On the Mark

While I’m really not quite sure why the White House objects to an order that restates its existing obligation to preserve e-mails, it seems it does.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that an order, if not obeyed, carries consequence. Legal consequence.

I am not alone in being troubled by an administration that can’t quite get it right with respect to e-mail retention — e-mails, coincidentally,  from a period of great scrutiny during the Alberto Gonzalez debacle.

In a follow-up to a story and commentary I posted last month, (see my post) I want to point out last week’s Washington Post story by Peter Baker.

(Here’s the Story)

By Peter Baker - Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Washington Post Staff Writer

A federal judge ordered the White House yesterday not to destroy any backup computer tapes of its e-mail, pending civil litigation seeking to learn more about what happened to a trove of messages missing from a 2 1/2 -year period earlier in the Bush presidency.

The Bush administration had opposed such an order, arguing that it is unnecessary because the White House administrative office already is preserving backup tapes in its possession. But U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. was not satisfied by that assurance and issued the formal order, which carries contempt penalties if violated.

Read the full story here.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS