April 15
Let me try to explain why the Bush administration excuse for not turning over requested e-mails, that they "lost" them, is bunk. It's a little technical and I'm not an e-mail server administrator, but I don't need to be to make this comprehensible. And no, it isn't about deleting from a personal inbox, as Karl Rove's lawyer tried to pretend.
Why can deleted e-mail still be recovered? First, understand what "deletion" means. When you delete a message or a file, the space that file uses on a hard drive is marked as available for something else to be written. That doesn't mean anything gets written in that space. The data remains there and can still be recovered. It's even possible to get utilities for your own PC that recover files that you not only deleted, but emptied from you recycle bin. There's no guarantee the file hasn't been overwritten, but it's possible. So even Rove or anyone else deleting from an inbox and even emptying the deleted folder might still have those messages. But that's just the personal PC, or PDA as we hear about Rove.
Before you download your mail, it sits on a mail server. That's a computer that sends and receives e-mail, and likewise messages stay on the servers like on PCs. There is the server used by the sender, by the receiver, and maybe other servers in between. They all retain those messages, even if the space is marked available, until they're actually overwritten. That's why servers can be examined to recover messages. It would certainly be possible to reformat a hard drive, but my understanding is that forensic recovery specialists can still recover some data. Even if the drive is wiped with a magnet, data might still be recovered. Besides, then the people who reformatted or wiped the drive, and the people who ordered, have some explaining to do. Likewise if they try to hide data by reformatting with an axe or a nice fire. I've had recovery specialists tell me I would be shocked at the condition of drives from which they can recover data --- plus the wielder of the axe has some explaining to do. Maybe they would be best off saying they "lost" the whole server. Has anyone checked the White House dumpsters?
We're not done yet though. That's the forensic part. There's also the legal part, in that all organizations have to produce their documents in case a lawsuit requires discovery of evidence. They also want to protect themselves by supporting their own case, apart from the legal sanctions of saying they "lost" evidence. To that end, there are backup servers, storage servers, tape backups, and sometimes even off-site storage just in case of disaster --- non-political disaster that is.
If the GOP has really been deleting their e-mail, they have courted trouble. Of course, there's the question of whether they rather face some sort of sanction for losing evidence than face the consequences of what that evidence revealed. I'm doing what I can to keep this issue on the front burner of US politics not because it's an interesting sidelight to Gonzogate, but because those e-mails on the RNC servers as well as the White House servers must have the most damning evidence not just in Gonzogate, not just in the spinoff scandals like the allegations of political prosecutions like allegedly in the Georgia Thompson case, but everything else the bushies, neocons, lobbyists, and connected contractors have pulled. I strongly suspect there in those e-mails is the evidence they knew the evidence presented to Congress and the public was wrong, that no-bid contractors were known to be crooks, that elections were stolen, lobbyist bribes accepted, and whatever I've left out of the many corrupt schemes and power abuses. Write your congressmen, and tell them that not only are these e-mails important to you, but Congress needs to subpoena thee RNC and White House e-mails now, before they get destroyed.
Doesn't it somehow add a dramatic touch that they did these attorney firings on Dec. 7th? Maybe the minions of the acting president decided it was such an appropriate day for a sneak attack, it was a propitious for carrying out their own. We remember how well that first sneak attack worked out for the sneaks in terms of bringing the anger of the attacked down upon them. Is it just optimism to think this sneak attack is working out the same way? For those of you who still think this is hyperbole and really the DOJ did nothing wrong, ask why they would bother lying about it if there was nothing to hide. They lied to to attorneys, to the press, to Congress, and this is odd behavior for people just doing their jobs.
April 8
The nightmare scenario of Gonzogate, that an innocent person would get prosecuted because it helped the Republicans, has happened. It could be worse certainly. The injustice could go undiscovered, or undiscovered for long time, and the person could go through the rest of life with a felony conviction on their record when seeking work or housing. That's probably of limited comfort to Georgia Thompson, who has spent the last four months in federal prison, lost her job, her home, her life savings, and of course her reputation.
