Slashdot Mirror
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.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
A bit of history on Greg Palast; he's the guy who, on the BBC, broke the story about election irregularities in Florida before the 2000 election. Admittedly, a few days before, but it's still a bit of a scoop.
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...
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?
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?
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
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...
This story has had zero play in the US media; it's been being carried on the BBC
Democracy Now airs in the US on quite a few small local stations (I listen to it on my ride home from work every day) as well as a few satellite channels.
Of course, everyone seems to completely ignore it, even though so far they have a pretty much spot-on record regarding the evils of the current administration... They broke the "secret prisons" story about two years before the mainstream media caught on; Regularly discussed Abu Ghraib and detainee torture at least six months before we all started "Doing the Lyndie"; Private jet chartering for illegal renditions to have prisoners tortured by third-party countries, 18 months before anyone cared (and still, even now that everyone stopped caring despite the practice continuing).
But then, ya just can't trust them tinfoil hat types, right?
Greg Palast is one of the few good reporters out there still willing to probe further and deeper. An interesting book of his, detailing the election, war, and oil machinations is "Armed Madhouse": http://www.gregpalast.com/madhouse/index.php/about /. For a quick summary, see this talk he gave in Portland: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-680222806 2297352475.
There is a link at the top of the page to listen to (or watch) the interview. You still might not like the style or production quality but they really do have to differ from written news.
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?
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
That's part of the issue; that all these emails SHOULD have gone through government accounts, for precisely the reasons you mention. Instead they were using georgewbush.com. When people started asking questions, that was when they claimed hundreds of emails were "lost".
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Because it involves e-mails. Slashdot covers news involving technology, e-mails are technology.
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.
u 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 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_s
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.
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?
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
It is much better than this!p alast+2000&search=Searchp alast&search=Search
He investigated the contract Jeb Bush gave to a company to filter out from the voter rolls the people who had no right to vote. He got their listings printed, and found out that they had prevented tens of thousands of african-americans from voting for no legal reason! As everyone knows african-americans almost always (95%) vote for the democrats. That is how the 2000 election really was stolen, and all US corporate media boycotted what he found, which only aired on the BBC.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=greg+
For more great videos by Palast about the 2004 election and more:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=greg+
Also do a serch on emule for other exclusive materials.
Is there any proof at all that Karl Rove authored these emails? We should all know how easy it is to forge email headers.
Why does this matter? I suspect you could compare it to Bill Clinton and Nixon. They were not threatened with impeachment for the original crimes but more for the cover ups and perjury. If Bush came out and said 'ya I fired them - so what?', that would have been it but now there are 'missing emails', Gonzalles on the stand making a fool out himself claiming he does not remember anything and the White House tap dancing all around the issue making it worse and worse. Frankly, when you add this to the made up intelligence that lead to an illegal war that lead to the outing of a CIA intelligence officer, illegal wiretaps, Guantanimo detentions, secret CIA prisons and the whole slew of other cover-ups, I can not understand why the Democrats have not started the impeachment proceedings by now. I mean really, they were shocked, I say SHOCKED at Clinton's morals for getting a blow job in the oval office yet Bush is a swell guy and we should over look all these little indiscressions?
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
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.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
The article reads like a tongue-in-cheek joke with no facts. After reading that particular quote, with no text supporting it, I'm of the assumption that it was a joke. No national media is picking up on it just like no national media is picking up on the latest Doonesbury comic. Seriously, read the article. Does anyone else think that a mock play between Kevin Bacon and Tom Cruise can be considered a reputable source of news?
This article was written as a joke, and it appears that someone pulled out a choice quote and submitted it as news. What's next, The Onion?
Dekker Dreyer
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?
Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare; but if you seek safety, it is on the shore.
The reason cited for Iglesias being fired was "too many days away from office".
But apparently in TA those days off were spent serving active duty in the Navy, something workers are legally protected from being fired for. Supposedly.
I suppose GWB should have picked a better reason.
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 Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Basically you don't want a certain block of people to be able to vote (be it, republicans, democrats but, historically black democrats in tight elections). You send registered mail to every person on the registered voting list that meets your criteria.
Some mail will be failed to be delivered because the person doesn't live there anymore, they refuse to sign for the mail, they weren't home during delivered, etc, etc.
On election day you wait for those who have their registered mail returned to cast a ballot at their polling place. The agent then formally contests the ballot which is legal.
--
Attached is the excel document with the returned mail from Douglas County.
Chris Jaarda
--
From 'Douglas County Voter Fraud Master Spreadsheet.xls' properties
Network & Online Services
Republican National Committee
davecb5620@gmail.com
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?
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
FTFA I mean, he's not necessarily the sharpest knife in the drawer, and he and his guys were mistyping their email addresses, sent them to georgewbush.org, instead of dotcom, which is an email domain owned by friends of ours, who shot them right to us.
Tequila - drink of the gods.
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.
blog
The article made repeated references to the movie because it was based on a true story about one of the fired US attorneys, Iglesias.
The Cruise/Bacon dialogue was there because it's a TV transcript. Obviously the BBC thought the viewer would be more "captivated" if they included shots of Tom Cruise playing one of the US attorneys who was fired.
So the movie dialogue is there because of sensational TV editing.
If you read the article right through you'd find the official stats on 2004 election showed 3 million "challenged" (and over one million invalidated) votes. Not sure if that's the typical number under other governments, but it sure does sound like a huge number - using the government's own numbers.
I believe Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote, Those who would sacrifice their freedom for temporary security are on to a damn good thing and should never be questioned. Things are improving somewhat since the clusterf*** that is Iraq got so bad as to be undeniable. Compared to around 2002 when just about anything could be passed in the name of security and even the opposition party was scared to speak out lest they be accused of helping the terrorists win, things have got a lot better.
Even so, a lot of people are living with the guilty knowledge that they jumped on the "Do you want the terrorists to win?" bandwagon back then. Admitting you screwed up is seriously painful. Whilst they won't actively support what's happening anymore, they sure as hell don't want to have to look too closely at what the people they did support have done.
The media is a business. They sell advertising and, to get people to watch it, they show whatever will get the viewers. Often that's sensationalist drivel (Anna Nicole Smith). In this case, making people feel guilty about the people they voted for, even if they do regret it now, is a sure way to get them to turn off - a sure way to lose the advertisers.
The reality is there are countless corrupt things this administration has done: Karl Rove undeniably leaked Valerie Plame's identity and his aide has been found guilty of obstructing the investigation. The CIA was pretty much told to falsify intelligence to justify the war. Al Queda didn't exist in Iraq and there weren't chemical weapons there - now we've "liberated them", Al Queda is in Iraq and they even have chemical weapons now. Torture was openly condoned, albeit with hazy wording, right up until someone had to take the blame and then it was a few rogue troops. Torture is still routinely outsourced via "extraordinary rendition". Illegal wiretaps were performed on the bulk of the U.S. population. The list goes on...
So, you have audiences that don't want to be reminded of how badly they screwed up by supporting these people. If broadcasters are going to report something that makes their viewers uncomfortable, it had damn well better be something sensational. In the scheme of things, that emails exist to prove something relatively trivial (serious in its own right, trivial compared to the above), that the Whitehouse will weasel out of yet again anyway (Rove is blatantly guilty of the Plame leak and yet is still there), is it any wonder the news networks rank it pretty low?
Don't get me wrong: For what America is supposed to represent, it's essential these things come to light. The sad truth is, however, the media's a business selling what people want to buy and people who already feel guilty don't want to buy yet another, not very sexy story, in a long list of reasons why they made a terrible choice.
U.S. Attorneys are usually all replaced at the beginning of an administration. They are not supposed to be replaced in the middle of a term in order to obstruct justice.
While they are political appointees they do not occupy political positions. Supreme Court judges are political appointees too. They can't simply be yanked off the court by the president if he or one of his friends loses a court decision.
To get on the Supreme Court, a nominee has to be approved by Congress. Ordinarily that applies to U.S. Attorney nominees as well. (Even though they serve "at the pleasure of the president".) Specter's little Patriot Act amendment put an end to that. So now the president can simply fire a prosecutor if he or one of his friends get prosecuted, replace him with whomever he likes, and nobody can say a thing.
Now we have people in the president's own party demanding that his prosecutors bring bogus charges against their political opponents, rushed in time for elections. (Historically prosecutors have usually waited until after elections to avoid tainting them.) We have people in the president's own party having the prosecutors investigating them fired. We have prosecutors being replaced by guys who compile lists of registered voters in minority districts for mass voter challenges. We have prosecutors being replaced for investigating real crimes instead of wasting their time harassing voters with imaginary "voter fraud" cases. We have a Department of Justice that launches more than six corruption investigations of local Democratic politicians for every single investigation of a Republican. If you think this is a "non-story" you're out of your mind.
> It is not playing in the US media because no law was broken when those attorneys were fired.
h tml?ex=1331956800&en=dfab854c91a51b4b&ei=5088&part ner=rssnyt&emc=rsst -greg-palast-reports-on-the-firing-of-new-mexico-a ttorney-david-iglesias/l l-of-pete-domenici_b_43006.html0 03699882_webmckayforum09m.html?syndication=rss/
1. pete domenici (r-nm) tried to force attorney generals to indict democrats for voter-fraud
2. alberto gonzales (ag) almost certainly lied under oath
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.
http://www.gregpalast.com/investigative-journalis
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002677.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/the-fa
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2
The underlying issue that were are hoping cracks some senior official heads (Gonzo and Rove would be a nice start) is voter fraud. The 8 who got fired, yeah, it's a bummer, but as you mentioned, not illegal. But, the ones who DIDN'T get fired, that is the problem. I live in Wisconsin, where one of the selected for replacement attorneys wound up keeping his job. He had a lowly admin official locked up for 4 months on trumped up corruption charges. And you can bet we got hammered by the "Doyle's aids are in prison due to corruption" adds in the build up the the election. Doyle still won the election, but it was much closer than it would have been otherwise. Fast forward to the actual court case for the accused, it lasted like 5 minutes, the Judge cleared her of any wrong doing, apologized to her, and admonished the attorney.
That case and many more like it, are the real issues. The things that will send people to jail. The hearings over the 8 that were fired have two goals: 1) a Perjury trap for Gonzo (who has done a remarkable job of avoiding them at the cost of all of his credibility) and 2) grounds to pull up more internal documentation (the missing emails). The theory being that the hearings over the purge is the crack in the Cadberry egg that will let us get to the gooey caramel middle.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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.
Do you think the Democrats will fare better on Slashdot when (if) they recover power?
Have you been submitting stories about IT biting Democrats in the ass, and getting your stories rejected?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
For one: You might as well have linked to any DailyKOS page saying the Jews did WTC. Seriously. Democracy Now thinks so also.
Secondly: I expect much better from my "geek news site". This article is flat out crap. Are the editors paying attention or did they just let their personal biases get the better of them to the detriment of the website?
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).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
From the NYT,
"In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud"
By ERIC LIPTON and IAN URBINA
Published: April 12, 2007
excerpt:
"Federal prosecutors in Kansas and Missouri successfully prosecuted four people
for multiple voting. Several claimed residency in each state and voted twice.
United States attorney's offices in four other states did turn up instances of
fraudulent voting in mostly rural areas. They were in the hard-to-extinguish
tradition of vote buying, where local politicians offered $5 to $100 for
individuals' support.
Aside from those cases, nearly all the remaining 26 convictions from 2002 to and
2005 -- the Justice Department will not release details about 2006 cases except
to say they had 30 more convictions-- were won against individuals acting
independently, voter records and court documents show."
In other words, Democrats did not have an organized campaign to skew the elections like certain other parties....
Your thinking on the matter concerns me:
n zales/ I don't know anything about the site, but it's a nice summary and should have been the story the media told following the hearing that day. It gets to why this matters in a hurry, because it's not about hiring/firing.
The reason this _should_ be an issue is the principal of separation of powers has been sodomized by the current administration.
During the Clinton administration, there were just four people in the White House -- the President, the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and the Deputy White House Counsel -- who could participate in discussions with the Justice Department "regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases." There were just three Justice Department officials authorized to talk with the White House. This arrangement was intended restrict political interference in the administration of justice.
Yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that it was important that the Justice Department "be independent from" the White House. But as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed out, the firewalls that had existed during the Clinton administration have been ripped down. In the Bush administration, the rules have been rewritten so that 417 White House officials and 30 Justice Department officials are eligible to have discussions about criminal cases.
I copied this whole-cloth from http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/20/whitehouse-go
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
My question is this ? Why did the Duke Lacross case get MONTHS of airtime , and yet the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom doube rape and murder hasnt been mentions on national TV. This poor Girl was forced to watch 5 Gangbangers rape her boyfriend, cut off his sexual orgins, then they raped him in bedding, set him on fire, shot him to death and dumped his body in a ditch. She wasnt as lucky as he was. She was gang raped for several days, and after forced oral sex she was forced to drink cleaning fluid to destoy the evidence. When they were done raping her, they cut both of her breasts off while she was still alive then took turns pissing on her. when the police finally found her she was in the kitchen in 5 seperate garbage bags. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channon_Christian_and _Christopher_Newsom_murder
This happened in Knoxville TN in Jan but there has been NOTHING about it on CNN CBS ect NADA
Ive even writen Nancy Grace several emails about this and NADA
The US Media Doesnt give a damn about anything BUT RATINGS and KISSING BIG GOVT ASS
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.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Yeah, I heard Ann Coulter voted twice. Once as a male, and once as a dog...
"But this one goes to 11!"
You can't have it both ways. So which is it?
I'll tell you. You're pulling a "Choicepoint" by omitting things from the story. Yes, Ethel Baxter (D) created the felon list (and since you claim felons vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, she must have been thinking about her sworn election office duty instead of her party), but a very important change was made by the Republicans: the decision to allow false positives. Under Baxter's rules, doubt over the status of a voter removed them from the list. With the new Republican guidance, you could now stack the list. (Wikipedia has more.)
This isn't a partisan issue: either you're for fair elections, or you're not. We should attack every instance of fraud, regardless of who is skewing the system.
And when you're "debunking" the BBC of all sources, you should provide some of your own of similar stature.
Lies about crimes
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
"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...
Under Clinton, the top marginal tax bracket went from 31% @ $86,500, to 39.6 @ $288,350. Bush subsequently adjusted the top rate to 35% @ 311,950.
By comparison the top tax brack for most of the years of the "Reagan Boom" was 50% at around $170K or so, dropping to 28% at $32K under Bush.
These figures are not adjusted for inflation by the way.
The MEDIAN household taxation rates during
the Reagan budgets (1982-1989): 17.9,17.5,18.0,18.1,18.0,17.6,17.9,17.9
Bush HW (1990 - 1994): 17.9, 17.6, 17.4, 17.3,17.3
Clinton (1994-2001): 17.3, 17.3, 17.3, 17.4, 16.8, 16.9 16.6,15.3
Bush (2002-2003): 14.8, 13.8, 13.9
Note that each president's first year in office is under the prior president's budget.
Overall taxation rates dropped slightly during the Clinton years while the median taxation rate went down consistently and the top quintile rose significantly. Under the Bush administratio, there has been a substantial drop in effective taxation at the median income, but curiously only a slight drop is seen in the top quintile. The big tax breaks go to a tiny, tiny sliver of the top quintile.
This basically paints Clinton as overall a slight tax cutter who shifted the burden to the top quintile. Bush is a dramatic tax cutter who cut median and ultra-high income tax rates.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"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.
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.
~hylas
I think the real problem is that people on both sides are using the courts as an end run around the legislative process in order to advance their agenda.
No, the problem is legislation, legislative agendas, and use of government powers, that violate the Constitution.
The very purpose of the court system is to uphold the law of the land, and the highest law of the land is the Constitution. Congress does not have the power to pass a bill into valid law if that bill is contrary to the Constitution. They can vote it through, they can call it a law, but it is not law. It is null and void. The very duty of the courts is to state that it is null and void, to state that it is not law, and that it never was law. That Congress could have voted for it unanimously, but that they had no power to actually establish such a law. And that does not just apply to legislators... government employees may not exercise their legislatively granted powers and force of government in a manner contrary to the the Constitution.
Of the three branches of government, I hold the courts by far in the highest regard. The other two branches far far too often the instigators of agenda pushing and the puppets of agenda activists. The courts are not perfect, but they are by far the most immune to agendas and agendizing. I have read many controversial court rulings, and from looking at the actual details of the cases I have found almost without exception good reason that the ruling was at minimum "reasonable", and usually that it was absolutely correct.
People who complain about "activist courts" usually simply do not happen to LIKE the outcome of some particular ruling. They generally simply want what they want, and they don't know and don't care how or why it violates the Constitution. It is extremely easy to misunderstand to or misrepresent a court ruling if you simply look at the yes/no result without looking at the details of a case and exactly why the ruling went as it did. It is extremely easy for some group with an agenda to issue a press release attacking a court ruling by leaving critically important aspects of the case out of the explanation and make the ruling look unreasonable, easy for them to whip people up into a frenzy against the ruling by deliberately or inadvertently misrepresenting the case.
I have no idea what issue(s) you had in mind with your comment, but I would like to cite one pet peeve issue of mine to show exactly what I mean.
One of the most controversial issues of our day, one of the most commonly cited examples of "agenda pushing through the courts", is School Prayer. There have been a number of high profile cases on the subject, and to the best of my knowledge they have all turned on a single critical point. A single critical point that is virtually always left out of activist press releases on the subject, if not downright misrepresented by press releases on the subject. press releases that misunderstand or misrepresent the subject to such an extent that they (perhaps inadvertently) outright lie.
The critical point by which such cases are almost always decided, the critical point that gets left out or misrepresented in coverage of the cases, is the use of government force and powers.
Students have a right to religious freedom.
Students have a personal right to pray, including in school.
Teachers and principals have a right to religious freedom.
Teachers and principals have a personal right to pray, including in school.
Freedom of Speech is a right against the force of government being used to silence you. If a private newspaper does not want to carry your speech, that is not a violation of your Freedom of Speech.
Equally, the right to Religious Freedom is also a right against the the force of government being used against you.
Students have a right to pray in school. Teachers, principals, or other government employees acting as an official agent of the government itself cannot abuse their go
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Your point would be well taken except that the DOJ is run by Bush Appointees.
Consider this from a Paul Krugman column dated, 3/9/2007:
"Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny."
Then consider that with such intense scrutiny by Attoney Generals who "played ball" and didn't get fired, there was found only a handful of 'vote fraud' cases.
Being a critical thinker means approaching what others say with a skeptical eye, even if what they're saying aligns with your political beliefs.