So what exactly have we stumbled onto with the SMARTech Corp nameserver?

[originalpckelly]

1. We know that the RNC has large contracts with a company named SMARTech Corp.

2. We know the owner of the company is a fairly large contributor to the RNC.

3. We know that not only does the company have a contract with the RNC, it also has contracts with many other right-wing organizations. These include political action committees, a right-wing election results company, and even FrontPage Magazine.

4. We know that the same nameserver as well as e-mail server is used to provide the White House political staff with non-government e-mail. This may be required by law, the avoidance of using public funds for political gain or it may be illegal because government business appears to have taken place on this server. That's a extremely wide range of possibilities, and it means someone needs to look into this matter further to narrow it down.

5. We know, most strikingly that the Secretary of State of Ohio was hosted on this same server. That's pretty damn interesting, because that website provided the most official-appearing results in the 2004 election. It also suggests that a government contract in Ohio was corruptly given to a crony company.

Right now the Ohio Secretary of State site is hosted on an official government address, but we can use the Internet Archive's WaybackMachine to find that at one time is used this address, listed as using SMARTech's nameserver:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031010082405/http://ohsosonline.com/

Those are the conclusions I have reached at this time, however useful they may be.

***UPDATE***
Here is the website used to find all of this out, it's the list of other sites that use the same nameserver as gwb43.com, listed in the DOJ US Attorneygate document dump:
http://www.robtex.com/dns/gwb43.com.html

[NMDemDist2]

1. I pray it will be the same type wheels within wheels that started out

as a "2nd rate burglary"

every time I read about the Ohio state tabulators being on the site I see Rover's chit eating grin on election day 2004 sitting in front of his laptop

:banghead:

[MADem]

2. Need a nongovernment email? WTF is wrong with hotmail or yahoo for those yayhoos?

That's interesting stuff, that....

[hootinholler]

35. hotmail and yahoo are logged

and they will respond to congress asking for traffic.

-Hoot

[CrazyOrangeCat]

3. The Ohio connection . . .

. . . is mind-blowing.

We may never get to the bottom of this.

But maybe we will...

:popcorn:

[AndyA]

4. It would be interesting to see what other sites are hosted on this network. (If any.)

Is it just a web host, if so, this would mean most any site could be hosted there. Or, are they a closed network not allowing other "outside" sites to be hosted within?

[Atman]

6. Tons of right wing sites hosted by them

An alert DUer posted a pretty comprehensive list last night. It's stinky, big time.

.

[AndyA]

12. Well then I would say that something very fishy is going on.

It would appear at face value that an attempt has been made by various parties to create a network outside of the official White House communications network that could be trusted with sensitive information.

If the intent was to evade the documentation process of White House correspondence, then those involved are in deep doo doo.

And that would include anyone with an active e-mail account on that network, as they would have to have knowledge that this separate line of communication existed, and no doubt understand the need for it.

[BuyingThyme]

5. 1, 2, and 3 are nothing.

4 may be significant if they were conducting government business on a private server in hopes of keeping their activities secret (or in that it may be evidence that the RNC is running the DOJ).

I don't know about 5.

[originalpckelly]

9. Actually, 1 and 3 are something, 2 is really not much...

but it shows that there is a type of right-winger cronyism going on. If those websites are right-wing and the host is right-wing, then it might be possible that the contract to host the SOS website was done because of that.

[BuyingThyme]

11. What's the SOS website?

[originalpckelly]

15. It stands for Secretary Of State, in this case the Ohio SOS.

[BuyingThyme]

18. I see. But I don't know if that's right.

In any case, there's nothing unusual about crony politics. Using the same server is the same as Green Party members driving the same hybrids.

[originalpckelly]

21. I proved that it was the Secretary of State site, I posted the archived version...

of what was at that address, it was the SOS for Ohio.

We don't know for sure it was cronyism, but it raises a red flag.

[BuyingThyme]

24. I can't access that page, but

wasn't he running for office? And thus wouldn't he need his official government pages and his official candidate pages to be separate? And wouldn't one have to be on a government server and the other on a private server?

[originalpckelly]

26. No, what you don't get is that this web address now re-directs to an official government page...

meaning that it was once the website of the official page.

[originalpckelly]

27. The page was also copyrighted to the office of sos, not Ken Blackwell...

another oddity.

