Major scandal brewing? GOP steals secret memos from Dems.

Baron Scarpia · Post by **Baron Scarpia** » 2004-01-22 11:27pm

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... extensive/

This is a continuation of the fury over information found in Robert Novak's columns last year that was top secret, insider Democrat stuff.

This could be big... taking/using that information was majorly illegal!

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-22 11:31pm

Ouch. If that pans out, I sense bad things for the GOP.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-01-22 11:35pm

Watergate II?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-22 11:38pm

Actually, taking/using that information MIGHT be illegal, depending on how the law is interpreted. Frankly, it was pretty negligent to allow access to those files without requiring a password.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 11:43pm

If what I think happened did happen...then WOO HOO! Go GOP! Too bad the Democrats finally caught on. I'm going to love seeing the Democrats argue that their files, kept on a government owned server, are somehow more "private" than communications in the White House.

Rev Prez

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-22 11:45pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Actually, taking/using that information MIGHT be illegal, depending on how the law is interpreted. Frankly, it was pretty negligent to allow access to those files without requiring a password.

According to the article, there was a password. It's just that there was an exploitable glitch in the system that allowed access to the files anyway. Still pretty negligent.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-22 11:45pm

Interesting. Will be following.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 11:46pm

Mayabird wrote:Watergate II?

When Gore received a copy of the tape leaked from the Bush campaign detailing the then candidate's debate preparations, did that blow up in the Democrats' face? The voters don't give a damn about inter-party point scoring anymore. The Republicans learned this the hard way in the 1990s.

Rev Prez

Baron Scarpia · Post by **Baron Scarpia** » 2004-01-22 11:47pm

It certainly is illegal, considering that the files on that server were confidential and not intentionally open to unauthorized users -- it's breaking into a computer system as if it were a house with an open front door.

One can blame the victims for being inept, yes--but the burden of the crime is still on the perps.

Baron Scarpia · Post by **Baron Scarpia** » 2004-01-22 11:49pm

revprez wrote:
Mayabird wrote:Watergate II?
When Gore received a copy of the tape leaked from the Bush campaign detailing the then candidate's debate preparations, did that blow up in the Democrats' face? The voters don't give a damn about inter-party point scoring anymore. The Republicans learned this the hard way in the 1990s.

This is a completely piss-poor analogy, because the Gore campaign neither secured that tape nor did they use it. They immediately handed it over to the authorities, and the person who received it recused himself from further debate preparations. The person who stole the tape didn't work for Gore, she worked for Bush.

This is, in fact, the opposite of what happened here, as this story is making it quite apparent that there was a deliberate, conscious theft of the information by Republicans, and they definitely used the information, even leaking it to Novak. That's a HUGE difference.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 11:59pm

Baron Scarpia wrote:This is a completely piss-poor analogy, because the Gore campaign neither secured that tape nor did they use it.

Do you have any evidence that the GOP used the information they allegedly received improperly, or that GOP Senators even saw the information?

They immediately handed it over to the authorities, and the person who received it recused himself from further debate preparations. The person who stole the tape didn't work for Gore, she worked for Bush.

Yvette Lozano worked for a media strategist who worked for Bush. She's a registered Democrat. And that tape was also leaked to the press, just as these documents were. On the other hand, it was clear that a case could be made against Lozano for mail fraud.

There's also the computer disk that was lost in June 2002 with GOP a election strategy presentation that was found by a Senate Democratic aide and used by the Senate Democrats openly to lambast the President.

This is, in fact, the opposite of what happened here, as this story is making it quite apparent that there was a deliberate, conscious theft of the information by Republicans, and they definitely used the information, even leaking it to Novak.

How so? In both cases the opposition received the other guy's goods. In both cases they transmitted that information to the press. What's the difference?

That's a HUGE difference.

If there is, I don't see it.

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 12:01am

Baron Scarpia wrote:It certainly is illegal, considering that the files on that server were confidential and not intentionally open to unauthorized users -- it's breaking into a computer system as if it were a house with an open front door.

