Slashdot Log In
Not All the DOJ Missing Emails Are Missing
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed May 16, 2007 07:59 AM
from the 500-smoking-guns dept.
from the 500-smoking-guns dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Greg Palast's history (Score:5, Informative)
Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:5, Interesting)
If that isn't the most crass, scummy tactic to keep Dems from voting, I've never seen worse. 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.
Parent
Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What's wrong about the firings, exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
I must be new here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I must be new here... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I must be new here... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I must be new here... (Score:5, Insightful)
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....
Parent
That dog won't hunt no more. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I must be new here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I must be new here... (Score:5, Informative)
Nice troll. Too bad it's not correct.
You are correct when you say the US Attorneys serve at the will of the President. Bill Clinton, when he came into office, fired all 83 US Attorneys and replaced them. So did Reagan and Bush, Sr.
Bush, however, not only did not do that, he waited until two years into his second term to fire eight attorneys which he had previously appointed!
Further, as is now becoming clear, the firings were not for performance reasons, but political reasons. In one case, the attorney was told he was being fired to make way for a former aide to Karl Rove. In another case, Iglesias, he was specificaly told his firing was not for performance reasons but political [thinkprogress.org] yet the White House and Gonzales kept saying, and still say to this day, that the firing was for performance issues.
As Iglesias said on Fox Noise, and as the transcript above shows, he asked for and was given permission to use the DOJ as a reference. If he was fired for performance reasons, why bother to give him a recommendation?
So what we have is an Attorney General who has been lying under oath about an incident which he apparently knew nothing about even though he heads the department. Let's see, lying under oath, can't recall information, doesn't know what's going on. Why does that sound familiar?
Keep up the trolling. We need the laughs.
Parent
Re:I must be new here... (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't care about this now, you better not be bitching when a Democrat is President and the tides turn...
Parent
Re: I must be new here... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Actually, it might be worse than that. Iglesias was fired because he wouldn't obey a senator's demand to prosecute innocent people for political gain. Of course, the Rove House didn't want to admit that, so they fired him for missing too much work - a violation of Federal law, since he missed the work due to being on active duty with the US Navy.)
Parent
You and your grandpappy are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Another non-story about presidential lawbreaking (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Must be the "liberal" media at work. (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Not quite accurate editorializing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Democracy Now [democracynow.org] 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?
Palast has more interesting things to say (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/10/br
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/6
Parent
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Considering the source I'll wait (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent