INTEL: Rove's "Dirty Tricks" PRIVATE Email Servers:--->NEED TO SUBPOENA SERVERS. NEXT BUSH SCANDAL

[Chicago1]

Dear All,

I was over at dailykos.com and found the next BUSHIE SCANDAL. I'll do some cutting and pasting and then provide a link so everyone can go over there and read the next explosion on the horizon for these CRIMINALS WHO NEED TO BE BUSHPEACHED.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/4/135310/0946

Rove's "Dirty Tricks" Email Servers
by BloggerJohn
Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 01:19:08 PM CDT
Imagine an administration that designed a special way to communicate to keep their secrets secret from investigations and history. Ok, stop imagining, because it's already here!!

On the talking points website, we find an email with J. Scott Jennings Signature --a signature is the electronic equivalent to his business card. And it says ---

BloggerJohn's diary :: ::
J. Scott Jennings
Special Assistant to the President and
Deputy Political Director
The White House
Washington D.C. 20502
[e-mail]
Ok, so Karl's assistant doesn't use the WH email system but rather gwb43.com. So, let's query the WhoIs database to see who owns gwb43.com:

Registrant:
Republican National Committee
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US

Domain Name: GWB43.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Republican National Committee [e-mail]
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US
999 999 9999 fax: [phone]

Record expires on 16-Jan-2008.
Record created on 16-Jan-2004.
Database last updated on 17-Mar-2007 13:19:34 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS1.CHA.SMARTECHCORP.NET
A.NS.TRESPASSERS-W.NE

[nebenaube]

1. why do I have the sense that...

much of the spam clogging the net will disappear when those servers are confiscated for evidence?

[Frustratedlady]

2. I've wondered about the logjams YAHOO has had over the past

few months...usually on Thursday, Friday, Saturday. Groups I know of have had their mail basically shut down. I have never figured out who was responsible for what on the Internet, but I always found it strange that we had such disruption and it was so often. Am I all wet?

[durtee librul]

3. I had trouble with my Yahoo

mail account a few weeks back. Forgot what scandal it was that week, but I did post here about it and there were quite a few du'ers who were having the same problem.

Thanks for the gwb43 address - guess I might drop someone a line there and say hi to Agent Mike for me.

[Blackhatjack]

4. This was revealed on Mar 15 ... Link to Thread... I said it was Big Big Big...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=419121&mesg_id=421164

The real benefit is that the RNC cannot stop the Congressional Committee from getting total access to their servers since the RNC was a willing conspirator to violate the law.

WHen the corrupt think they are sufficiently hidden the defenses come down, and we are likely to read some astonishing information here....

In all likelihood this is the biggest revelation yet, and will lead to evidence of corruption on an unimaginable scale.

[Solo_in_MD]

5. Nonsense

What makes you think there is anything there of value? There is no requiement for logs or other data to be retained. Many servers don't or at have short retention times. For small private servers, it the norm.

As for Person X using a different email account, how many of us have only one?

I don't see how this is going to amount to anything.

[Blackhatjack]

6. You fail to recognize that the failure to follow the Presidential Records Preservation Act ...

.... is likely a crime. ANd the participation of the RNC to evade compliance will be considered a crime.

If you think the RNC stripped all the evidence of emails from their system, you are kidding yourself. Just the security issue of using insecure email systems is enough to subpoena all of the RNC records.

It is not the same as posters here having multiple email accounts.

[Solo_in_MD]

10. If if does not qualify as official gov business, it is not subject to retention

A gove title in the .sig does not make it an official site. Bush does not have to save the mail from his gmail account either.

[kestrel91316]

29. I'd call emails about the US attorney firings "official business".

As opposed to emailing a pizza order from someplace. Or setting up a hot date with the GF.

How about you?

[Solo_in_MD]

33. Current rules are server based...private servers are not under them

Else hotmail, gmail, etc would be too.

[kestrel91316]

35. Blah, blah, blah. Excuses, excuses.

[Solo_in_MD]

36. Which is exactly what they will use to block any effective inquriy

Seen this before

[Morereason]

14. A server farm has many levels of backups

[Blackhatjack]

17. Dick Cheney found this out when Karl Rove gave Fitzgerald the offsite location of deleted emails

...that directly implicated the OVP with destroying evidence in the form of emails.

