Without personal comment, other than to say something doesn't seem proper here, I found this interesting. I read it more or less on the run. I'll get back to it; then I might comment. Then again, I might not comment. First glances certainly seemed interesting.
Watergate by any name, would smell as.... ?
- Thread starter Empath
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
MichiganMan
Enlightened
Watergate? Wow, that was in the seventies! There's several more recent examples that you probably just ... forgot. There's the incredibly convenient taping of Newt Gingrich's cell phone communications, reportedly intercepted, "accidentally" of course, by a couple of grass root level Democratic party officials who just happened to have be driving around with a scanner that picked up Newt's cell phone, and they just happened to also have tape recorder at the ready in their car that allowed them to "innocently" record his calls.
Or there were the hundreds of classified FBI files on prominent Republicans and staffers that mysteriously appeared in the Clinton White House. Now possession of an FBI file for unauthorized purposes, including finding dirt on political opponents, is a clear felony. A staffer in the Nixon White House went to prison of possessing just one of these files, the Clinton staffers had hundreds...
Does this mitigate the subject of the congressional computer files investigation? Not in the slightest. Clearly it was unethical at the least, and probably illegal. If so then prosecutions should certainly proceed as appropriate. I just thought the reference to Watergate curiously reached back a little further than you needed to.
Or there were the hundreds of classified FBI files on prominent Republicans and staffers that mysteriously appeared in the Clinton White House. Now possession of an FBI file for unauthorized purposes, including finding dirt on political opponents, is a clear felony. A staffer in the Nixon White House went to prison of possessing just one of these files, the Clinton staffers had hundreds...
Does this mitigate the subject of the congressional computer files investigation? Not in the slightest. Clearly it was unethical at the least, and probably illegal. If so then prosecutions should certainly proceed as appropriate. I just thought the reference to Watergate curiously reached back a little further than you needed to.
Bravo25
Flashlight Enthusiast
I can see it now... Hey it's only illegal if you are the one that plants the bug!
jayflash
Flashlight Enthusiast
If only those in power would put as much effort into the responsibilities they promised to handle. Both parties have upset me to the point that I've, often, voted for third party candidates since 1984. I'm not only crazy - I'm MAD.
I found that same article yesterday and I thought it to be such major and significant news that I was going to post it here myself, but Empath beat me to it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
The thing that I can't understand is why aren't they touting this more in the mainstream media? This seems to me to be a very major political discovery and should be publicized more. This just leaves me to wonder if some high-up isn't actively trying to keep this all low-key or something.
I mean, just look what a major scandal Watergate was and this seems to be pretty much a modern day equivalent to it. The only difference being that this was information stolen from some computers instead of actual hard copies of the information. Does the law really see it as so much less of a crime if the information is stolen from a computer's hard drive rather than a file in a filing cabinet, or is this whole issue just being swept under the rug by those in power these days, which just happen to be of the same political affiliation as those that broke the law?
The thing that I can't understand is why aren't they touting this more in the mainstream media? This seems to me to be a very major political discovery and should be publicized more. This just leaves me to wonder if some high-up isn't actively trying to keep this all low-key or something.
I mean, just look what a major scandal Watergate was and this seems to be pretty much a modern day equivalent to it. The only difference being that this was information stolen from some computers instead of actual hard copies of the information. Does the law really see it as so much less of a crime if the information is stolen from a computer's hard drive rather than a file in a filing cabinet, or is this whole issue just being swept under the rug by those in power these days, which just happen to be of the same political affiliation as those that broke the law?
Darell
Flashaholic
Maybe a better title for this thread would be "I love it when the Right bends over." But that would be plagiarism from the highest source. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
(Alert: Darell baiting the board owner. Warning. Warning! Run for your lives!)
And of course, I don't actually love it. It would seem that nobody can stand up straight these days. You just have to wonder how much of this stuff we *don't* hear about.
(Alert: Darell baiting the board owner. Warning. Warning! Run for your lives!)
And of course, I don't actually love it. It would seem that nobody can stand up straight these days. You just have to wonder how much of this stuff we *don't* hear about.
GJW
Flashlight Enthusiast
I don't think the mainstream wants to run with it.
The left was caught at some pretty nasty party politics and this is only bringing it to the surface again.
I think the left wants it to simply go away.
In a criminal court, the tainted evidence is never supposed to make it to the jury.
But this is the court of public opinion and it's already out there. To say now that the info was obtained unethically/ilegally can't change what the info was.
