Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Government Politics

Senate Hacker Blames Boss 103

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the pointing-fingers dept.
expriest writes "Manuel Miranda, the Republican Senate staffer under invesitgation for hacking into confidential Democratic files, has sued John Ashcroft to enjoin him against continuing the investigation. Miranda's argument consists of little more than fingerpointing. "Senators used all their official power and their influence over the press" says Miranda's complaint, "to disguise their own wrongdoing, by systematically accusing plaintiff of escalating degrees of criminality." "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senate Hacker Blames Boss

Comments Filter:
  • I was only following orders!
  • This may seem like a bad joke, but do you think they read him his Miranda Rights?
  • Still Isn't Right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alatesystems (51331) <chris&talkingtoad,com> on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:41PM (#10269930) Homepage Journal
    According to Boston News [boston.com], he allegedly "infiltrated Democratic Judiciary Committee computer files" and copied "thousands of memos and passing some on to the media".

    He says he was "just following orders" as a previous poster has said, and that they should be in court instead of him. They should be in court WITH him.

    Even though someone told him to do something that he knew was wrong, he allegedly did it anyway. I hate when people cop-out by saying "I was just following orders."

    "You know, the Nazis had pieces of flare they made the Jews wear."

    Chris
    • Re:Still Isn't Right (Score:3, Interesting)

      by justkarl (775856)
      Even though someone told him to do something that he knew was wrong, he allegedly did it anyway. I hate when people cop-out by saying "I was just following orders."

      I agree...to a point. Instead of doing something that he knew was wrong(translate=unethical/illegal) Miranda could have chosen to "tell on" his boss. But then he's at risk of losing his job(obviously) or perhaps something worse. The corruption's out there, but one has to follow the system enough to make a living. Would you sacrifice a swe
      • The corruption's out there, but one has to follow the system enough to make a living.

        True enough, which is why we need to redesign the system to punish corruption more severely. Certainly his bosses should not only be in court with him- they should be removed from their positions and sent back to their states in shame.

        But so should the idiots who decided to place those memos on an unprotected share drive.
        • >Certainly his bosses should not only be in court with him- they should be removed from their positions and sent back to their states in shame.

          No way! They should be hung in the public square.

          You hand three or four politicians for corruption, the political landscape will change so fast it'll make the presidential elections look like a bingo game.
          • Wonder if that would work the same with CxOs, given the immense amount of corruption in business today?
          • You [hang] three or four politicians for corruption, the political landscape will change so fast it'll make the presidential elections look like a bingo game.

            Unfortunately, that's one of the problems with corruption: if a corrupt system starts hanging people it calls corrupt, can we ever be sure the correct people are being hanged?

            Do we trust the inmates of the asylum to decide who is sane?

            I rue the day my children will look at me and ask Dad, how could you have let this happen on your watch?

      • by Doc Ruby (173196)
        Here's a specific hypothetical question for you: would you crack the opposition party computers to spy on their secret memos so you could stuff the courts with judges not only "sympathetic" to your ideology, but also owing you a favor? Or would you quit, and take your unparalleled resume to another job where you weren't only unethical, but also didn't help to destroy your country?
      • Miranda could have chosen to "tell on" his boss. But then he's at risk of losing his job(obviously)

        And that's why we have whistleblower laws. Generally speaking, you cannot be retaliated against for reporting an employer who is breaking the law.

        Government: It is on your side.
    • The Boston News, naturally, is both incorrect and clueless.

      There was no "infiltration" involved. The memos were happily served up from the DJC's servers sicne they were available to the public with no protection. Furthermore, they were not classified.

      If Microsoft accidently puts their source code up for download on their webpage, is it "infiltration" if I download them?

      Finkployd
      • If Microsoft accidently puts their source code up for download on their webpage, is it "infiltration" if I download them?

        No, but it may still be illegal.

        IMO, this should be treated no differently than if that same information was left unattended in a labeled manila file folder on the front reception desk in the Senator's office. The question of whether or not it is illegal to distribute particular information is a completely separate question from whether illegal means were used to procure the informatio

        • by PatHMV (701344) <post@patrickmartin.com> on Thursday September 16, 2004 @06:17PM (#10272449) Homepage
          These files were on government-owned, taxpayer-funded computers. Were it not for the fact that Congress exempted itself [house.gov] from the Freedom of Information Act, these records would be suject to public review and inspection. Those memos [cfif.org] discovered by Miranda which have been publicly released show:
          • clear efforts by parties to litigation to influence the results of that litigation by controlling when new judges were confirmed (p. 3)
          • confirmation hearings be scheduled around concerns over how a particular confirmation might affect an election in a particular state (South Carolina - p. 8-9)
          • racial motivations (to develop a strategy for "dealing with conservative Latino Circuit Court nominees" (p. 14)
          • and exactly how much Democrat Senators are focused on pleasing particular special interest organizations and constituencies
          So why shouldn't these memos have been in the public eye to begin with? If a whistle-blower had released documents from the White House showing the White House consulting with religious leaders or business leaders or pro-life organizations to discuss judicial appointments and how they would be handled, would anybody be asking for the whistle-blower to be prosecuted? No. The same people on the left who want to crucify Miranda here would be screaming about the public's right to know.

          And FYI, here [cfif.org] is Miranda's attorneys very clear explanation of the law. Anybody on /. who wants to prosecute Miranda for what he did better be really, really careful about what computers he accesses without really explicit permission in the future.

          • If a whistle-blower had released documents from the White House showing the White House consulting with religious leaders or business leaders or pro-life organizations to discuss judicial appointments and how they would be handled, would anybody be asking for the whistle-blower to be prosecuted?

            Interestingly enough, you fail to call for the release of the meeting notes that Cheney took with energy executives; Cheney is claiming executive privilege. Lawsuits from the Dems have so far been unsuccessul
            • It's one thing to believe that internal policy discussions by politicians and others should be allowed to remain confidential, and another to push for the prosecution of someone who for whatever reason chooses to breech that confidentiality and leak the documents anyway. If the Democrats want to exchange memos like this and agree amongst themselves not to share them with outsiders, that's fine with me. Same with the Cheney energy executive meetings. But if someone in the White House chose to leak, say, the
          • Well, I don't know how anyone can call a fourteen page document written by a lawyer "clear," but that's another matter.

            IANAL, I don't have the faintest idea whether the release of this information was legal or illegal. I'm not calling for anyone's head. (But believe me, I *always* get explicit permission before I access a computer. It's part of the ethical standards of my profession, whether or not there is any force of law behind it.)

            All I was saying is that you can't defend his actions by saying he didn

            • Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott would disagree with you. He believes that it's more important to blow the whistle on alleged wrong-doing than to follow the law. He is the Congressman who, in 1997, accepted an illegally-made tape recording of a phone call between Newt Gingrich and Rep. John Boehner and distributed it to the news media. Rep. McDermott, who was held liable to Rep. Boehner for damages in a ruling by a judge last month, had this to say about his law breaking:

              McDermott defended his conduct.

              • You don't need to tell me. He's my Congressman. And you left out the fact that McDermott was on the ethics committee at the time he released that. So he should have known better.

                And that is why I voted for the Green Party candidate who ran against him in the last election. (Or was that 2000. It blurs.)

                If a credible, liberal Democrat ran against McDermott, he would lose in a heartbeat. But no one ever runs against him. (That aforementioned Green party candidate got ~33% of the vote, which I think proves my

              • Good ol' McDermott. You know, there's a reason why we call him Congressman-for-life.

                Frankly, given the amount of scandal and weirdness he's been involved with, I'm amazed he's still in office. Amazed, but pleased.
          • Were it not for the fact that Congress exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act, these records would be suject to public review and inspection. Those memos [cfif.org] discovered by Miranda which have been publicly released show:

            Ah, you mean like the Vice President's Energy Policy summit on government property that he released all the minutes for? Oops. That was executive privilege, wasn't it? That makes all the difference . . .

          • If a whistle-blower had released documents from the White House showing the White House consulting with religious leaders or business leaders or pro-life organizations to discuss judicial appointments and how they would be handled, would anybody be asking for the whistle-blower to be prosecuted? No.

            Bushit. The White House would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, and would lead a smear campaign against the individual. Hell, they've already outed a CIA agent for political reasons.
      • 1. I've lived in New England for 37 years, and I've never heard of an outlet called "the Boston News".

        2. The links I see on these stories are to an AP report. AP is not a Boston-based institution.

        • The "Boston News" he's referring to is the Boston Globe article linked to by the grandparent post (that does, admittedly, call it "Boston News")...

          I'll stick to my Washington News and New York News in the meantime... whatever THAT means.

          Grandparent needs a cluestick.
      • No, you're lying to help cover up treason. Miranda cracked the Democrats' email server, copying their private memos to the Republicans sleazing their judges into the government. When that resulted in arrests and confiscations in the Republican Senate Majority Leader's office, Miranda started squealing. Even now, he's telling a tale of wider complicity. As a sidenote, after the spying failed when it was busted, the Republicans resorted to the unprecedented, and grossly wrong trick of appointing the judges du
        • As a sidenote, after the spying failed when it was busted, the Republicans resorted to the unprecedented, and grossly wrong trick of appointing the judges during a Senate recess, unopposed.

          Dubious..... yes.

          Unprecedented.... no.

          http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31 112.pdf [senate.gov]

          In the future, do your homework before making such charges.

          • True, and an interesting report - thanks. The confirmation process for judges is clearly seriously compromised. Any suggestions for a different process?
      • Re:Still Isn't Right (Score:3, Informative)

        by Zeinfeld (263942)
        There was no "infiltration" involved. The memos were happily served up from the DJC's servers sicne they were available to the public with no protection. Furthermore, they were not classified.

        That is not accurate. The documents were actually on a machine that should have been secure but the system operator had incorrectly applied the ACLs so that the files were visible to Miranda when they should not have been. This 'mistake' did not happen to the GOP files.

        What Miranda did was exactly the same as if he

    • It's kind of a special case when the person investigating you for the alleged wrongdoing is the same person who allegedly gave you the order.
  • Clarification... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Samrobb (12731) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:41PM (#10269938) Homepage Journal
    Manuel Miranda, the Republican Senate staffer under invesitgation for hacking into confidential Democratic files...

    Don't you mean, "under investigation for reading documents posted on an open server [nationalreview.com]?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:53PM (#10270130)
      Sure, National Review tells the whole story.

      It wasn't a "open server" it was an unsecured server. Big difference. It's just like using someones unsecured WiFi basestation. You aren't allowed to mess with people's stuff just because it isn't locked. We all learn that as children.

      • It wasn't a "open server" it was an unsecured server. Big difference. It's just like using someones unsecured WiFi basestation.

        You mean an open wireless access point? What if they were publishing the information on a publicly accessible website instead of a publicly accessible network share? Would that somehow make it different? I don't get it. Someone had to configure this serve to share that content with everyone.

        If we can not assume that configuration to share implies intent to share, then we
      • So it was somebody else's home file [on a server she had permission to access!] that wasn't protected...she just shouldn't have looked around?
    • Re:Clarification... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BrynM (217883) * on Thursday September 16, 2004 @03:16PM (#10270469) Homepage Journal
      Don't you mean, "under investigation for reading documents posted on an open server?
      I see this kind of "they're out to get me" attitude among novice computer users all the time. Somehow, evey problem is "someone hacking". Since most of the users I handle are attorneys, I find myself explaining way too often that the spam they received is not from a rival frim trying to "hack them" or that they're laptop not booting is because they dropped it rather than some clown at the court hacking into the laptop's wireless card when the laptop was in the car outside or other such nonsense. Our paranoid culture is fostering this suspicion on a lot of levels - from media to anti-virus vendors to Presidential decisions. Poor Manuel Miranda is going to get fired and his ass handed to him because people are stupid.
    • So if you leave your door unlocked, and I walk in and grab your box, and the cops arrest me, will the National Review defend me because I was just "taking a free computer from a publicly-accessible location?"
      • So if you leave your door unlocked, and I walk in and grab your box, and the cops arrest me, will the National Review defend me because I was just "taking a free computer from a publicly-accessible location?"

        A better analogy would be having your personal documents posted in front of your living room window, leaving the curtains open and then getting mad at people for reading them by peeking throught the window. There was no *material* theft involved so comparisons to material theft are spurious at best.

        • Re:Clarification... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Masker (25119) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @05:25PM (#10271939)
          OK, no. It's not. Posting documents in a window would be analogous to putting them on a webserver. Having them in an unsecured share drive is like having them sitting on a table in an unlocked room: you still have to enter the room and poke around to see what they say.

          It's not OK to go rifling through someone's files. Yes, the Dems shouldn't put documents they care enough about on an unsecured share drive, but that doesn't give anyone the right to copy them for themselves and to distribute them to the press.

          Whether the theft was material or not doesn't matter one whit. It was unethical for Miranda to do what he did, and he should take responsibility for that. It was stupid for the Democrats to do what they did, but not unethical, and it's not their fault that some jerk came in and stole documents from their computer.

          I'm all for personal responsibility: Miranda needs to be held responsible for his actions.
          • by ibbey (27873) *
            I'm all for personal responsibility: Miranda needs to be held responsible for his actions.

            I absolutely agree with you, but there are two additional points that should be made. As you said, what he did was unethical, but it's important to acknowledge that it may not have actually been illegal. In this case, he should be fired, regardless of whether he is convicted of a crime.

            The larger issue, though, is whether his bosses knew & encouraged his taking the documents. If so, they should be held to the sa
          • Posting documents in a window would be analogous to putting them on a webserver. Having them in an unsecured share drive is like having them sitting on a table in an unlocked room

            With network shares and web servers, you are publishing content. With both, you can control who has access to the content. I've seen network shares used to distribute publicly accessible content and I've seen websites running with restricted access. My point is, from a security perspective, they are virtually identical.

            If
            • There is little to no difference between a file server and a web server.

              In fact, if there were a difference, it would be that a file server is capable of giving you little bits and pieces of documents in addition to whole ones.
          • OK, no. It's not. Posting documents in a window would be analogous to putting them on a webserver. Having them in an unsecured share drive is like having them sitting on a table in an unlocked room: you still have to enter the room and poke around to see what they say.

            Wasn't the share drive used by both parties? If so the analogy is different. The documents are sitting on a table in an unlocked room. The author of the document has left it on the table in this room. You have every right to be in the room,

    • by dameron (307970)
      Don't you mean, "under investigation for reading documents posted on an open server?

      Just because I leave my door unlocked doesn't make it ok to steal my shit. He knew he was doing something wrong. They weren't his documents. He shouldn't have been looking at them. He shouldn't have given them to other people.

      Just because doing the wrong thing is easy doesn't make it right.

      -dameron

      ------
      DailyHaiku.com [dailyhaiku.com], saying more in 17 syllables than Big Media says all day.
  • Some HACKING (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:43PM (#10269967) Homepage Journal
    All he did was attach to an OPEN SHARE DRIVE on the Senate LAN. I would have thought this would have been cleared up months ago- Republicans apologize to Democrats, and Democrats start password protecting your share drives!

    The whole thing is proof positive to me that we need a new generation in leadership of this country. These old fogies don't even understand the technology that is on their desks- how can they ever hope to understand such complex issues as why we shouldn't be letting Taiwan build all of our hardware?
    • Why shouldn't Taiwan be building all our hardware?
      Why shouldn't Vietnam be making all our shoes?
      Why shouldn't India be writing all our software?
      Why shouldn't China be making all our clothes?
      Why shouldn't Japan be making all our cars?

      As long as we can still excel in something, anything, specialization and localization makes sense.

