« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Rove Aide Knew Use of Off-the-Record Email System Was Wrong
Even though Rove's aide Scott Jennings said less than nothing today about the U.S. attorney firings (he wouldn't even testify about emails which had already been turned over to the committee), he did testify about two other areas of interest. One of those concerns the White House's use of Republican National Committee-issued email accounts. A number of aides, including Jennings, violated the Presidential Records Act by using those accounts for official business. The underlying allegation, of course, is that Karl Rove's shop used a kind of off-the-record email system on purpose. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who's investigating, has called it "the most serious breach of the Presidential Records Act in the 30-year history of the law."
The White House's fig leaf for that has been the Hatch Act, which prohibits using government resources for political activities. Staffers in the White House Office of Political Affairs have both a White House address and computer and a RNC email address and devices. And as Jennings testified today, he frequently used his RNC address for official business (including matters related to the U.S. attorney firings) for "convenience and efficiency." (That's also what Jennings' boss Sara Taylor testified. Rove also found using his RNC blackberry incredibly convenient.) In fact, it sounds like he hardly used his White House address, since he carried an RNC-issued blackberry with him. The problem was not lost on Jennings, apparently, who testified, in response to a question from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), that he had actually asked for a blackberry for his White House email once.
It was "very early in my employment," he testified, "the President was doing a lot traveling in my region [the South]... I was receiving a lot of email on my official account and I requested [a blackberry for White House email] at that moment, and I was told that it wasn't the custom to give the political affairs staffers those devices."
So even though Jennings was aware that this was a problem and apparently raised the issue with a supervisor, he was told to ignore it. That doesn't quite square with the White House explanation for the illegal use of the RNC accounts, which is "oops."
Comments (35)
Anonymous wrote on August 2, 2007 2:48 PM:So when can we expect the US Attorney for the District of Columbia to indict, prosecute and convict Mr. Jennings for his admitted intentional, serial, purposeful and knowing violations of the Hatch Act?
Maybe Not wrote on August 2, 2007 2:48 PM:That's not quite the way I'd view that testimony. He wasn't told it was wrong (as in illegal or improper), only that it "wasn't the tradition."
Mealy? Yep. But still a more accurate take on it, I think.
Security word: profit--as in the only thing that counts among Bush cronies.
Richard Cowen wrote on August 2, 2007 2:54 PM:What would prevent anyone WH employee issued an RNC Blackberry from setting up both an RNC email account, using settings for the RNC server, and an official WH email account, using settings for the official WH EOP server settings? They would then have the ability to conduct official business on the official server and remain in compliance with the law. It makes me wonder if they didn't want to escape scrutiny all along.
Keysdude wrote on August 2, 2007 3:07 PM:Jennings "raised the issue with a supervisor", eh? Isn't this guy Rove's subordinate?
Security: step, as in I think he just stepped in it.
Anonymous wrote on August 2, 2007 3:09 PM:The Hatch Act isn't a criminal statute. It is prosecuted by the Merit Systems Protective Board, and the only penalties are suspension/termination of employment.
Anonymous wrote on August 2, 2007 3:23 PM:Mr. Rove's shop would not have missed the limitations of the Hatch Act, using "compliance" with it as cover for violating other laws. It would seem the Hatch Act needs a new version as does the Presidential Records Act. Where are with serial violations of that by this administration.
Anonymous wrote on August 2, 2007 3:31 PM:"So when can we expect the US Attorney for the District of Columbia to indict, prosecute and convict Mr. Jennings for his admitted intentional, serial, purposeful and knowing violations of the Hatch Act? "
You’re a comedian.
Austin Cooper wrote on August 2, 2007 3:33 PM:I'd like to be able to make a comment on the substance of Scotty's testimony. I would. But all I can seem to say is: Where do they keep finding these Blobby, Southern (or wanabee Southern, like Herr Bush), Pillsbury Dough Boy right-wing Tubbies?
Is there a memo on file down at Right-Wing Human Resources central that is the functional equivalent of "You must be this tall to ride the rollercoaster"?
'If male, applicant must -- in the opinion of the interviewer, have the basic physical characteristics of a young Karl Rove. Imagine the applicant being a hundred pounds heavier and see what your imagination comes up with.
'Oh, and they must be our kind of conservative -- willing to lay aside scruple, ethics and morality in order to WIN; responsive to orders, and supceptable to bribery. Also must love The Sainted War Leader.'
EH wrote on August 2, 2007 3:37 PM:"Gumming it to death."
Anonymous wrote on August 2, 2007 3:40 PM:The Hatch Act, for some reason provides significant latitude to federal employees' political activity who's salary is paid out of the EOP budget or if the federal employee is PAS. So long as the cost of their political activity isn't paid out of the U.S. Treasury. Th Hatch Act issue is a false flag since the only ones ever sanctioned under it are career civil servants. The Whitehouse didn't need to use the cover of RNC Blackberrys and Email accounts to avoid Hatch Act violations so long as those engaging in political activity were EOP employees. So the only explanation for such an arrangement is willful and wanton violation of the Presidential Records Act. Begs the question, what did they want to hide?
James wrote on August 2, 2007 3:53 PM:The Bush gang so obviously regards Congress as the enemy, to be stonewalled at every turn, that it's easy to forget that the White House and the Congress are both parts of the same United States government.
DLE wrote on August 2, 2007 3:53 PM:Don't they understand that you have multiple email accounts setup on the same device? It's really quite simple, and to pretend that you can't use a particular email account because you didn't have a dedicated device is ludicrous.
DB wrote on August 2, 2007 4:06 PM:re: Maybe Not
Since Blackberries and the associated functions were introduced to the world in 1999, for all intents and purposes, Bush administration policy and preferences are what has defined whatever "tradition" exists regarding who gets a White House blackberry. Appealing to "tradition" is laughably mealy mouthed. At least they didn't appeal to common law.
security code: same -- pretty mealy mouthed
Anonymous wrote on August 2, 2007 4:08 PM:Just to play Devil's Advocate here, the issue with the Hatch Act is that you're not even supposed to use equipment paid for by Treasury dollars, so setting up an RNC e-mail account on a White House BlackBerry wouldn't solve the problem. However, I don't know whether or not there are any barriers to setting up an EOP e-mail account on an RNC BlackBerry - it could be a security issue, or something of that nature. I don't know enough about technology to even speculate.
Richard Cowen wrote on August 2, 2007 4:24 PM:Point taken, Anon @ 4:08.
I don't know the details myself. I suppose there could be security implications to using an RNC Blackberry for official WH business. Certainly, in my mind, no more egregious than using a server totally out of WH control.
I just brought up the point because I have not heard any mention of the possibility before.
acf wrote on August 2, 2007 4:31 PM:So, he raised the issue of using an RNC Blackberry for White House communications with 'a supervisor'. Who would that be, since he was an aide to Karl Rove? It seems to me that there are an awful lot of threads connecting these problems, and we all know who Karl Rove talks to(for?).
Molly Ivans wrote on August 2, 2007 4:34 PM:Raise Hell !!
savetheclocktower wrote on August 2, 2007 4:38 PM:I'm not swayed. Even if the RNC e-mail accounts were used out of a good faith effort to abide by the Hatch act (which I obviously don't believe), it doesn't absolve them of violations of the Presidential Records Act. Astonishingly, the two laws are not at odds with one another. They can both be followed *at the same time*.
It'd be like arguing you ran that red light only because you were so focused on obeying the speed limit. Whoop-dee-doo.
Mcboo wrote on August 2, 2007 4:43 PM:I wish this country were a giant Etch-a-Sketch because then I could just shake the hell out of it, erase all this crap and then we could start from scratch.
security code: sound (well I think it sounds like a good idea)
Anonymous wrote on August 2, 2007 4:48 PM:The Hatch Act "abundance of caution" line is a two way street, however.
It is illegal for the Executive Branch or any Executive Agency to supplement its Congressional appropriation funds (eg, White House has to live on the budget Congress gives it).
Using the RNC's computers for official business is a blatant violation and, by statute, the EOP must reimburse the RNC for services rendered.
That's the same reason why you can't have the RNC, or Exxon Mobil, or anyone else paying employees to work at the White House. The Executive Branch has to function with the funds it gets.
readerOfTeaLeaves wrote on August 2, 2007 4:50 PM:Richard Cowen, your conclusion is sound: clearly, they"...want to escape scrutiny"
If a WH employee was issued an RNC BB, that employee should ONLY have used that device for employer-related email, attachments, etc. They should have used an RNC BB for political messages. And they should have used WH BB for public messages. It should have been:
RNC = RNC
WH = WH
Instead, what we have here is RNC = RNC = WH.
Confusion about such a basic, simple distinction is alarming. But instead, Jennings' description of the way that his workflow was organized is deeply disturbing.
Jennings' workflow was designed to avoid scrutiny; but after two or three years of sending and receiving BOTH political AND public messages from the same device, he doesn't really recognize a distinction between the two.
How did one category vanish? Where did it go?
How did the concept of 'public/WH' become subsumed into the category 'political/RNC'?
If you use one device for all your messages, you aren't forced to think clearly.
A healthy workflow assists people to think clearly: what is this project? What budget is this under? Who do I report to? What am I supposed to be doing?
Jennings' testimony is worrying.
Blaming technology should not let him off the hook -- nevertheless, his description helps onlookers better understand how he became so thoroughly confused.
If you expect someone to work for a Constitutional government, based on a system of checks and balances, then you need to ensure that their workflow is consistent with that objective, monitor their activities to a certain degree until you're sure they have it down.
In contrast, Jennings' workflow signifies something that smacks of Soviet-style, single-party apparatchiks who are so enmeshed in the notion that THEY are the government that they can't stand outside of it and see what's going on. A Party member would have used a single device for both 'party' and 'public' messages, because the two were the same. A workflow implemented to avoid scrutiny supports that mindset, and muddles thinking.
An administration insistent on keeping clear lines between 'public' and 'private/political' would never, ever have allowed this type of workflow. But first, they'd have to recognized the distinction, and believe the distinction had value.
Just my two cents.
wade wrote on August 2, 2007 4:52 PM:i'm not familiar with blackberrys, but this guy does'nt know how to set up his email program to send and recieve from different accounts/servers? ...really?.....he does'nt know? ....are you serious?
....no really.......
......oh
of coarse im kidding, and of coarse he does.
you know who does'nt know?
welp do ya?
i do..whomever prepped him for his testimony...
It smacks of the excuse that the emails were deleted from the rnc accounts. Only to find them on thier servers (may i say doi?)
then to take another E.P.Y?
Is it possibile that the real prize is'nt the admin at all, but is checkmate more about peeking at the rnc servers?
the content is everything that could'nt show up in "the record".
wow think about that, it gets my heart all a flutter.
but....really.......i mean..
really
Something is known though, the spinmiester prep cook for the admin
has not a clue about how the whole 'tubey' thing werks.
Anonymous wrote on August 2, 2007 4:57 PM:readerOfTeaLeaves, I think you're analysis is more or less correct. This is new territory in a lot of ways because technology is making it easier to blur any lines that may (or may not, as the case may be) have been established, and the law hasn't really kept up. It's clearly an issue that the next administration is going to have to tackle now that it's been brought to public attention.
editor wrote on August 2, 2007 5:01 PM:>>"It'd be like arguing you ran that red light only because you were so focused on obeying the speed limit."
Heh. I think I'll use that one if I'm ever pulled over for such a thing.
security code: seem, as in "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
JusticeFOrall wrote on August 2, 2007 5:01 PM:Maybe Not:
Ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE. You try that one out for size and see how far it gets YOU.
ALL federal employees, as PART OF THEIR JOB are REQUIRED to be FULLY AWARE of ALL laws pertaining to their JOB we PAY THEM A LOT TO DO.
I want to know when he will be indicted, he has admitted under oath to systemic violations of the Hatch Act!
JusticeForall wrote on August 2, 2007 5:02 PM:Maybe Not:
Ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE. You try that one out for size and see how far it gets YOU.
ALL federal employees, as PART OF THEIR JOB are REQUIRED to be FULLY AWARE of ALL laws pertaining to their JOB we PAY THEM A LOT TO DO.
I want to know when he will be indicted, he has admitted under oath to systemic violations of the Hatch Act!
Anonymous wrote on August 2, 2007 5:08 PM:Huh - my last post disappaered, so I guess I'll try again.
readerOfTeaLeaves, I think you're analysis is essentially correct, but unfortunately law and "tradition" don't always keep up with technology. The next administratio is going to have to face this problem head on, which at the very least should mean separate BlackBerries for everyone in Political Affairs or whatever their equivalent office might be.