[BuyingThyme]

29. It sounds like they were required to have separate pages

during the election, but once the election was over there was no reason they couldn't just softlink the political page to the government page.

[druidity33]

32. maybe because

The "official" Ohio tabulation in the '04 Presidential race appeared on the RNC (non-gov) site first? Which was used for which is i think the question...

[Patsy Stone]

33. In this follow up article, after election 2006

It explains that due to concerns of server overload, Ken Blackwell signed a contract for hosting the election returns -- live results -- from his official domain to this other site. The other site is hosted on a server with not only the RNC, but Karl Rove's VoterVault and other RW sites.

As the article explains, in 2006 Ken's official site was the one who provided the results, with no overload, and no issues. This begs the question:

"On election day, the Ohio IT website still held up to the traffic of election night, so you have to wonder, what was the point of hosting the election results on another server in the first place."

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2006/11/9/61233/1283

BTW, the ePluribis people believe that the reason Ken decided to host the 2006 election results on his own server was a direct result of the suspicions raised in the original article they wrote (referenced in the link above, and the impetus for the original dKos diary).

So, even if there was nothing wrong, and nothing illegal, this still just doesn't pass the smell test. It's too close to looking like they could get in and do what ever they wanted to those results before they hit the site.

I think that's the story. Along with, of course, the fact that if the WH was doing business on a private server to avoid archiving, that's a problem

[BuyingThyme]

34. Thank you.

[sandnsea]

48. VRWC

Depending on the sites and organizations hosted, it could dispel the notion that right wing groups operate independently and it's just a coincidence they all say the same thing at the same time. Not illegal, but helpful.

If this server is being used to circumvent an email record in the government, that's an issue. I don't know about the law. Has there ever been a case where the government set up mail boxes to avoid a paper trail??

If this server is directly connected to the White House and any sort of campaign activity, that's a definite campaign violation.

Finally, there's something very fishy about a government office hosting anything outside the regular government servers. I can't recall seeing a web site hosting notice of bid, or database notice, not ever. Design and database and other development, yes - hosting, no. There's too many security issues that can pop up. Even the forest service had an issue a couple years ago when Indian records were left insecure on the USDA server. I really don't think they do private contracts with servers. Maybe Ohio does, but it just doesn't sound right to me at all.

[riderinthestorm]

7. Thank you for your work on this. We may not be able to fit it into the puzzle of criminality yet

but I am sure we will someday. Your good work will be useful somewhere.

[blm]

8. RNC, the GOP, and Bush-Cheney2004 all denied any link to the Swiftliars.

.

[Divine Discontent]

10. they're suchhhh good liars, eh?

Does Edwards know about this newest connection? It's amazing how corrupt this whole mess is. We KNOW 04 was stolen, just like 00 was stolen by the SCOTUS.

Goodness, we don't have a democracy... I'll say that til a dem gets in the white house again to clear this up.
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<--- check it OUT 2008 new stickers and antibush wear!

[originalpckelly]

13. Well, we don't have them yet. They used a nameserver that was mainstream...

but they used the hosting company of a right-winger who donated to the republicans.

[BuyingThyme]

14. Isn't that what you would expect?

Isn't that what you would do?

[originalpckelly]

17. Yes, that's why I didn't talk about them.

[loudsue]

20. It's the recirculation of money through government contracts, is what it is.

See, Blackwell, in Ohio, gave these guys a no-bid contract (of TAXPAYER MONEY)to host the Ohio election results.. The (TAXPAYER) money they got from this no-bid contract, also goes right back to the republicans in the form of donations.

So, the republicans have been financing their campaigns (see: Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, Halliburton) on TAXPAYER dollars) on TAXPAYER money through the use of no-bid contracts.

Also, these same people have been counting (and VERY likely stealing) our votes via these servers that are used to tally & gerrymander election results. So, TAXPAYER money is going to steal our votes.

You and me. WE are FINANCING the republican take-over of the United States. Swift Boaters and all.

:kick::kick::kick::kick:

[truedelphi]

36. Whoa! That's plenty scarey thinking and unfortunately it is right

Frontline had a show about the DeLay money and his scams and that is pretty much what happened.

He got money from Indian tribes while he insisted he would get them a particular casino in the location that they wanted, he would use some of the money to beef up the Republican campaign coffers, and
then he would renenge on getting the offered deals (or sometimes the deals went through for a while - but then were turned around.)

