Something for the Plameologists while The Petraeus Show is on

by Kagro X

Just in case you were wondering whether there might actually be something else going on this week besides the Petraeus Show, there is. Nothing serious, though. Just the latest in a series of deadlines set by Government Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, demanding the delivery by the "administration" of reports generated by the still-unknown private contractor who claims to have "lost" those 5 million White House e-mails. Deadline: Today.

In a letter to Fielding, Rep. Henry Waxman set a Sept. 10 deadline for the White House to turn over information about the missing e-mail, a problem that apparently was discovered by administration officials in 2005.

The letter from Waxman, D-Calif., revealed new details about the issue that came from two White House lawyers who briefed Waxman's staff about problems archiving electronic messages. White House e-mail problems first came to light during a special prosecutor's investigation into whether someone on President Bush's staff illegally leaked a CIA agent's identity and again during congressional inquiries into the role of presidential aides in firings of U.S. attorneys.

Yes, we've known about this since 2005. And yes, it was discovered in the investigation of the Plame outing. And yes, we're still waiting.

P.S. -- Also still pending: Contempt of Congress charges against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. Both still at large.

Comments

[emptywheel]

Um, the email is not primarily a Plameologist issue. There is no reason to believe that Fitz didn't get a significant chunk of the responsive emails.

[John Forde]

I belive this URL is still available

www.congressuseyourdungeon.com

[phred]

Kagro X, I don't think anyone in Congress actually knows what the word deadline means. So just in case any of them happen upon this thread, allow me to help...

noun
1. the latest time or date by which something should be completed
2. (historical) a line drawn around a prison beyond which prisoners were liable to be shot

I've got some chalk, anyone want to help me draw some lines (snark ;)

(h/t to Oxford dictionary widget on my Mac)

[bmaz]

A reasonable man once said "Because fuck you, ... What're you gonna do about it?"

[bmaz]

If this is the official non-Petraeus thread for the time being, it should be noted that Sen. Larry Craig had filed his motion to set aside the plea agreement in Hennepin County. Here is a link or URL

http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2007/09/10/10/0910-online-Motion.source.prod_affiliate.36.PDF

It looks like a very strong motion to me. I would give at least 50:50 odds, if not a fair amount better, that Craig gets this plea withdrawn.

[P J Evans]

bmaz, do you think he can come up with a reasonable explanation for why he pleaded guilty and agreed to the deal? Because to me, it sounds like he'd rather appear to be mentally semi-competent than admit that he has some serious hypocrisy issues.

[bmaz]

PJ - All I can say is read the motion; it is not that long and lays it out pretty well. Had I written the motion, I would have phrased it slightly differently, giving a little more emphasis to the Constitutionality arguments. That being said however, and that is simply a matter of choice by different lawyers, the facts and legal deficiencies are certainly all laid out clearly. I think the thing that is being missed by many, even lawyers, analyzing this, is that the court has a duty to have and make evidence of the regularity and propriety of certain acts occurring before it. There are multiple discreet areas where such a record does not exist in this case; when you couple that with the extremely shaky, if not absent, factual basis for the crime pled to, you have a reversible situation. I wish this was not the case, but I call em as I see em. If I were a judge, I would be inclined to grant this motion; although I might set an evidentiary hearing to button down Craig a little further on the record. Unless his facts as sworn to in the affidavit attached to the motion are rebutted though, I think he has a good case.

[Citizen92]

Hell, it's not that hard.

Maybe someone might want to ask this guy (click the link) about what he did as a contractor for the EOP?

Here's the relevant part of his resume (publicly posted):

2003-2005 Systems Management Engineering, Inc. Washington, DC
Business Solutions Manager
• Developed business plans, conducted sales efforts, and worked on client projects.
• Coordinated and wrote winning proposal for $2.5 million, 5-year contract with the Executive Office of the President of the United States.
• Led team of high-level professionals in assessing business processes and technology of the White House, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and other EOP organizations.

I mean, c'mon. This ain't rocket science.

[stagemom]

citizen92,
i clicked. oh, my...
gimme a y-a-l-e. what's
that spell?
guilty.
(how'd you find that resume?
no, really?)

[Citizen92]

teh google.

really, it's not that hard. if i can do it, anyone can.

[P J Evans]

bmaz

He wants to withdraw his plea because he was afraid in June that a newspaper in Idaho might write a story about the charges in Minnesota? And the plea didn't become news until August?
Um, isn't the timing just a little off there (and he still hasn't explained how he just happened to make all the moves to request the, um, services)?

(Link to the PDF of the withdrawal request at TPM.)

[bmaz]

PJ - Oh, no, I agree with that thought 100%. But, in spite of that, there really are fundamental problems here that I honestly believe militate in favor of stting the plea aside. Keep in mind that the law is really about the integrity of the process as much or more than a particular result in one case. The process here has huge flaws that are more important than the fact that Craig deserves to reap that which he clearly has sown.

