As we’ve all been saying for quite some time, get ready for investigation after investigation with the Dem’s in power. Thier ultimate goal is to overrun the WH with silly idiotic investigations, as this one most assuredly is:
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.
Of the 1,000 White House officials with political duties, 22 — including Karl Rove, the chief political strategist — have Republican National Committee accounts that are supposed to be used only for campaign-related work. But recent revelations that some officials have used those accounts for Bush administration business, including discussions of a plan to dismiss United States attorneys, has prompted a Congressional investigation.
On Wednesday, Scott Stanzel, deputy White House press secretary, said the administration had recently begun its own inquiry, and had concluded that its policy governing political e-mail accounts was unclear, that the White House was not aggressive enough in monitoring political e-mail and that some people who had the accounts did not follow the policy closely enough.
As a result, Mr. Stanzel said, “some official e-mails have potentially been lost.” He said Mr. Bush had told the White House counsel’s office “to do everything practical to retrieve potentially lost messages.
Mr. Stanzel and a second administration official, who is involved in the review and was authorized by the White House to speak on condition of anonymity, said the White House was working with the national committee to discover what was missing and whether it could be retrieved.
If e-mail messages have been lost, Mr. Stanzel said, they are most likely those sent before 2004. That year, the national committee adopted a policy of preserving e-mail sent by White House officials using its accounts.
The Dem’s proof of wrongdoing is the absence of evidence. Get that? And since there is always an infinite amount of missing evidence (since the evidence can "never" be found) then there will always be an infinite amount of investigations….at least until 2008. Witchhunts and show trials. They desperately want a smoking gun like Clinton provided the nation when he lied under oath, but hey never can seem to find one because Bush has done NOTHING illegal.
So instead they go on these idiotic witchhunts.
Hell, the AP has admitted that these witchhunts are exactly that, witchhunts: (h/t Big Lizards)
It all adds up to relentless pressure on an administration that for six years of Bush’s tenure operated with virtually no oversight from the Republican-controlled Congress.
No longer.
Democrats don’t have – or apparently need – evidence of wrongdoing to shake Gonzales’ hold on his job or challenge the White House’s defense of its internal deliberations
Dafydd noticed one odd thing tho, the AP apparently see’s nothing wrong with this.
Nope, no bias in our MSM.
Then we have the WaPo’s Dan Froomkin hyperventilating at the thought of another "watergate"
Countless e-mails to and from many key White House staffers have been deleted — lost to history and placed out of reach of congressional subpoenas — due to a brazen violation of internal White House policy that was allowed to continue for more than six years, the White House acknowledged yesterday.
The leading culprit appears to be President Bush’s enormously influential political adviser Karl Rove, who reportedly used his Republican National Committee-provided Blackberry and e-mail accounts for most of his electronic communication.
Good ole’ Dan, the same ole’ Dan who encouraged writers to break their own standards and ethics….
So lets nail this down. In 2004 we had a little thing called an election. Since it’s illegal to use government communication devices for political reasons the men and women working for the Bush campaign used two sets of email accounts. Common sense right? One for official emails and other for political emails. So some people got confused which one they used a few times and now it’s watergate?
Come on….everything is "just like watergate" with these people.
As usual there is no evidence of wrongdoing since the fact that these whiny prosecutors were let go, aka fired, in an entirely legal manner. They serve at the pleasure of the President and that’s is freakin it. There was no wrongdoing, no crime, so alas no crimes were discussed in emails sent from the RNC network rather then the WH network.
But keep digging Democrats, I wonder if the DNC email system has been used for anything "official" lately?
UPDATE 041307 0900hrs PST
Patterico has an excellent post up about the way in which our MSM is pulling out all the stops to create this "scandal":
The article in question begins:
WASHINGTON — The growing controversy over White House recordkeeping and disclosure swirled around presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, as congressional Democrats said they were told some e-mails that Rove sent from a Republican National Committee account are missing.
I have to take my hat off to the reporters for the skill in which they portray the controversy as a ghostly entity with a spirit all its own — rather than as attacks on the Administration by partisan Democrats.
I have discussed phraseology like “growing controversy” or “mounting criticism” before, in this post about how the wording of a news article can show liberal bias. These phrases represent the terminology reporters use when they really want the controversy to grow, and the criticism to mount:
You see, whenever one [politician] criticizes another, there are two ways to characterize what’s happening. If you think the criticism may be valid, you will refer to the criticism passively, and discuss the “mounting criticism” of the [politician] being criticized. But if you don’t like the criticism, then you will refer to the criticism as an “attack.”
And in this post I said:
I have warned you that such language is a signal that the paper agrees with the criticism. When the paper disagrees with criticism of a [politician], it is portrayed as an attack by political opponents. When the paper agrees with the criticism, the criticism becomes a mysterious and disembodied (but ever-growing) entity. Doubts grow. Criticism emerges.
Note how the current article portrays the accusations by Democrats as an independent, disembodied spirit with a life of its own — a “growing controversy.” I also love how the controversy is “swirling” around Karl Rove, in language evocative of waste products swirling around in a toilet bowl. You can almost see Rove being flushed down the toilet! (My liberal readers are salivating at the prospect — just as the reporters must have when they wrote that line.)
As I stated last night, they are looking for that smoking gun and if they can’t find it they will create it.
Other’s Blogging:

See author page
As usual a tremendous amount of digging on your part, but you are (IMO) backing a loser. This fight may or may not be a product of the MSM, but the presidents men are breaking the rules by not having followed policy. here
from a commenter at Patterico
“Federal law requires the preservation of electronic communications sent or received by White House staff,†says the handbook that all staffers are given and expected to read and comply with.
“As a result, personnel working on behalf of the EOP [Executive Office of the President] are expected to only use government-provided e-mail services for all official communication.â€Â
The handbook further explains: “The official EOP e-mail system is designed to automatically comply with records management requirements.â€Â
And if that wasn’t clear enough, the handbook notes — as was the case in the Clinton administration — that “commercial or free e-mail sites and chat rooms are blocked from the EOP network to help staff members ensure compliance and to prevent the circumvention of the records management requirements.â€Â
http://patterico.com/2007/04/13/6160/la-times-employs-classic-techniques-of-liberal-bias-in-an-article-about-the-us-attorney-firing-controversy/