[madrchsod]

16. going around official whitehouse email system..

they thought no one would notice

[Atman]

19. Has anyone sent this to KO yet?

You sure as hell no Wolfie and Cutie Couric aren't going to mention it.

.

[originalpckelly]

22. I'm still exploring it. I don't want this to get into the MSM until...

I have some type of hard evidence that some type of impropriety occurred.

[peacetalksforall]

23. nrsc.org and gopsenators.com use these servers - nrsc is

National Republican Senatorial COmmittee. GOPSenators.com and nrsc.org use these same servers - both these organziations were ordered to pay a portion of the fine that was awarded in the New Hampshire phone jamming illegality.

The WH uses these same servers to conduct government business (?) - a no-no.

[originalpckelly]

25. Of course, I'm still trying to figure out why the Political Action Committee of Verisign...

is not using a Verisign nameserver, and instead uses this SMARTech server. That's just odd. Makes me wonder if there isn't something more here that I just don't seem to connect.

[Old and In the Way]

28. For those that may not have been here the night of the 2004 election.

A blast from the past-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=468899&mesg_id=476023

[FogerRox]

30. PCkelly, thank you for what you do. KNr

[redacted]

31. Thank you PCK

[MagickMuffin]

37. From my Research on SmarTech's CEO Jeff Averbeck: his INPUT into Microsoft's Small Business Server

Someone else will have to explain if this is important, because I wouldn't know:shrug: But thought I would post it here and see if anyone could decipher it for me...
From just what I read, it appears that Averbeck had some input into what he wanted from MS.

Microsoft Announces Beta Availability of Small Business Server 4.5
New Version of Leading Small Business Server Solution Designed to Meet Needs of Technology Providers

REDMOND, Wash., Jan. 11, 1999
Microsoft Announces Beta Availability of Small Business Server 4.5: New Version of Leading Small Business Server Solution Designed to Meet Needs of Technology Providers
"With this new release we expect to double our business, thanks to the new generation of technology-provider-focused tools and increased support for up to 50 workstations," said technology provider Jeff Averbeck, president and CEO of SMARTech. "Microsoft really listened to us and incorporated our top feature requests in Small Business Server 4.5."

New features to support technology providers include the following:
• Enhanced setup engine offers an automated and flexible installation process with interactive help, hardware confirmation pages, a progress bar and the ability to specify installation directories for applications.
• Small Business Server Internet Connectivity Wizard allows easy configuration of Small Business Server with any ISP using the broadest range of connectivity options, including ADSL, cable modem, ISDN and other high-speed solutions.
• Server Status tool delivers scheduled server status and log reports via e-mail or fax.
• Enhanced Remote Administration tool utilizes Microsoft NetMeeting® conferencing software version 2.1 to allow technology providers to administer and manage Small Business Server sites remotely.
• Two no-charge telephone support incidents and unlimited free online support will be available at product release to make it easier for technology providers to support their customers.
• The maximum number of licensed client workstations has increased from 25 to 50.
• The separate Small Business Server with Office Pro SKU now features a fully integrated version of the Office 2000 business productivity software suite.

Technology providers can receive in-depth technical information about Small Business Server 4.5 by attending a no-cost Direct Access event in their area. More information about these briefings is available at http://www.microsoft.com/directaccess/events/default.asp .
Small Business Server 4.5 is a comprehensive and integrated suite of server applications designed to provide small businesses with the powerful networking and application server capabilities of Windows NT Server 4.0, as well as internal and external e-mail functionality, a relational database, fast and secure Internet access, fax- and modem-sharing services, and an easy-to-use console for basic server administration.
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq "MSFT" ) is the worldwide leader in software for personal computers. The company offers a wide range of products and services for business and personal use, each designed with the mission of making it easier and more enjoyable for people to take advantage of the full power of personal computing every day.

[loudsue]

38. Holy shit!!!! Here's the part that helps steal elections!

from the post above:


Enhanced Remote Administration tool utilizes Microsoft NetMeeting
conferencing software version 2.1 to allow technology providers to administer and manage Small Business Server sites remotely.

Two no-charge telephone support incidents and unlimited free online support will be available at product release to make it easier for technology providers to support their customers.

The maximum number of licensed client workstations has increased from 25 to 50.

:wtf:

That's a bunch of bootlickers online at one time to gerrymander, no?

[MagickMuffin]

41. That was the part that got me also!

So, I guess I'm smarter than I realized:rofl:

Smoking Gun Meet Bullet...

[Dunedain]

44. You're reading into it something that's not there

"technology providers to administer and manage Small Business Server sites remotely"

SBS or Small Business Server is for moderately small corporations so they can leverage the money spent on IT functions.
For the money you get Windows Server 2003, Windows Exchange server, Microsoft SQL server, plus some other Microsoft server products.
All of these systems for a price not much more than any one of the single servers I just mentioned.

Most companies that would deploy an SBS server would in all likelihood not have an IT staff.
The remote management function is for a consultant to "remote in", therefor negating the need of local access to administer the server.
It is a daily occurrence in my world to remote control some server across the country from me. It is a great tool for both the consultant and the small business.

The no-charge support and unlimited on-line support is another feature of the SBS bundle for sales value.
If you have ever had to pay for a Microsoft support incident, you'd understand the value of the pitch.

The maximum client license increase means that the old version would allow 25 concurrent connections utilizing the server resources, not 25 remote sessions.
That would require Terminal services, which is, AFAIK is not part of the SBS bundle because Microsoft charges through the nose for TS CAL's


<edit> removed to from subject line <edit>

[loudsue]

45. Nothing you said takes away from the fact that the server can be

accessed remotely.

[Little Wing]

51. LMAO!

Remote desktop is a standard tool. You think companies running 5,000 servers require their admins to actually go find them and plug in a keyboard, mouse, and monitor each time? No, you do it remotely. The servers for my company are all 50 miles away, and our admin simply dials in and his desktop is now the server's desktop. Saves a bit of time and expense dontcha think?

[librechik]

39. we need to investigate the owners of that server

to see if they are friendly little elves for the RNC instead of mere non partisan receivers of their business

[originalpckelly]

43. I've already done it, CEO/President/Owner of company that owns the server...donated $10,000 to RNC:

I'll take it he was a Republican if he donated to them. Just look up Jeff Averbeck on fec.gov:
AVERBECK, JEFFREY
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37406
INFO REQUESTED

NRCCC - NON FEDERAL #2
11/13/2001 300.00 22990331711

Total Soft Money: 300.00


Contributions to Political Committees

AVERBECK, JEFF
SIGNAL MOUNTAIN, TN 37377

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE
09/29/2006 250.00 26020880547

AVERBECK, JEFF
SIGNAL MOUNTAIN, TN 37377
SMARTECH CORP

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
04/12/2000 250.00 20035592487
08/23/2000 250.00 20036050175

AVERBECK, JEFF MR.
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402
AIR NET GROUP/PRESIDENT

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
02/28/2005 270.00 25990260205

AVERBECK, JEFF MR.
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402
AIRNET GROUP INC./OWNER

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
08/15/2005 500.00 25971077414

AVERBECK, JEFF MR.
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402
AIRNET/PRESIDENT

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
03/29/2005 300.00 25990537374

AVERBECK, JEFF MR.
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402
SMARTECH CORPORATION/I.S.P.

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
01/13/2005 500.00 25990083063

AVERBECK, JEFF MR.
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402
SMARTECH CORPORATION/PRESIDENT

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
07/16/2003 750.00 23991760293

AVERBECK, JEFF MR.
SIGNAL MOUNTAIN, TN 37377
AIRNET GROUP/PRESIDENT

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
04/01/2004 250.00 24961435852
04/01/2004 250.00 24961435853
04/22/2004 2000.00 24961435853

AVERBECK, JEFFREY
SIGNAL MOUNTAIN, TN 37377
AIRNET GROUP

CORKER, ROBERT P JR
VIA BOB CORKER FOR SENATE
03/14/2005 1000.00 25020152432

AVERBECK, JEFFREY
SIGNAL MOUNTAIN, TN 37377
AIRNET GROUP/EXECUTIVE

CORKER, ROBERT P JR
VIA BOB CORKER FOR SENATE
03/30/2006 1000.00 26020242281

AVERBECK, JEFFREY MR.
SIGNAL MOUNTAIN, TN 37377
AIR NET GROUP/C.E.O.

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
12/23/2005 750.00 26970030346
01/05/2006 250.00 26990325626

AVERBECK, JEFFREY S MR.
SIGNAL MOUNTAIN, TN 37377
AIRNET GROUP/PRESIDENT

BUSH, GEORGE W
VIA BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
06/02/2003 500.00 23991417178
08/27/2003 500.00 23992050539
01/27/2004 500.00 24990535931
03/30/2004 400.00 24991096406

Total Contributions: 10470.00

[starroute]

40. I would like to see more focus on the RNC itself

I've posted some of this on various threads in the last few days, but here are more dots to connect. The short version is that the attorney firings, the White House use of RNC emails to cover their tracks, and the theft of the 2004 election are all ultimately a single story -- with the same people and groups appearing over and over in slightly different relationships.

1) Ed Gillespie was RNC chair from 2003 to 2005, in which role he oversaw a variety of disreputable campaign activities. Among other things, Gillespie was active in complaining about Democratic soft money groups in the fall of 2003 and in trying to tie the Democrats directly to the CBS memo story in 2004. It may be significant that Gillespie had known Karl Rove for many years, his wife having first met Rove when they worked on a campaign together in 1984.

2) The Republican National Committee was a client of Creative Response Concepts -- a PR agency run by longtime right-winger Greg Mueller. (The Swift Boat Veterans and their publisher, Regnery, were also clients of CRC.) Mueller is a long-time associate of Brent Bozell, whose Cybercast News Service, another client of Creative Response Concepts, was centrally involved in promoting the CBS memo story. CNS, in turn, had originally been founded by Scott Hogenson, who was the RNC director of radio services while Gillespie was chair.

3) Bob Ney -- Jack Abramoff crony and co-sponsor of HAVA -- was the chair of the Committee on House Administration, which worked to block touchscreen voting integrity legislation. After Gillespie complained about the Democratic soft money groups, Ney's committee held hearing on them which were widely considered a partisan witchhunt. Ney was also on the executive committee of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which was yet another client of CRC.

4) Jim Dyke, a protege of Ed Gillespie's, was RNC press secretary in 2002 and communications director in 2003-04. In that position, he was behind such antics as the Kerry-dolphins-flipflop site. After the 2004 election, Dyke became a cofounder of the American Center for Voting Rights, a "voter fraud" astroturf group pushing voter ID laws, which was quickly called to testify before Ney's Committee on House Administration.

5) Timothy Griffin -- the Rove crony appointed to be US Attorney in Arkansas -- was a junior colleague of Jim Dyke's at the RNC and involved with him in such matters as the John Kerry haircut flap.

6) Thor Hearn -- the counsel to Jim Dyke's ACVR -- had previously been worked for the 2000 and 2004 Bush campaigns and had been involved in voter fraud claims in both Missouri and Ohio. He was also general counsel to Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, who a recent article tells us was intended to be protected from investigation by the appointment of Timothy Griffin.

7) There's also the matter of Sproul & Associates, a firm tied to the RNC which was alleged to have been involved in 2004 campaign dirty tricks.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20194/

In Nevada, Voter Outreach of America is accused by former employees of shredding the registration forms of thousands of Democrats; in West Virginia, Voter Outreach of America employees say they were instructed to mislead voters into registering Republican and voting for Bush; in Oregon, yet another swing state, the state attorney general has opened a criminal investigation into allegations that Sproul's firm, which is Voter Outreach of America's parent company, was involved in intentionally destroying or discarding voter registration forms signed by Democrats. According to OpenSecrets.org, Sproul's firm received $125,000 this year from the Republican National Committee for voter registration and another $500,000 for "political consulting." . . .

Sproul's dirty tricks may have finally caught up with him, though far from his stomping grounds in Arizona. In Oregon, Sproul's firm is being investigated by the state attorney general and could face a class-C felony, punishable by five years in jail, for allegedly altering and destroying voter registration forms. And in Nevada, state election officials have just launched an investigation into whether Sproul's Voters Outreach of America destroyed the registration forms of exclusively Democratic voters.

On Wednesday, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe wrote a letter to his Republican counterpart, Ed Gillespie, demanding that the Republican National Committee detail its involvement with Sproul's alleged voter fraud. "We are deeply concerned these reports of Republican National Committee funded felonious activities in these states could serve to discourage all voters from voting because of concerns of problems with their ballot," McAuliffe wrote. "Regardless of party or candidate, it is the civic and moral duty of both parties to encourage complete and full participation in the democratic process."