Of course once Fitz copied the files on the offsite server, Cheney's office miraculously discovered the deleted emails they failed to turn over.

[tbyg52]

7. Um, because they were using it to conduct government business

(that would be the business of "we the people," although *their* definition differs) with the express purpose of covering their tracks?

[Solo_in_MD]

11. That is a user issue, not a server issue

Executive branch policy is that members are not supposed to use non-government email accounts for government business. However, if it does happen, it does not make the server subject to Gov archiving rules. Otherwise the US Gov would be openfly and formally archiving comcast, earthlink, gmail, yahoo, hotmail etc. The RNC server is non subject to records retention rules and doubt at this point there is any records left for congress to ask for. If that gets people upset consider that if a Whitehouse staffer were to use a www.cotse.com email account, do you think that there would be any record after a few days?

[tbyg52]

16. That's my point exactly

(Although you seem to think you disagree with me... ;) )

That's the reason they should not be using non-goverment email to conduct government business. And I find the fact that they did very interesting, even if no archives are to be found. I find the mere fact that they *used* it indicative of probable hanky-panky, even if no one is ever able to prove it.

[Solo_in_MD]

19. It could easily be a separation of gov business from party business

Some here think that the RNC server is now subject to executive branch retention rules, and that is not true.

Few realize that gmail et al are used every day for gov business, sometimes because its the only way to get a message through. Gov IT is serious mess, just look at NMCI.

[tbyg52]

22. Now that I look,

there isn't much background info in the OP. I was happily blathering away based on other posts I had read on this matter. I still think they are using it to escape scrutiny for *government*, not party business, but I'll admit this particular OP doesn't really have supporting info. (So I need to go find it again.....)

[hootinholler]

26. Second link, post 9

They admit to it in the case of Susan Ralston.

-Hoot

[tbyg52]

27. Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=417943&mesg_id=417943

[kestrel91316]

30. So you think this is perfectly ok? They law requires that records of

these communications be PRESERVED. They are all legal documents.

[Solo_in_MD]

32. The law applies only to Government, specifically Executive Branch IT email and servers

[Morgana LaFey]

38. You're trying to make the law about the equipment;, but the law

is about the content.

When the content isn't on the relevent equipment, the content takes precedence, or should -- ESP. when the express intent of bypassing the official equipment is to -- well, bypass the official equipment and in the process evade the law. They hope.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. My wife works for a financial institution

And she is not allowed to use any third party servers at work. No gmail, no hotmail, no yahoo mail, nada. Can't even access them if she wanted to. And their retention policy is merely internal company policy. It is not a law. I think you're being a bit cavalier in your projection.

[peacetalksforall]

13. It would interesting to learn whether the datamining spying

programs have been coded to exclude certain Republican messages while including all Democrat messages with an interesting ratio of results.

[lovuian]

31. Ok this is a Big WHOAH... they really try to get around the

internet but it keeps biting them in the butts

[debbierlus]

8. So, WHAT is being done?

Has Conyers...Waxman been forwarded this info.? What are they DOING? This needs to be acted on IMMEDIATELY!

[Solo_in_MD]

12. There is little than can be done

Its not an official government server. They can supoeina its records, but if there is nothing there...oh well. Private organizations do not have to follow the record keeping rules requried of Government IT.

Note that the Democratic Party presumptively has similar servers.

[Blackhatjack]

15. Let's get this straight, if the RNC acted in concert with the White House to violate the law...

...then the RNC is subject to subpoena, required to testify as ordered and/or produce all records(electronic and/or hard copies) in their possession.

If there were no violations of the Act, and Rove was just sending dirty jokes to adult sites online, then you are right. If there was discussion of 'policy' such as we have here regarding firing of US Attorneys --then that is the business of the people, covered by the Act, and use of the RNC email server implicates the RNC.

Without notice, the RNC is not required to maintain any server contents, and if one catches fire and burns to a cinder, then no duty was violated to preserve any documents for government review. However, if the RNC knew they engaged in wrongdoing, and they purposefully burned the server to hide evidence, then a crime has been committed even without notice from Congress to perserve their records. It is an act in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and is punishable by law.

That is where we are at.

