Login HereOkay, what follows is an uber-timeline, matching the dates for which OVP and WH don't have any email archives to the Plame investigation, as well as laying out further details on how the investigation proceeded over time. Before you read further, a couple of important comments:
- It would be completely irresponsible to assume that the email losses are entirely related to the Plame investigation. The large number of emails missing from CEQ, CEA, OMB, and OTR shows that, even if the emails were disappeared deliberately (which is a big assumption), they were disappeared for a myriad of reasons, many of them completely unrelated to the Plame investigation. That's part of the reason I did the Medicare Part D post--while that post, like this one, is completely speculative, it shows there may be any number of explanations for the missing emails.
- This post relies on information about the investigation revealed during the Libby trial. With one exception (the WHIG subpoena), those materials cover only subpoenas to OVP. There are undoubtedly subpoenas to the White House that we don't know about that may pertain to these dates.
- Remember that, in addition to the days for which no email archives exist for a given office, there are a large number of days for which offices don't have archives of all the emails (that is, days when an archive includes vastly fewer emails than the office would have sent). So this timeline probably leaves out a large number of days which might be interesting or pertinent, because some significant number of emails are missing from the archives.
- Even if all the connections you could might draw from this timeline were valid, they still wouldn't explain all the funkiness with email pertaining to the Plame investigation. It still doesn't describe possible funkiness with the Rove-Hadley email, and the search terms used to find emails may have led to further funkiness.
- I will do a speculative post on some of the connections we might draw (probably tomorrow or Monday, I'm toast). But understand that this whole examination is one big experiment, which has the potential of drawing completely bogus conclusions. By looking solely at two discrete events, we presume a connection between them that ignores the complexity of the White House, or even the sheer number of potential scandals!
- Much of this work--particularly the chronology of what evidence was turned over to investigators when--relies on work Jeff did and on ongoing conversations he and I have been having. Thanks to Jeff for sharing that earlier work.
So here's your timeline:
March 2003: Starting date of period during which White House has incomplete archives for emails. Because the White House was taping over prior backup tapes, from March to October, 2003, email archives and backup tapes are incomplete.
March 8, 2003: DIA provides report to Rummy using Wilson's trip report to sustain the Iraq uranium claims.
March 25, 2003: Bush issues EO 13292 that, after turning it into Pixie Dust, Cheney would later use to justify his insta-declassification.
July 11, 2003: Rove writes Hadley email immediately after his call with Matt Cooper.
September 12, 2003: No email archive of OVP emails.
September 14, 2003: Wilson article in San Jose MercNews. Cheney appears on MTP.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, Ambassador Joe Wilson, a year before that, was sent over by the CIA because you raised the question about uranium from Africa. He says he came back from Niger and said that, in fact, he could not find any documentation that, in fact, Niger had sent uranium to Iraq or engaged in that activity and reported it back to the proper channels. Were you briefed on his findings in February, March of 2002?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I’d heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, “What do we know about this?” They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, “This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know,” end of statement. And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.
[snip]
I have no idea who hired him and it never came...
MR. RUSSERT: The CIA did.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who in the CIA, I don’t know.
Jeff noted (via email) that Cheney's response almost exactly regurgitates the OVP talking points Cheney dictated during leak week--and Russert responds as the talking points set up, by offering up that the CIA sent Wilson.
September 26, 2003: DOJ starts an investigation into Plame leak.
September 29, 2003, morning: Scottie McClellan claims ignorance of a DOJ investigation into the leak.
September 29, 2003, evening: John Ashcroft informs Alberto Gonzales of investigation.
September 30, 2003, morning: Alberto Gonzales informs White House staff of investigation.
September 30, 2003, 6:15 PM: Alberto Gonzales informs White House to retain (for period from February 1, 2002 to present):
- Materials relating to Wilson, Plame CIA identity, or Wilson's trip to Niger
- Materials relating to discussions with journalists about Wilson and/or Plame
- Materials relating to Novak, Royce, or Phelps, or anyone "acting directly or indirectly on behalf of them" [note, this last bit would presumably cover the involvement of Hohlt and Duberstein--it's the first time I noticed this]
October 2003 (unknown date): White House CIO stops "recycling" backup tapes.
October 1, 2003: Mayfield to Martin email passing on transcript from that day's Press Gaggle; the email was not apparently turned over until February 2006, presumably among the emails "not archived properly."
Armitage "recognizes" he is Novak's source, tells Powell, Taft; Taft provides minimal details to Gonzales.
No email archive of OVP emails.
October 1 or October 2: Sometime before his trip to Jackson (see October 6), Libby also told the Vice President:
"Look, I wasn't the source of the leak of this . In fact , I learned it from Tim Russert. And, you know, by that point he was, you know -- other -- lots of reporters knew, all the reporters knew, he told me all the reporters knew,"
October 2, 2003: DOJ requests White House turn over materials relating to Wilson, his Niger trip, Novak, Royce, and Phelps. Armitage interviewed by FBI. No email archive of OVP emails.
October 3, 2003: Gonzales informs White House to turn over materials by October 7. Jim Comey nominated DAG.