And striking it from the record isn't an option.
And unlike Watergate which involved private property -- this was government information on government computers.
Also, the 'no expectation of privacy' ruling regarding e-mails and other electronic communication sent through 'employers' computers is pretty well established.
Combine the two and I predict that criminal charges will be very hard to uphold.
The left was caught at some pretty nasty party politics and this is only bringing it to the surface again.
I think the left wants it to simply go away.
In a criminal court, the tainted evidence is never supposed to make it to the jury.
But this is the court of public opinion and it's already out there. To say now that the info was obtained unethically/ilegally can't change what the info was.
And striking it from the record isn't an option.
And unlike Watergate which involved private property -- this was government information on government computers.
Also, the 'no expectation of privacy' ruling regarding e-mails and other electronic communication sent through 'employers' computers is pretty well established.
Combine the two and I predict that criminal charges will be very hard to uphold.
[ QUOTE ]
X-CalBR8 said:
The thing that I can't understand is why aren't they touting this more in the mainstream media? This seems to me to be a very major political discovery and should be publicized more. This just leaves me to wonder if some high-up isn't actively trying to keep this all low-key or something.
[/ QUOTE ]
It could be for the same reason that the pot smoker doesn't report it when his stash is stolen. The "victims" now know that the burglars have the goods. Perhaps they'd agree to a dual at noon, but a public airing of all the republicans have probably doesn't look too appealing.
.
.
[ QUOTE ]
MichiganMan said:
Does this mitigate the subject of the congressional computer files investigation? Not in the slightest.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well said.
X-CalBR8 said:
The thing that I can't understand is why aren't they touting this more in the mainstream media? This seems to me to be a very major political discovery and should be publicized more. This just leaves me to wonder if some high-up isn't actively trying to keep this all low-key or something.
[/ QUOTE ]
It could be for the same reason that the pot smoker doesn't report it when his stash is stolen. The "victims" now know that the burglars have the goods. Perhaps they'd agree to a dual at noon, but a public airing of all the republicans have probably doesn't look too appealing.
.
.
[ QUOTE ]
MichiganMan said:
Does this mitigate the subject of the congressional computer files investigation? Not in the slightest.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well said.
James S
Flashlight Enthusiast
It is important, when forced to choose the lesser of two evils, that one should not forget and label the lesser one good...
BB
Flashlight Enthusiast
Kind of cute:
[ QUOTE ]
The computer glitch dates to 2001, when Democrats took control of the Senate after the defection from the GOP of Senator Jim Jeffords, Independent of Vermont.
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the end, this sounds like it was a computer server funded by us (the tax payer) and, as such, any information stored therein should be available under the Freedom of Information (or in this case, appeared to be stored on an open server). If they wanted it private, then get their own servers/accounts and set it up on their own property and write these (damming) memos on their own time.
I always told my employees (of a very big corporation), do not put anything on a server or in email that you would not want posted on a hallway bulletin board. (In fact, I did find a personal email with a typical bathroom humor joke stored in a large bundle of engineering release documentation one time--but we all know that nobody ever reads the documentation /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dedhorse.gif ).
-Bill
[ QUOTE ]
The computer glitch dates to 2001, when Democrats took control of the Senate after the defection from the GOP of Senator Jim Jeffords, Independent of Vermont.
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the end, this sounds like it was a computer server funded by us (the tax payer) and, as such, any information stored therein should be available under the Freedom of Information (or in this case, appeared to be stored on an open server). If they wanted it private, then get their own servers/accounts and set it up on their own property and write these (damming) memos on their own time.
I always told my employees (of a very big corporation), do not put anything on a server or in email that you would not want posted on a hallway bulletin board. (In fact, I did find a personal email with a typical bathroom humor joke stored in a large bundle of engineering release documentation one time--but we all know that nobody ever reads the documentation /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dedhorse.gif ).
-Bill
BB
Flashlight Enthusiast
Also, kind of interesting... anyone remember why Sen. Patrick Leahy was called "Leaky Leahy:"?
[ QUOTE ]
"Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, inadvertantly disclosed a top secret communications intercept during a [1985] television interview," reported the San Diego Union-Tribune in a 1987 editorial criticizing Congress' penchant for partisan leaks.
"The intercept, apparently of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's telephone conversations, made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered American citizens," the paper said, adding, "The reports cost the life of at least one Egyptian operative involved in the operation."
