Not All the DOJ Missing Emails Are Missing 656
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.
I must be new here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Why are they talking to Karl Rove? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
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...
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.
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
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?
Why is it so hard for people to understand this? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why are they talking to Karl Rove? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
So Why Is This On Slashdot??!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Seems slashdot likes to get political only when it involves those evil, nasty Republicans. It's embarassing how partisan this place is.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
It Has Had Some Play In the USA - But Not Much (Score:3, Insightful)
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_s
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.
Re:Considering the source I'll wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I must be new here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Must be the "liberal" media at work. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)).)
Re:I must be new here... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It is a non-issue (Score:1, Insightful)
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....
BBC reputation has never been higher (Score:1, Insightful)
This Greg Palast article for example, the evidence is taken straight from the Judiciary record with Monica Goodling handwriting on it (she's pleaded the 5th).
http://www.gregpalast.com/an-army-of-rove-botscap
A lot of people in the lower ranks will face a lot of jail time over Rove & his shenanigans. Naturally nobody higher up will, it's how this works.
Re:I must be new here... (Score:2, Insightful)
Europe has been long gone, the US' turn is around the corner
Perspectives are a funny thing, like all those people saying the media is controlled by Republicans, it always seemed to me that the media is controlled by liberals. And they all said the Republicans were for the big companies and Demos were for the little guy, but it seemed to me the policies of the demos kept the so-called little guy down. Perspectives I guess.
Re:I must be new here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Regarding the firings, the Democrats are behaving true to political form (which is to say, behaving exactly like the Republicans would behave if the roles were reversed) and objecting to President Bush's administration doing something that the law and political convention allows them to do.
If the Democrats truly believe that the current US Attorneys are fully qualified and should receive nothing but the highest levels of support, then the Democrats should deviate from past practice and not replace all the US Attorneys if they win the Presidency in 2008. The chances of the Democrats not replacing all of the US Attorneys is zero; since politicians will behave like politicians and only make self-interested, self-serving decisions intended to line their own pockets and screw anyone who doesn't kowtow to the party line.
Re:I must be new here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any proof at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Non-story?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Your arguments sound suspiciously exactly like the standard White House comments, repeated ad nauseam on Fox News, "explaining" the firings. Of course, they and you neglect to address the crux of the issue - it's not normal to fire US attorneys in the middle of a president's term, there is evidence that the administration wanted to replace several of the U.S. Attorneys with people more "in line with" the administration's political agendas and as personal favors to some conservatives, while the White House denies these charges, saying the firings were for "job performance" reasons. It's now considered likely that the "missing" e-mails contain evidence that would show these claims by the White House to be bald-faced lies, so add cover-up to the already existing issue of the atypical dismissals.
Re:I must be new here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand this (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Considering the source I'll wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Phhht. I stopped listening to you right there, since you're either trolling or deluded. That's an extraordinary claim. Where's the proof?
My first thought (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I must be new here... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the attorneys were fired because they didn't help Republicans win elections, that's a problem, and a story, whether legal or not. Plenty of people get fired for doing things that are legal but incompetent or wrong. Plenty of people are held accountable even if they aren't fired. This goes near to the top of the Executive Department, and you say it's a non-story simply because it's not strictly illegal on the bare face of it?
Also, there is a good chance that there was illegal activity involved. If they were fired in order to obstruct prosecutions, intimidate prosecutors, or to cover up corruption, then guess what? They were likely illegal. Don't always believe what the mouthpieces of the administration are telling you.
So administrations in their second term are not to be held accountable for anything they do? That's what you're saying, and it's a crock. First, all the information about it needs to be brought to light. Did you forget that others besides the president are involved, and some of them plan to stay in politics? If anything untoward happened, it's our right to know, and it's our duty to use that information as we see fit.
In summary, you're repeating the propaganda of the administration mouthpieces who want us to believe it's a non-story. At its heart, the attorney firing issue is not about firing a few attorneys -- it is about corruption and twisting the purpose of the attorney general's office to electoral politics.
Re:My first thought (Score:2, Insightful)
You are naive. During the big recount fiasco, the Bush camp's stated directions to the lawyers was to push to get military votes invalidated in the heavily Democratic-leaning areas, and counted in the heavily Republican-leaning areas. Gore tried to just get them all counted.
Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're going to steal an election, it's best to cover all your bases.
