Talk:Bush White House email controversy

Comments

Shouldn't it be noted that 20 million emails were recovered? Footnote 5 notes this, but the article in wikipedia only uses this article to reference how many emails were claimed to be missing. Even if it did not resolve the issue, it is important that these emails were recovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickkquinn (talk • contribs) 17:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

History is poorly documented before the invention of writing. See for example the Standard of Ur. See other references to endemic warfare. Note multiple definitions of the word endemic.

It should be recollected that both common law and dead letter law are functionally the same within recorded systems of western jurisprudence as per Roman laws 0 AD -0 BCE. IT SHOULD BE RECOLLECTED THAT BOTH COMMON LAW AND DEAD LETTER LAW ARE EQUALLY VALID WITHIN RECOGNIZED WESTERN EUROPEAN SYSTEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE FOR THESE PAST TWO THOUSAND YEARS ANNO DOMINI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keflavik1 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger into Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

This is an article about a domain name, which really is a minor footnote to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. It's not at all unusual for organizations to have domain names that are used for email only. howcheng {chat} 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you badly misunderstand what's going on here. See this article: [1] Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 03:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I get it. The use of an RNC-hosted email server is the significant thing, not the actual domain name of the email server itself. That's why gwb43.com doesn't deserve an article. howcheng {chat} 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but it shouldn't be merged into an unrelated controversy. This article applies to Abramoff, too. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to call this proposed merger dead. -- Yellowdesk 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources for expanding on this article

Perhaps some of the content from these can be incorporated here. -- Yellowdesk 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Stolberg, Sherl Gay Missing E-Mail May Be Related to Prosecutors New York Times' April 13, 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2007.

• Loven, Jennifer (Associated Press) Bush aides' use of GOP e-mail probed The Boston Globe, April 11, 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2007.

• BBS News Karl Rove RNC Emails Missing Prior to 2005 April 12, 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2007.

• Hamburger, Tom Party-issued laptops now a White House headache Los Angeles Times April 9, 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2007. 24.41.39.124 06:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Glenn Greenwald The Bush administration's terrible luck with finding documents Salon.com April 12, 2007.

• Whois database showing ownership of gwb43.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.189.74.62 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger of 2007 White House email controversy into Gwb43.com

• Against A more general title would be better, something like: Bush administration email controversy, if it rises to "controversy."
  The domain gwb43 is merely one aspect of this story. Better would be to rename this article, and have a redirect pointing to the renamed version of gwb43.com. -- Yellowdesk 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And I proprose the move/change in name below. -- Yellowdesk 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the merger after gwb43.com has a better name. -- Yellowdesk 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As the nominator of the merge, I agree with this. Quadpus 01:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the e-mail thingy is not limited to one controversy. We have disappearing e-mails in Abromoff, Plame and now attorneygate. Either somebody is utterly incompetent or it is evidence of something more sinister .Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

• I merged all of the information that was not redundant. Someone can check it over. I'll turn 2007 White House email controversy into a redirect in a week or so, unless someone gets to it sooner. -- Yellowdesk 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me Quadpus 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and converted it into a redirect. Just in case anyone wants to see the history, here's how to get at the page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2007_White_House_email_controversy&redirect=no

-- Yellowdesk 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Bush Administration email controversy" or another name.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result of the move discussion was move to: Bush White House e-mail controversy -- Yellowdesk 11:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)}}

Originally proposed new name: Bush administration email controversy.
Revised proposed name Bush White House e-mail controversy
The result would cause gwb43.com to continue to live on, and redirect to the new name.

This method of operations at the White House and Administration seems not yet to be quite a controversy, but I cannot think of a better word.
A proposal for a better name is invited. Meanwhile, I'll start the conversation with this particular new name proposal.
The topic covered with this article is bigger than the domain name, "gwb43.com", since it touches on:

1. several embarassing episodes or controversies,
2. the inability of the Bush administration to provide requested documents and communications in response to Congressional subpeona or request
3. potential violations of the Hatch Act and of the
4. Presidential Records Act as well.

-- Yellowdesk 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion:

1. E-mail should be hyphenated in this request, to correspond with the title of the e-mail article. Dekimasuよ! 12:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This can be handled with a redirect. I have not typed "E" "DASH" "MAIL" in years, and there are a lot of others that don't either. That article redirects from "email" as well. -- Yellowdesk 16:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I thought the controversy only had to do with people working at the White House, not for the rest of the Cabinet. If that's the case, then it should be "Bush White House" and not "Bush Administration". Joeldl 07:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Point. -- Yellowdesk 17:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have taken the two above suggestions and incorporated them into a revised name: Bush White House e-mail controversy
  

Support

1. Support as the proposer, for the reasons stated above. -- Yellowdesk 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support it would seem the Bush administration has had trouble finding e-mails in several incidents.[2] A more detailed discussion is warranted and that should be in an anrticle with a relevant name.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. As I said above, the domain name in and of itself is unimportant. howcheng {chat} 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Sure Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka

Oppose

Neutral

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirects:

Also created redirects from: Bush White House email controversy,
George W. Bush White House e-mail controversy
George W. Bush White House email controversy

Yellowdesk 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

References improvement requests

• A real citation to source this statement is needed. A link to the domain is "original research." Is there a published source that acknowledges this?
  -- Yellowdesk 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com and rnchq.org, but unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it—it is used only for e-mail.

• reference 19 is a dead link 69.234.30.25 11:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing e-mails and stuff

Trying to collect sources for the different controversies.[3][4] Please add any you find.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I am adding some links that do not qualify as WP:RS yet they are a good read.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Presidential Records Act

The Presidential Records Act requires presidents to preserve all records that relate to the "activities, deliberations, decisions and policies that reflect the performance of [the president's] constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties...."[5]

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released a report [April 12, 2007], WITHOUT A TRACE: The Missing White House Emails and the Violations of the Presidential Records Act, detailing the legal issues behind the story of the White House e-mail scandal.[6][7][8]

Critics say the White House has violated the Presidential Records Act, a 1978 law that requires each administration to maintain an adequate record of its deliberations.[9]

Iglesias said that on April 3, he filed a Hatch Act complaint with the OSC, charging that Karl Rove and others may have violated the law by firing him over his failure to initiate partisan-motivated prosecutions. Iglesias said he subsequently spoke with OSC chief Scott Bloch, who made clear that he was planning to launch an investigation.[10]

• Dismissals

Political advisers to President Bush may have improperly used their Republican National Committee e-mail accounts to conduct official government business, and some communications that are required to be preserved under federal law may be lost as a result, White House officials said Wednesday. . .[11]

The White House said Wednesday that it may have lost what could amount to thousands of messages sent through a private e-mail system used by political guru Karl Rove and at least 50 other top officials, an admission that stirred anger and dismay among congressional investigators.[12]

• Plame affair

Media largely ignored Fitzgerald revelation that White House may have destroyed emails[13]

More than two dozen emails sent to various senior Bush administration officials between May 2003 and early July 2003 related to covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, are missing, and the special prosecutor investigating the case suspects that the communications may have been destroyed, according to high level sources close to the two-year old probe.[14]

..not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system, ...[15]

The defense was told that the White House had recently located and turned over about 250 pages of e-mails from the vice president's office. Fitzgerald, in a letter last month to the defense, had cautioned Libby's lawyers that some e-mails might be missing because the White House's archiving system had failed.[16]

During a wide-ranging interview with Truthout on Monday, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and CREW's Chief Counsel Anne Weismann said they believe Miers did not fully inform Fitzgerald about the millions of emails the White House lost between 2003 and 2005. As a result, the CREW attorneys said it's likely that Fitzgerald did not obtain all of the evidence related to the leak investigation - particularly emails sent during that time period by Karl Rove that may further implicate the White House political adviser in the Plame Wilson leak.[17]

As the White House comes under increasing scrutiny, the picture just keeps getting bleaker. We learned yesterday, for instance, that until August 2004 the RNC had a policy of deleting emails on its servers that were more than 30 days old. After "legal inquires," presumably those of CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the committee began saving the correspondence of White House officials. So, since Karl Rove is said to use his RNC address 95 percent of the time, and is a well known email fanatic, the RNC should have quite a hefty record of his communications, right? Strangely, the RNC doesn't have records of a single Rove email until 2005, which, as the committee's counsel Rob Kelner told members of Henry Waxman's Government Reform Committee, may have been because Rove was deleting them himself. This, it seems, is what led the RNC to remove Rove's ability to delete his messages and place an automatic archiving function solely on his account.[18]

Mr. Kelner also explained that starting in 2005, the RNC began to treat Mr. Rove's emails in a special fashion. At some point in 2005, the RNC commenced an automatic archive policy for Mr. Rove, but not for any other White House officials. According to Mr. Kelner, this archive policy removed Mr. Rove's ability to personally delete his e-mails from the RNC server. Mr. Kelner did not provide many details about why this special policy was adopted for Mr. Rove. But he did indicate that one factor was the presence of investigative or discovery requests or other legal concerns.[19]

Going on weeks now, I've been inundated with questions about whether Fitzgerald knew about the GWB43.com server. If so, what can he teach Waxman, Conyers, and Leahy about its use? If not, does that mean Fitzgerald has received enough new information that the CIA Leak case will re-enter an active phase?[20][21]

Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to reopen his investigation of Karl Rove's role in disclosing Valerie Plame Wilson's status as a covert CIA operative in light of recent revelations about missing White House emails.[22]

• Abramoff

Disclosures last week that large numbers of Mr. Rove's White House email messages and those of other White House officials were erased and possibly permanently lost raised concern on Capitol Hill about possible destruction of evidence relevant to the Abramoff-White House inquiry.[23][24]

First, let me expand on why I think it was the Abramoff scandal that first focused attention onto the RNC servers. As I said, the timeline makes sense: the Wapo first starting reporting this story heavily in February 2004. The FBI started investigating in March 2004.[25]

But the revelation in Waxman's letter that Abramoff communicated with Susan Ralston - Rove's former assistant - via an RNC email account suggests that the DOJ inspector general may not have obtained email correspondence between Abramoff and the White House because RNC emails can be destroyed, whereas emails sent using a White House account are automatically archived, in conjunction with the Presidential Records Act.[26]

• General Services Administration

The e-mails are also sought in a congressional investigation of the alleged politicization of the General Services Administration.[27]

• Hurricane Katrina

[Federal Emergency Management Agency Michael] Brown's comments about the president surfaced in a transcript of an Aug. 29, 2005, videoconference call produced by Bush administration officials today after they initially told Congress that no such document existed. . . .[28]

• Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force

The missing e-mails are reminiscent of the White House's resistance to releasing information about its domestic spying program and Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, Dodd said.[29]

• Election

There is more than ample documentation to show that on Election Night 2004, Ohio's "official" Secretary of State website – which gave the world the presidential election results – was redirected from an Ohio government server to a group of servers that contain scores of Republican web sites, including the secret White House e-mail accounts that have emerged in the scandal surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s firing of eight federal prosecutors.[30]

• Detainee abuse

The Pentagon sought Sunday to explain why some 2,000 pages were missing from a congressional copy of a classified report detailing the alleged acts of abuse by soldiers against Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison. . . . .[31]

Key documents are missing from the batch of newly declassified documents the White House released this week on its policies on torture and the treatment of prisoners, critics say. Absent are any memos to and from the FBI and CIA and any documents dated after April 2003. No documents address the State Department's concern over the Bush administration's interpretation of the Geneva Conventions.[32]

• Jose Padilla

The disclosure that the Pentagon had lost a potentially important piece of evidence in one of the U.S. government's highest-profile terrorism cases was met with claims of incredulity by some defense lawyers and human-rights groups monitoring the case.[33]

• Bush's Texas Air National Guard service

Documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service are missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973, according to regulations and outside experts.[34]

• Miscelaneous

But a civil lawsuit, filed by the protesters, recently unearthed D.C. police logs that confirm the FBI's role in the incident.[35]

Hundreds of videotapes that federal prison officials had claimed were destroyed show that foreign nationals held at a New York detention facility after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were victims of physical and verbal abuse by guards, the Justice Department's inspector general said yesterday. . .[36]

Lost emails "Found"!

• Washington Post: Deal Announced on Missing emails: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/14/AR2009121403710.html
• Computerworld: 'Lost' Bush e-mail settlement requires that White House reveal IT practices

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142268/_Lost_Bush_e_mail_settlement_requires_that_White_House_reveal_IT_practices_?taxonomyId=18

Hatch Act

The WP:lede is supposed to summarise the article. However the lead claims the use of the private email accounts may have violated the Hatch Act but the article only says it was done to avoid violating the Hatch Act Nil Einne (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Article title

Should the article title be "Bush White House email controversy"? Or should it be changed to "Bush White House email system"? The former title had been in place for quite some time. An editor moved the article to the new title (the latter title) very recently. That editor thought it best to remove the word "controversy" from the article title. I reverted the move. I think such a move needs to be discussed via a Move Discussion or a Talk Page consensus. I don't think it should be done unilaterally. Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