      It's like having all our crops grown in the midwest, all our movies on the west coast, and all our fishing on the coasts. Take advantage of and leverage local resources, and let o
      • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

        As long as we can still excel in something, anything, specialization and localization makes sense.

        But we don't excel in anything anymore is part of the point. HOWEVER, that's not the main point. The main point is that specialization and localization is a bad engineering design- it provides for a single point of failure.

        Why shouldn't Taiwan be building all our hardware?
        Why shouldn't Vietnam be making all our shoes?
        Why shouldn't India be writing all our software?
        Why shouldn't China be making all our
        • Ah, so you think our government really looks out for our/your interests?

          Or do you think, realistically, that our government looks out for it's own interests, and those who are in the government, and all those who are close to them?

          Really the only people who will ever look out for your interests is yourself, and anyone else who benefits when your interests are met. By that definition our government will half-heartedly look out for our interests because when some of our interests are met, so are some of the
          • Ah, so you think our government really looks out for our/your interests?

            I think that the purpose of government is to look out for the interests of the people. Whether our current government does that (at all) is another discussion entirely- but the quick answer is, NO, it doesn't. Another part of the problem, and the reason we're a part of the WTO at all..

            Or do you think, realistically, that our government looks out for it's own interests, and those who are in the government, and all those who are clo
            • ...By that definition our government will half-heartedly look out for our interests because when some of our interests are met, so are some of theirs. ...It's concieveable to have a government that doesn't act like this.

              No, I don't think so. Unless it's a government not run by people, because given those same people we would have a corporation that would be unabashedly good or a church that is utterly humane. The problem is a psychological one, as groups get bigger the people involved start losing their s
              • This post is genius. Are you an Economics major?

                Any entity who's first primary purpose is not self interest and survival will cease to survive.

                Moderators? Could we give this post a boost? I've never heard this put so eloquently. Typically products that are labeled with a "made in the USA" have their own place in the market. Plastic artifacts from China are cheap, in ever sense of the word, but if cheap is what you want, then cheap is what you shall have! I wish farming went the same course. I don't s

              • No, I don't think so. Unless it's a government not run by people,

                Very good, got it in the first try- that's exactly what I'm proposing, a government not run by people, but by information flow instead. A government PROGRAMMED to follow the rules- because there are no people involved at all, just computers and robots.

                because given those same people we would have a corporation that would be unabashedly good or a church that is utterly humane. The problem is a psychological one, as groups get bigger the pe
    • Instead of the Republicans apologizing to the Democrats can we have the Democrats apologize to their constituents for winning the technological equivalent of a darwin award?
    • Some Ethics. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by abb3w (696381) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @06:14PM (#10272413) Journal
      All he did was attach to an OPEN SHARE DRIVE on the Senate LAN.

      ...containing files that no person had authorized him to access, and which as a lawyer he was ethically obligated [citizensforethics.org] to NOT examine, but rather report the appropriate authorities-- to wit, the opposition.

      Were the Democrats mindbogglingly stupid? Yes. Should the Democratic sysadmin be summarily fired? Yes-- and probably even fired from a cannon into a brick wall. Was an initial discovery of this open share possibly accidentally? Absolutely. Was this a "hack" doable by the average seven-year old? Very likely.

      Was the conduct of the Republicans ethical? In no way, shape, or form. Was it criminal? Possibly; a judge and/or jury needs to sort out the meaning of "authorized" in this context. Computer intrusion law may stretch to cover Mr. Miranda, but not his bosses-- although conspiracy might stretch that far.

      Is this the sort of person you want representing you? Speaking for myself: no, to both the idiot Democrats and the unethical Republicans. What the Republicans should have done was made sure the Democrats knew to fix it, and then made sure the press knew that the Democrats had been stupid, and the Republicans had been "gentlemenly" about it and not taken advantage of those poor bumpkins.

      • Congress had a shared drive Miranda had access to, and there were a bunch of unlocked documents on it. Congress had procedures for locking minimal security documents, and keeping high security documents on disc under lock and key, but the documents in question were on a shared volume Miranda had rightful access to, and he looked at them. They do not contain classified or privileged information. So maybe he committed a misdemeanor, and maybe he didn't.