Libby finds the June note recording Cheney telling him about Plame. He then told Cheney:
I told you something wrong before. It turns out that I have a note that I had heard, heard about this earlier from you and I just -- you know, I didn't want to leave you with the wrong, I didn't want to leave you with the wrong statement that I heard about it from Tim Russert. In fact, I had heard about it earlier, but I had forgotten it.
No email archive of OVP emails.
October 5, 2003: Date on which Martin to Fleischer email printed out, apparently by Martin. It was originally written on July 7, 2003 and contained OVP talking points on Wilson for Fleischer to use in his press briefing, including the words, "Niger" and "Joe Wilson." Probably turned over to DOJ on October 9, 2003. No email archive of OVP emails.
October 6, 2003: Libby returns from Jackson Hole. According to his own account, Libby probably talks to Cheney about helping him get Scottie McClellan to publicly exonerate him from the leak.
October 7, 2003: Reporter asks Scottie McClellan whether White House officials have to turn over emails they've deleted.
Q No, I understand that. I'm just saying how would this work? Let's say I remember -- I'm an official, I remember sending some email about this, but I've long since deleted it. How --
[snip]
Q I just want to be clear, though, the White House is obligated to provide emails that may have been deleted by the individual but are still archived by the White House --
MR. McCLELLAN: Look back -- it said what is in the possession of, I believe, in the White House, the employees and staff.
In same briefing, Scottie exonerates Libby (and Rove and Abrams).
FBI interviews Novak.
October 13, 2003: Date on which July 11, 2003 Martin to Michael Anton email printed out. The email was apparently discovered in a search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Niger" and "Wilson."
October 14, 2003: FBI interviews Libby.
October 17, 2003: FBI interviews Grossman. David Cloud article purportedly describes INR memo.
October 20, 2003: Deputy Assistant AG Bruce Swartz reviews Libby documents in Addington's office; he requests a number of these documents.
October 21, 2003: Addington provides Libby documents to Swartz.
October 22, 2003: FBI interviews Cathie Martin.
November 14, 2003: Eckenrode speaks to Russert by phone; Russert refutes Libby's claim that Russert told Libby about Plame.
November 24, 2003: Eckenrode speaks to Russert by phone.
November 25, 2003: Per Hubris, date on which Rove aide B.J. Goergen prints out Rove-Hadley email (eventually turned over on October 14, 2004). The email mentions "Cooper" and Niger."
November 26, 2003: FBI interviews Libby and asks him to sign waiver freeing journalists to testify (he refuses). Earliest Rove email preserved by RNC.
December 11, 2003: Jim Comey assumes role of DAG.
December 16, 2003: Subpoena for:
- Libby, Martin, and Millerwise notes, phone logs, and calendars for May 6-10, June 1-15, July 4-25, July 28-29, September 27-October 13
- Materials relating to early Kristof or Pincus articles
- Materials relating to either version (June 10 or July 7) of the INR memo
The last of these notes would not be returned until March 5, after Libby's first appearance before the grand jury, though they had a due date of December 23.
December 17, 2003: No email archive of WH emails.
December 19, 2003: Libby certifies his response to the December 16 document request.
December 20, 2003: No email archive of WH emails.
December 21, 2003: No email archive of WH emails.
December 22, 2003: Due date for December 16 document request. Martin certified her documents on this day.
December 24, 2003: Addington submits originals of Libby notes subpoenaed on December 16. These include handwritten notes regarding the negotiations between Libby, Cheney, Hadley, and (second-hand) John McClaughlin regarding the July 11 CIA statement, including discussion about declassification of the NIE, the trip report, and the January 24 document. It also includes the original hand-written copy of Libby's note recording Cheney telling him that Plame worked at CIA.
Sometime after this but before the end of January, Libby turns over his notes from June 9, 2003, which show Bush expressed concern about the Kristof allegations on the morning before OVP started its aggressive research into Wilson's trip.
December 30, 2003: Ashcroft recuses himself, Comey names Fitzgerald Special Counsel.
January 2 through 6, 2004: Press reports on request for waivers for journalists.
January 5, 2004: Libby signs a waiver releasing journalists of confidentiality.
January 9, 2004: No email archive of WH emails.
January 10, 2005: No email archive of WH emails.
January 11, 2004: No email archive of WH emails.
January 12, 2004: Fitzgerald tells Novak he has waivers from Rove and Armitage.
January 14, 2004: Novak interview; Fitzgerald also brings Harlow waiver.
January 15, 2004: Cathie Martin interview.
January 23, 2004: Addington receives subpoenas (dated January 22):
- For materials relating to calls made during the July 12 Air Force Two trip (which would include the calls to Cooper, and possibly others), due January 30.
- For materials relating to Wilson, his trip, or Valerie, extended to include the period from October 1 to January 23, due February 6.
- For materials relating to a long line of journalists, including Miller and Cooper, due on February 6.
That night (on Friday, at 5:42 PM), Addington sends out an email alerting OVP staff to retain this information. Date Cathie Martin printed out September 30, 2003 email referring to Cooper's article and speculating Libby might be Cooper's source.
On the same day, the White House received a subpoena for all documents relating to WHIG, from July 6 to July 30, 2003, due on February 4.
January 26, 2004: Addington sends out the formal request to fulfill January 22 subpoenas, due January 29.