For further (background) information, the idea of using the word "controversy" in an article title created its own controversy (here at this page: Hillary Clinton email system). And it is/was being discussed at this Talk Page: Talk:Hillary Clinton email system#Rename this? (June 2015). That is how this article itself came to be moved and renamed without including the word "controversy" in the title. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

For reasons explained at the corresponding Clinton article, and also explained at WP:CRITS, I oppose the word "controversy" in this article title. Let's see what the verdict is at the Clinton article before pursuing the matter further here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I still do not understand your position. As I was reading this article and several other articles, I ran across a great deal of them that have the word "controversy" in their titles. So, are you saying that no Wikipedia article should have that word in its title ("controversy") ever? That is, we are never allowed to use the word "controversy" in an article title? Or does that sentiment only apply to some articles and not others? And, if the latter is the case, how do we decide which do and which do not get so named? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I already said:

“ The best and usual practice at Wikipedia is to exclude the word "controversy" from article titles except when it has become part of the common name for the event, such as the antinomian controversy. This is because a Wikipedia article like this one will often include much information that is not controversial at all, even if it became notable because of controversy. This is merely a special case of the more general rule that titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Which does not answer my question. I mean, your reply is "except when it has become part of the common name for the event". OK. So that simply (semantically) changes my question to: "how do we know/decide when it has become part of the common name for the event?". I am quite sure that we have reliable sources on, say, the Bush White House email controversy (for example). But, I am also quite sure that no reliable source is going to flat out affirmatively state: "Oh, by the way, 'controversy' is the common name for this event". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Google books is usually helpful. It gives only one hit for the current Wikipedia article title ("Bush White House email controversy"). So that is not a common name. So we should not use "controversy" in the article title. The title that we do decide to use does not necessarily have to be a common name unless, for example, it includes words like "controversy" or "scandal".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree with that method. There are a lot of article titles that would not show up in Google Books. Wikipedia often has very "odd", specific, and/or esoteric article titles. For example, Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008 and such. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Immediately before this comment of yours, I said "The title that we do decide to use does not necessarily have to be a common name unless, for example, it includes words like 'controversy' or 'scandal'". Thus, there is usually no need for an article title to show up in google books, per WP:CRITS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, I do not follow you. Are you saying: (A) if the common title does not use the word "controversy" or "scandal", then we do use the common title; but (B) if the common title does use the word "controversy" or "scandal", then we do not use the common title? Is that what you are saying? I am trying to follow your arguments/logic. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am saying: (A) if a common title for the subject of this article does not exist or (if it exists) does not use the word "controversy" or "scandal", then we should not use those words in the article title per WP:CRITS; and (B) if there is a common title for this article subject, and that common title does use the word "controversy" or "scandal", then we may use that common title, per WP:CRITS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Makes no sense. You are saying, in effect, that no Wikipedia article can ever have the word "controversy" (or "scandal") in its title. Makes no sense at all. And, there are literally hundreds of Wikipedia articles that already do have the word ("controversy") in its title. So, where are you getting that it is "common accepted practice" to not have articles so named? And, on top of all that, we have many Wikipedia categories specifically entitled "controversy". Your interpretation of WP:CRITS does not seem to harmonize with the rest of how Wikipedia works. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am running out of WP:AGF here. The following statement of yours utterly and completely contradicts part "B" of my most recent comment: "You are saying, in effect, that no Wikipedia article can ever have the word "controversy" (or "scandal") in its title." I do not understand how you could distort what I say to such a degree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Yes, you are extremely unclear. What constitutes a "common name"? You do not seem to be satisfied when multiple heavy-hitter reliable sources call something a "controversy". For some inexplicable reason, you do not think that that fact holds any weight. (As evidenced in our conversation on the "Hillary Clinton email system" article.) You will recall that that list of RS's included The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, Reuters, etc. So, if the multiple reliable sources call something a "controversy", that does not satisfy you. You have some ambiguous (i.e., unclear) criteria. You seem to want to "pick and choose" what is and what is not a "controversy" (for article title purposes). Do you really believe that reliable sources are going to affirmatively state: "Oh, by the way, the common name for this incident is X, Y, Z" when they report on the incident? So, again, yes, you are extremely unclear. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have taken this to Joseph A. Spadaro's user talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, a "verdict" in the Clinton article does not translate to an "across the board" verdict for every article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No,,but perhaps one of us will find that discussion persuasive so we will not have to go through endless redundant argumentation at lots of different talk pages.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And, by the way, an editor above keeps making reference to WP:CRITS as if it were Gospel. WP:CRITS is not even a policy. It's an essay. Yes, an essay. Let me repeat that: an essay. If this so-called "rule" (to not name articles with the title "controversy") were so important – as it is being made out to be – I am sure that Wikipedia would have a policy about this sort of thing. We would not be placing such a "critical" decision in the hands of a mere "essay" and relying on said essay. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the "move request" at the following Talk Page (Talk:Hillary Clinton email system#Rename this? (June 2015)) has finally been resolved. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Article title 2