        But the "poor bumpkins" who's documents he was reading

    • Sig (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by Mark_MF-WN (678030)
      That is a truely awesome sig.
    • All he did was attach to an OPEN SHARE DRIVE on the Senate LAN. I would have thought this would have been cleared up months ago- Republicans apologize to Democrats, and Democrats start password protecting your share drives!

      While it would be a good idea for the Republicans to apologize for what they did and a excellent idea for the Democrats to protect their shared drives with passwords, that's not the point.

      Whether the shared drive was open or not is irrelevant. What matters is the forms almost every go
      • snip...What matters is the forms almost every government employee signs that basically state that what they see at work stays at work and is NOT to be discussed with anyone under penalty of criminal prosecution.

        snip...

        I do agree this country needs a change in it's political system: we need candidates and government employees who take personal responsibility for their actions, voters who will get off their couches and VOTE (even if it's for None Of The Above), and an end to putting up with people in publ
      • Next time, try to get at least one true fact before posting.

        What matters is the forms almost every government employee signs that basically state that what they see at work stays at work and is NOT to be discussed with anyone under penalty of criminal prosecution.

        It might matter, if it were true. (In fact, many government employees have exactly the opposite requirement, and are FORBIDDEN from hiding the nature of their work from the public)

        Instead, look at the real rule (number 5) [senate.gov]:
        1. Any Senator, office
  • Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations.

    Yours truly,
    Mr. X

    ...let Badnarik [blogspot.com] debate...
  • Okay, it wasn't much of a hacking job. In fact, if he's a hacker then I'm the Queen of England.

    On the other hand, he should have followed a basic respect for privacy. If someone has posted a private memo to a server, don't publish it. Or at least do a better job covering your tracks.

    • I guess were no longer making the distinction between hacker and cracker on slashdot?

      I'm not a thief by trade or inclination, but you'd still call me thief (and rightly so), if you left your keys in the ignition of your car and I took it for a spin without your permission.

      If I were to point out that it was your own stupidity that was at fault, I'd be merely misdirecting attention from the crime (as some conservative slashdotters do), in hopes of excusing the guilty party.

      Bottom line is that Miranda gaine
      • Bottom line is that Miranda gained unauthorized access to information and stole that information, and he did so at the behest of his superiors. While it seems a stretch to call him a hacker or a cracker because of his lack of skills, it describes what he did, regardless of the challenge it presented.

        He didn't steal the information. He committed copyright infringement and possibly trade secret violations. And yes, he probably should be "hung out to dry" for it. But, making a photocopy of documents in a
        • LOL!

          He didn't steal the information. He committed copyright infringement and possibly trade secret violations.

          I don't know if you intended this to be funny, but it struck me that given the draconian nature of the DMCA, the government could use it to prosecute spies!

          Anyway, you do have a point about whether we can call it theft, since Miranda didn't "permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken" [findlaw.com], if we take a simple understanding of the definition of theft from findlaw.com [findlaw.com].

          However,
          • Anyway, you do have a point about whether we can call it theft, since Miranda didn't "permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken"

            There was no "property" involved at all, not even "intellectual property". Materials authored by government employees in the course of their work are public domain, and not subject to copyright control.

            he still entered without permission (without privilege

            He had permission. The system adminsitrator, quite literally, gave him permissions to read those
  • by dacarr (562277) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @03:01PM (#10270255) Homepage Journal
    The accused seems to be well versed in the basics of politicking. Let's see how far this goes....
  • ... that you can tell an author to RTFA for their own article.

    Miranda didn't work for Ashcroft, he worked for the Legislative Branch. Remember Civics classes and the "separation of powers doctrine"? And he's not accusing his bosses, he's saying that Ashcroft gave in to public pressure from members on the other side of the aisle, ie, Democrats.
    • um, wrong. Ashcroft is conducting the investigation therefore he is the proper defendant in a suit to enjoin against the investigation.

