
OSC Reports More E-Mail Hatch Act Violations
http://www.iecjournal.org/iec/2007/04/osc_reports_mor.html


A Government Executive article reports a large increase in complaints about the use of e-mail to forward political information, which can be a Hatch Act violation, depending on the scale of the use. An excerpt from the article notes:

In one of the highlighted cases, an EPA employee was found in violation of the law for forwarding a letter from the Democratic National Committee to 31 agency co-workers that urged support for then-presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. The punishment decision for the employee is still pending, although the lightest sentence under the law is a 30-day suspension without pay.

[L. Coyote]

12. MJ: "...Karl Rove as the deputy chief of staff is a violation of the Hatch Act in and of itself....

Violation of Hatch Act Now Clear: Rove's Team Gave 20 Partisan Briefings to Fed. Employees
Posted by Jonathan Stein on 04/26/07
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/04/4296_violation_of_ha.html


I blogged yesterday about how the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from using government resources on partisan political activities. One might argue that having Karl Rove as the deputy chief of staff is a violation of the Hatch Act in and of itself, since his only job, really, is to get Republicans elected. But that's not specific enough to be a real allegation. I understand.

You know what is specific enough? This:

White House officials conducted 20 private briefings on Republican electoral prospects in the last midterm election for senior officials in at least 15 government agencies covered by federal restrictions on partisan political activity, a White House spokesman and other administration officials said yesterday.

The violations of the Hatch Act seem pretty obvious:

In the GSA briefing -- conducted like all the others by a deputy to chief White House political adviser Karl Rove -- two slides were presented showing 20 House Democrats targeted for defeat and several dozen vulnerable Republicans.

At its completion, GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan asked how GSA projects could be used to help "our candidates," according to half a dozen witnesses.

[fooj]

13. Jr. has 22 lawyers in place.

http://thinkprogress.org/

<snip>
Times have changed. A mere six months later, the White House has found itself consumed by scandals of its own making. From the partisan purge of U.S. attorneys to the “lost” Rove emails to potentially illegal partisan briefings at federal agencies, the White House has subjected itself to intense scrutiny from congressional investigators due to its careless disregard for the law.

As a result, the White House has been forced to expand its legal staff to levels it had not anticipated:

Whilte House counsel Fred Fielding has so far created five new positions for lawyers, and filled another handful of existing slots. He has expanded the size of the White House counsel’s office to 22 lawyers — about the size of former President Bill Clinton’s White House team handling his second-term investigations and policy challenges.

“The workload and the need for additional attorneys is generated by Congress,” said Joel Kaplan, Bush’s deputy chief of staff for policy. “Fred is looking for the right mix and skill sets to deal with the particular challenges that come from divided government and from the Congress being in the hands of the other party. The counsel’s office is dealing with really an avalanche of requests.”
<snip>

[L. Coyote]

14. Note where the new WH counsels are coming from. Some from the So NY USA

and that raises issues in its own right. The SEC and So NY USA are involved in favorable settlements to corporations. This needs closer scrutiny.

[L. Coyote]

15. Doan Hatch-Act Report Delivered to Bush = "OSC concluded Doan violated the Hatch Act"

Doan Hatch-Act Report Delivered to Bush
By Daniel Pulliam | Friday, June 08, 2007
http://blogs.govexec.com/techinsider/archives/2007/06/doans_hatch_act_report_goes_to.html


The Office of Special Counsel confirmed that it delivered to President Bush today its investigative report concluding General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan violated the law that limits political activity in federal agencies, leaving Doan's future in the hands of the White House.

A spokesman for the Office of Special Counsel, the agency that investigates alleged Hatch Act violations, confirmed that the report was sent to the White House, but would not provide details.

OSC's investigation focused on Doan's role in a Jan. 26 meeting at GSA headquarters, where Scott Jennings, special assistant to the president and a deputy of political adviser Karl Rove, showed a 28-slide PowerPoint presentation to more than 30 GSA political appointees that analyzed the results of the 2006 midterm election and prospects for the 2008 elections.

The OSC concluded Doan violated the Hatch Act when she asked at the conclusion of the meeting how the agency could help Republican candidates ...

... OSC has provided the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee with redacted transcripts of their nine-hour interview with Doan, along with the e-mail records obtained by OSC to determine whether Doan was using her Blackberry during specific time periods during the January meeting. The panel's chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and ranking member, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., both received copies of the report, the OSC spokesman said.

On Wednesday Doan is scheduled to appear before the oversight committee ...