The current article title is Bush White House email controversy. There were two presidents by the name of President Bush (George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush). So, I want to distinguish exactly which Bush the article is referring to. So, should we rename/move the article to George W. Bush White House email controversy? Thanks.Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Article_titles_#Deciding_on_an_article_title- Adding "George W." would be in violation of Precision - there being no George H. W. Bush White House email controversy article or topic from which it needs to be distinguished, and in violation of Conciseness , with the extra words making it longer than necessary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And all Google hits on "George H. W. Bush White House email controversy" are from Wikipedia while "Bush White House email controversy" has many other hits. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, all. I was not aware of those naming policies. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Two Different Email Controversies are Confused in the Article

The article mixes two completely different problems with Bush era email without clearly differentiating them. This leads to a confusing and unclear article.

Specifically the end of the first paragraph includes a claim about 22 million missing emails being recovered, along with footnote citation #5. However the next paragraph makes it seem as if the only problem with Bush era official emails was that some administration officals conducted government business on the RNC servers, when they should not have.

That did happen, and was the center of the original email controversy that most of this article is about.

But it's not what the article in ciatation #5 is about. That is a about a later problem where the official white house email system (run on Microsoft software) was not archiving properly.

These two completely separate events need to be pulled apart and clearly explained separately, and not conflated, if this article is going to be as good as it can be.

ZeroXero (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think perhaps citation 5 and the line that talks about it should be moved from the lede and incorporated into the article, perhaps? Bonewah (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Consolidated source list

Here is an updated list of potential sources and sources that have been removed.

• Washington Post, GOP Groups Told to Keep Bush Officials' E-Mails
• Stolberg, Sherl Gay Missing E-Mail May Be Related to Prosecutors New York Times' April 13, 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2007.

• Loven, Jennifer (Associated Press) Bush aides' use of GOP e-mail probed The Boston Globe, April 11, 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2007.

• BBS News Karl Rove RNC Emails Missing Prior to 2005 April 12, 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2007.

• Hamburger, Tom Party-issued laptops now a White House headache Los Angeles Times April 9, 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2007.

• Glenn Greenwald The Bush administration's terrible luck with finding documents Salon.com April 12, 2007.

• scoop.co.nz Renner: Millions of White House Emails Missing

• Washing post Countless White House E-Mails Deleted

Ill add more as i have time. Bonewah (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bush White House email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502003342/http://www.citizensforethics.org:80/files/041207WithoutATraceFullReport.pdf to http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/041207WithoutATraceFullReport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070420212252/http://www.citizensforethics.org:80/node/25822 to http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/25822
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415034406/http://www.tpmmuckraker.com:80/archives/002993.php to http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002993.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1362
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150306044559/http://www.citizensforethics.org:80/legal-filings/entry/crew-writes-patrick-fitzgerald-asking-to-re-open-rove-case-in-light-of-miss to http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-writes-patrick-fitzgerald-asking-to-re-open-rove-case-in-light-of-miss
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070413/pl_usnw/crew_writes_patrick_fitzgerald_asking_to_re_open_rove_case_in_light_of_missing_emails
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070523032406/http://www.citizensforethics.org:80/node/28382 to http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28382
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610033347/http://www.dominopower.com/directory/articles/1002/1074/1074.html to http://www.dominopower.com/directory/articles/1002/1074/1074.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bush White House email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815183717/http://judiciary.house.gov:80/hearings/pdf/RExhibits_1.pdf to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/RExhibits_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813100722/http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_WHDocs.html to http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_WHDocs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bush White House email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/041207WithoutATraceFullReport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825125348/http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/RExhibits.pdf to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/RExhibits.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/RExhibits_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520001454/http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm to http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Why "Obama Administration reached a settlement"?

Can someone explain this, the last sentence of the intro:

"... the Obama Administration reached a settlement with two watchdog groups who had sued to obtain the emails."

The wording above makes it sound like the Obama Administration and the watchdog groups were adversaries. Why would that be? I.e., what were the agendas of the various parties?

BMJ-pdx (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)