...[SNIP]...
But just a year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, the Vermont senator had to resign his Intelligence Committee post after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter.
The ranking Intelligence Committee Democrat decided to let an NBC reporter comb through the committee's confidential draft report on the scandal. The network aired a report based on the inside information on Jan. 11, 1987.
After a six-month internal investigation, Leahy "voluntarily" stepped down from his committee post, releasing a statement calling his resignation "a suitable way to express ... anger and regret" over his lapse.
Leahy's anger, he said, was at himself, "for carelessly allowing the press person to examine the unclassified draft and to be alone with it."
[/ QUOTE ]
Seems that people would have learned not to put him in charge of security--again...
-Bill
[ QUOTE ]
"Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, inadvertantly disclosed a top secret communications intercept during a [1985] television interview," reported the San Diego Union-Tribune in a 1987 editorial criticizing Congress' penchant for partisan leaks.
"The intercept, apparently of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's telephone conversations, made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered American citizens," the paper said, adding, "The reports cost the life of at least one Egyptian operative involved in the operation."
...[SNIP]...
But just a year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, the Vermont senator had to resign his Intelligence Committee post after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter.
The ranking Intelligence Committee Democrat decided to let an NBC reporter comb through the committee's confidential draft report on the scandal. The network aired a report based on the inside information on Jan. 11, 1987.
After a six-month internal investigation, Leahy "voluntarily" stepped down from his committee post, releasing a statement calling his resignation "a suitable way to express ... anger and regret" over his lapse.
Leahy's anger, he said, was at himself, "for carelessly allowing the press person to examine the unclassified draft and to be alone with it."
[/ QUOTE ]
Seems that people would have learned not to put him in charge of security--again...
-Bill
Bravo25
Flashlight Enthusiast
[ QUOTE ]
X-CalBR8 said:
The thing that I can't understand is why aren't they touting this more in the mainstream media? This seems to me to be a very major political discovery and should be publicized more. This just leaves me to wonder if some high-up isn't actively trying to keep this all low-key or something.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well that is mainstream media for ya. You could volumes with what you don't find there.
X-CalBR8 said:
The thing that I can't understand is why aren't they touting this more in the mainstream media? This seems to me to be a very major political discovery and should be publicized more. This just leaves me to wonder if some high-up isn't actively trying to keep this all low-key or something.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well that is mainstream media for ya. You could volumes with what you don't find there.
Bravo25 said: "Well that is mainstream media for ya. You could volumes with what you don't find there."
The great problem that comes into play when something like this doesn't make the mainstream media is that either the masses are left in the dark (and it is the mostly ignorant masses that decide elections, unfortunately), or possibly worse, people will marginalize the news item when they finally do hear about it by saying something to the effect of 'well, if it was "real" news I would have seen it on the nightly news'.
Under the current news system, how can you win if there is a coverup in the mass media? Either your news taken from a non-conventional news source is treated as suspect or else people will tell you that you are making too much out of it because if it was a really "serious" news item then it would surely be in the mass media. You really can't win for loosing under the current system... *Sigh*
The great problem that comes into play when something like this doesn't make the mainstream media is that either the masses are left in the dark (and it is the mostly ignorant masses that decide elections, unfortunately), or possibly worse, people will marginalize the news item when they finally do hear about it by saying something to the effect of 'well, if it was "real" news I would have seen it on the nightly news'.
Under the current news system, how can you win if there is a coverup in the mass media? Either your news taken from a non-conventional news source is treated as suspect or else people will tell you that you are making too much out of it because if it was a really "serious" news item then it would surely be in the mass media. You really can't win for loosing under the current system... *Sigh*
Silviron
Flashlight Enthusiast
This is just horrible.
I'm now convinced that the Bush regime and the right wing media are in some sort of collusion with the Clintons and Terry McCauliffe to just take over the government completely.
Somehow they engineered the so called "Patriot Act"(s) to gather information on normal people like us, and along with the FBI files that Hillary still has, and using computer hackers to break into the good, honorable, freedom loving Democrat's computers so that they can somehow bring them down too. It is obvious that ALL Republicans are self-serving, crooked, anti-freedom, power hungry despots.
These guys are probably behind the recent problems of the Dean campaign too because he won't play along.
Who is running for President for the Libertarians? He may be the only hope for the future of this country. Too bad that Ron Paul betrayed the Libertarians and converted back to Republican just as he was getting some national presidential name recognition for the Libertarians.
