Bush avoided email from the start because of potential for investigation

[jollyreaper2112]

Posted this in another bush email thread but it might do with a separate post, just to get through the clutter.

I think it is very significant to point out that the bushies were taking steps to avoid leaving evidence from the very start. That sort of thing always makes me suspect.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/15/bush_private_email/

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2005/04/wh041405.html

US prez George Bush has admitted he does not send personal emails to daughters Jenna and Barbara for fear that his "personal stuff" might end up in the public domain.

Bush made the admission on Thursday to the American Society of Newspaper Editors during a discussion centring on whether the US government is sufficiently forthcoming to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act, Reuters reports. Bush said the administration gets around 3.5 million FOIA requests a year and noted: "I would hope that those who expose documents are wise about the difference between that which truly would jeopardize national security and that which should be read."

Of course, the Patriot Act is there to defend the US against the long shadow of terrorist menace. The FOIA is there to allow people some hope that they might one day find out just how their government defended them against the long shadow of terrorist menace. Or not. Sean Moulton, a spokesman for OMB Watch, which tracks goings-on at the White House Office of Management and Budget and other government agencies, said: "This is a government that is getting worse by the day in terms of permitting the public access to information and documents that they have paid for."

Bush concluded by admitting that his avoidance of email correspondence was because "everything is investigated in Washington". He confessed that, as a result, "we're losing a lot of history, not just with me, but with other presidents as well".


Hmm. What was it they were telling us, if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear?

Now I know that destruction of evidence means the judge will tell the jury to assume that the evidence was damning. How does the law see it when you are taking unusual steps to avoid creating a record of your criminal activities, actions that go beyond innocent prudence? I'm thinking along the lines of a business keeping very poor accounting records so as to avoid showing that the boss is pocketing money instead of paying taxes on it. Can the judge say "If you kept proper evidence to document your crime, we'd have an easier time proving it"? Because avoiding the use of email to discuss the crimes in the first place would be just like that.