I definitely agree that Jennings' testimony suggests that he wasn't thinking too clearly about the distinction between political and public and that is troublesome to me as well. Whether the mix-up was intentional or due to incompetence, it's a bad situation.
Mark Richards wrote on August 2, 2007 5:17 PM:>>The Hatch Act isn't a criminal statute. It is
>>prosecuted by the Merit Systems Protective >>Board, and the only penalties are >>suspension/termination of employment.
Including the maladministrator? Wouldn't that be nice.
The Congress ought to make it a criminal statute.
The way that this has been abused in this maladministration certainly borders on criminal activity.
I, for one, do not want ONE PENNY of my taxed earnings used for some hacks "power point" show to inspire the faithful to vote republican (or anything else). Do that, and you mess with the American people.
So let's make this a serious crime.
(Too bad it could not be applied retroactively).
Dawn wrote on August 2, 2007 5:22 PM:Actually DLE, corporate issued Blackberries are often locked to that corporate account and don't allow users to set up access to other accounts. I'm sure a very tech savvy hacker could figure out how to get around that - but then he'd be fired. At least that's the way it is where I work, which will remain nameless!!!
Which is not to say that Jennings is not a liar!!!
stv wrote on August 2, 2007 5:51 PM:readerOfTeaLeaves - your analysis of RNC = RNC = WH is exactly what all insiders who have come forth have described is the actual way this administration "governs" and is structured. Of course they have only one device - that reflects their reality.
"Laws is for all the little saps". After all, they are history's actors, who create reality - reality is what they decide it is. When you make the laws, you decide which to follow and which to break.
They are so good at it, too, with perpetual smirks revealing the fast one they believe they are pulling on old-fashioned saps who still speak of "quaint" principles like law and democracy.
Kathleen wrote on August 2, 2007 6:10 PM:The Bush administration is above the law, and so far our congress continues to allow them to do so.
Such Standards
RockyUndBullwinkel wrote on August 2, 2007 11:34 PM:>A Party member would have used a single device for both 'party' and 'public' messages, because the two were the same.
*cough*BULLSH%T*cough*
From what I have read so far, sys security was the best reason for NOT widely giving out WH Blackberries - of course in this century that means stuff that SHOULD be on that system will be carried over a sys the fed has NO control over.
The Hatch Act while well intentioned, is fundamentally flawed; it did not foresee the current [or future] state of affairs in technology. Also, by allowing officials to have both an official and a NON-official means of communications (if pressed, pgp over gmail) you are BEGGING them to use the non-official comms for the crap they KNOW is shady - and ANY breach of those non-official comms falls under a breach of the DCMA and probably the Patriot Act....
They could fix the Hatch Act, but since their approval rating is already sub-30% no one will mind if they just exempt themselves from both the DCMA and the Patriot Act (if they haven't already)-its not like proving they are in the pocket of RIAA and MPAA (and other lobbyists) isn't saying anything everyone already doesn't know.
And to STV's point regarding congress allowing the admin to act above the law.... I'll bet you whatever that they will ONLY call him on the stuff they never foresee doing themselves in the same position EVER. Yes, they ARE taking notes on how it is done and don't want to burn any bridges...its called politics - deep down, they are all the same (the politicians that is, not the believers).
TheraP wrote on August 3, 2007 1:40 AM:"If you expect someone to work for a Constitutional government, based on a system of checks and balances, then you need to ensure that their workflow is consistent with that objective, monitor their activities"
Yes, you must monitor their activities - to ensure the objectives are met.
Ergo, AUDIT. For this and everything else!
And we, the Fourth Branch, must insist on this!
(word is "fire" - and yes, without this (=now), the house is on fire.)
parrot wrote on August 3, 2007 3:52 PM:So my question is...at what point did Russian, French, Israeli, and Chinese intelligence services penetrate these non-White House servers? Or did they not bother since they were stymied by the Office of the Vice President's careful oversight of America's secrets...
Malcalypse wrote on January 18, 2008 11:30 AM:Because you can't hook up more than one email account to a blackberry, amirite?