January 29, 2004: No email archive of OVP or WH emails.
January 30, 2004: No email archive of OVP emails. Libby certifies his response to subpoena for July 12 Air Force Two documents. Deadline for WH subpoena on Air Force One phone records, July 12 Gaggle transcript, and Gerald Ford party guest list.
January 31, 2004: No email archive of OVP emails.
February to early March, unknown date, 2004: Libby talks to Russert about speaking to Libby's lawyer.
I spoke to him but not -- I didn't talk to him about the content of the investigation. I did call him at one point to ask if he would be willing to talk to my lawyer.
February 1, 2004: No email archive of WH emails.
February 2, 2004: Addington drafts a letter to Keith Roberts, Acting General Counsel, Office of Administration, listing the new terms for a search of the OVP domain. The proposed search would apparently not return emails referring to Judy Miller or Matt Cooper by either their nickname or just their last name. If "Joe Wilson" or "Niger" were mentioned in the October 1 gaggle, the October 1 Martin to Mayfield email should have been found in this search. No email archive of WH emails.
February 3, 2004: No email archive of WH emails.
February 4, 2004: Libby certifies his response to subpoena for WHIG materials.
February 5, 2004: Libby certifies his response for Wilson materials (since beginning of investigation) and for journalist materials. Novak interviewed.
February 7, 2004: No email archive of OVP or WH emails.
February 8, 2004: No email archive of OVP or WH emails.
February 11, 2004: Date on which June 11, 2003 Martin to Mayfield email printed out. The email was apparently discovered in a search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Pincus" and "Niger."
February 11, 2004: Date on which July 11, 2003 Martin and Cooper email exchange printed out. The email was apparently discovered in search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Matthew Cooper" and "Niger." Cooper's initial email was printed out, probably on July 11 or 12, though it has no date; Libby wrote notes on it on how he would respond to Cooper.
February 12, 2004: FBI interviews Addington.
February 13, 2004: Ari Fleischer gets immunity.
February 25, 2004: Novak testifies to grand jury.
March 5, 2004: Libby's first GJ appearance. During that appearance, Libby comments that there are emails reflecting a conversation with Novak in late July 2003.
My note -- I do have a note somewhere around the 25th or the 28th which indicates something about Novak and uranium, and there is subsequently some e-mails that I've seen so that indicates that to me that was the time, because I only remember one conversation.
After returning from the GJ, someone printed out Libby's schedule for June 12, 2003 (the day Cheney purportedly told him about Plame and also the date Grossman may have told him about Plame). Later the same day, Addington turned over six pages of material responsive to the December 16, 2003 subpoena, though apparently not the schedule for June 12.
March 18, 2004: Addington turns over Jenny Mayfield's "Niger/Uranium" folder contents (which contains 414 pages), which she admitted to having on March 17 in an interview. Among other things, the folder contains Libby's edit of the OVP talking points Cheney dictated to Martin (on which Libby notes some awareness of Wilson's 1999 trip), the transcript from Condi's disastrous June 8 appearance on George Stephanopoulos, a copy of the June 13 Kristof article, and Libby's underlined copy of Joe Wilson's op-ed. While the Condi transcript and the Kristof article had not been formally subpoenaed at that point, both the talking points and the underlined Wilson op-ed should have been turned over to the government in response to the very first October 3, 2003 document request.
March 24, 2004: Fitzgerald asks Libby about email, suggesting Fitzgerald was surprised by the lack of email he received as evidence.
Q. You're not big on e-mail I take it?
A. No. Not in this job. I was in my prior job.
April 6, 2004: Addington sends memo in response to subpoena seeking, "All versions and/or drafts of daily schedules and calendars for Vice President Richard B. Cheney and Chief of Staff Lewis Libby for the period July 6, 2003 through July 14, 2003." The memo is numbered and instructs, "Do Not Reproduce or Disseminate," though the subpoena does not require such a warning. Due date on subpoena is April 14.
April 14, 2004 (presumably): Libby turns over schedule for July 8, 2003 reflecting "private meeting at St. Regis."
May 8, 2004: Debra Heiden turns over original copy of Cheney's annotated copy of Wilson's op-ed; Heiden produced a copy to Addington on October 7, 2003.
June 5, 2004: WaPo confirms Cheney interviewed by Fitzgerald.
June 24, 2004: Fitzgerald interviews Bush.
August 2004: In response to "unspecified legal inquiries," RNC stops its automatic email destruction policy.
October 2004: Per Hubris, Rove lawyer Robert Luskin first notices the Rove-Hadley email.
Rove's office had given Luskin a folder full of e-mails that included the one Rove had sent to Hadley. But Luskin hadn't noticed the important Hadley e-mail until October 2004, just before Rove was about to go back to the grand jury for the third time. (402)
October 14, 2004: Per Hubris, Rove turns Rove-Hadley email over to Patrick Fitzgerald.
...on this day [Rove] turned over what he claimed was a recently discovered copy of the July 11, 2003, e-mail he had sent to Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. (377)
2005, unknown date: RNC terminates Rove's ability to delete his own email.
February 15, 2005: Appeals Court rules Miller and Cooper must testify. No email archive of OVP emails.
February 16, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.
February 17, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.
May 21, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.
May 22, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.
May 23, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.
June 27, 2005: SCOTUS refuses to hear Miller and Cooper appeal.
September 30, 2005: Judy Miller testifies.
October 2005: White House Office of Administration discovers not all email has been archived properly.
According to CREW's sources, in October 2005, the Office of Administration ("OA") discovered a problem with this email retention process. The OA undertook a detailed analysis of the issue, which revealed that between March 2003 and October 2005, there were hundreds of days in which emails were missing for one or more of the EOP components subject to PRA. The OA estimated that roughly over five million email messages were missing.
OA briefs Harriet Miers and Patrick Fitzgerald on the email retention process. October 2005 is also the end-date of the period during which White House emails were not preserved properly.
October 7, 2005: New subpoena to several people in OVP for all notes and phone logs for Libby from June 16 through July 3. This would give the prosecutors a complete set from June 1 through July 25, and is clearly a response to Miller's testimony that Libby had spoken to her before July 8. The documents were due on October 14. Addington's memo regarding this subpoena also includes a circulation control, noting that only 6 copies existed.
October 12, 2005: Judy Miller testifies. Libby certifies his response to October 7 subpoena, noting that "others have custody of other files" which they will produce separately. Jenny Mayfield notes on her certification (dated October 7) that she turned over all related files to Christian Woelk when she became Deputy Press Secretary.
October 25, 2005: Peter Zeidenberg asks Adam Levine about a conversation he had with Rove just before or after Rove's conversation with Cooper. Levine may have sent Rove an email around the same time as Rove sent Hadley an email.
October 28, 2005: Libby indicted. Rove avoids indictment with, among other things, last minute explanation for email discovery.
January 23, 2006: Fitzgerald informs Libby that not all emails were archived properly.
In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.
February 2, 2006: Date on which Martin to Mayfield email accompanying Scotte McClellan transcript printed out, apparently by David Addington. The emails themselves do not mention "Joe Wilson" or "Niger,"though it is unclear whether the transcript included in the email mentions those words (the press briefing from that afternoon mentions "Wilson" but not "Niger"). The date and the high Bates number suggest this email was one of those "not archived properly."
February 6, 2006: According to Bill Jeffress, Fitzgerald received the missing emails.
I may say we are also told that there are an additional approximately 250 pages of documents that are emails from the office of the vice president. Your Honor, may recall that in earlier filings it was represented or alluded to that certain e-mails had not been preserved in the White House. That turns out not to be true. There were some e-mails that weren't archived in the normal process but the office of the vice president or the office of administration I guess it is has been able to recover those e-mails. Gave those to special counsel I think only on February 6 and those again are going to be produced to us.
January 30, 2007: Fitzgerald asks Judy Miller whether she corresponded with Libby via email.
April 13, 2007: "Gold Bars" Luskin reveals that Fitzgerald made a copy of Rove's hard drive, from which he may have been able to reconstruct emails that were deleted off the server.
June 18, 2007: Waxman releases report on White House email use.
August 22, 2007: White House claims OA exempt from FOIA.
November 12, 2007: Judge issues restraining order preventing White House from destroying backup tapes.
December 20, 2007: Waxman renews request for information on White House emails.
January 8, 2008: Judge gives White House five days to reveal what emails are recoverable from backup tapes.
January 15, 2008: White House CIO submits statement admitting the White House "recycled" backup tapes before October 2003.
Updated per Jeff's comment.
Share This 
Spotlight
Memo from Gonzales went to All_EOP_Users@EOP. It would be helpful to know who was a member of that email group at the time. E.g. did it include IT staff?
Addington’s email to Libby et al implies that there was no similar email group for OVP staff.
That is one of the inconsistencies that bugs me. Addington’s search must have meant “OVP domain” in the non-technical sense of the word “domain” — but did the application of instructions really limit the search to those emails sent to/from users of ovp.eop.gov email addresses, or was the intent to search all emails by OVP members on the EOP network?
It definitely picked up emails to people outside of OVP–witness the email between Martin and Cooper sent on July 11, found on February 11, 2004 in what is probably the search Addington described in my last post.
But was that picked up because of the “Matthew_Cooper” parameter? Martin would also be a member of “OVP domain” in a non-tech sense of the word. And it would also fit the narrow ovp.eop.gov domain.
The bottom of the print out of the Martin-Mayfield email dd. 6/11/2003, printed 2/11/2004 also suggests it came up as part of the First Search (which included “Matthew_Cooper”), but also as part of “(3rd%20Req…” — was this part of a third request? Are there other documents fine-tuning the search process that we don’t know about, I wonder.
Sorry, I misunderstood your question.
Also note that both this post and the last one sort of flatten out the search we’re talking about. There were three searches:
1) On all the journalists, from summer to October
2) On the Wilson sorts and “Plame” from Oct 1 to Jan 2004
3) On Valerie Wilson (don’t know why that was necessary, but wtf)
Hoping that these simple non-technical questions are not a distraction from the unbelievable creation (thank and kudos, EW)
What role do the Abramoff emails retained by Indian Affairs and McCain play in all this. Can they play a role? Surely Waxman can get his hands on those without a subpeona? Surely they would indicate days were there were emails that were traceable at the time of that investigation.
