Not All the DOJ Missing Emails Are Missing

Hylas sends us to Democracy Now for a newscast on the missing emails, an interview with investigative journalist Greg Palast. Here's Palast talking about the fired US attorney from New Mexico, David Iglesias: "Iglesias believes the real reasons for the firings are in what are called the missing emails, emails sent by the [White House political advisor Karl] Rove team using Republican Party campaign computers, which Rove claims can't be retrieved. But not all the missing emails are missing. We have 500 of them. Apparently the Rove team misaddressed their emails, and late one night they all ended up in our inboxes in our offices in New York City." This story has had zero play in the US media; it's been being carried on the BBC.

Comments

I must be new here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does no one else find it not only weird, but downright scary how this just seems to disappear from the American political media, even though it is happening IN AMERICA, and largely effects AMERICANS? I mean jeeze guys, do not care what happens to your country? Rise up! Revolt! Hell, have Civil Rights march, cuz God knows you need it...

Re:I must be new here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does no one else find it not only weird, but downright scary how this just seems to disappear from the American political media, even though it is happening IN AMERICA, and largely effects AMERICANS?

It's not weird at all. It's actually quite obvious why it's happening. Let me explain it to you:
1) The Republicans are the party of Big Business. They serve the interests of a wide variety of American corporations.
2) The mass media in the US is owned and controlled by a small number of large corporations. Take NBC, for instance. It's owned by General Electric, which is well-known for its "defense" work. Of course NBC won't put up any real opposition to the Republicans, who through their warmaking have no doubt made GE much in the way of profit.
3) The pathetic American education system has rendered most Americans unable to comprehend even their most essential civic duties. The mass media helps with this, by glorifying morons like Britney Spears, essentially all hip hop "artists", and so forth. They encourage most Americans to be as stupid as is possible.

When those three factors come together, shit like this can (and will) happen.

Re:I must be new here...

[smilindog2000]

I'm glad it's here on /. Our media is now mostly owned by politically motivated people like Rupert Murdoch. His control of our media is unbelievable. See this very recent story, for example: http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/070516/1/48l34.html. We've even made it illegal for university professors to voice their political views. Murdoch's self proclaimed 'unbiased' news station, Fox News, is played in every airport in Texas, and there are Fox News stores where you can buy shirts and stuff. The problem is that many of us really do just want our beliefs fed to us, and Bush has been happy to oblige. Normally, I hate seeing one party in control of both houses and the executive branch, but with the way Bush has trashed our country, we may need to get the GOP entirely out of the way for a while. Any chance Obama can get elected?

Re:I must be new here...

[Attila Dimedici]

It's not weird. Despite the best attempts of the US media, the US Attorney firings is a non-story. The US Attorneys serve at the "will of the President". According to the US Constitution, the President may fire any US Attorney at any time for any reason. It may be that you don't like the reason that President Bush fired these Attorney's. It may be that it was a bad reason. All of the things that everyone has alleged negatively about these firings may be true. It doesn't matter, it was legal. If you think it was inappropriate, don't vote for G.W. Bush when he runs for re-election. OH, that's right, he can't run for re-election. That means that this is a non-story. To summarize, the firings weren't illegal, the President can't run for re-election.

Re:I must be new here...

[Pojut]

"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'" --Bill Hicks

For fuck's sake, people. Don't bash one party and then automatically revert to the other. You are basically saying "Well, this jackoff didn't work...but I can assure you that this jackoff will!"

The problem isn't the Republicans. The problem isn't the Democrats. It's what BOTH parties have done to rape this country.

You should wear sunglasses next time you come out of that hole in the ground, bud. Wouldn't want you to be any more blind than you already are....

Re:I must be new here...

[got2liv4him]

That's funny... I always heard it the other way around, like...

Europe has been long gone, the US' turn is around the corner

Perspectives are a funny thing, like all those people saying the media is controlled by Republicans, it always seemed to me that the media is controlled by liberals. And they all said the Republicans were for the big companies and Demos were for the little guy, but it seemed to me the policies of the demos kept the so-called little guy down. Perspectives I guess.

Re:I must be new here...

[crath]

Finally, some rational thought about this event. My own take on the firings is the basically the same as Attila's; the headlines should have read, "Political appointees replaced by the party that appointed them." In other words, a non-event.

Regarding the firings, the Democrats are behaving true to political form (which is to say, behaving exactly like the Republicans would behave if the roles were reversed) and objecting to President Bush's administration doing something that the law and political convention allows them to do.