Re:What's wrong about the firings, exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So Why Is This On Slashdot??!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why "so interesting"? As nerds we do our own research and we don't fear on command, this Bush admin is crap, total crap and those of us who are living in the real world have paid a price for HIS mistakes while he has profited from them (like Haliburton stock). Have you flown anywhere or been to another country lately? Airports look like jails and the world uniformly hates Americans. Have you checked the value of the US dollar? Has poverty been reduced? Do you have any friends in the military who have died in the last four years? Have you had your research dollars reduced or eliminated? Have you needed the National Guard? Add that to all the favors done for the Saudis and now back at home it looks like the most qualified US attorneys, some who happen to have worked on felonies perpetuated by elected officials (remember The Dukester?) are fired mid-term (which is unusual since Bush appointed them in the first place) and it looks like the next election will be overseen by people who have graduated from the worst college in America and a few of the key attorneys come right from Karl Rove's office. Important enough for you?
AC? Grow a backbone.
Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I must be new here... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the connections won't be disclosed as it would damage the ongoing investigation on his crimes.
Re:What's wrong about the firings, exactly? (Score:2, Insightful)
Firing them because they had a different idealology is fine, their job is to work for the president. As an extenuation the firing because they "wern't propper Bushies" could be fine depending on what it means. But firing them for investigating people is interfering with those investigations. We need to know if that was happening, and people should pay (forced resignation and public humiliation is a form of payment).
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.
Re:I must be new here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apples and oranges. Bill Clinton, like his predecessors, cleared out everyone from the previous administration regardless of the political leanings of the people. There were both Republican and Democratic attorneys who were fired. This is standard procedure, as of late, for any incoming president.
What Bush and Gonzales, and apparently a few senators, have done was to fire people because they weren't filing politically motivated lawsuits and then lied about why the attorneys, who Bush had previously appointed, were fired. The claim was for performance reasons yet all had spotless records and as already pointed out, some were specifically told that they were being fired to make way for political appointees.
Gonzales and the White House then compounded this nonsense by lying about the real reasons behind the firings and Gonzales did it while under oath.
Further, throughout this whole performance, Gonzales has said all along he didn't know what was going on in his own department. What? You have US attorneys that are being fired and you know nothing about it? Either Gonzales is completely outside the loop of his own department or he is again lying when said he didn't know about the firings.
Nixon tried this same nonsense when his AG, Elliott Richardson, resigned rather than carry out Nixon's order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibold Cox in an effort to derail the Watergate investigation. Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus also resigned when he became AG because he too refused to carry out Nixon's orders.
Finally, it was left up to then Solicitor General Rober Bork, name sound familiar?, who became the acting AG who then carried out the orders. In effect, Nixon politicized both the AG's office and the Justice Department.
Bush, with the aid of Gonzales, is doing the exact same thing and anyone who has ever been involved with either the AG's office or the Justice Department knows that is wrong and completely out of bounds. These departments are supposed to act as neutral parties to the government and their actions should not be influenced by political considerations.
Re:I must be new here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, I hate both parties too. But they're not "equally evil", if that's your point.
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.
Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:1, Insightful)
The only thing about the 2000 election that every American should be ashamed about is the fact that there was only a 51% turnout [infoplease.com]. For all those Democrats that want to scream, yell, and pull their hair (even after re-count after re-count and investigation after investigation) they should be pointing figure as themselves if they didn't vote.
51% is not a very good number. It's shameful. That's not enough to determine who the majority of the country really wanted (not even going into how Gore won the popular vote). What America needs is an invigoration in voting. It's shameful that the French can turn out 85% of their votes [bbc.co.uk] and feel that their country is falling apart if only 74% turn out while one of our most controversial elections, the 2004 re-election of Bush, his previously 'stolen' election and the controversy of the Iraq war, could only muster a 55% turnout.
The problem? Too many people feel politics are corrupt. Why vote for candidate A or B when you cannot believe what A or B say is true? Maybe you believe in the Democratic or Republican mantra, but you cannot believe that the candidate for those parties reflect that feeling. Republicans political leaders are spending Democrats, Democrat political leaders are more concerned about their own image and hating 'the enemy' (see Republicans) than actually passing sensible laws and legislation for the people. Both parties are stuff pork into each bill. It doesn't matter if it's the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere or subsidies for Spinach growers and Peanut farmers in a war bill to buy votes.
What there's a real need for right now is a 3rd party. A party that will better represent the people of America. One that's not Gung Ho on starting controversial wars and nation building, particularly without a plan of action or cultural understanding of the region. Also, a party that's not going to try and sabotage a war and try to LOOSE it just because they disagreed with starting it and that they feel the person who started it "cheated them" and "isn't playing fair" because he "stole" the 2000 election. (Sadly, I voted for and really wanted Gore to win. Even sadder I voted for Kerry and I didn't even like the guy and trusted him less)
So, lets get a 3rd party. Lets get smaller government. We don't need people poking their noses in everything we do. We don't need the government telling someone they cannot smoke a joint if it helps them feel better with their terminal disease and we don't need people passing laws telling us what we can or cannot eat. Knowledge is power, I support laws that informs the consumer but I'm not crazy enough to start passing laws forbidding them from making the choice once they've informed.