This is a repeat What is to keep Waxman from summoning Mr/Ms IT to testify. Exec. privilege depends on the right of the president to counsel I thought, not that it matters to this admin.
This is a repeat question.
I would think same would go for the AIPAC case…
I’m wondering whether Mr. IT has testified–it seems that the person who made the chart of the missing days is probably the person no longer employed at WH CIO whom Payton referred to.
And there’s also the name of an MS tech floating around–not sure if anyone has gotten that person yet, but I know some people are trying.
I didn’t previously grasp this. Doesn’t it mean they have all the e-mails from the period between inauguration and March, 2003?
Ditto. I have the impression that somebody with explicit knowledge of the IT systems has already provided information. There’s too much data that hasn’t been provided by the sources we see from the public’s perspective.
Yes, I think so.
They have all the archives, but no or incomplete backup tapes, from 2001 to March 2003.
They have incomplete archives and no or incomplete backup tapes from March 2003 to October 2003 (one of the reasons the stuff is so suspicious vis a vis Plame, since it covers the entire lead-up to the investigation).
They have incomplete archives but complete backup tapes from October 2003 to October 2005.
Who knows what they have since then, since the person who told us about the incomplete stuff previous to October 2005 is gone?
That’s one of the reasons that October 1 email is curious–we know it was not archived properly (or at all). But we don’t know whether they had to reconstruct from hard drives.
And of course, keep in mind the RNC stuff adds another wrinkle to this–for people like Karl Rove, this is all moot bc he was in his own little world.
Speaking of Karl, I could use a review on what we know about Karl’s fit in this email mix; with all this newer info, I’m afraid I’m missing something about his communications that might have changed.
Jeff, you out there? can you give an overview and give EW a break?
Jeez, am tempted to put an extra offering in the EW PayPal for this gem.
Karl’s fit is still predominantly RNC driven, as far as we know–therefore non-existent, perhaps, for most of this period.
I still don’t have a good explanation for how that Rove-Hadley email eluded detection (behind human error)–it may well be a mix of RNC and WH email funkiness.
Does RIM have an archiving feature either inside or outside US; offices in both Silicon V, and Waterloo ONT. They were undergoing patent intellectual property disputes throughout this period; I wonder if discovery in that forum caused RIM to keep actual content. Ostensibly the process is a simple rf wireless concordance like laptops utilize for version control.
For some reason I keep remembering the can of worms that was Karl & Jack Abramoff & Guam that was swirling around, the USA’s replacement, once vetted by Karl took office in May ‘03.
That October 1 email has been driving me nuts. There are several very weird things about that email. It was obviously printed from Microsoft Outlook, but not in the usual way. Consider the name at the top:
Addington, David S.
As you can see from the faxed email to the DOJ, that’s Addington’s full name in Exchange Server. That means David Addington printed that email. Of course, he’s not listed in the “To:” line. Was he “BCC:’ed”? I don’t think so.
Look at the header line. It says “Message” on the left and Page 1 of 13 on the right. That’s not the header line Addington used in 2003. Also, notice how the original message is indented. That’s another Outlook setting different from Addington’s email. But the weirdest thing of all is the word “Thanks”. See how it starts to the left of the “Subject” line? I don’t even know how to make Outlook do that. But Cathie Martin does. Go look at her message to Ari that you linked to. Every one of those indicators (the print header, the message body starting with a negative indent compared to Subject line, etc.).
So, what’s up? The only explanation that I can come up with is that Cathie Martin made David Addington a “Delegate” on her .pst file. Addington opened up her .pst file and printed the email. Outlook picked up her print settings, etc.
I think this leads to some other interesting conclusions, but I’m going to spend a little quality time looking at all these emails.
Oh wow, I just noticed a huge clue in Matt Cooper’s email. Did you notice that line about how he didn’t get one of those “funky message received” emails? Martin replies that she got his earlier message.
WO
If I’m not mistaken, both Martin and Mayfield were in different positions at that time (Mayfield definitely was, anyway). but keep in mind, they may have gotten this from her hard drive–it’s in the tiem period where there may have been no archive and no backup tape.
ew,
I just emailed you a copy of GX52701. It’s the first email from Cooper to Martin. The one he didn’t get a “funky message received emails in return”. This message didn’t turn up in the OVP RM search.
That’s significant.
Can you or Jeff tell from the Bates number when GX52701 was turned over?
WilliamOckham, I too have been scrutinizing that October 1 email. but I came up with a view that differs with your comment. Hhave you considered that:
The “delegation” was in the other direction. That is, David Addington had his email “delegated” to Cathie Martin so that she could deal with stuff that was sent to him. This is very typical as you know for Executive Assistants/Secretaries who work for high-powered bosses.
Cathie Martin would be David Addington’s “delegate” to handle stuff like adding appointments to his Outlook calendar and even perhaps responding to the more trivial emails that were sent to Addington.
In that case, (CM was DA’s delegate), the printing of the email could be by her from Addington’s PST or even just accessing his Exchange mailbox as part of her normal assumption of “delegation” duties. That may also “solve” the print settings thingy.
Sometime between October 21, 2003 and December 24, 2003. That is, several months before the RM version was turned over–and it was probably turned over in response to the first request for documents (though after Martin was interviewed by the FBI). So it was produced as a document having to do with Niger or Wilson, not as an email responsive to Cooper per se.
Pretty sure that’s not right–like I said, i think she was gone to the WH by then, and she was never Addington’s delegate, or even close. She was press secretary, having taken over for Matalin when Matalin left.
More likely Addington was her delegate after she left.
But remember, this was probably reconstructed from either a backup or her hard drive.
And it’s likely that she had this in a file of issues relating to Niger (since it had Libby’s notes on it). That is, it was no longer an email, it was a Libby doct.
ew,
That makes sense. She left and her .pst file stayed behind. It would be reasonable to put “legal” in charge of her files in this case.
I still think there is a relationship between the lack of a “funky message received” and the results of that OVP RM search.
btw, I’m gonna try to talk the exec. asst at work who is a delegate on my boss’s Exchange account into printing out an email that I send her (the boss). Either that or I’ll make somebody I trust a delegate on my email (hmmm… it does come in handy when one’s grown son works in the same department). I really want to see how that works…
But remember–this was one of the emails “not archived properly.” Meaning, they had no copy.
So it wasn’t necessarily a matter of giving her .pst file to someone. it was a matter of either reconstructing October 1 from a backup tape (which may not have existed, as it was still within the time they may have been recycling them), or reconstructing it some other way.
So once you reconstruct emails, what do you do to do a sort and hand it over to Fitz? That’s where the answer lies, I imagine…
first — this is simply fabulous work, EW! now, you opined:
i am certain you are right about this.
to that end, i am just now making some progress
on the beginnings of a very voluminous hypertext
document, to cross-reference your timeline events,
above, to the “what was happening in the world“
stories-by-date-line (originally put together
as a series of word documents, by
the very fine folks at CREW!) — from various
of the national newspapers, magazines, speeches, etc. . .
the convergences with historic events — and the inter-
sections with notorious ones — are already, even in
the very first passes, rather remarkable, for the
depths to which all of this points: the utter lawless-
ness of it — the idea that they MUST have been using
e-mails to coordinate both the lawlessness, and their
cover-stories for the same — and then, POOF! all the
e-mails for those days are “disappeared“. . .
’tis mind-bending in the sheer audacity, and scope of
the operation — it literally touches everything these
chuckle-heads did — or tried to do — in the years
2003 through 2006. . .
thank you from the bottom of my heart for this, EW!
p e a c e
Where’s the evidence that they’ve reconstructed any emails from backup tapes? I don’t think they’ve done that yet. The OA “CIO” pretty much says (by not saying) that they haven’t.
Even if this is reconstructed from backups, those backups will get you one of three things:
1. A backup of Exchange Server at a particular point in time. If that’s what you get, you have to restore all the mailboxes to a different Exchange Server and pull off what ever was in those mailboxes at that time. Anybody who’s gone through that mess can tell you what a nightmare it is (although it’s lots better with Exchange 2007).
2. A backup of somebody’s .pst file (if they have one, at most places you make people store their stuff in their mailbox) at a point in time. This is really unlikely.
3. A backup of one of those archived .pst files. If the email wasn’t archived to begin with, that doesn’t do you any good.
That “CIO” never did mention how often they back up their Exchange Servers.
If anybody is following along at home, you can compare the Martin email to one of Kyle Sampson’s after he left the DOJ in OAG878-914.pdf (assuming you saved all the files from that scandal like I did). You’ll notice that instead of saying Kyle Sampson at the top, it says OIP (I assume that’s the Office of Information and Privacy at the DOJ).
A couple of things then:
1. The October 1 Mayfield to Martin email was printed out under the identity of David Addington. Either he did this himself, or someone had access to his Username/Password combination on Outlook/Exchange to be able to print this out. The October 1 Mayfield to Martin email was printed out via Outlook/Exchange.
2. The October 1 Mayfield to Martin email was not printed out as a result of using that web-based application we saw used in the June 11, 2003 Martin to Mayfield email. The October 1 email does not have the tell-tale URL stuff at the bottom to show that it was printed out as a result of a web-based application query like the June 11, 2003 Martin to Mayfield email.
Which leads me to these questions:
A. How did someone find the “October 1 Mayfield to Martin email” (what search facility did they use)?
B. How did whoever they are get access to Cathie Martin’s Outlook mailbox (via PST, OST, Exchange server mailbox backup or otherwise)?
C. Who did the printing, and therefore, who provided this email to Fitzgerald?
If someone has already testified then why not in public? I know you folks have been on this a long time so please humor me. Is there some legal reason? Why wouldn’t Waxman and the Democrats want it to be public knowledge that they have evidence the president and his people were engaging in this type of activity?
Thanks
I am watching you folks at work, kicking butt and taking names, with great interest; but zip in the way of any ability for intelligent help. One question: Is(are) this October 1 email(s) at issue the product of David Addington’s gatekeeping/custodian of records work as I contemplated here on the last thread?