Dean is being attacked by all sides since he won't play, so he has no hope of winning as a Democrat. Maybe if he decides that they really screwed, him, he will run as a third party candidate. If so, there may be SOME little hope there.
All the rest of the major Dem. candidates are part of the conspiracy. Well, maybe we can trust Kucinich and Sharpton, they seem pretty independent, but I don't think that Sharpton has a chance, and the media seems to be ignoring Kucinich almost completely.
No, the more I think about this, it is really hopeless; What with the "Shrub" regime in conspiracy with the big media and probably the Klintons, I don't see how us "normal people" can do anything to overcome this problem. Even with the ability to start a website and Xerox some newsletters for like minded people, I can't see any way to be heard much less prevail.
I'm starting to think that all of us people who really love freedom should just pack up and leave the country. I wonder, is Canada better or Mexico? I'd love to go to New Zealand, but I have too much stuff to take that far. Canada has free healthcare, but in Mexico you can live very well on a small income.
Ideas??? Maybe we could all get together, buy some land... (ANYWHERE but in the fascistic USA); and start a CPF community somewhere.
Some of us could plant gardens to supply ourselves with food, and others can build flashlights and others make tie-dye T-shirts and sell them on the internet to purchase things that we can't make ourselves... What do you think?
I'm now convinced that the Bush regime and the right wing media are in some sort of collusion with the Clintons and Terry McCauliffe to just take over the government completely.
Somehow they engineered the so called "Patriot Act"(s) to gather information on normal people like us, and along with the FBI files that Hillary still has, and using computer hackers to break into the good, honorable, freedom loving Democrat's computers so that they can somehow bring them down too. It is obvious that ALL Republicans are self-serving, crooked, anti-freedom, power hungry despots.
These guys are probably behind the recent problems of the Dean campaign too because he won't play along.
Who is running for President for the Libertarians? He may be the only hope for the future of this country. Too bad that Ron Paul betrayed the Libertarians and converted back to Republican just as he was getting some national presidential name recognition for the Libertarians.
Dean is being attacked by all sides since he won't play, so he has no hope of winning as a Democrat. Maybe if he decides that they really screwed, him, he will run as a third party candidate. If so, there may be SOME little hope there.
All the rest of the major Dem. candidates are part of the conspiracy. Well, maybe we can trust Kucinich and Sharpton, they seem pretty independent, but I don't think that Sharpton has a chance, and the media seems to be ignoring Kucinich almost completely.
No, the more I think about this, it is really hopeless; What with the "Shrub" regime in conspiracy with the big media and probably the Klintons, I don't see how us "normal people" can do anything to overcome this problem. Even with the ability to start a website and Xerox some newsletters for like minded people, I can't see any way to be heard much less prevail.
I'm starting to think that all of us people who really love freedom should just pack up and leave the country. I wonder, is Canada better or Mexico? I'd love to go to New Zealand, but I have too much stuff to take that far. Canada has free healthcare, but in Mexico you can live very well on a small income.
Ideas??? Maybe we could all get together, buy some land... (ANYWHERE but in the fascistic USA); and start a CPF community somewhere.
Some of us could plant gardens to supply ourselves with food, and others can build flashlights and others make tie-dye T-shirts and sell them on the internet to purchase things that we can't make ourselves... What do you think?
pedalinbob
Flashlight Enthusiast
what i find particularly interesting is that people seem more concerned about the possible illegality involved in attaining the info...and less concerned about the info itself.
funny how the "mainstream media" isnt more inclined to jump on this one.
Trent Lott made comments that MIGHT be interpreted as pro-racist (he merely complimented Thurmond on his very long career), and he was SLAMMED by the media.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive?mode=PF
oops. looks like the democRATS were busted for racism and pandering to special interests...
can you spell "left leaning media" boys and girls?
Bob
funny how the "mainstream media" isnt more inclined to jump on this one.
Trent Lott made comments that MIGHT be interpreted as pro-racist (he merely complimented Thurmond on his very long career), and he was SLAMMED by the media.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive?mode=PF
oops. looks like the democRATS were busted for racism and pandering to special interests...
can you spell "left leaning media" boys and girls?
