Rove's emails lost! Well, isn't that special?

The White(wash) House has 'lost' lots, 'n lots of those inconvenient emails they have been sending on private accounts, in contempt of laws concerning official documents.
Hmmm.
Contempt, that has a ring to it!

From The Washinton Post

The White House acknowledged yesterday that e-mails dealing with official government business may have been lost because they were improperly sent through private accounts intended to be used for political activities. Democrats have been seeking such missives as part of an investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

Administration officials said they could offer no estimate of how many e-mails were lost but indicated that some may involve messages from White House senior adviser Karl Rove, whose role in the firings has been under scrutiny by congressional Democrats.

Read On...

Asked about the US Attorneys uproar 'Turd Blossom' said Clinton did it too.

Oh, really? Here are some facts, instead of spin.
Glenn Greenwald at Salon:

...even Rush Limbaugh, on the March 23, 1993 broadcast of his television show, acknowledged that the full-scale replacement of all U.S. attorneys at the start of an administration is routine:

JANET RENO (US Attorney General): I haven't asked for Stephens' resignation. I've asked for the resignation of all the US attorneys as part of an orderly transfer to a new administration, so that the new administration can choose its US attorneys which it re--thinks is absolutely integral to the Department of Justice ought--and based on what we think the qualifications for US attorney should be.

LIMBAUGH: Now this happens. She's right. New administrations just come in and get rid of all the US attorneys.

The beginning of the Clinton administration was really the birth of the all-out right-wing filth and noise machine, and -- working with Republican Congressional leaders -- it attempted to convert a completely routine decision by the Clinton administration to replace all U.S. attorneys into some sort of explosive corruption scandal. And yet these are the same people, and the same faction, which now insists that there is absolutely nothing wrong with firing U.S. attorneys at any time and that the President has the unfettered right to do so -- even in the unprecedented circumstance of singling prosecutors out and replacing them in the middle of the President's term.

It's literally the same people who defend President Bush today by saying the exact opposite of what they said in 1993. Yes, that is extremely common for them to do. And yes, there is nothing surprising about it. But it is still worth noting, particularly when the dishonesty is as glaring and inescapable as it is in this case.

more here.

Also see this from Diane Feinstein

and "All roads lead to Rove" -- By Sidney Blumenthal

The 'Rule Of Karl' must end!

Christy Hardin Smith at Firedoglake

When the Founding Fathers of our nation established a government of the people, by the people and for the people, with built-in provisions for the protection of the rule of law against the tyranny of the majority through a separation of powers into three governmental branches: executive, legislative and judiciary, they failed to count on one thing: the Rule of Karl. In reading through the massive document dump of e-mails from the USAs firings and the DoJ tap dance between Gonzales and the Bush White House, the fingerprints of Karl Rove are everywhere, carefully concealed behind having other people do the actual, written e-mailing so that his hands (and signature line) stay off the direct line of communication — but everywhere nonetheless.

[...]

Politics is not supposed to be the foremost consideration in judicial action. In fact, it is supposed to be quite far down the list, if there at all, in terms of the factors in play for charging decisions. The fact that the Bush Administration has attempted to so pervert the legal system as to skew it for its own political gain is appalling enough. But that they would fire US Attorneys for doing their jobs — and doing them well, in uncovering corrupt acts of politicians regardless of party, or for making charging decisions outside the realm of political vendetta — is unconscionable.

More