If the Democrats truly believe that the current US Attorneys are fully qualified and should receive nothing but the highest levels of support, then the Democrats should deviate from past practice and not replace all the US Attorneys if they win the Presidency in 2008. The chances of the Democrats not replacing all of the US Attorneys is zero; since politicians will behave like politicians and only make self-interested, self-serving decisions intended to line their own pockets and screw anyone who doesn't kowtow to the party line.

Re:I must be new here...

[kismet666]

You don't seem to understand what the uproar is over. The firings may have been unethical, but probably not illegal. The problems the administration has now are due to the effort to cover-up what happened. Like Watergate, Lewinsky, and many other scandals the cover-up is much worse than the original misguided activities.

Re:I must be new here...

[stuntpope]

You mean the wealthy who controlled the South's means of production rebelled against the federal government trying to restrict slavery. Funny thing that many of the non-wealthy Southerners weren't so keen on fighting the plantation masters' war. West Virginia, East Tennessee, for example. Of course, the aristocrats sold the war as a noble cause (states' rights), just as today those in power sell a war as "spreading democracy".

Re:I must be new here...

[Red Flayer]

I see. Not illegal == not wrong according to you.

If the attorneys were fired because they didn't help Republicans win elections, that's a problem, and a story, whether legal or not. Plenty of people get fired for doing things that are legal but incompetent or wrong. Plenty of people are held accountable even if they aren't fired. This goes near to the top of the Executive Department, and you say it's a non-story simply because it's not strictly illegal on the bare face of it?

Also, there is a good chance that there was illegal activity involved. If they were fired in order to obstruct prosecutions, intimidate prosecutors, or to cover up corruption, then guess what? They were likely illegal. Don't always believe what the mouthpieces of the administration are telling you.

If you think it was inappropriate, don't vote for G.W. Bush when he runs for re-election. OH, that's right, he can't run for re-election. That means that this is a non-story. To summarize, the firings weren't illegal, the President can't run for re-election.

So administrations in their second term are not to be held accountable for anything they do? That's what you're saying, and it's a crock. First, all the information about it needs to be brought to light. Did you forget that others besides the president are involved, and some of them plan to stay in politics? If anything untoward happened, it's our right to know, and it's our duty to use that information as we see fit.

In summary, you're repeating the propaganda of the administration mouthpieces who want us to believe it's a non-story. At its heart, the attorney firing issue is not about firing a few attorneys -- it is about corruption and twisting the purpose of the attorney general's office to electoral politics.

Re:I must be new here...

[Johnny5000]

The problem isn't the Republicans. The problem isn't the Democrats. It's what BOTH parties have done to rape this country.

This is the line Nader was running on in the 2000 election.
Republicans suck, Democrats suck, they're both puppets of big business, etc.

Then we got 4 + 3 years of Bush and co.

I'd agree with you that both parties suck, but I think the past 7 years have shown
that one party sucks a whole lot worse than the other, and until we can manage a
massive overhaul of the electoral system (HA!) I think our best bet is to keep
Republicans out of any office higher than local dogcatcher.

Re:I must be new here...

[smooth wombat]

Bill Clinton fired those US Attorneys for political reasons, not performance reasons, and it was perfectly legal.

Apples and oranges. Bill Clinton, like his predecessors, cleared out everyone from the previous administration regardless of the political leanings of the people. There were both Republican and Democratic attorneys who were fired. This is standard procedure, as of late, for any incoming president.

What Bush and Gonzales, and apparently a few senators, have done was to fire people because they weren't filing politically motivated lawsuits and then lied about why the attorneys, who Bush had previously appointed, were fired. The claim was for performance reasons yet all had spotless records and as already pointed out, some were specifically told that they were being fired to make way for political appointees.

Gonzales and the White House then compounded this nonsense by lying about the real reasons behind the firings and Gonzales did it while under oath.

Further, throughout this whole performance, Gonzales has said all along he didn't know what was going on in his own department. What? You have US attorneys that are being fired and you know nothing about it? Either Gonzales is completely outside the loop of his own department or he is again lying when said he didn't know about the firings.

Nixon tried this same nonsense when his AG, Elliott Richardson, resigned rather than carry out Nixon's order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibold Cox in an effort to derail the Watergate investigation. Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus also resigned when he became AG because he too refused to carry out Nixon's orders.

Finally, it was left up to then Solicitor General Rober Bork, name sound familiar?, who became the acting AG who then carried out the orders. In effect, Nixon politicized both the AG's office and the Justice Department.

Bush, with the aid of Gonzales, is doing the exact same thing and anyone who has ever been involved with either the AG's office or the Justice Department knows that is wrong and completely out of bounds. These departments are supposed to act as neutral parties to the government and their actions should not be influenced by political considerations.