Except this is a government computer. The files on their are government property. The people accessing them are government employees. Unless there's evidence that the information was 1) classified or 2) accessed in an illegal manner, there's no criminal case to be made here. And given the computer disk flap from the summer of 2002, there's probably no ethical case to be made either.

One can blame the victims for being inept, yes--but the burden of the crime is still on the perps.

And the burden of proof is on the prosecutors. I'd also love to see the federal judge who wants to take this one up.

Rev Prez

Baron Scarpia · Post by **Baron Scarpia** » 2004-01-23 12:10am

revprez wrote:
Baron Scarpia wrote:This is a completely piss-poor analogy, because the Gore campaign neither secured that tape nor did they use it.
Do you have any evidence that the GOP used the information they allegedly received improperly, or that GOP Senators even saw the information?

I assume that the senate Master-At-Arms wouldn't be seizing computers from Bill Frist offices if there weren't any indications. At any rate, the fact that the confidential information in question was leaked to Novak and others is proof that there was theft of the information. You will recall that Sen. Hatch fired a staffer over this in November.

I never claimed GOP Senators saw the information, but the extent to which the information was used, as stated in the article, makes it entirely possible, and I'd say beyond the scope of credulity to think they didn't see it or know about it.

Yvette Lozano worked for a media strategist who worked for Bush. She's a registered Democrat. And that tape was also leaked to the press, just as these documents were. On the other hand, it was clear that a case could be made against Lozano for mail fraud.

Lozano was still de facto working for Bush, she was not at all employed by the Democrats, as the GOP staffers in this instance are. She also didn't leak it to the press, it was sent to Gore. Whether or not it was mail fraud is irrelevant to this point.

There's also the computer disk that was lost in June 2002 with GOP a election strategy presentation that was found by a Senate Democratic aide and used by the Senate Democrats openly to lambast the President.

And there's no indication whatsoever that said disk was obtained illegally. But how does this excuse GOPers illegally stealing files again?

How so? In both cases the opposition received the other guy's goods. In both cases they transmitted that information to the press. What's the difference?

Um, in this case, the opposition STOLE the good deliberately, which didn't happen in the Gore case. I'd think that was the first and most obvious difference. Second, Gore's campaign didn't transmit the content of the tape to the press...they gave the tape to the FBI and simply reported they had received it. That's also a big difference.

That's a HUGE difference.
If there is, I don't see it.

Rev Prez

Hence your custom title, I suspect.

Baron Scarpia · Post by **Baron Scarpia** » 2004-01-23 12:12am

revprez wrote: Except this is a government computer. The files on their are government property. The people accessing them are government employees. Unless there's evidence that the information was 1) classified or 2) accessed in an illegal manner, there's no criminal case to be made here.

Did you not read? Both 1) and 2) ARE true. The information WAS classified, whether it is was on a government computer or not. All of the internal, private information contained on these computers is protected from theft of this kind, specifically by the 1996 Telecommunications bill.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-23 12:20am

Who employs Novak, and why the fuck hasn't he been fired yet? This is so illegal it's not even funny.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-01-23 12:34am

Iceberg wrote:Who employs Novak, and why the fuck hasn't he been fired yet? This is so illegal it's not even funny.

Why should Novak be fired?
He's a journalist and commentator, not a government employee.

Let's fire the idiot who screwed up the security instead:

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.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 12:36am

Baron Scarpia wrote:I assume that the senate Master-At-Arms wouldn't be seizing computers from Bill Frist offices if there weren't any indications.

And not all domestic disturbance calls on COPs end in arrests, nor does every arrest end in a conviction. There is a complaint, an inquiry, and sufficient probable cause to conduct an investigation. Whether anything will come of that investigation or, if the investigation does validate charges, whether anything will come of hearings and trials, is another matter all together. And does anyone actually think that Bill Frist is sysadmin on his server?

At any rate, the fact that the confidential information in question was leaked to Novak and others is proof that there was theft of the information.

No it's not. There are a whole host of other statutes that are more likely to be invoked other than those related to theft.

You will recall that Sen. Hatch fired a staffer over this in November.

I recall a staffer resigned.

I never claimed GOP Senators saw the information, but the extent to which the information was used, as stated in the article, makes it entirely possible, and I'd say beyond the scope of credulity to think they didn't see it or know about it.

And we don't know how long the tape was in possession of Downey before he turned it over. Either way, the tape was leaked.

Lozano was still de facto working for Bush, she was not at all employed by the Democrats, as the GOP staffers in this instance are.

What does that matter?

She also didn't leak it to the press, it was sent to Gore.

Never said she leaked it to the press, but the press soon discovered the contents of the tape.

Whether or not it was mail fraud is irrelevant to this point.

No, it is. She was in possession of stolen private property.

And there's no indication whatsoever that said disk was obtained illegally. But how does this excuse GOPers illegally stealing files again?

You've yet to establish that anything illegal happened.

Um, in this case, the opposition STOLE the good deliberately, which didn't happen in the Gore case.

That was a political question. What difference will it make in the minds of the American people?

I'd think that was the first and most obvious difference. Second, Gore's campaign didn't transmit the content of the tape to the press...they gave the tape to the FBI and simply reported they had received it. That's also a big difference.

Point conceded, the tape contents were discussed by a Bush campaign advisor.

Rev Prez

That's a HUGE difference.
If there is, I don't see it.

Rev Prez

Hence your custom title, I suspect.[/quote]

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 12:36am

Baron Scarpia wrote:Hence your custom title, I suspect.

Zing! Keep it up, homey!

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 12:38am

Baron Scarpia wrote:Did you not read? Both 1) and 2) ARE true. The information WAS classified, whether it is was on a government computer or not.

Really? Under what authority was it classified?

All of the internal, private information contained on these computers is protected from theft of this kind, specifically by the 1996 Telecommunications bill.

How is anything on a government computer considered private? Classified, yes. Private?

Rev Prez

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-23 12:38am

Glocksman wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Who employs Novak, and why the fuck hasn't he been fired yet? This is so illegal it's not even funny.
Why should Novak be fired?
He's a journalist and commentator, not a government employee.

He's also a felon - in the last year he's leaked confidential information (a felony) and the identity of a CIA operative (another felony). He should be behind bars, not behind a news desk.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 12:40am

Iceberg wrote:He's also a felon - in the last year he's leaked confidential information (a felony) and the identity of a CIA operative (another felony). He should be behind bars, not behind a news desk.

The receiving party is not covered under the statute.

Rev Prez

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-01-23 01:06am

Iceberg wrote:
Glocksman wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Who employs Novak, and why the fuck hasn't he been fired yet? This is so illegal it's not even funny.
Why should Novak be fired?
He's a journalist and commentator, not a government employee.
He's also a felon - in the last year he's leaked confidential information (a felony) and the identity of a CIA operative (another felony). He should be behind bars, not behind a news desk.

The leaker is a yet unknown operative inside the White House, not Novak. He merely reported the leaked information. Does the law against revealing CIA operative identities apply to journalists?

Besides, I'm leery of prosecuting any journalist for reporting leaked information regardless of whether he's a right wing asswipe like Novak or a left wing asswipe on the staff of the Nation who reveals the contents of a secret NSC memorandum on aiding the Contras.

The government classifes information all too often merely because it's embarassing, not because it's necessary for national security.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-23 01:08am

Iceberg wrote: He's a journalist and commentator, not a government employee.

He's also a felon - in the last year he's leaked confidential information (a felony) and the identity of a CIA operative (another felony). He should be behind bars, not behind a news desk.[/quote]

Oh this is rich, Iceberg the liberal taking the sturm und drang line...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-23 01:10am

MKSheppard wrote: Oh this is rich, Iceberg the liberal taking the sturm und drang line...

Oh yes, shouldn't you be FOR this leaking, and for the Freedom of the press,
first amendment and all that?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-23 12:31pm

I don't see why he should be. He broke the law, so he should be in jail. This is not difficult.