I support the freedom of religion. I respect peoples individual faiths, but I hate having a faith pushed on me. If people want an abortion, let them have one. If they cannot make up their mind fast enough, then they should finish what they started and put it up for adoption (I'm against partial birth abortion). Likewise, if you're against gay marriage, fine. I respect that. But don't force your believes on others. Don't worry, it won't be a 'religious' wedding that will get your church smote by the big 'G' (unless your religion accepts it). But I won't stop gays from legal marriage. We don't need the government telling us what we can and cannot do. After all, we have the freedom of religion. If a 'religion' appears that accepts gay marriage, then who are we to go against the founding principles of our country? If you don't like it, don't do it.
Who cares if there's not enough evidence about our impact on the environment? Does global warming HAVE to be true to be concerned about it? The fact is, waste is never good. We should all be better at doing too much
Re:2 out of 3 != 3 out of 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Justice Brennan was an extreme liberal, and he was appointed by Eisenhower. In any case, Republican appointees or not, they have to pass the consent of the Senate. Sandra Day OConnor was a careful, case by case jurist who can't be readily pigeonholed, but she was nominated by Reagan, a strong conservative and approved by a Democratic senate. David Souter, appointed by Bush I, generally votes with the liberal wing of the court; Thomas, also appointed by Bush II pretty much follows Scalia.
The very idea that the Supreme Court should be a partisan body is a modern "Republican" notion.
The technical question (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:3, Insightful)
"... 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?!!
Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that ultimately we're at fault. We complain that politicians aren't honest, but when they are honest, we won't vote for them.
Politician A tells it like it is: we've got a deficit, so you need to cut spending, raise taxes, or both. Politician B gives us a fairy tale: sure we've got a deficit, but I'll spend more AND lower your taxes, and it will all work out! So who do we vote for? Politician B. We buy into his fantasy because he promises what we want: a free lunch. Then it turns out that we're faced with exactly the situation Politician A, the realist, said we faced: we have to make sacrifices, and we can't get something for nothing. There are no free lunches. And then we get all surly and say what a bunch of liars politicians are. Politicians tell the people what the people want to hear- not what the people need to hear- because that's who we elect.
Political firings are NOT ok (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the problem: firing US Attorneys because they don't toe the line of the party in power will damage the idea that the judiciary is independent of the executive and legislative branch.
Nobody had an issue with 8 US Attorneys being fired. The shit only hit the fan once it came to light that the firings might have been motivated by political considerations - what's worse, that they might have been motivated by the attorneys not breaking the law to help certain republicans.
One of the greatest strength of the US is the system of independent branches. This, and a host of other things, attempts to break the independence. It's my sincere opinion that any attack on the independence of the three branches is an attack worse than any bombings.
No (Score:2, Insightful)
No.
I've yet to see any airplay (let alone on Slashkos) about the voting shenanigans in Seattle or Arizona where the Democrats stole the elections.
Oh, I'm sure they were all legitimate "mistakes" too...
Re:DOJ found very few cases of voter fraud in 5 ye (Score:3, Insightful)
So the criteria for Democratic party wrongdoing is Justice Department convictions? That doesn't seem to be your criteria for Republican party wrongdoing. Or were you talking about some other party when you said "an organized campaign to skew the elections like certain other parties" (emphasis mine)? I'm not saying that there is or isn't some sort of larger conspiracy in either party's voting schemes but Justice Department doesn't seem to have much on either party.
Not All the [DOJ] Missing Emails Are Missing (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Before we heap too much praise upon him (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a critical thinker means approaching what others say with a skeptical eye, even if what they're saying aligns with your political beliefs.
Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (Score:3, Insightful)
For all the of the fun Olbermann has on his topics, and the opinion he has of O'Reilly, Olbermann is NOT a Liberal. It's just that Truth is often mistaken for Liberalism.
Olbermann is just reporting the facts. And O'Reilly is blowing chunks out of his ass.
This is kind of like saying; Between Nazis and Democracy -- somewhere there is truth. Yeah, like right next to Democracy. Anyone sane and rational right now is labeled a Liberal Extremist. If you happened to find someone called a Moderate, they are merely people who can't scribble copies of Republican PR fast enough. "Wait, what was that you just said about needing to spy on everyone in case they are talking to Bin Laden?... I just broke my pencil."