The gist of the story is that Thompson was state purchasing supervisor in Wisconsin, a senior civil service job. She was appointed by the last Republican governor. Officers of a bidder on a state contract donated to Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's reelection campaign, and Thompson awarded them the contract. The office of the US Attorney in Wisconsin, Steven M. Biskupic, somehow got a jury to convict Thompson on charges she steered the contract to them for political reasons. She was convicted in June, and the scandal was used heavily against Doyle during last year's campaign. Both Thompson and Doyle always denied any wrongdoing. Doyle had a close reelection despite the Democratic tide last year. On Friday, Thompson was exonerated.
"Exonerated" is not an exaggeration. The appeals court threw out her conviction after oral argument. That doesn't happen. They take weeks if not months to announce decisions, not minutes. Instead of granting a new trial, they actually declared her acquitted and ordered her immediate release, which is far more a declaration of innocence than just granting a new trial. They were unanimous in criticizing the prosecution for bringing a case with no evidence she either knew about the connection between Doyle and Adelman Travel, or that she benefitted from the decision.
Are the Republicans chastened? Expressing sympathy for the wrongly convicted? No. Get this:
"Mark Jefferson, executive director of the state Republican Party, said the public still needs to know whether there was anyone above Thompson who helped make sure the contract went to Adelman.Yes, there are questions, like why did they even bring the case? We won't know without a full investigation, which I hope Congress will include in its investigation of Gonzogate, because of the obvious suspicion that this woman was railroaded into prison for the sake of giving the Republicans a corruption case to use against the Democrats in a year when the GOP culture of corruption. I don't really want think people in such responsible positions would destroy lives for the sake of their party gaining power, but to be honest, given all the other crap the Bushies have pulled, I think they're fully capable of that. Remember these prosecutors were working for the same people who made torture, secret prisons, and incommunicado detention normal policy. Yes, they're capable of doing lesser things than that. Even if these specific prosecutors aren't capable of knowingly doing such a thing, who isn't suspecting that? On the specifics of Jefferson's insinuation that somebody high up did something, Thompson said under oath that no one pressured her. The prosecutors presented no contrary evidence. Doyle also denies applying any pressure, and again there is no evidence. The prosecutors did ask for a longer sentence because Thompson didn't show contrition, so what should be done with the Republicans who have shown no contrition? Another question: obviously the judge and jury in the trial bought the argument, so what did prosecutors say? According to a conservative talk show host, Jessica McBride, whose blog I found while researching this, a couple Democratic officials reviewed the evidence. What does "reviewed" mean? Were they unable to see through the lack of evidence, or did they get a cherrypicked presentation? Maybe this was just a routine bungling, but this sure begs the question of whether prosecutors deceived anyone about the strength of their evidence. I also noticed that she showed the normal Republican level of compassion for the victim --- none --- while showing plenty of sympathy for the screw ups of her own party.'There's too many questions here for this to be a vindication of the administration,' he said."
Above all, even if these suspicions prove unfounded, they will be attached to every federal prosecution, or decision not to investigate or indict, from now until Gonzales (at least) is gone.
April 7
I said yesterday the Bushies haven't started the smears of the resigned administrators yet. The key word was "yet". Well, already in Saturday's Pioneer Press, there was this: "Paulose's defenders at Justice Department headquarters said criticism of her is unwarranted. They said older lawyers have had difficultly dealing with a young and aggressive woman who has tried to put into place policies important to Gonzales, such as programs to combat child exploitation." So they problem is they're chauvinists? Three are men, but does that include Erika Mozangue? Or are they ageists (is that a word?) who don't like a young woman? And what does "aggressive" mean? We don't know yet, any more than we can really claim to know what "dressing down subordinates" or "quoting bible verses" means in context. I think the smearing is just beginning.
April 6
It's late and I'm tired, but with Gonzogate hitting my home state today and me spending so many pixels on it, how can I say nothing? Interestingly, at last month's DFL Links, as we were wrapping up our discussion of Gonzogate, one participant mentioned that we should look into our own US Attorney, because as best could be recalled, the prior USA, Tom Heffelfinger, had departed with one of those non-reason reasons, like spending time with family. Another host sent links to a Minnesota blog, Minnesota Campaign Report, which has already been researching the current USA, Rachel Paulose, and looked into the resignation of Heffelfinger. There are indications his resignation might have been to avoid being removed, but they're hardly firm. There was nothing criminal or unethical about Paulose at that point, just that she had impressive academic credentials, limited experience, and great conservative connections. The AP said there was a last minute attempt to prevent the demotions by John Kelly, deputy director of the Justice Department's executive office of U.S Attorneys. It must have happened quick, because they haven't begun the smears of the demoted administrators yet. KMSP mentioned reports that Paulose has a practice of dressing down subordinates and quoting bible verses, though I've yet to see details on what that means. That same report mentions close ties to Torture Boy Gonzales and Monica Goodling, the one taking the fifth. Paulose got some notice for reports she had an elaborate investiture, though the reports are disputed. An odd thing was that her predecessor was not invited.
So if you look through those sources, what we have is that three USAs marked down for firing were removed, and their names so far not publicly revealed. The timing indicates one is Heffelfinger. He denies he was forced out, but so far he's only given a generic reason for leaving. He was replaced by someone whose main qualifications appear to be her political connections and devotion to conservative ideology, though she has the academic background to indicate she might have been on her way up anyway. The people she's connected to are in a heap of trouble. The four simultaneous resignations of three top attorneys and a non-attorney administrator are intended as a protest of something, because they not only acted together, but gave up a lot of career advancement, both in terms of the demotion and the way the Bushies are bound to have it in for them. We don't know that the actions they protest are unethical or illegal, or purely managerial style or incompetence. The accusations against her could amount to just bullying, or she could be engaging in religious discrimination. We don't know the accusations are true, but what these administrators gave up to make their dramatic protest sounds convincing, at least enough to press the issue. If she's that bad a manager, she should go. If she acted unethically, she should go, both in terms of resigning and going because Congress.
If someone needs reminding of just why the politicization of the DOJ is such a big deal, there was this bit of news today: Matteo Fontana, general manager in a unit of the Office of Federal Student Aid, got caught up in the student loan scandal that had so far just hit university financial aid administrators. Turns out he just sold $100,000 of stock in a student loan company. Yes, he had an interest in a student loan company while his job was overseeing student loan companies. It will be a small scandal as Bush scandals go, but it not only shows how endemic the corruption is, it shows the need for a DOJ willing to impartially enforce the law. Even if he doesn't get favored treatment because he's a Republican, we'll always wonder. The credibility that causes us to assume those investigated are under reasonable suspicion, and those not investigated must be innocent, is gone. Does anyone think this doesn't affect every investigation, or decision not to investigate? And let us be glad for state attorneys general who do so much of what the feds should do, including in this case Andrew Cuomo of New York.
One thing I'm not clear about: who has jurisdiction to investigate Paul Wolfowitz, currently president of the World Bank, for giving his girlfriend a raise without telling the bank's board's Ethics Committee, which has the task of giving raises but didn't know about this one? Wolfowitz has been telling reporters the board approved the raise, but the board learned of it through the media. Being a true Bushie, it's to be expected that, according to a whistleblower, "Wolfowitz is much, much more concerned about who leaked the information than about how to rectify the situation. He's just furious." In one of those twists that shows again conservatives don't get irony, his big push has been to tell developing countries to clean up their corruption. Maybe he just thought he should learn about corruption first hand.
The US president gets to appoint the bank president, so maybe Wolfowitz can't be forced out if Bush doesn't want him to go. Wolfowitz is one of the neocons behind the Iraq war. He might be too far from the decision making to actually be a war criminal, but if he can be gotten on this, let's take it. He plainly should be in no responsible position, so let him resign or be fired and he can get on with commenting on Fox Opinion Channel (yes, I got that name from David Bender).
