Is Obama CCing Bush?

In the case over missing White House emails, plaintiffs claim Obama is taking a page from Bush.

Photo by flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rowdyman/3229390020/">rowdyman</a> used under a <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a> license.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The Obama administration was supposed to bring a new era of accountability and transparency to Washington. But two nonprofits are complaining that the new President is taking the Bush administration line—at least for now—on a big issue: what to do (or not to do) about millions of missing White House emails.

The day after Obama was sworn in as President, the Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss a case brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the National Security Archive. The two watchdogs want to force the administration to prove that it has recovered all missing emails and has taken steps to prevent any more emails from being lost. Last Friday, the Obama administration missed a deadline to withdraw its motion. “If they didn’t want to litigate this, they would have withdrawn or asked to hold their motion,” says Anne Weismann, CREW’s chief counsel. “I would have taken that as a sign of good faith.”

When asked about the Obama administration’s apparent adoption of the Bush strategy at Monday’s White House press briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “This administration and this presidency seek a different amount of transparency than Washington has seen,” and quipped, “Dare I say email the Justice Department” about the seeming disconnect. But other administration officials were adamant that they could not comment about pending litigation.

It could be that the administration is working behind the scenes to settle the case, as the Clinton administration did when the NSA sued it in the early 1990s. The plaintiffs would certainly be open to the prospect: Weismann told Mother Jones that her organization “would be very open to an interest on their part to settle this lawsuit.” But so far, Weismann says, she hasn’t noticed “a difference” from the Bush administration’s legal strategy. “When we approached them about the possibility of finding a non-litigation way to resolve this, the response so far has been opposition,” she said.

But the Obama team’s moves in this case so far echo Bush administration’s strategy. In its motion to dismiss, the White House claims that missing emails are already being recovered and the suit is no longer necessary—exactly the same claim the Bush White House made throughout the second half of 2008. But the plaintiffs say that the efforts the White House has taken are still insufficient. “The motion that they filed suggests some activity but it definitely doesn’t suggest sufficient activity to save the emails,” says Meredith Fuchs, the general counsel for the National Security Archive.

The National Security Archive has sued every president since Reagan over email archiving. In its latest filing (PDF), the National Security Archive calls the motion to dismiss “no more than the latest in a long series of stonewalling tactics, which a less charitable litigant might characterize as a cover-up.” The plaintiffs claim that the issue at the heart of the lawsuit is the very transparency Gibbs said Obama wants to bring to Washington. After all, the plaintiffs have struggled for months to find out exactly what the White House has done to recover missing emails (perhaps millions) and prevent further losses. The little information that has emerged in court filings has not given the National Security Archive or CREW much comfort. “We have no assurance that the Obama administration is now using an appropriate method to archive emails,” Weismann says. “Do they intend, in the near future, to put in place a new record-keeping system? I would hope so, but I don’t know that for a fact. They haven’t told us anything.”

Fuchs says it’s hard for the plaintiffs to determine how close the White House is to having an appropriate, legally compliant archiving system without more disclosure: “It’s conceivable that what they’ve done is 95 percent of the way there. It’s conceivable it’s 50 percent of the way there. It’s conceivable it’s almost nothing. But we have so little information about what they’ve done, it’s very difficult for us to assess whether emails are safe at this point.” The bottom line, she says, is that, “from what we’ve read [in White House legal filings], we believe emails are still at risk and still have not been restored.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate