Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans Government The Media Politics

Not All the DOJ Missing Emails Are Missing 656

Posted by kdawson
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This discussion has been archived.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.

Not All the DOJ Missing Emails Are Missing

Comments Filter:
  • Fortune (Score:4, Funny)

    by Magada (741361) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:05AM (#19143381) Journal
    Sometimes I swear fortume has a mind of its own. Look what I got on the bottom of the page:

    "Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai
  • by 0123456789 (467085) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:05AM (#19143387)
    A bit of history on Greg Palast; he's the guy who, on the BBC, broke the story about election irregularities in Florida before the 2000 election. Admittedly, a few days before, but it's still a bit of a scoop.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:51AM (#19143783)
      It is much better than this!
      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+p alast+2000&search=Search [youtube.com]
      For more great videos by Palast about the 2004 election and more:
      http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=greg+p alast&search=Search [youtube.com]
      Also do a serch on emule for other exclusive materials.
      • Somebody should mod parent as informative! There's a funny bumper sticker on a Mercedes I see in our town now and then: "I never thought I'd miss Nixon" How true....
      • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @09:35AM (#19144297)
        Man, we should bring this guy to the U.S. It would give our reporters the chance to meet a real journalist.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rbanffy (584143)
          Chances are he would be arrested at the airport and sent to Guantanamo or some clandestine prison because of his connections with terrorism.

          Of course, the connections won't be disclosed as it would damage the ongoing investigation on his crimes.
        • by ecliptik (160746) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @11:20AM (#19145803) Homepage

          If you don't think the U.S. doesn't have any real journalists you should check out Countdown with Keith Olbermann [msn.com] on MSNBC. He's interesting, energetic, and covers stories that are rarely mentioned in the major news cycle. His special comments are also some of the best moments in modern TV news history:

          Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org]
          Special Comments [youtube.com]

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Darth Cider (320236)
          In TFA Palast says that he IS an American, but only the BBC will air his stories.
        • Let's see the emails. I'm not saying that they don't say what he claims they say. I'm just thinking it's pretty hypocritical for Microsoft to claim ~250 patent violations in Linux, and everyone here is saying "if they're real, why don't you produce a list of them?" But someone claims to have wayward 500 emails from the US AG office and suddenly people here are proclaiming him the next Messiah of investigative journalism.

          Being a critical thinker means approaching what others say with a skeptical eye, ev

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by workindev (607574)

        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!

        Then, of course, people started digging even more and found out that Jeb Bush didn't give any contracts out - the ChoicePointe contract was awarded by Ethel Baxtor (D)), the director of Elections in the Florida State Department. They also foun

        • Nice try. (Score:5, Informative)

          by hotsauce (514237) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @01:00PM (#19147533)

          Then they read the USCCR report on the Florida 2000 election which failed to find a single voter (Black or White) who was incorrectly prevented from voting because of their inclusion on the felon list. ...county election officials scrapped the lists altogether because of a high number of "false positives".

          You can't have it both ways. So which is it?

          I'll tell you. You're pulling a "Choicepoint" by omitting things from the story. Yes, Ethel Baxter (D) created the felon list (and since you claim felons vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, she must have been thinking about her sworn election office duty instead of her party), but a very important change was made by the Republicans: the decision to allow false positives. Under Baxter's rules, doubt over the status of a voter removed them from the list. With the new Republican guidance, you could now stack the list. (Wikipedia has more. [wikipedia.org])

          This isn't a partisan issue: either you're for fair elections, or you're not. We should attack every instance of fraud, regardless of who is skewing the system.

          And when you're "debunking" the BBC of all sources, you should provide some of your own of similar stature.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by workindev (607574)
            The thing you seem to be missing is that inclusion on the felon list did not automatically remove you from the voter registration rolls. The law by design cast a wide net to screen out illegitimate votes. The way it was supposed to work was if your name was on the ChoicePoint list, it was forwarded to your county election supervisor who was required to verify it. Names that were verified were then notified by the county and given an opportunity for a hearing to dispute. Names that had been identified by
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by krygny (473134)

        "... and all US corporate media boycotted what he found, which only aired on the BBC."