April 4
I'm restraining myself from saying this is it, we got the bastards. Part of me is thinking that, while another part says nothing has been proven, there could be nothing there, it could all be deleted and wiped by now, but it's tough not to get, shall we say, very interested. I first mentioned back on the 16th that this discovery that some released DOJ e-mail showed a White House staffer was using a domain belonging to the RNC could be big, that who knows what illegality might have been hidden by avoiding the White House e-mail system and the legal requirement to archive it all. Since then, the National Journal discovered that Rove uses RNC accounts for about 95% of his e-mail. Some other bloggers have been following up and finding some clues, and they found some interesting things. The big thing is that these RNC domains are hosted by the same host, SMARTech. And there are loads of these domains. The name server was spotted by posters on TPMMuckraker going through the e-mail dump, and also by Joseph Cannon, who also mentioned seeing a reference to a trespasses-w.net.
For a related but weird diversion, if you follow that link, it's a reference to Winnie-the-Pooh, with an illustration from the original book. The excerpt explains the reference is to trespassing sign with the other letters lost, and a child and child-like anthropomorphized animal make an absurdly wrong guess at what the sign means and so ignore the rules. Like I keep saying, conservatives don't get irony. Before that page went up, Corrente found the domain went to a company called Coptix.
Here's what I'm driving at, not that I found these, just so I'm not pretending I'm the great detective (that's what I was trying to do yesterday), there are a ton of domains sharing mail servers and name servers with georgewbush.com, including the gwb43.com domain used by Scott Jennings in the first e-mail that brought the use of RNC domains to light. The acting president's administration has been using these unofficial domains for official business for years. Even Jack Abramoff and low level staffers knew not to use official e-mail, that's how widespread this illegal practice has been.
No, this isn't just fun stuff for a techie. Think about it: all these domains and their e-mails are in one place! There is a hosting company in Chattanooga whose server room has the 21st century equivalent of the Watergate tapes. It's all in one place. The mother lode. That's why part of me is wanting to jump up and shout "we got the bastards!" Assuming they haven't destroyed the hard drives as thoroughly as possible, deleted and reformatted for all their worth, assuming it isn't bizarrely wrong that they've been using these domains for more than we've seen so far, and assuming the NC doesn't find some legal way to hide these e-mails from investigators, there's the proof. Of everything, not just Gonzogate. There's the proof they lied about Iraq, there's the proof they stole elections, there's whatever they're planning regarding an attack on Iran, there are the ties between the White House and Abramoff, and who knows what is undiscovered.
Some more permutations to this, most directly, the use of non-official e-mail violates the law requiring the archiving of White House documents, regardless of the content, even if they show no other illegality. Relating directly to Gonzogate, these e-mails, not being on the government systems, are not subject to executive privilege even if you accept executive privilege for government domains. If they claim executive privilege, they prove they violated the archiving law. If they deny these are official, no executive privilege. They're caught either way.
Regarding national security, these RNC e-mail systems have an unknown level of security. Could foreign penetrate RNC networks and gather classified information? Since these are unofficial systems, their use for classified information could constitute a massive leak.
Speaking of leaks, did investigators of the Plame leak know about these e-mails? Maybe this investigation will be reopened. Maybe there will be a message saying something like "We know she's covert. Go leak her name to the press." Just maybe. It could even be right after the message saying, "Go tell the lies about Iraq right after collecting the bribe from Abramoff and completing the plan to steal the election." OK, that might be too much to expect. Those will be separate messages.
Speaking of stolen elections, SMARTech hosted to 2004 Ohio election results. This raises the questions of how many other election results they hosted, and who knew about this glaring conflict of interest.
In all seriousness, contact your members of Congress, and tell them to take the legal actions necessary to preserve those messages. I know Henry Waxman has sent letters asking the RNC to preserve messages relating to specific investigations, but only a fool would trust the Republicans to hand over those messages without someone looking over their shoulders. And I hope, really hope, some honest person at SMARTech or Coptix will find a way to protect these e-mails against the efforts the Republicans are bound to make to destroy the evidence.