Re:I must be new here...

[sacrilicious]

The problem isn't the Republicans. The problem isn't the Democrats. It's what BOTH parties have done to rape this country.

Hey, I hate both parties too. But they're not "equally evil", if that's your point.

Hmmm

[WrongSizeGlass]

Mr. Palast claims to have 500 "misaddressed" e-mails from Mr. Rove? And Mr. Palast happens to be pitching a book?

Excuse my naiveté, but wouldn't leaking one or two of these supposed e-mails do more to boost Mr. Palast's credibility than just claiming he has them?

Re:Hmmm

[lixee]

I don't know if you heard about the two blokes jailed for leaking a memo where Bush tells Blair that he wants to bomb the Al-Jazeera headquarters in Doha. Maybe Greg is afraid of an invocation of the patriot act?

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/10/bri tain.memo.ap/index.html

Mr. Palast's credibility is top-notch as far as I'm concerned. He always dares to cover stories that everyone else is too scared to do. Look at the wonderful work he's done cornering Goldfinger and vulture funds. Poor kids in Africa are likely to have an education, healthcare and food thanks to his courageous work. Kudos to him!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/63 70385.stm

Re:Hmmm

[niiler]

Here's how the mis-addressed email thing works. Politicos in the White House or elsewhere, have mistakenly typed .org instead of .gov when addressing their emails. The www.whitehouse.org owners are none to happy with Bush's politics, and so routinely forward their emails to Greg Palast, whose reputation is well known. Mystery solved. Palast says this much in most of his books. While American networks avoid Palast like the plague, largely because he is at odds with the media-moguls, he has had his own show on the BBC for years and is considered a good source for what is really happening in the US by the Europeans. He has also appeared on the NPR show On the Media and on Democracy Now from Pacifica Radio.

Why are they talking to Karl Rove?

[Tibor the Hun]

Is he the new sysadmin?
OK, so if all the emails were lost it stands to reason that they were all stored in one place either the same storage system, or in the same facility. So where are those backups, on-site and off-site.
And what about archives? Wouldn't they run an archive at least once a year for safekeeping?

Where are the sysadmins and what are they saying about the incident?

Re:Why are they talking to Karl Rove?

[ScentCone]

"They" aren't "talkin to Karl Rove." He made that one comment about the availability of mail going to/from accounts that aren't part of the normal government flow of things through the archived WH comms system. Political communications - such as when, say, Al Gore was working (while being VP) to coordinate campaign-related fundraisers - are traditionally done through other channels, and in fact in some cases are required by federal law to be handled through other channels. You may recall the heat Gore got for conducting Dem party business over White House phone lines. That sort of thing is supposed to be a no-no. That's the problem with being in office... you work for the people that employ you, but you're also, personally, a politician that has an interest in your relations to the party that put you there, and the need to conduct campaign and party-strategy-type communications that - gasp! - may happen to involve talking about the spin you put on things related to what you also - gasp! - have to have something to do with when you're punched back into your job in the executive branch.

I don't envy anyone in that role. In a given day I wear lots of different hats... checking/sending e-mails to/from the very same people using different mailboxes based on the context of the communication, and whether it's being paid for. I might have a thread going with someone because of a contract we're both working on, and want to leave a trail in a corporate box to help track that project. But we might also have reason to talk more off-line over the prospects of another gig, or to strategize a bit on how we want to talk to/about someone who overlaps with our other (directly for pay) communications. Very easy to have some messages go through the wrong channel sometimes. Same reason Gore picked up his White House office line to raise cash, and same reason some staffer might be having at least some of the e-mail exchanges that help a boss shape a political posture on the retention of a politically appointed employee (say, a US attorney) through more than one e-mail system.

Karl Rove doesn't, and shouldn't have to know squat about how the plumbing works. No more than Al Gore would know how the PBX that handles his oops-I-used-the-wrong-phone-line fund raising calls works. If the first thing Rove heard was, "sorry, we don't save mail from those other accounts," then that's what he's going to repeat. You'll notice he's not chiming in on the details of it, or expressing an expert opinion on it... not to be confused with politically opposed congressional reps who make thundering speeches about how it's the 21st century and there's no such thing as un-retrievable e-mail. But... I host mail for some of my own tasks, and once the backups have cascaded through the fairly short retention time on a separate volume, they're GONE, baby. Even if a sound-bite-generating congressman says otherwise.

Must be the "liberal" media at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

This story has had zero play in the US media;

This can only be the work of the so-called "liberal media" in the US that we hear so much about. Look at those leftist, socialist Commie bastards protecting the interests of their right-wing Republican friends. Oh, wait...

