Did I miss something here? WHO authorized this bogus system in the first place? Names, please. And dates. And documents.

My, oh my. This extends their old trick of ‘Plausible Deniability’ to a whole new level, doesn’t it?

Missing emails?
Feature.
Not a bug.

http://www.opednews.com/articl….._quest.htm

In an email exchange a couple of weeks ago requesting that he clarify his position, Luskin said he “speculated that the [Hadley] email was overlooked because of a gap in search terms, but I have no direct knowledge.” That contradicts his previous statements http://www.yourbbsucks.com/for…..php?t=5345 to Newsweek in which Luskin stated unequivocally that the email was not found because the wrong search terms were used.

“Neither Mr. Rove nor I was involved in any manner in the collection of emails or other electronic documents in response to subpoenas from the Special Counsel [Patrick Fitzgerald],” Luskin said. “Mr. Fitzgerald’s staff worked directly with the White House counsel and the IT folks from the White House. However, Mr. Fitzgerald did advise me that Mr. Rove had absolutely no responsibility for the oversight and that he has never regarded the failure to turn over the [Hadley] email as ‘culpable’ by anyone.”

That statement, or at least part of it, does not appear to be entirely accurate. In a May 10, 2007 deposition before investigators working for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rove’s former assistant, Susan Ralston, testified that during the leak investigation she and Rove were instructed “to go and do keyword searches based on the subpoena that we got, and search all of his folders for keywords.” Ralston said during her deposition that there were “six or seven” subpoenas Rove received from Fitzgerald for documents in Plame leak. Any documents that were found were turned over to Gonzales. Yet the email Rove sent to Hadley was never turned over to Fitzgerald.

Luskin would not provide a copy of that email, which has never been released publicly. He said the contents of the exchange have been “widely reported.” Luskin added that he had no interest in providing either the Hadley email “or any other documents,” including a copy of a letter Fitzgerald sent Luskin that purportedly cleared Rove of criminal exposure in the leak case, to me because of a story I reported two years ago that stated Rove was indicted by Fitzgerald. Luskin added that I “played a despicable role in circulating false allegations concerning an indictment of Mr. Rove and persisted with the story even after it was demonstrated to be false” and he therefore would not provide documentary evidence that could demonstrate his client’s innocence.

PSTs have a 2GB file limit, which is an old legacy issue that I linked to in a previous thread. Before it was automated, it appears that the PSTs were created, labelled in an ad hoc way, and packed off. There were over 5,000 PSTs. That’s over 10TB, begging for some kind of proper database system for storage.

I’m wondering if some of these losses were just on account of a fuckwitted backup process where the person doing the backup basically shrugs when it hits 2gigs. Or whether there’s file corruption, or whether… see, there’s no way to tell cock-up from conspiracy, it’s so utterly fucking slapdash.

In reply to both pseudonymousinnc and EW at 15, I gotta wonder just how one conducts a search for emails on a whole lotta of PSTs acting as supposed “journals”?

Page 14 of the McDevitt answers will just make anyone involved in this stuff roll their eyes. It talks about the slapdash labelling and PSTing, and goes on as follows (my emph):

If my recollection is correct, at that time there were over 5,000 .pst files with an average size of
approximately 2 Gigabytes. Since each of these files contained messages one or more days and
since it was not possible to determine what days were included in any given file, we needed to
determine a method to perform this analysis. Prior to this effort, Microsoft had provided the
EOP with a custom software application for performing searches on .pst files. This tool was
commonly referred to as the “Findlt” tool.

Microsoft was contacted and was tasked to modify the Findlt tool so that it included the
additional functionality of providing a message count for each day represented in a given .pst
file. This process was performed on each .pst file in the inventory and the data was aggregated
into a single data set. This is the data set that provided the basis for the analysis.

It took a couple week to perform the analysis on the thousands of .pst files. When the data was
tabulated it became clear that a problem existed because there were days for which no email was
retained. Extensive testing was performed at that time to ensure that the tools and the tabulation
processed was performed correctly. An independent verification and validation was also
perform by a different set of contractors to ensure that this analysis process was completed
correctly and that the data was coffectly analyzed and the accurately represented.

You could have actually done that in a less kludgy way on the client side with an automated task. Daily. Frigging. Archive. Timestamped and verified. It would be the sort of thing you might want to do in a mom-and-pop setting. But in the frigging White House?

kkkarl has been invited to testify (hold it)

Dana Jill Simpson says:

“Since Karl Rove has said that and he feels so good saying that, what I want him to do is go and swear before the United States Congress and swear what he’s saying is true.”

(laugh now)

silly woman

the last time kkkarl testified under oath it took FIVE ATTEMPTS to get his story straight

It would make for GREAT television though …

maybe Fitz, Ambassador Wilson, and a certain blogger we all love, could “sit in” with the committee (an you know, bring donuts, suggest a few questions that kinda thing …)

what do you say guys, I’ve got an empty barn, and bmaz has a big sheet …

what about kkkarl rove’s fact checker ???

dick cheney’s doctor has it pretty easy too, considering that the man died 8 years back …

Is Fitzy’s “inactive” analagous to Romney’s “suspended”
Can’t some press guy ask Pat for an update.
Mukasey must know the status… ask him?

Are you kidding? The man doesn’t talk to the press. His “spokesman” has the easiest job in the world.

WHO authorized this bogus system in the first place?

that would have to be the deciderer, wouldn’t it ???