April 3
I hope I'm just being paranoid. However, with the caveat that I can see
alternative explanations, I think I see an ominous sign that the attack on Iran
we've been dreading is more certain. While reading today's newspaper on my way
to work this morning (mass transit, not driving) I saw this bit in a daily collection of developments in Iraq:
"President Bush is losing his top day-to-day adviser on Iraq, the White House confirmed. Meghan L. O'Sullivan, 37, who has played a key behind-the-scenes role in implementing Bush's Iraq policies over the past four years, will leave this spring. She said she's uncertain of her next job."I hadn't heard of O'Sullivan, but when staffers that high up leave without knowing where they're going next, I smell a rat, like how every scandal-plagued VIP leaves to spend more time with family. It appears she has been the closest thing to a dissident in the loyalty-obsessed administration of the acting president. She was part of the State Department's pre-war "Future of Iraq Project" which was ignored. She appears to be wary of the wisdom of bombing Iran, and the neocons disliked her anyway because she preferred sanctions on Iraq over invading. Those sources came from a page about her on Sourcewatch. She appears to have been highly regarded an academic and a diplomat. From this profile in the New York Times, she has been a proponent of pursuing a political solution in Iraq in her role as Bush's daily briefer. Her academic writings look positively liberal in her willingness to consider policies other than confrontation with hostile nations. For example, in this article, she makes the nuanced statement that part of the problem in dealing with rogue nations is lumping them all under that label instead of seeing them as individual circumstances. Makes me wonder she was even considered for a job in the Bush administration, and it's no wonder neocons don't like her and wanted her out --- and it appears they have achieved that goal.
Knowing how the acting president prefers loyal Bushies, and knowing how willing they are to push out the less loyal, with loyalty being defined as agreeing with any policy no matter how stupid or venal, I have to suspect that the sudden departure with no reason of an adviser who objects to attacking Iran and supports a political settlement in Iraq means something big has been decided, and I therefore suspect that something big is either the squashing of efforts to negotiate peace in Iraq, or worse, an attack on Iran.
Yes, I fully realize it's a one-paragraph story. Maybe she didn't want to talk about her plans, or no one asked for details. Maybe she just burned out and left without somewhere to go. It's even possible, being cynical but this is the Bush administration, that she's caught up in a scandal and is leaving before it breaks. So OK, I can't dismiss any of those --- but all I have to shoot down the attack on Iran theory is it's not proven and I want it to be false. If a real journalist, not a blogger like me, is reading this, please ask her for details on why she left. Ask what's going on in regard to Iran. Fellow bloggers, and maybe talk radio hosts too, I hope you'll repeat my questions and do some poking around. The attack on Iran hasn't happened yet, which leaves me hopeful it can still be stopped, as much as we fear the decision has already been made.
Something else disturbing in regard to possible war with Iran. While researching O'Sullivan, I came across this article in the LA Times. Flynt Leverett, who worked for the NSC and CIA, has been told that an op-ed he was working on had to be edited to remove references to negotiations the Bush administration had with Iran. Why would they want these suppressed? They aren't unknown, but they are obscure, and the acting president is infamous for refusing to negotiate with enemies. If they do plan to attack Iran, they will need to rebut arguments they should negotiate with Iran. That gets harder if they've been negotiating. They'll want to convince the public that Iran can't be negotiated with, so Iranian cooperation in Afghanistan and their offer to talk in 2003 need to be ignored.
Getting to another Iran story, during this morning's press conference, Bush was asked for his reaction to an ABC article saying Iran is two years away from having an atomic bomb. He hadn't seen it, and neither had I. I think this is it. The interesting part is the story is attributed to "sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade". Yesterday I wrote about how an alert reader could have guessed the Drudge article was wrong. Some of that applies here. No, ABC is a real news organization, not a conservative propaganda site like Drudge. Also, ABC is claiming multiple sources. However, they are using anonymous sources. Only administration sources could know if there was new intelligence on Iran, and we ought to know by now that when anonymous administration sources provide information supportive of the administration line, they're almost surely lying. They would give names if they were telling the truth. Why do they want the public (and presumably the Congress) to think Iran is that close? Since such tales about Iraq were to sell us on a war, give you one guess.