[loudsue]

42. WOW!! Just WOW!!! Have you sent this to our congresscritters?

You're absolutely correct. Even though it would cause the mainstream media to absolutely ORGASM over "partisan politics" 24/7, the RNC is one of the main CRIMINAL organizations of the bfee. That's probably where 90% of the answers lie, and guess where the buck is going to stop? Right on Rove's front door.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Ghost Dog]

46. kick.

[FogerRox]

47. Error, you have already recommended that thread

[passy]

49. Swift boat liars connection

I posted this yesterday too in another thread.

"http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swift_Boat_V...

"The Donatelli Group, which produced the RNC website <54>, on July 30, 2004, registered the SWIFTBOATVETSFORTRUTH.ORG website with Connell Donatelli Inc. (a.k.a. The Donatelli Group) as registrant. Connell Donatelli Inc. also registered the SWIFTBOATVETSFORTRUTH.COM website on July 30, 2004, with CD, Inc. as both the website's administrator and tech organization. "

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Donatell...

there's a lot of money going to that group from the RNC especially through edonations.com

If one looks at the list of consultants for the * campaign in 2004 you will see that quite of few of those companies hosted by Smartech are listed especially New Media under the name technomania.com

http://www.publicintegrity.org/consultants/list.aspx?ac...



PS: New media and Donatelli are also connected to the Joe Lieberman for Senate campaign site, isupportjoe is a sub domain of technomania.com. "

I believe smartech is the main republican host on the internet, everything flows through them, campaign donations, early-election results in some cases, smear campaigns etc...

Those mail servers have been wiped clean by now. I think we can forget getting evidence there.

[starroute]

53. The Donatelli Group is another important piece of the puzzle

Frank Donatelli was one of the witnesses before those Bob Ney hearings on the Democratic soft money groups that I memtioned above in post #40.

Googling on Donatelli plus Ney brings up as the #1 hit a SourceWatch entry on the American Center for Voting Rights -- which I also discussed in the post above. That Source Watch entry states:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Center_for_Voting_Rights_Legislative_Fund

Fundraising: Swift Boat Connection

The web address for the Fund's donation page is that for DonationReport.com, plus an extension code for the Fund.

The connection for the DonationReport.com website arrives at a Login page—requiring both a User ID and Password—which belongs to eDonation.com, a member of The Donatelli Group, a fundraising company that has raised campaign funds for the Republican National Committee, Republican National Convention, Bush-Cheney '04 Inc., John McCain, the NRA, and an exhaustive list of Republican members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as other political organizations.

The Donatelli Group, using its "primary segment" Campaign Solutions, is associated with Creative Response Concepts, the public relations firm that advised Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the "organization that accused Kerry of inflating his Vietnam War record" during the 2004 presidential campaign.

And oddly enough, SourceWatch's page on the Donatelli Group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Donatelli_Group) includes a link to an item on Frank Donatelli referenced to "DemocraticUnderground.com, October 24, 2004" -- which, when I clicked on it, turned out to be me encountering Donatalli's name for the first time. (Yes, I've really been at this particular obsession that long -- but it's finally all starting to make sense.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1146495&mesg_id=1157108

There's a lot of good information on that old thread -- about Donatelli and Craig Shirley and other charter members of the GOP dirty tricks brigade. This particular set of people has been at it since they were YAFers 30 or 40 years ago, but it all became particularly focused in 2000 and even more in 2004, largely through the RNC. Everything from the Switfboaters to the CBS memos flap was run by the same small set of veteran dirty tricksters -- and it's now becoming clear that Karl Rove and the Bush administration have been intimately involved as well.

[leveymg]

50. Obstruction charges coming? There's a larger issue here.

If the WH was using outside e-mail to avoid the record-keeping requirements of the Presidential Records Act (PRA) -- and if that was part of a larger pattern of avoidance of the PRA within the Executive Office -- that may lead to a call for an independent counsel to seed Obstruction of Justice charges in the US Attorney's firings.

We know that Fred Fielding is trying like crazy to withhold INTERNAL White House documents from Congressional investigators -- it may turn out that the WH did not generate legally required memos related to decisions to fire the US Attorneys.

Potentially, this failure to meet PRA records requirements could lead to Obstruction charges being filed against all involved, including Bush.

The possible violations of the PRA was first reported a week ago, when we saw the first of the e-mails to Sampson from Jennings, Rove's Deputy, on the gwb.43.com server: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002771.php

CREW: White House Breaking Records Law?
By Paul Kiel - March 15, 2007, 2:24 PM
A number of readers have pointed out that Karl Rove's deputy at the White House, Scott Jennings, used an outside domain, gwb43.com, for his emails. The domain, it turns out, is owned by the Republican National Committee.