Mostly I worked as an exponent of the dilletante factor, but these linkRich timelines are proving enticing. The other day I found a headerless Sampson document, probably because it is a printout, but the redacting is sufficiently transparent in the new version of AcrobatReader to be legible. I guess this, too, is OT; but it is from the US attorney purge scandal, linked from a footnote in the McKay WA exUSA law journal article currently available. If everyone already knows what is under the redaction I will skip that project, but it seemed worthwhile at first glance.
nolo
Please keep in mind, if the emails were disappeared deliberately, they were disappeared to hide stuff–almost certainly criminal stuff (since to disappear the emails is itself arguably criminal). So to just compare the email disappearances with “historic” events–most of them perfectly legal, most of which we have nowhere NEAR the granularity of detail that we have here–that’s an even more foolish pursuit than this is, and I admit this is a foolish pursuit that, at least, has the benefit of the Plame investigation apparently being tied to the investigation of the missing email in the first place (and having discovered relevant email in response).
You mean can we subpoena him to talk about it?
For what it’s worth, Bond testified that Libby told them that he found the note of the 6-03 conversation with Cheney (which became GX 104) on October 3, 2003. Also, Mayfield was interviewed by the FBI on March 17, 2004, not in front of a grand jury.
That’s IT?!?!?!? This big old timeline and that’s all the frigging errors you can find (aside from the ones you corrected before I posted, I mean)?!?!?!? C’mon…
Um. Thanks. Fixed, I think.
EW, just a note here. Your link in the “February 6, 2006: According to Bill Jeffress, Fitzgerald received the missing emails.” always fails in Acrobat Reader with an error message of “File does not begin with ‘%PDF-’” so I can never open it. All the other links to PDFs work fine.
Hey, you’re not the only toast in town. There’s always tomorrow.
Oh good. because I suspect you’re just scraping the surface…
Get some sleep!
You’re darn right that is what I mean. I can’t think of any reason it is not a good faith discovery attempt; the worst that happens is that the court grants a motion to quash.
Uh oh. Jeff is in the doghouse? Better not tell the spyguyforhire.
William,
Help me out here.
Per your number 1- Why is this so difficult? I’ve done it many times.
Per your number 2 - huh? Outlook has an auto archive feature. I believe the default is 14 days. This file should be placed on a file server for redundancy. With the systems available to these folks why would everything be stored in the mailbox on the Exchange Server?
Per your number 3 - Are you assuming you send me an email which I read and delete? What about the ‘Sent Items’ folder on the senders side? How many of these people are techie enough to clear that folder?
If Mr. IT was forced out for testifying to the Congress is that not a violation on a few laws. And can he become a whistleblower? Where is our John Dean going to come from if not IT?
GCP,
1. Have you done it to restore a single email? Now, look at the list of dates that has been published. Do you really think they did all that for Fitzgerald’s investigation? I don’t.
2. Most larger companies strongly discourage folks from keeping their email in .pst files. If you’re going to have to answer legal requests for records, you really want all those emails in one place. Also, you really don’t want people taking sensitive (or in the case of the government, classified) information off the network.
3. I’m talking about the official archived email solution.
Interesting story in Sunday’s New York Times on the liability insurance carrier Jose Rodriquez, former head of the CIA Directorate of Operations (Clandestine division) and the other spooks involved in the torture tapes destruction, apparently as well as a whole boatload of other Administration officials and agents (an astounding 32,000 of them), are relying on.
Couple of thoughts here. In relation to the first portion bolded, what is the government doing underwriting insurance to cover wrongdoing by it’s employees? Is this a proper use of taxpayer money? Did Congress authorize this; if not, who did?
As to the second bolded portion, we know that Congress did pass the contemptible Military Commissions Act in 2006 thanks in a large part to the disingenuous actions of St. John McCain, Lindsay “Huckleberry” Graham,
Mr. Liz TaylorJohn Warner and Harry Reid; not to mention the deception and outright lies of the Bush Administration. That aside, the question still remains, is this a proper use of taxpayer money? For 32,000 governmental employees? For my money, it most certainly is not.New info from that other TIMES
“It claims the government official warned a Turkish member of the network that they should not deal with a company called Brewster Jennings because it was a CIA front company investigating the nuclear black market. The official’s warning came two years before Brewster Jennings was publicly outed when one of its staff, Valerie Plame, was revealed to be a CIA agent in a case that became a cause célèbre in the US.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....216737.ece
Great God of Chaos!
Please don’t befuddle these people anymore. Don’t drive them further into the frenetic pit.
They could still discard their foil hats, and start living good quiet sensible lives.
David Addington stuns me again and again. The nerve of the guy.
Regarding his required document production on 12/24/03 he wrote in an accompanying memo:
TO PRESERVE THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OFTHE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICE
PRESIDENCY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT AFFORD SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION FOR THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF SUCH MATERIALS.
(http://wid.ap.org/documents/li.....X50701.PDF)
Irony being thick because OVP nor EOP is following the Presidential Records Act in any way. Just paying it lip service.
Well, that is a nice little document.
I am telling you, Addington has consistently served as a records custodian and is subject to discovery for his acts in this regard. It was foolish of him to do this; he should have supervised, and controlled, everything exactly like he did, but had the productions made under a subordinate’s certification. Now, this is a slightly different situation than we were discussing above, but it reinforces what I have been saying; at least I think so anyway. I dunno, if I were one of the plaintiffs out there, I would take a run at him just for grins.