Re:Must be the "liberal" media at work.

[apathy maybe]

Indeed. People claim the media in the US is "left-wing" or "liberal", no, the media in the US is like the media in most "Western" countries, it is capitalist.

It aims to make a buck, and it aims to protect the current system it lives in. If it can make a buck by dissing the right, it will do so, if it can make a buck by dissing the "left", it will do so. In this case, they obviously don't see any money to be made from the story, so they aren't following it.

(And, the media in the US might be "left-wing" compared to the US, but it is right-wing compared to, for example Europe. And in Australia, two of the five TV channels tend to be neutral (can you guess which two? I'll give you a hint, they are funded by the government (at least to a certain extent)).)

Re:Considering the source I'll wait

[nagora]

The BBC hasn't been known as of late for being....uhm....reliable, or even remotely handed.

For example?

This story strains credibility

In what way? That it suggests that Karl Rove would lie? How is that straining anything?

The entire scenario is more than a little far fetched

Politicians do this sort of thing all the time.

unless you're automatically predisposed to hate Karl Rove.

You don't have to be predisposed to hating Karl Rove, he's such a cunt that it's impossible not to; but that's not really anything to do with the believability of this story of everyday political shenanigans.

I'll wait for a better, more credible source.

Like what? One that agrees with your strangely innocent view of politics?

Why is it so hard for people to understand this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its the President's right to fire any of them at any time for any reason? His real mistake was not firing them all when he came into office.

So Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when this site was once News for Nerds?? Why is slashdot so interesting in this one political story, instead of all the more important ones going on?

Seems slashdot likes to get political only when it involves those evil, nasty Republicans. It's embarassing how partisan this place is.

Re:So Why Is This On Slashdot??!!!

[webweave]

Which I guess means that Nerds don't blindly swallow any lie set out from the White House. I think you'll find that Nerds encompass a wider range of thinking and not just the black and white you're used to so if by parisian you mean not susceptible to NeoCon lies you're right. But don't worry there must be a right wing blog somewhere you'd feel safer at. Perhaps you can pay your respects for Jerry while you're there.

Why "so interesting"? As nerds we do our own research and we don't fear on command, this Bush admin is crap, total crap and those of us who are living in the real world have paid a price for HIS mistakes while he has profited from them (like Haliburton stock). Have you flown anywhere or been to another country lately? Airports look like jails and the world uniformly hates Americans. Have you checked the value of the US dollar? Has poverty been reduced? Do you have any friends in the military who have died in the last four years? Have you had your research dollars reduced or eliminated? Have you needed the National Guard? Add that to all the favors done for the Saudis and now back at home it looks like the most qualified US attorneys, some who happen to have worked on felonies perpetuated by elected officials (remember The Dukester?) are fired mid-term (which is unusual since Bush appointed them in the first place) and it looks like the next election will be overseen by people who have graduated from the worst college in America and a few of the key attorneys come right from Karl Rove's office. Important enough for you?

AC? Grow a backbone.

It Has Had Some Play In the USA - But Not Much

[NeverVotedBush]

Wired posted this story last week ( http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/gonzales_ hides_.html ) after someone spotted this story: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070510nj1 .htm.

The blogger had this to say: Put simply, this stinks. Earlier this months, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) subpoenaed (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/leahy_su poenas_.html) all e-mails between the Justice Department and the White House over the attorney firings. Yet our nation's top lawman refuses to obey the law of the land. And continues to be our nation's top lawman.

The Bush administration continues to openly flaunt their complete contempt for the laws of this country. Bring respect back to the White House my ass.

Re:Considering the source I'll wait

[Relic of the Future]

And which "even handed" "reliable" news source told you that? The same one that breathed a sigh of relief yesterday when Gonzalez was finally able to admit that it was all his just-resigned assistant's fault?

Re:It is a non-issue

[Anonymous Coward]

It was legal through one of many loopholes in the Patriot Act, which eroded a lot of the checks and balances that made the United States government fair. Surprisingly, some American people still care when something is legal, but not fair, because they want to change the law.

BBC reputation has never been higher

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't the BBC's reputation has ever been higher. Time and time again they've been proved right.

This Greg Palast article for example, the evidence is taken straight from the Judiciary record with Monica Goodling handwriting on it (she's pleaded the 5th).

http://www.gregpalast.com/an-army-of-rove-botscapt ain-iglesias-obstruction-of-justice-and-the-theft- of-2008/

A lot of people in the lower ranks will face a lot of jail time over Rove & his shenanigans. Naturally nobody higher up will, it's how this works.

Is there any proof at all?

[Aaron England]

Is there any proof at all that Karl Rove authored these emails? We should all know how easy it is to forge email headers.

Re:Non-story?!

[rockout]

On Monday, yeah, 2 days ago, the Deputy AG announced he's resigning. Another sacrificial lamb in a last-ditch attempt to save Gonzales' job, and some face for the White House.

Your arguments sound suspiciously exactly like the standard White House comments, repeated ad nauseam on Fox News, "explaining" the firings. Of course, they and you neglect to address the crux of the issue - it's not normal to fire US attorneys in the middle of a president's term, there is evidence that the administration wanted to replace several of the U.S. Attorneys with people more "in line with" the administration's political agendas and as personal favors to some conservatives, while the White House denies these charges, saying the firings were for "job performance" reasons. It's now considered likely that the "missing" e-mails contain evidence that would show these claims by the White House to be bald-faced lies, so add cover-up to the already existing issue of the atypical dismissals.

Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand this

[sphere]

It's a civil rights issue. That is a crime under current law. The issue also involves the politicization of the Justice Department and is a civic issue as well. Any questions?

Re:Greg Palast's history is even better

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you believe that 100% of all alleged electoral irregularities, and 125% of the proven cases, are perpetrated by Republicans?

Would you believe that we want fair elections, and that we don't give a shit whether its the Democrats or the Republicans fucking it up, we want it to stop?

Tit for tat is for 4 year olds.

Waaah.

Grow up.

Re:Considering the source I'll wait

[StrawberryFrog]

The BBC hasn't been known as of late for being....uhm....reliable

Phhht. I stopped listening to you right there, since you're either trolling or deluded. That's an extraordinary claim. Where's the proof?

My first thought

[fishdan]

from the article:

We went through the 500, and what we found were this massive plan to deny the right to vote -- I mean, extraordinarily targeting African American soldiers sent overseas. They'd send them a letter to their home address. The letter would come back. They say, "Gee, they don't live there. They shouldn't be allowed to vote."

This rings false to me -- the military supports the republicans in a MUCH higher percentage than the average citizen. I doubt very much that there was a master plan to stop soldiers from voting by the party who would benefit from them the most. Two words: Colin Powell. Also, I doubt very much that soldiers are incapable of answering snail mail or fulfilling their duties by taking care of business, and doing what they need to do to legally vote while stationed overseas.

Secondly, I have no problems with anyone challenging the residency of voter -- honestly, I'd like a little MORE confirmation of who is voting (but not how). We've heard the "voting from the grave" stories, and other crazy things -- and there is no doubt in my mind that both parties would do ANYTHING to win -- and I really mean anything. If one of the thing that reduces voter fraud is the checks and balance of one side making sure the other is honest -- fine. Did the republicans only challenge likely democrats? Well DUH! They're not going to challenge people who are likely to vote for them. Same thing for EITHER party. I don't see this as indications of fraud either.

Third -- I also disagree with the analysis of Mr. Iglesias. The fact that Tom Cruise played him in a movie is so incredibly irrelevant that I can't believe it was mentioned. He was the US Attorney!!! He should have set up a sting operation the MINUTE he suspected there was a conspiracy to commit voter fraud! Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Here was a man, whose job was to uphold the Constitution, and he sat on his ASS when presented with a major conspiracy against the public? Assuming his words are true, his inactions show him to unqualified to hold his office, and although IANAL I believe his inaction as a member of the bar when presented with impending crime is actually criminal himself. Lawyers are sworn to uphold the law (please don't snicker). A lawyer is an officer of the court. Perhaps a lawyer could comment on that? Here is a man who we were COUNTING on to uphold the rule of LAW. If what he was said was true he was essentially called up and told "we are planning evil against your constituents." Inexcusable

Finally -- I DO believe that these firings were improper. I know I've criticized the article, but thats because I believe CRITICAL REVIEW MAKES THINGS BETTER. I actually want to see justice here BUT NOT FOR PARTISAN REASONS!!! I just happen to love Justice. And what we need is for more people who love Justice to fight against the people on both sides of the aisle who don't.

I also believe that it's complete bullshit that the emails do not exist ANYWHERE. But enough chit-chat about it -- let's get some search warrants and go find them! Make the people who committed this sabotage of our government pay, because they are more of a threat to us than any terrorist. Government should WELCOME this kind of scrutiny, not try to prevent auditing! I know it doesn't, and I know I'm living a pipe dream. I just keep thinking that someday we'll start voting for people who will actually serve with honor.

Or maybe we have been?

Re:My first thought

[samkass]

I doubt very much that there was a master plan to stop soldiers from voting by the party who would benefit from them the most.