        Maybe that's because it's all ... uh ... hmm ... what could it be ... I dunno ... could it be ... BULLSHIT?!!

    • My first thought (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fishdan (569872) * on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @09:30AM (#19144227) Homepage Journal

      from the article:

      We went through the 500, and what we found were this massive plan to deny the right to vote -- I mean, extraordinarily targeting African American soldiers sent overseas. They'd send them a letter to their home address. The letter would come back. They say, "Gee, they don't live there. They shouldn't be allowed to vote."

      This rings false to me -- the military supports the republicans in a MUCH higher percentage than the average citizen. I doubt very much that there was a master plan to stop soldiers from voting by the party who would benefit from them the most. Two words: Colin Powell. Also, I doubt very much that soldiers are incapable of answering snail mail or fulfilling their duties by taking care of business, and doing what they need to do to legally vote while stationed overseas.

      Secondly, I have no problems with anyone challenging the residency of voter -- honestly, I'd like a little MORE confirmation of who is voting (but not how). We've heard the "voting from the grave" stories, and other crazy things -- and there is no doubt in my mind that both parties would do ANYTHING to win -- and I really mean anything. If one of the thing that reduces voter fraud is the checks and balance of one side making sure the other is honest -- fine. Did the republicans only challenge likely democrats? Well DUH! They're not going to challenge people who are likely to vote for them. Same thing for EITHER party. I don't see this as indications of fraud either.

      Third -- I also disagree with the analysis of Mr. Iglesias. The fact that Tom Cruise played him in a movie is so incredibly irrelevant that I can't believe it was mentioned. He was the US Attorney!!! He should have set up a sting operation the MINUTE he suspected there was a conspiracy to commit voter fraud! Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Here was a man, whose job was to uphold the Constitution, and he sat on his ASS when presented with a major conspiracy against the public? Assuming his words are true, his inactions show him to unqualified to hold his office, and although IANAL I believe his inaction as a member of the bar when presented with impending crime is actually criminal himself. Lawyers are sworn to uphold the law (please don't snicker). A lawyer is an officer of the court. Perhaps a lawyer could comment on that? Here is a man who we were COUNTING on to uphold the rule of LAW. If what he was said was true he was essentially called up and told "we are planning evil against your constituents." Inexcusable

      Finally -- I DO believe that these firings were improper. I know I've criticized the article, but thats because I believe CRITICAL REVIEW MAKES THINGS BETTER. I actually want to see justice here BUT NOT FOR PARTISAN REASONS!!! I just happen to love Justice. And what we need is for more people who love Justice to fight against the people on both sides of the aisle who don't.

      I also believe that it's complete bullshit that the emails do not exist ANYWHERE. But enough chit-chat about it -- let's get some search warrants and go find them! Make the people who committed this sabotage of our government pay, because they are more of a threat to us than any terrorist. Government should WELCOME this kind of scrutiny, not try to prevent auditing! I know it doesn't, and I know I'm living a pipe dream. I just keep thinking that someday we'll start voting for people who will actually serve with honor.

      Or maybe we have been?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:06AM (#19143393)
    Does no one else find it not only weird, but downright scary how this just seems to disappear from the American political media, even though it is happening IN AMERICA, and largely effects AMERICANS? I mean jeeze guys, do not care what happens to your country? Rise up! Revolt! Hell, have Civil Rights march, cuz God knows you need it...
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:23AM (#19143523)
      Does no one else find it not only weird, but downright scary how this just seems to disappear from the American political media, even though it is happening IN AMERICA, and largely effects AMERICANS?

      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.

