I just don’t see the techs I’ve worked with doing more than what is explicitly called for, especially if they know their employment depends on not pissing off the client.

I suppose it depends on “arrangements”.

I’m a code monkey/dba & mcse, but most of my system experience is from working with “system guys” in cooperation w/implementing software I (or my team) wrote. Over the years done stuff for banking, custom spreadsheets for WS types, law libraries (before they were available as shrinkwrap), and recent years everything to d w/HIPAA. There were elements in most all of that that included searching of one or more media. Through it all, I’ve had very few experiences where anything like this was cloaked in nefarious motives by management or anyone else.

(And who is the client if you’re a tech working on the EOP network…)

Some of what I read in comments on EW’s TIMELINE certainly does indicate Addington was a Gatekeeper as implied. In particular this comment (and linked doc) by RFW, also Citizen92 and bmaz @ 51 & 52.

I think I’m just going to shut up for a while, read up on all this stuff.

As I say, it’s a fantasy… heroes sometimes have magenta hair.
And the often have Bad Attitudes… so I continue to hold out hope.

I don’t see how Addington can submit search terms for approval, and not guarantee that the IT guys do AT LEAST those terms.

I don’t follow… is there reason to think his submitted search terms weren’t executed?

And if I were someone wanting to stay in good with the Fourth Branch, I’d probably do exactly what he told me to do.

ok, still IMO a leap to say he excluded terms.

I would presume there were many other instances of internally requested WH searches on these things, from Addington to whoever else WH may have authorized to do so, w/it being in requestor’s interest searches find everyting. I would also presume these same folks would rely on AOES to properly execute (using this as example) w/c, last Name only, double (or more) space, obvious potential misspelling, initials (f:ex, JMiller, Judi, Judith, JudithM… etc etc.) IMO this would be routine procedure for an AOES, and desired by WH personal availing AOES’ services.

Same for any professional maintaining document/file systems, h(x)tml repositories… anything requiring lexical analysis.

That Addington stated no “verbatim” (or similar) orders, personally I just don’t see deliberate exclusion.

you said:

But notice some of the journalists for whom Addington submits first and last name, in quotes, that would return just that string: Judith Miller, Matthew Cooper, and Andrea Mitchell. This search will probably return any email from or to these journalists, picking up email signatures with their full names. But it will not pick up references about them referring only to their last name.

(see above).

I’d add… over the years I’ve done many front ends, parsers to simplify and execute such stuff for wide variety of professionals/scenarios. Many of these people, often brilliant in their field (lawyers, doctors) are unbelievably dense when it comes to these kinds of distinctions… eg. those which may affect the outcome of such a query/search. (Cheney strikes me as one of ‘em.) They scribble unintelligible notes and say: “Find it”. They also have -0- interest in getting their heads around the basics. (WTH… it creates jobs!!!)

Perhaps you’re correct. Personally, I just don’t see nefarious omissions implied in that memo. Just my $0.02 (now about $0.0167 and falling fast!!!)

I agree that a competent AOES would look at this and say, “well, this doesn’t include all the Miller stuff.” But you’re also asking them to anticipate things like Judy’s nickname.

agree… not AOES’s job to anticipate unknown nicknames.

And asking them to deviate from what DOJ has approved.

I don’t follow, sorry… what has DOJ approved relevant to this?

But, yeah, I’ve been pushing HJC or Oversight to haul Addington’s hairy ass into testify, but they don’t seem all that excited about taking him on. It’d be hard for him to invoke privilege, though, since he already testified to this stuff. I’m sure he would, mind you, but still.

I agree that a competent AOES would look at this and say, “well, this doesn’t include all the Miller stuff.” But you’re also asking them to anticipate things like Judy’s nickname. And asking them to deviate from what DOJ has approved.

Though you’re right–I’d really like to see what they actually searched on. But Fitz’ office is particularly squirrelly about commenting on email, so I don’t think I’d get that even if I asked.