You are naive. During the big recount fiasco, the Bush camp's stated directions to the lawyers was to push to get military votes invalidated in the heavily Democratic-leaning areas, and counted in the heavily Republican-leaning areas. Gore tried to just get them all counted.

Re:Greg Palast's history is even better

[elrous0]

Man, we should bring this guy to the U.S. It would give our reporters the chance to meet a real journalist.

You and your grandpappy are wrong

[MisterSquid]

The Attorney General (Alberto Gonzalez) serves as an appointee of the President. You've got that much right. However, the Attorneys General that were replaced are appointed by the US Attorney General whose office is charged with serving the interests of the Judicial branch of the US government, not the Executive branch. While the US AG may serve at the pleasure of the President, he is not expected be beholden to the partisan interests of the President. The US AG is supposed to facilitate the enforcement of that the Legislative branch's checks (i.e. laws), not to place attorneys who kowtow to the will of one party or the other.

I am an American.

Re:Greg Palast's history is even better

[Johnny5000]

Is it? I thought, it was stolen by the Supreme Court... Oh, well, getting a story straight is always a problem, is not it?

If you're going to steal an election, it's best to cover all your bases.

Re:What's wrong about the firings, exactly?

[gilroy]

If the attorneys were fired as a way to interfere in ongoing corruption investigations -- as has been alleged though admittedly not proven -- then I'm pretty sure it is illegal. Even if it isn't illegal, it's "improper enough" that it does justify the time and effort expended by Congress. People have a right and a need to know if the justice system is being politicized to that extent.

Re:Greg Palast's history is even better

[Lockejaw]

The Dems have certainly had their corruptions (hello, Mayor Daley), but I've never seen them resort to ANYTHING as underhanded as what Republicans do on a regular basis.

Might that be related to the fact that Chicago is Democrat vs. Democrat, while most election are Democrat vs. Republican?

Re:Greg Palast's history is even better

[rbanffy]

Chances are he would be arrested at the airport and sent to Guantanamo or some clandestine prison because of his connections with terrorism.

Of course, the connections won't be disclosed as it would damage the ongoing investigation on his crimes.

Re:What's wrong about the firings, exactly?

[AvitarX]

Finally -- I DO believe that these firings were improper.

Can you, then explain, what exactly was wrong about them? I mean, even if the entire Bush administration really did conspire to fire these prosecutors -- aren't they political appointees, whose hiring and firing is at the Executive's discretion in the first place?

Clintons, I read, replaced 90 of those people in 1993...

Firing them because they had a different idealology is fine, their job is to work for the president. As an extenuation the firing because they "wern't propper Bushies" could be fine depending on what it means. But firing them for investigating people is interfering with those investigations. We need to know if that was happening, and people should pay (forced resignation and public humiliation is a form of payment).

Re:What's wrong about the firings, exactly?

[fishdan]

It's an excellent point you raise. These probably were not illegal FIRINGS.

The illegality (if there was any) was in the claim that US Attorneys were asked to break the law, and then fired for not doing so. If there is a WHIFF of illegality, especially in the election process, government should welcome the scrutiny. I'd rather hear Rove and others say "I cannot find the emails, but I will do all in my power to help others recover them."

If there was, as Mr. Iglesias claims, an attempt to coerce him into breaking the law, and it's now coming to light because of his firing, it's worthy of investigation. I do wish he had stood up and counted when it was more relevant and easier to prove, and the fact that he didn't makes me REALLY doubt his story. And in the absence of proof, I believe Gonzales should be completely exonerated. But rather than stonewalling, welcome the investigation. If a (former) US Attorney says that he was approached to be part of a conspiracy to commit a crime, that should be enough to get a search warrant (because conspiracy to commit a felony is also a felony). I take it all with a grain of salt -- this is a disgruntled ex-employee who was fired -- to me the allegation is still serious enough to warrant (pun intended) further investigation

Off topic, the flower thongs you sell cracked me up! I hope they're moving well.

That dog won't hunt no more.

[hey!]

Not after Iraq. Not after warrantless wiretapping. Not after Gitmo. Not after Katrina. Not after the DOJ torture memo. Not after the billions of dollars spent in Iraq reconstruction that have never been properly accounted for (millions in cash), and the no bid contracts for a company the VP hold stock options in. Not after the Valeri Plame leaks. Not after scientific findings have to be submitted for alteration by an administration zampolit.

I'm sick of this "there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans" business. Maybe there should be more difference, but there is one undeniable difference: the Republicans have brought us the most incompetent and corrupt administration in American history, aided by a congress almost to match it. The only modern parallel for incompetence, criminality, cronyism and rashness would be the Palestinian authority under Arafat, and I'm not sure that counts because it wasn't officially a nation.

I'm not saying the Democrats are angels, or that they have the best policies for America. But they've never delivered a government that was so poorly, criminally, or tyrannically run as that of the modern "Republicans". I put "Republicans" in quotes because I don't think they deserve the name of the party of Goldwater.

Re:Greg Palast's history is even better

[Anonymous Coward]

That is how the 2000 election really was stolen

The only thing about the 2000 election that every American should be ashamed about is the fact that there was only a 51% turnout. For all those Democrats that want to scream, yell, and pull their hair (even after re-count after re-count and investigation after investigation) they should be pointing figure as themselves if they didn't vote.

51% is not a very good number. It's shameful. That's not enough to determine who the majority of the country really wanted (not even going into how Gore won the popular vote). What America needs is an invigoration in voting. It's shameful that the French can turn out 85% of their votes and feel that their country is falling apart if only 74% turn out while one of our most controversial elections, the 2004 re-election of Bush, his previously 'stolen' election and the controversy of the Iraq war, could only muster a 55% turnout.

The problem? Too many people feel politics are corrupt. Why vote for candidate A or B when you cannot believe what A or B say is true? Maybe you believe in the Democratic or Republican mantra, but you cannot believe that the candidate for those parties reflect that feeling. Republicans political leaders are spending Democrats, Democrat political leaders are more concerned about their own image and hating 'the enemy' (see Republicans) than actually passing sensible laws and legislation for the people. Both parties are stuff pork into each bill. It doesn't matter if it's the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere or subsidies for Spinach growers and Peanut farmers in a war bill to buy votes.

What there's a real need for right now is a 3rd party. A party that will better represent the people of America. One that's not Gung Ho on starting controversial wars and nation building, particularly without a plan of action or cultural understanding of the region. Also, a party that's not going to try and sabotage a war and try to LOOSE it just because they disagreed with starting it and that they feel the person who started it "cheated them" and "isn't playing fair" because he "stole" the 2000 election. (Sadly, I voted for and really wanted Gore to win. Even sadder I voted for Kerry and I didn't even like the guy and trusted him less)

So, lets get a 3rd party. Lets get smaller government. We don't need people poking their noses in everything we do. We don't need the government telling someone they cannot smoke a joint if it helps them feel better with their terminal disease and we don't need people passing laws telling us what we can or cannot eat. Knowledge is power, I support laws that informs the consumer but I'm not crazy enough to start passing laws forbidding them from making the choice once they've informed.

I support the freedom of religion. I respect peoples individual faiths, but I hate having a faith pushed on me. If people want an abortion, let them have one. If they cannot make up their mind fast enough, then they should finish what they started and put it up for adoption (I'm against partial birth abortion). Likewise, if you're against gay marriage, fine. I respect that. But don't force your believes on others. Don't worry, it won't be a 'religious' wedding that will get your church smote by the big 'G' (unless your religion accepts it). But I won't stop gays from legal marriage. We don't need the government telling us what we can and cannot do. After all, we have the freedom of religion. If a 'religion' appears that accepts gay marriage, then who are we to go against the founding principles of our country? If you don't like it, don't do it.

Who cares if there's not enough evidence about our impact on the environment? Does global warming HAVE to be true to be concerned about it? The fact is, waste is never good. We should all be better at doing too much

Re:2 out of 3 != 3 out of 3

[hey!]

You can't count the SC, they are notoriously unreliable.

Justice Brennan was an extreme liberal, and he was appointed by Eisenhower. In any case, Republican appointees or not, they have to pass the consent of the Senate. Sandra Day OConnor was a careful, case by case jurist who can't be readily pigeonholed, but she was nominated by Reagan, a strong conservative and approved by a Democratic senate. David Souter, appointed by Bush I, generally votes with the liberal wing of the court; Thomas, also appointed by Bush II pretty much follows Scalia.

The very idea that the Supreme Court should be a partisan body is a modern "Republican" notion.

The technical question

[sam_handelman]

This is slashdot, so we should be addressing the technical question first and foremost.

  I'm a biologist who does mathematical methods stuff - so this is not my area. But what we (you) *should* be discussing is: how can we prove that the e-mails are (or are not) genuine?

  Presumably, whitehouse.org has saved all of the routing information for the e-mails they kept. Can we use that information - along with whatever still lives in the logs of the intermediary routers, to at least verify that the e-mail was sent from the addresses claimed in the headers? That doesn't absolutely prove that whitehouse.org didn't mess with the content - but it'd be enough to satisfy me, at least.

Re:Greg Palast's history is even better

[krygny]

"... and all US corporate media boycotted what he found, which only aired on the BBC."

Maybe that's because it's all ... uh ... hmm ... what could it be ... I dunno ... could it be ... BULLSHIT?!!

Re:Greg Palast's history is even better

[flyingsquid]

The problem? Too many people feel politics are corrupt. Why vote for candidate A or B when you cannot believe what A or B say is true? Maybe you believe in the Democratic or Republican mantra, but you cannot believe that the candidate for those parties reflect that feeling.

I think that ultimately we're at fault. We complain that politicians aren't honest, but when they are honest, we won't vote for them.

Politician A tells it like it is: we've got a deficit, so you need to cut spending, raise taxes, or both. Politician B gives us a fairy tale: sure we've got a deficit, but I'll spend more AND lower your taxes, and it will all work out! So who do we vote for? Politician B. We buy into his fantasy because he promises what we want: a free lunch. Then it turns out that we're faced with exactly the situation Politician A, the realist, said we faced: we have to make sacrifices, and we can't get something for nothing. There are no free lunches. And then we get all surly and say what a bunch of liars politicians are. Politicians tell the people what the people want to hear- not what the people need to hear- because that's who we elect.

Political firings are NOT ok

[NeutronCowboy]

Here's the deal: yes, the US Attorneys serve at the discretion of the president. Yes, they can be fired at will.

Here's the problem: firing US Attorneys because they don't toe the line of the party in power will damage the idea that the judiciary is independent of the executive and legislative branch.

Nobody had an issue with 8 US Attorneys being fired. The shit only hit the fan once it came to light that the firings might have been motivated by political considerations - what's worse, that they might have been motivated by the attorneys not breaking the law to help certain republicans.

One of the greatest strength of the US is the system of independent branches. This, and a host of other things, attempts to break the independence. It's my sincere opinion that any attack on the independence of the three branches is an attack worse than any bombings.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

"Would you believe that we want fair elections, and that we don't give a shit whether its the Democrats or the Republicans fucking it up, we want it to stop?"

No.

I've yet to see any airplay (let alone on Slashkos) about the voting shenanigans in Seattle or Arizona where the Democrats stole the elections.

Oh, I'm sure they were all legitimate "mistakes" too...

Re:DOJ found very few cases of voter fraud in 5 ye

[hal2814]

"In other words, Democrats did not have an organized campaign to skew the elections like certain other parties...."

So the criteria for Democratic party wrongdoing is Justice Department convictions? That doesn't seem to be your criteria for Republican party wrongdoing. Or were you talking about some other party when you said "an organized campaign to skew the elections like certain other parties" (emphasis mine)? I'm not saying that there is or isn't some sort of larger conspiracy in either party's voting schemes but Justice Department doesn't seem to have much on either party.

Not All the [DOJ] Missing Emails Are Missing

[not_hylas( )]

The reason I submitted this story is that "our" Media won't report the NEWS [north, east, west, south].
I'm from a [former] Newspaper family and have a "dog in this hunt".
If our information systems are compromised/co-opted we'll become instruments of mis/dis-information and a tool of our New Overlord, which, of course, we would then welcome.
Hard evidence of this is slowly revealing itself, and in turn being suppressed by the very power intrusted to serve the people.

It's the definition of "news" that has been jeopardized, along with the right to know.

Before we heap too much praise upon him

[Solandri]

Let's see the emails. I'm not saying that they don't say what he claims they say. I'm just thinking it's pretty hypocritical for Microsoft to claim ~250 patent violations in Linux, and everyone here is saying "if they're real, why don't you produce a list of them?" But someone claims to have wayward 500 emails from the US AG office and suddenly people here are proclaiming him the next Messiah of investigative journalism.

Being a critical thinker means approaching what others say with a skeptical eye, even if what they're saying aligns with your political beliefs.

Re:Greg Palast's history is even better

[Vitriol Angst]

The TRUTH is not a middle ground -- that is opinion.

For all the of the fun Olbermann has on his topics, and the opinion he has of O'Reilly, Olbermann is NOT a Liberal. It's just that Truth is often mistaken for Liberalism.

Olbermann is just reporting the facts. And O'Reilly is blowing chunks out of his ass.

This is kind of like saying; Between Nazis and Democracy -- somewhere there is truth. Yeah, like right next to Democracy. Anyone sane and rational right now is labeled a Liberal Extremist. If you happened to find someone called a Moderate, they are merely people who can't scribble copies of Republican PR fast enough. "Wait, what was that you just said about needing to spy on everyone in case they are talking to Bin Laden?... I just broke my pencil."