    • by Eukariote (881204) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:34AM (#19143621)
      There is nothing weird about it if you know who owns the media and how they operate. Disney, Viacom, Timewarner, News Corp, Bertelsmann and GE own more than 90% of US media outlets. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_medi a_ownership [wikipedia.org] for details. To get an inside view of how the media handle stories that are unwelcome to the establishment, I can recommend the following book: http://www.amazon.com/Into-Buzzsaw-Leading-Journal ists-Expose/dp/1591022304 [amazon.com]
    • by smilindog2000 (907665) <bill@billrocks.org> on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:40AM (#19143669) Homepage
      I'm glad it's here on /. Our media is now mostly owned by politically motivated people like Rupert Murdoch. His control of our media is unbelievable. See this very recent story, for example: http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/070516/1/48l34.html [yahoo.com]. We've even made it illegal for university professors to voice their political views. Murdoch's self proclaimed 'unbiased' news station, Fox News, is played in every airport in Texas, and there are Fox News stores where you can buy shirts and stuff. The problem is that many of us really do just want our beliefs fed to us, and Bush has been happy to oblige. Normally, I hate seeing one party in control of both houses and the executive branch, but with the way Bush has trashed our country, we may need to get the GOP entirely out of the way for a while. Any chance Obama can get elected?
      • by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:53AM (#19143797) Homepage
        "I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'" --Bill Hicks

        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....
        • by Johnny5000 (451029) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @10:16AM (#19144867) Homepage Journal
          The problem isn't the Republicans. The problem isn't the Democrats. It's what BOTH parties have done to rape this country.

          This is the line Nader was running on in the 2000 election.
          Republicans suck, Democrats suck, they're both puppets of big business, etc.

          Then we got 4 + 3 years of Bush and co.

          I'd agree with you that both parties suck, but I think the past 7 years have shown
          that one party sucks a whole lot worse than the other, and until we can manage a
          massive overhaul of the electoral system (HA!) I think our best bet is to keep
          Republicans out of any office higher than local dogcatcher.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Alsee (515537)
            I think our best bet is to keep Republicans out of any office higher than local dogcatcher.

            Heay! Some of us own and love dogs you know!

            -
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sacrilicious (316896)
          The problem isn't the Republicans. The problem isn't the Democrats. It's what BOTH parties have done to rape this country.

          Hey, I hate both parties too. But they're not "equally evil", if that's your point.

        • by hey! (33014) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @10:51AM (#19145361) Homepage Journal
          Not after Iraq. Not after warrantless wiretapping. Not after Gitmo. Not after Katrina. Not after the DOJ torture memo. Not after the billions of dollars spent in Iraq reconstruction that have never been properly accounted for (millions in cash), and the no bid contracts for a company the VP hold stock options in. Not after the Valeri Plame leaks. Not after scientific findings have to be submitted for alteration by an administration zampolit.

          I'm sick of this "there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans" business. Maybe there should be more difference, but there is one undeniable difference: the Republicans have brought us the most incompetent and corrupt administration in American history, aided by a congress almost to match it. The only modern parallel for incompetence, criminality, cronyism and rashness would be the Palestinian authority under Arafat, and I'm not sure that counts because it wasn't officially a nation.

          I'm not saying the Democrats are angels, or that they have the best policies for America. But they've never delivered a government that was so poorly, criminally, or tyrannically run as that of the modern "Republicans". I put "Republicans" in quotes because I don't think they deserve the name of the party of Goldwater.
    • Does no one else find it not only weird...

      If we had accountability, the terrorists would win. You don't want the terrorists to win, do you?

      I believe Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote,

      Those who would sacrifice their freedom for temporary security are on to a damn good thing and should never be questioned.

      Things are improving somewhat since the clusterf*** that is Iraq got so bad as to be undeniable. Compared to around 2002 when just about anything could be passed in the name of security and even the opposition party was scared to speak out lest they be accused of helping the terrorists win, things have got a lot better.

      Even so, a lot of people are living w

  • Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:07AM (#19143395)
    Mr. Palast claims to have 500 "misaddressed" e-mails from Mr. Rove? And Mr. Palast happens to be pitching a book?

    Excuse my naiveté, but wouldn't leaking one or two of these supposed e-mails do more to boost Mr. Palast's credibility than just claiming he has them?
  • by Tibor the Hun (143056) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:07AM (#19143401)
    Is he the new sysadmin?
    OK, so if all the emails were lost it stands to reason that they were all stored in one place either the same storage system, or in the same facility. So where are those backups, on-site and off-site.
    And what about archives? Wouldn't they run an archive at least once a year for safekeeping?

    Where are the sysadmins and what are they saying about the incident?
    • by mdsolar (1045926)
      The claim is that the emails were misaddressed; sent to georgewbush.org rather than georgewbush.com. Usually this should just bounce I think so they must have been doing something extra if this is the case.
    • by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:28AM (#19143583)
      "They" aren't "talkin to Karl Rove." He made that one comment about the availability of mail going to/from accounts that aren't part of the normal government flow of things through the archived WH comms system. Political communications - such as when, say, Al Gore was working (while being VP) to coordinate campaign-related fundraisers - are traditionally done through other channels, and in fact in some cases are required by federal law to be handled through other channels. You may recall the heat Gore got for conducting Dem party business over White House phone lines. That sort of thing is supposed to be a no-no. That's the problem with being in office... you work for the people that employ you, but you're also, personally, a politician that has an interest in your relations to the party that put you there, and the need to conduct campaign and party-strategy-type communications that - gasp! - may happen to involve talking about the spin you put on things related to what you also - gasp! - have to have something to do with when you're punched back into your job in the executive branch.

      I don't envy anyone in that role. In a given day I wear lots of different hats... checking/sending e-mails to/from the very same people using different mailboxes based on the context of the communication, and whether it's being paid for. I might have a thread going with someone because of a contract we're both working on, and want to leave a trail in a corporate box to help track that project. But we might also have reason to talk more off-line over the prospects of another gig, or to strategize a bit on how we want to talk to/about someone who overlaps with our other (directly for pay) communications. Very easy to have some messages go through the wrong channel sometimes. Same reason Gore picked up his White House office line to raise cash, and same reason some staffer might be having at least some of the e-mail exchanges that help a boss shape a political posture on the retention of a politically appointed employee (say, a US attorney) through more than one e-mail system.

      Karl Rove doesn't, and shouldn't have to know squat about how the plumbing works. No more than Al Gore would know how the PBX that handles his oops-I-used-the-wrong-phone-line fund raising calls works. If the first thing Rove heard was, "sorry, we don't save mail from those other accounts," then that's what he's going to repeat. You'll notice he's not chiming in on the details of it, or expressing an expert opinion on it... not to be confused with politically opposed congressional reps who make thundering speeches about how it's the 21st century and there's no such thing as un-retrievable e-mail. But... I host mail for some of my own tasks, and once the backups have cascaded through the fairly short retention time on a separate volume, they're GONE, baby. Even if a sound-bite-generating congressman says otherwise.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by value_added (719364)
        He made that one comment about the availability of mail going to/from accounts that aren't part of the normal government flow of things through the archived WH comms system. Political communications - such as when, say, Al Gore was working (while being VP) to coordinate campaign-related fundraisers - are traditionally done through other channels, and in fact in some cases are required by federal law to be handled through other channels.

        Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the entire point of the Gonz
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:09AM (#19143413)
    This story has had zero play in the US media;

    This can only be the work of the so-called "liberal media" in the US that we hear so much about. Look at those leftist, socialist Commie bastards protecting the interests of their right-wing Republican friends. Oh, wait...

    • by apathy maybe (922212) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:40AM (#19143675) Homepage Journal
      Indeed. People claim the media in the US is "left-wing" or "liberal", no, the media in the US is like the media in most "Western" countries, it is capitalist.

      It aims to make a buck, and it aims to protect the current system it lives in. If it can make a buck by dissing the right, it will do so, if it can make a buck by dissing the "left", it will do so. In this case, they obviously don't see any money to be made from the story, so they aren't following it.