What Congress should do is send over a notice to the RNC that they intend to examine the records and instruct the RNC to preserve the evidence. THat would create a duty not to destroy private records. Then Congress needs to follow it up with subpoenoes.

[City Lights]

18. That's what I'd like to know.

I sent this info last week to a number of media outlets, other DUers sent it to contacts they had within the government. I'm sure we weren't the only ones to took action.

I'd like to know that someone is following up on this.

[hootinholler]

9. I'm so glad this has drawn attention!

I pointed this out on the 14th, the thread was a lead balloon, again on the 15th, and thne the CREW announcement and it took off.

Oh, the NSA should have copies of all the traffic.

-Hoot

[merh]

20. "Oh, the NSA should have copies of all the traffic."

That's the most delicious part of this enterprise, the WH will be hoisted on it's own pitard and take the RNC with it.

Well done, Hoot! :patriot:

[hootinholler]

21. On Petards...

The beauty is that the WH can't claim privledge. RNC is a corrupt organization. I've held for years they should be prosecutable under RICO.

Not only did the RNC provide private communications to facilitate the delivery of bribes from Abramoff's staff, but now we find they've provided private communications channels that were used to subvert the Justice Department and obstruct prosecutions as political favors.

Serious stuff indeed.

-Hoot

[merh]

28. And this admin's own distortion of NSA and, of course, the

Patriot Act, may well be the avenues that allow the connecting of the dots.

serious indeed

[Sydnie]

23. I have posted about it several time myself

and it was almost as if no one else saw it when they read the damn emails that were released. They were also using their blackberry to send the email.

These emails went both ways. Sent to and from the gwb43.com email address to the government addresses and vice versa. If they wanted to keep government business out of the "off site" email, they did a lousy job of it. Obviously, they either didn't notice (because it was done all the time) or they didn't care (because it was done all the time).

[hootinholler]

24. I think they simply didn't think about it.

Lack of attention to detail, herding geese syndrome, or other similar reason you'd like.

-Hoot

[blogslut]

34. me too

:)

[AzDar]

25. So much corruption...so little time. I can't keep up. I just continue to hope

that the scandal du jour will be the one that finishes them off....

[jazzjunkysue]

37. K&R, & sent to Conyers and Leahy. Write them and thank them.

They need to hear from us! Senate.gov. congress.gov

[IWantAChange]

40. There's almost too much Repukiness (?) for Oversight Committee's to choose from IMO

[nonny]

41. New Federal Rules Compel Companies

to Keep Track of All E-Mails, IMs and Electronic Documents


WASHINGTON Dec 1, 2006 (AP)— U.S. companies will need to keep track of all the e-mails, instant messages and other electronic documents generated by their employees thanks to new federal rules that go into effect Friday, legal experts say.

The rules, approved by the Supreme Court in April, require companies and other entities involved in federal litigation to produce "electronically stored information" as part of the discovery process, when evidence is shared by both sides before a trial.

The change makes it more important for companies to know what electronic information they have and where. Under the new rules, an information technology employee who routinely copies over a backup computer tape could be committing the equivalent of "virtual shredding," said Alvin F. Lindsay, a partner at Hogan & Hartson LLP and expert on technology and litigation.

more..........

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2692400

also---

The FRCP is so important because it effects every business, organization, and person who may ever be involved in a federal court case. Such cases include law suits that cross state lines, actions by the Internal Revenue Service, violations of federal compliance regulations (such as HIPAA and Sarbanes- Oxley), immigration cases, and more. There are no exceptions for company size or non-profit status. It is difficult to think of a single U.S. entity that could not feel the effects.

http://www.inboxer.com/wp_frcp.shtml?source=adwords&kw=Email%20retention%20federal%20law&_kk=email%20retention%20federal%20law&_kt=dfaf9b50-a790-4576-96a8-7f77615f8a08&gclid=CMqeyJaagYsCFR1hgQodTTC5GQ

[Marie26]

42. Has anyone sent this to Waxman?

Definitely seems like something he could (and would) look into.

Kyle Sampson, the Gonzales chief of staff who coordinated the US Attorney firings, also used a gwb43 email address.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10226.html

[notadmblnd]

43. it says right there in the spreadsheet that they're do the data storage too.

nt