Handle them as classified even though, you know, they are not. Of course.
Whaaa? Gee, I thought they claimed they were a fourth branch. Kind of supports Bill Leonard eh?
Thanks.
On 1 - no, not for a single email but you could certainly do it for a single user and then search the mailbox of that user.
On 2 & 3 - OK
I don’t know, in the stark light of day, I’m still finding few outright errors. I must have done a better preemptive job of correcting errors than even I realized.
Some additions that might be useful:
September 30, 6:37 p.m. Addington forwards the 6:15 message to OVP people. (GX52)
October 16, 2003: Armitage goes to Grossman and tells him stuff he thinks he should know, including that he was the one who leaked to Novak; Armitage also discusses whether was was leaked was confidential, classified or not. Similarly, on October 17, after his FBI interview, Grossman went back and reported on it to Armitage.
December 10, 2003: FBI interviews Grenier. (1-24 p.m.)
January 8, 2004: Schmall’s first FBi interview, with two agents and CIA lawyer present.
January 2004 Fleischer pleads the 5th before the grand jury.
February 11: SP approves Fleischer’s request for immunity (though as you say it’s not ordered by judge until the 13th).
February 24: Grossman interviewed by FBI for the second time. (1-24 a.m.)
February 27: Fleischer’s grand jury appearance, where apparently for the firs time he answered questions. (1-29 p.m.)
April 22: Schmall interview by government again, at CIA HQ, with two FBI agents, CIA lawyer, and Fitzgerald and Kedian present. (1-24 p.m.)
June 10: Fleischer meets with the FBI.
August 5: Cooper and Libby talk.
September 14: Novak participates in follow-up deposition.
September 2004: Fleischer testifies before the grand jury again (presumably including about Pincus, who testifies on September 15) (1-29 a.m.)
September 22: Armitage testifies for second time before the grand jury.
July 29, 2005: Grenier appears before the grand jury again (1-24 p.m.)
December 20 or 22 or so, 2006: The defense receives the government’s Jencks material, including what witnesses had testified to in the grand jury. (2-14 p.m.) News to them that Fleischer had been given immunity.
January 13, 2007: Addington meets with the defense; the defense shoves a document toward him for him to glance at. (1-30)
Yeah, that was pretty exhausting, huh, telling me over and over I had made an error?
I had a bunch of that stuff in the timeline (though I need to put Ari’s testimony and Armi’s obstruction in), but I took them out to try to get a Plame plus email thing. I’m assuming that OVP and WH weren’t all that aware of what Grenier was doing and maybe not State. Though I’m really taken with the idea that Ari’s lawyer may have been able to talk to Dick’s lawyer.
Just odd, but there was a strange plane crash in Turkey (over the weekend?) six nuclear guys on board.
Yeah, I wasn’t sure what fell outside the scope of this particular timeline.
But yeah, it was exhausting! But totally worth it, considering how well the final product came out.
For some reason I keep putting little winking smiley faces in but they don’t show up in the actual comment. So consider my last several with such a wink-smile.
Couple of thoughts here:
re bmaz @ 52 (following from C92 @ 51):
Given the context here, could the the “mistake” of two n’s rather than two p’s be deliberate? I’m betting it would. Suppose that misspelling is a way of indicating that info should be “classified” (e.g., hidden) in pigeon holes that are adjacent (like n is adjacent to p in the alphabet) or actually use deliberate misspellling. I say this because a person is unlikely to accidentally type two n’s when they need to type two ps. Just look at your keyboard and you’ll see this has to be deliberate. Not sure how to take this idea further, but keep in mind where you see misspellings, like this, that are simply not easy to do by accident on a keyboard. And this has to mean something… but I don’t know what! (some kind of simple code being used? to tell the intended reader something they would know?)
C92: glad to see you following this! (your talents are many)
nolo @ 30:
I literally got shivers up my spine when I read your post. I realize that EW has already suggested your project is not a worthwhile use of time, but I disagree. This whole criminal enterprise, in my view, is so interlinked and complex that it might be hugely important to have a database where EW’s timelines can be overlaid the historical events. I think a wide net needs to be cast, because it may not be yet clear how seemingly unrelated - and even non-criminal events - may intersect with or explain or be explained by the criminal activity.
In other words, what I’m suggest is not to foreclose your thinking too soon, by assuming you understand all the crimes. You may be tugging at threads (the crimes you see) which interconnect at some much deeper level - interacting with national or international events whether political or economic or whatever. Don’t rule things out unless you’re totally sure they have no relevance!
JMHO. And I am stunned by the amazing work going on here!
Yeah, that inability to publish those insanely annoying little things is one of the best features of this site.
My point may have come off badly. It was a caution against seeing ghosts where we have no evidence there is any. Not a judgment that such inquiries are unproductive.
Thanks for the clarification. And sorry if I misunderstood.
And kudos for what you’re doing for the country here!
I would think this should also be considered along with the suggestion by several of us in the previous thread who are concerned about the potential inclusion of “delivery error” language in subject lines as a means of excluding emails from later searches. In light of your suggestion, this could also be more code for misfiling. Are these thoughts related to the “funky message received” phrase?