Bob
MichiganMan
Enlightened
Yeah X-Cal, if I had to speculate I'd say its the content of the purloined info that is probably kept the liberal side begrudgingly quiet about the mess. If the memos contain strategy that effectively boils down to "Ok, Rep SoAndSo, you're a minority, next Monday at the start of the news cycle you go on the House floor and angrily call this nominee a racist to get the X-minority group riled up, poll numbers show that they're particularily receptive to this claim, especially in regions that have never heard of the nominee. Then Senator SoAndSo will subpoena this and that documentation, set the deadline two weeks earlier than it can possibly be produced and then fax CNN a release that the Republicans are stonewalling. Our auditors say that the nominee can only afford to continue the hearings here in Washington for another month at the most before he really feels the financial pain and withdraws."
IOW if you're a Senator, do you want to have your own words used to publically reveal your cynical manipulation of the system, including the use of race politics, just to see some sacrificial staffers prosecuted?
IOW if you're a Senator, do you want to have your own words used to publically reveal your cynical manipulation of the system, including the use of race politics, just to see some sacrificial staffers prosecuted?
Bravo25
Flashlight Enthusiast
Hi;
I am running for office, but please don't vote for me.
I am often not politically correct even though I have a sense of right, and wrong.
If you vote for me I would have to go to work, becase we sure don't get our money's worth now.
If you vote for me I would have to be accountable to you, since none of our current politicians seem to remember this.
If you vote for me, I would have to tell you the truth. Enough of the lies.
If you vote for me, I would have to conduct only open, honest dealings. No more backroom good ole boy secrets.
If you vote for me, I would have to spend only the money we have. We use to call that a budget.
If you vote for me, I wouldn't have all the answers. Perhaps questions, and sound decisions are more important.
If you vote for me, I would have to do what you want. Isn't being a politician "serving" the people?
If you vote for me, I would have to lead by example. Even in spite of my past.
If you vote for me, I wouldn't be able to fly all over the world on expensive trips. Just doesn't see right unless we all get to go.
If you vote for me, I would have to find new jobs for people out of work. We have to got to have jobs to pay taxes.
If you vote for me, I couldn't compaign on your time, and money. Guess you would just have to re-elect me or get rid of me.
If you vote for me, I would have to be responsible. After all it's not just me.
If you vote for me, I would have to endeavor to fix things that are wrong. At least before I go looking for other things to go wrong.
If you vote for me, I would have to say no to big business buy offs. Special interest, and soft money couldn't be allowed.
If you vote for me, I would have to try and put myself out of office. The government should be getting smaller instead of bigger.
If you vote for me, I would have to work to stiffen court penalties for felonies instead of building more prisons.
If you vote for me, I would have to vote on straight forward bills. No more of this attaching self serving ammendments to larger more important bills, just to secretly get them passed.
So please don't vote for me. But perhaps someday we could elect someone like me.
I am running for office, but please don't vote for me.
I am often not politically correct even though I have a sense of right, and wrong.
If you vote for me I would have to go to work, becase we sure don't get our money's worth now.
If you vote for me I would have to be accountable to you, since none of our current politicians seem to remember this.
If you vote for me, I would have to tell you the truth. Enough of the lies.
If you vote for me, I would have to conduct only open, honest dealings. No more backroom good ole boy secrets.
If you vote for me, I would have to spend only the money we have. We use to call that a budget.
If you vote for me, I wouldn't have all the answers. Perhaps questions, and sound decisions are more important.
If you vote for me, I would have to do what you want. Isn't being a politician "serving" the people?
If you vote for me, I would have to lead by example. Even in spite of my past.
If you vote for me, I wouldn't be able to fly all over the world on expensive trips. Just doesn't see right unless we all get to go.
If you vote for me, I would have to find new jobs for people out of work. We have to got to have jobs to pay taxes.
If you vote for me, I couldn't compaign on your time, and money. Guess you would just have to re-elect me or get rid of me.
If you vote for me, I would have to be responsible. After all it's not just me.
If you vote for me, I would have to endeavor to fix things that are wrong. At least before I go looking for other things to go wrong.
If you vote for me, I would have to say no to big business buy offs. Special interest, and soft money couldn't be allowed.
If you vote for me, I would have to try and put myself out of office. The government should be getting smaller instead of bigger.
If you vote for me, I would have to work to stiffen court penalties for felonies instead of building more prisons.
If you vote for me, I would have to vote on straight forward bills. No more of this attaching self serving ammendments to larger more important bills, just to secretly get them passed.
So please don't vote for me. But perhaps someday we could elect someone like me.
