White House Violated Agreement With Grand Jury To Retain Data
White House Agreement With Fitzgerald Violated; Opens Possibility Fitzgerald May Ignore Agreement Not To Prosecute Rove
Ref RNC Lawyer reverses himself.
It's meaningless to talk about what e-mail Rove supposedly thought Fitzgerald had; or what Rove through the Grand Jury looked at.
The real question: What agreement terms did the White House have with the Grand Jury and US Attorney's office to avoid prosecution. Fitzgerald appears to have had concerns with the e-mail prompting questions of Libby. It appears Fitzgerald made a deal with the White House: Solve your supposed problem with the e-mails, and I'll back off.
However, given the White House does not appear to have complied with that agreement, it raises questions about the motivations of White house counsel who discussed the terms of the agreement. One Fitzgerald was led to believe that the e-mail retention issue was a "reasonable error, but could be remedied" yet the White House cannot remedy this "simple problem," We have to ask: If the solution that was supposedly simple was not done; why would we belie the original assertion the White House gave that the error was honest; or believe they were sincere in their promise to address this issue with e-mail to aoid prosecution.
It appears the "solution" the White House proposed in the deal with Fitzgerald was not sincere; they knew the real problem was a deliberate action; and the White House failure to demonstrate to Fitzgerald that it would manage Rove's e-mails as promised casts doubt on the White House original promises, defenses, and representations to the Grand Jury and Fitzgerald.
Agreement Terms Between White House And Grand Jury
The essential data retention requirements apart of the agreement between the Grand Jury and US Attorney appear to have been violated. This is a basis for Fitzgerald to re-open the Grand Jury review and find out what the White House said it would do to address his concerns; but was not done.
IT appears Fitzgerald did not peruse an investigation because he believes that the white House would resolve this issue. However, in light of this apparent violation o the Agreement, Fitzgerald has a reasonable basis to re-open the investigation and empanel the Grand Jury.
Before the story was confusion; now there is certainty. It still doesn't make sense.
The RNC lawyer would have us believe that Rove did something appropriate. Wrong. If Fitzgerald had any e-mails, then the issue isn't what Rove did or didn't do, but why didn't the agreement between the RNC and US Attorney -- how e-mail would be retained -- remain in full force.
RNC lawyers would have us believe that this deviation was up to Rove. No, there was an agreement between an ousted entity and the White House: What would the computer experts do to comply with the Grand Jury concerns.
What Rove supposedly did or didn't do is meaningless.
The question goes to the IT Department in the White House: Why, despite fairing warning fro the Grand Jury of their concerns with e-mail retention over Valarie Plame, did the IT department not ensue the e-mail was or wasn't retained.
RNC counsel and Rove have no credibility. They've shifted the focus form whether something was or wasn't lawful; to a secondary issue.
This has little to do with the RNC or Rove, but central to what the White House IT department agreed, but apparently did not do, to comply with the Grand Jury concerns about e-mail retention problems.
RNC and Rove are secondary. The issue is the agreement between the White House and the US Attorney's office over what would be done to remedy the procedures to comply with the Presidential Records Act.