Now Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has sent a letter to House government reform committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) requesting an investigation of whether the White House has been violating the Presidential Records Act -- in an attempt to keep certain correspondence away from prying eyes.

Jennings use of the RNC's email "raises serious questions about whether the White House was trying to deliberately evade its responsibilities under the PRA, which directs the president to take all necessary steps to maintain presidential records to provide a full accounting of all activities during his tenure," says CREW.

And there's evidence that Jennings' use of an outside domain was a pattern in Rove's office. CREW points out that Karl Rove's former assistant Susan Ralston also frequently used outside domains to communicate to her old boss, Jack Abramoff.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that House Democrats are also planning on investigating the White House's use of outside domains for correspondence. Namely:

Democratic congressional aides said they will investigate whether using the private address for government business violated laws against using taxpayer resources for political work or signaled that White House officials considered the firing of U.S. attorneys to be primarily a political issue. Jennings did not return a call to his office seeking a comment.

SNIP

The thing about the PRA is that the Act carries no direct penalties for violation. That fact may have caused the White House staff to get very, very cavalier about avoiding its requirements. In fact, if they failed to keep records of their decision-making to fire US Attorneys who were pursuing criminal investigations, that's an Obstruction of Justice (OOJ) violation. As you will recall, Scooter Libby was prosecuted for OOJ.

Here's an article about the OOJ implications in the US Attorney's case, and how that ties in with Fielding's tug-of-war with Congress over internal White House records: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/10/21543/2678

THE 240-DAY GAP: The Missing White House Memos
by leveymg
Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:46:15 PM PDT
Where are the President’s records of internal deliberations about the USA firings?

Earlier today, the Senate followed the House in announcing it was ready to issue subpoenas for testimony and documents showing internal White House deliberations about the decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding had offered in a letter Tuesday to provide closed door, off the record "interviews", but no internal White House documents.

While many of us would like to see Karl Rove and Harriet Miers grilled under the klieg lights, the real gold is more likely in the documents -- or, rather, in the lack of them.

That’s because the White House probably didn’t keep anything in writing that documents exactly what higher-ups said to each other about "the real problem we have right now", as Kyle Sampson's 05/11/06 e-mail characterized then breaking news that US Attorney Carol Lam was investigating Appropriations Chair Jerry Lewis (R-CA). The failure to make and keep just those sorts of internal Presidential records is a violation of the law, and opens the decision-makers to Obstruction of Justice charges if they fail to turn them over.

MORE below . . .

[Emit]

52. Looks like they've contracted with Gov't as well

Unless, of course, this is a different SmartechCorp?


SMARTECH CORP SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT AND RESEARC $477,913
http://www.fedspending.org/fpds/fpds.php?&psc_cat=D&fiscal_year=2002&record_num=all&detail=0&datype=T&reptype=r&database=fpds&sortby=f


Top 5 Agencies Purchasing from Contractor(s): DEFENSE, Department of $477,913
Top 10 Contractors: SMARTECH CORP $477,913
Top 5 Products or Services Sold: Other ADP and Telecommunications Services (includes data storage on tapes, compact disks, etc.)

http://www.fedspending.org/fpds/fpds.php?reptype=r&detail=-1&sortby=f&psc_cat=D&datype=T&reptype=r&database=fpds&database=fpds&parent_id=259802&fiscal_year=2002&record_num=f500

_______________________________

$3,000,000 SMARTECH CORP Dept. of Energy Professional, admin, and management support services 2004-07-02

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:fy9xiksy88gJ:www.fedspending.org/fpds/fpds.php%3F%26fiscal_year%3D2004%26vendor_cd%3DMD05%26sortby%3Du%26datype%3DT%26reptype%3Dr%26database%3Dfpds%26detail%3D2+SMARTECH+CORP+Department+of+Defense&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

[Gabi Hayes]

54. big k

[bobthedrummer]

55. We know that Susan Bonzon Ralston and others have used it for WH political

purposes and that she and others (Karl Rove, Barry Jackson, Ken Mehlman, Ruben Barrales and Jennifer Farley) were known to have been WH Jack Abramoff contacts

House Oversight Committee: The Abramoff Investigation
http://oversight.house.gov/abramoff/index2.asp