      (And, the media in the US might be "left-wing" compared to the US, but it is right-wing compared to, for example Europe. And in Australia, two of the five TV channels tend to be neutral (can you guess which two? I'll give you a hint, they are funded by the government (at least to a certain extent)).)
  • by pla (258480) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:13AM (#19143443) Journal
    This story has had zero play in the US media; it's been being carried on the BBC

    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?
  • by Eukariote (881204) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:22AM (#19143505)
    Greg Palast is one of the few good reporters out there still willing to probe further and deeper. An interesting book of his, detailing the election, war, and oil machinations is "Armed Madhouse": http://www.gregpalast.com/madhouse/index.php/about / [gregpalast.com]. For a quick summary, see this talk he gave in Portland: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-680222806 2297352475 [google.com].
  • by NeverVotedBush (1041088) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @08:37AM (#19143645)
    Wired posted this story last week ( http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/gonzales_ hides_.html [wired.com] ) after someone spotted this story: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070510nj1 .htm [nationaljournal.com].

    The blogger had this to say: Put simply, this stinks. Earlier this months, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) subpoenaed (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/leahy_su poenas_.html [wired.com]) all e-mails between the Justice Department and the White House over the attorney firings. Yet our nation's top lawman refuses to obey the law of the land. And continues to be our nation's top lawman.

    The Bush administration continues to openly flaunt their complete contempt for the laws of this country. Bring respect back to the White House my ass.
  • by Aaron England (681534) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @09:11AM (#19143991)
    Is there any proof at all that Karl Rove authored these emails? We should all know how easy it is to forge email headers.
  • by dekkerdreyer (1007957) <dekkerdreyer@nosPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @09:17AM (#19144065)
    The article reads like a tongue-in-cheek joke with no facts. After reading that particular quote, with no text supporting it, I'm of the assumption that it was a joke. No national media is picking up on it just like no national media is picking up on the latest Doonesbury comic. Seriously, read the article. Does anyone else think that a mock play between Kevin Bacon and Tom Cruise can be considered a reputable source of news?

    This article was written as a joke, and it appears that someone pulled out a choice quote and submitted it as news. What's next, The Onion?
    • The article made repeated references to the movie because it was based on a true story about one of the fired US attorneys, Iglesias.

      The Cruise/Bacon dialogue was there because it's a TV transcript. Obviously the BBC thought the viewer would be more "captivated" if they included shots of Tom Cruise playing one of the US attorneys who was fired.

      So the movie dialogue is there because of sensational TV editing.

      If you read the article right through you'd find the official stats on 2004 election showed 3 million
  • by Tiber (613512) <josh.knarr@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @10:23AM (#19144961) Homepage
    For one: You might as well have linked to any DailyKOS page saying the Jews did WTC. Seriously. Democracy Now thinks so also.
    Secondly: I expect much better from my "geek news site". This article is flat out crap. Are the editors paying attention or did they just let their personal biases get the better of them to the detriment of the website?
  • by sam_handelman (519767) <{skh2003} {at} {columbia.edu}> on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @11:55AM (#19146487) Homepage Journal
    This is slashdot, so we should be addressing the technical question first and foremost.

      I'm a biologist who does mathematical methods stuff - so this is not my area. But what we (you) *should* be discussing is: how can we prove that the e-mails are (or are not) genuine?

      Presumably, whitehouse.org has saved all of the routing information for the e-mails they kept. Can we use that information - along with whatever still lives in the logs of the intermediary routers, to at least verify that the e-mail was sent from the addresses claimed in the headers? That doesn't absolutely prove that whitehouse.org didn't mess with the content - but it'd be enough to satisfy me, at least.
  • by not_hylas( ) (703994) on Wednesday May 16, 2007 @02:46PM (#19149057) Homepage Journal
    The reason I submitted this story is that "our" Media won't report the NEWS [north, east, west, south].
    I'm from a [former] Newspaper family and have a "dog in this hunt".
    If our information systems are compromised/co-opted we'll become instruments of mis/dis-information and a tool of our New Overlord, which, of course, we would then welcome.
    Hard evidence of this is slowly revealing itself, and in turn being suppressed by the very power intrusted to serve the people.

    It's the definition of "news" that has been jeopardized, along with the right to know.

The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to devise and apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation. -- Lew Mammel, Jr.

Working...