[phred]

Citizen92 -- didn't the use of the term "thought-leaders" in the resume creep you out a bit? Sounds too close to thought-police for my taste. Blech.

[P J Evans]

bmaz

Obviously, IANAL.
I do have problems with a legislator who can't think through even immediate consequences before he puts his name on the dotted line. (Not that this makes him different from most of the others in DC: everthing will be just fine if - !)

[bmaz]

PJ - Again, I agree 100%; but that is not what I am saying. There are simply fundamental due process requirements that are incumbent upon the state and court to insure and significant elements were not here. For me, that produces a difficult and extremely distasteful result, but a necessary one.

[William Ockham]

Citizen92,

Close, but no cigar. Systems Management Engineering got the contract for the enterprise architecture implementation for the White House, not the email stuff. You can look them up at http://www.fedspending.org. There is also a GAO report about it (but I don't recall whether or not they mention the contractor name).

[Citizen92]

William:

Fedspending.org suggests in fact that it could be Systems Management Engineering.

This 2005 contract (accessed through FedSpending) shows SMEI got $579,821 for "Other ADP and Telecommunications Services (includes data storage on tapes, compact disks, etc.". Last I checked data storage was at the heart of the missing e-mail problem. Abd the EOP contract for that year was $579,821. So those are facts.

Now for conjecture - the kid's resume says the company did an in-depth study of the EOP's systems. How could you do an in-depth study of EOP systems and miss the fact that one of the key functions wasn't working. Not likely.

[bmaz]

Kagro X are there any hearings, votes, or anything else of note concerning subpoena enforcement coming up? I thought there was something today, but I think it was just a return date that I am sure was blown off by the Administration.

[William Ockham]

Citizen92,

Look at the description on the contract:
enterprise architecture implementation

When I get home, I'll post a link to the GAO report about the enterprise architecture effort (fwiw, enterprise architecture is what I do in real life, and, trust me, you don't usually get down to the level of malfunctioniong email servers).

That being said, it is quite possible that this dude knows something about what was going on, through office gossip if nothing else.

[Citizen92]

William:

I'll have a look at the contract, maybe Fedspending.org got it wrong here when it is described as ADP, etc. I don't doubt your qualifications.

I'd love to see the GAO report, so please post the link.

[Kathleen]

Marcy thank you for being a bull dog and keeping us all alert! Hats pff to you!

[Mary]

www.congressuseyourdungeon.com

I can't believe this hasn't been snapped up yet! *g*

There has been speculation up on CREW's blog that the undisclosed private contractor is Sidley Austin - I have no idea if that's a starter or dead in the water. However, on a related note, Sidley Austin alumni, so far rejected DC Circuit Court nominee (God bless Pat Leahy), head of DOJ's civil and starring light in the GITMO cases - Peter Keisler - announced his resignation last week. Effective later this month.

No employment announced, although they did refer to his plans to spend more time with his family.

The familial unit will probably want to don matching orange jumpsuits and hoods for the album photo commemorating the occassion.

[Mary]

CREW link
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30025#comment

[William Ockham]

The GAO report actually predates that contract. You can find the report here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02779r.pdf

The EOP has literally dozens of contracts for various ADP categories that could cover the contractor we're looking for. If you're really interested, I highly recommend signing up for the beta version of the government's fdps database (https://beta.fpdsng.com/). I suggest starting by using ezSearch to look at the Northrup Grumman Tech Services contracts from the mid 90's to 2002. We know they were the email contractor during the Clinton administration (again because the GAO did an excellent report about the problems back then). The EOP switched contractors, I think, when they switched from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange.

[Dismayed]

Hey, who cares if Craig gets reversed, the people don't believe him for a moment. He's up for reelection. If he makes it through the primaries, he'll be easy pickin's for a good Dem.

Plus he'll pull RNC money from other areas, basically weakening other candidates. It's no lose for us here.

[Sara]

He filed his papers at a satelitte court house in Edina -- the only Republican Corner of Hennepin County. I rather expect that if he is allowed to withdraw his plea, he will be send to the downtown courthouse for trial.

Local reporting says the local bar is divided on all this as afterall not all that many folk try to overturn a plea bargain. Mike Freeman the current DA has not said anything in public, but some say he really wants to try the full case. Others say that case law is such that Craig will not get his plea withdrawn. It sure won't be settled by the end of the month -- it will take four or five months to get anything on the appeals court calendar, and depending on that decision, another six months minimum to appeal to the state supremes.

And all that would be before a jury trial.

[bmaz]

I would assume he is indeed eligible for a jury trial since at least some of the potential charges if there is to be a trial involve sexual allegations which are "crimes of moral turpitude" under the law. Crimes of moral turpitude are almost always granted jury trials (whereas common misdemeanor disorderly conduct of the public disturbance variety often get only a trial to the court, i.e. judge). I am not sure that if the trial court sets aside the plea that the State will appeal. There would be a good chance of making bad precedent from their perspective. I have heard Tom Kelly is well thought of locally there; do you know anything about him?