      Those of us who have been to law school will recall that Article III of the Constitution allows suit to be brought in Federal Court only for "cases and contraversies," which has been defined to include only those cases where the defendant has inflicted an actual injury against the plaintiff.

      Here, the injury in question is the investigation, therefore the person who is
      • Then you weren't paying attention to your own headline or something, because Ashcroft isn't Miranda's boss, and the Senators who Miranda accuses of pressuring Ashcroft were on the other side, and therefore weren't Miranda's boss either.

        Shall I draw you a picture?

        (Senate Repub)
        Miranda's boss <--- Miranda -- sues -> Ashcroft
        |
        accuses
        |
        v
        Senate Democrats

        Got it? Miranda's not accusing his boss, and he's not suing his boss.

        Putz.

        • You're both right, douchebags.

          crmartin: if you read the original article (i.e. click through the link), you will see that Miranda blamed Senators on both sides, Democrats, and his bosses.

          expriest: maybe next time you can include that part of the quote in your writeup.


          ...bunch of goddamn children, I swear...

          Ebo
          • From the article:

            Manuel Miranda, who in February resigned under pressure from his position as nominations adviser to the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, filed the complaint in a District of Columbia federal court Friday.

            The complaint also lays out the case from Miranda's point of view, denouncing Democrats for conspiring to block some conservative nominees

            and criticizing the Senate judiciary chairman, Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, for supporting the probe.

            (Boss)
            Biil F

  • Notice that few have bothered to ask what was on those documents that the democrats were writing. Those documents contained plenty of evidence that the democrats were stalling appointment of judges for purely political reasons, in order to appease certain special interest groups. One memo in particular said that they wanted to make sure Estrada didn't get a federal judgeship "because he is a latino." Anyone attempting to bring up what was in the documents was instantly rebutted, being told that since the d

    • Notice that few have bothered to ask what was on those documents that the democrats were writing.

      Because we weren't born yesterday.

      Everybody already knows that the Senators from the opposition party to the President will filibuster to block his judicial nominations. That's Standard Operating Procedure, something documented in high-school history class.

      Back in 1999, this was one of the major reasons liberals gave for the Bush-Gore election to be important. Nobody expected Bush to actually behave much d
  • What was found on that hard drive proves that some members of the U.S. Senate had unethical and criminal motives in blocking confirmation of judges to federal courts. If that is going on, I want to know about it. Any patriotic citizen would. I think the guy deservers an award for whisteblowing, not prosecution.

    The real story here is not the leak itself, but the content of the leaked documents. They contradict reasons some Senators gave publicly for filibustering judicial nominees. Some powerfull

    • I disagree about why they singled out Estrada's race in that memo.

      They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.

      The way I read this is that he would be difficult to block because he has a "minimal paper trail", ie. no skeletons in the closet, and he is latino ie. it would be politically difficult for the Democrats to block a nominee that is from a
      • I think your reading of the situation is more or less correct. That being Latino, he would be easier to confirm if he were ever appointed to the US Supreme Court, and so this was reason to work extra hard to block his appointment.

        That is racism. It's not like racial discrimination becomes ok because you have a pragmatic political motive for it. Let's deny blacks the right to vote. Its' not that we don't like black people, we love them, but they tend to support higher taxes. We just have political
  • I am probably not going to vote for Kerry, but that being said I still want to hear his views on the issues. But it seems lately(since the DNC) he cannot get a word in edge wise without some new story hogging the headlines. SBVFT, RNC, Memogate, Hurricanes, and now Servergate. Ah well there are still the debates.
    • SBVFT, RNC, Memogate, Hurricanes, and now Servergate.

      Uh, you know, Servergate was FIRST amoung all those things. It happened back in 2003 for cryin out loud! This current story is just the latest twist in an ongoing but unpopular scandal. It won't block anything from the headlines- nobody really cares. The Republicans have apologized, the Democrats fixed their computers, the judicial confirmations are finished- it's over.

: is not an identifier

Working...