Why do you think that's stupid?

For an individual, it is certainly easy to loose everything. Even for a company it is. But when federal law specifically says that all Whitehouse communication must be kept, when people have been going to jail (or dying on the way there) for losing emails, and when the loss is discovered because an investigation that relies on just such communication retention is underway, you're in deep crap. Further complicated by the seeming unrecoverability of Rove's emails specifically. It could be complete coincidence, but that'll be a hard one to explain away.

Aren't these emails that were through the RNC, not the White House?

Like I said, if it is the law then it is stupid they didn't. But I also think the law is stupid.

They were using RNC laptops and email addressed, but it included official White House content, definitely covered under the retention laws. At first they were saying, "Oh, it's just a handful of non-essential stuff done by staffers on these non-government-issue accounts." Further prodding produced the fact that it was far more serious than that.

People thought it was stupid of Nixon not to get rid of recorded and written messages, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone thinking it was stupid to require document retention.

Coincidence is this administration's only excuse in a long list of problems. God knows they are never at fault.

I think we've gone overboard on the work product we expect government to retain and maintain.

I think the official decisioning documents need to be available but not everything that goes into that decision.

For example, here in San Francisco some group successfully sued to get the original Word document rather than the distributed PDF version so that they could see the entire change history for the document. So not only do we have the right to the final document but the very first draft, every typo, every reconsideration of phrasing. To me this is stupid.

This overload prodcues so much detail that, in my opinion, the context gets lost.

To require that every electronic utterance be retained is, in my opinion, stupid. We might as well also require every government worker to wear personal tape recorders while on the job so that we can also listen in on every conversation. And stupid rules lead to stupid violations, whether intentional or not. And stupid violations lead to criminalization of the process (everybody eventually breaks a law).

If they were intentionally circumventing the law, no matter how stupid, they should be punished for it. But that doesn't make the underlying law any less stupid.

If we've gone overboard, I think that's due to the government's adeptness at hiding **** from us. They work for us, Alex- much as they'd like to forget that. I think the decision making process plays a considerable part in the outcome (government contracts, anyone?) and needs to be documented. Moot point, though, if they 'lose' said documentation.

You make valid points, but look at this US attorney mess. So far, the only defense the highest officials (Gonzalez and his direct staff) have been giving has been, "We didn't know what was going on." And if you just look at the final product of the action, you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise. But a few emails here and there and it's starting to look like that defense is an outright lie, that Gonzales, his staff, Rove knew very well what was going on. So where do you draw the line to ensure accountability?

I don't disagree with that. I just don't think that subjecting every bit of minutae to second guessing, re-evaluation, and misinterpretation is productive either.

Ultimately I don't see these laws having any impact on the fundamental corruptness of our government, just on oppositions ability to create issues over which to pretend outrage. Which is all the attorney general thing is, trumped up pretend outrage. Covering up that which was not wrong in the first place is not a crime, it is just petty.

GD, that is like, in my view, the common "what about the woman who protects herself from rape" defense of easily available handguns. You can find individual good results for any policy.

But overall, I don't see a net positive in it.