April 2
I hope the conservative media and blogosphere is properly embarrassed by their vociferous repetition of the Drudge Report story saying CNN Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware heckled Sens. McCain and Graham during their Baghdad press conference. I expect that's a forlorn hope. However, for any conservative willing to find out how to avoid such mistakes, here's how you could have seen through the story even without seeing the video that proved Ware's denial.
Think about this phrase: "Drudge reported that single anonymous source said..." Anytime you see the phrase "single source", a red flag should go up in your head, and that's regardless of who is reporting. Anytime "anonymous" goes in between "single" and "source", that red flag should be waving like crazy trying to get your attention. This is still without thinking about the publication where you see the report. Thinking about that though, and this isn't meant to be as snarky as it sounds, this came from Drudge, which is a good clue that the report is unreliable. Getting back to the anonymous source, we should all know by now that when official sources provide "information" that supports the Bush administration or Republican position in general, but do so anonymously, they're lying. That's why they remain anonymous. They go on the record when they think they have it right, or at least think they'll get away with it. These simple clues, though they don't disprove the story, suggest that there's a strong chance it's wrong or even made up. If you want to believe, and the conservative media and blogs seem anxious to tear down Ware, at least check it before repeating it.
But could you have gone beyond suspicion and verified the story? Of course. A part-time blogger like me won't get Matt Drudge to answer a question about his source, but presumably the Washington Times would have more access and, since it pretends to be a real newspaper, should have known better than to run the unverified story. I would guess other conservatives would be able to ask Drudge how he knew.
But let's say you can't ask Drudge. Someone found the video. All of you who believed the story should have guessed the video was out there somewhere. You should have waited to see what light it shed on whether to believe Drudge or Ware.
See, conservatives? It's not that hard to figure out a story is unproven or wrong. A liberal would have guessed at one other thing: a reporter based in Baghdad for four years for a real news organization is not going to heckle during a press conference. Conservatives did not guess at this. Could it be your opinion of at least this one journalist is wrong? Should you be a little more skeptical of the conservative sites that parroted the story and expressed their ever-ready outrage?
It's called a "culture of corruption" because of the was the corruption seems to be connection with seemingly no end. Far more than a neat slogan in last year's elections, observe how this corruption winds its way through the Republican party and the parts of government it controls. As a great example, here's a story from last week that got little attention. Former Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles agreed to plead guilty to charges he lied to Congress in the Abramoff investigation. It ought not be so routine to see the conviction of the number two man in a cabinet level department. Griles was just one spot below getting a seat at cabinet meetings. Though I recently referred to Gonzogate as the gift that keeps on giving, the Abramoff scandal really had the right to that name first and though it's old and off the front pages, apparently it isn't over, despite the long list of Republicans already convicted .
However, in a sign of things hopefully to come, notice Griles was convicted of obstructing of justice for lying to Congress, which is something DOJ officials, including Gonzales himself, appear to have done in Gonzogate. Apparently, even when Republicans do it, it's a felony. It's also the same thing Libby was convicted for. Though the conservative media continues to claim that's no crime, in all these cases, the lies might prevent investigators getting to the truth, even after proving to a criminal standard that witnesses lied.
The more direct connection to the politicization of the DOJ goes through Jack Abramoff. His former clients included Carl Gutierrez, former governor of Guam. When the governor and the über-lobbyist were being investigated by USA Frederick Black in 2002, Black was suddenly fired. There was also the demotion of the investigator, Robert Meissner, investigating immigration to the sweatshops of the Northern Marianas Islands -- another Abramoff client. The names of the people who appear to have stopped the investigations, and misled the Inspector General investigating the complaint of Frederick Black, are familiar from Gonzogate: Kyle Sampson and Paul McNulty. The IG report also has Sampson's admission that he discussed USA replacements with the acting president himself. Just to make this clear to readers, it looks like the mass firing of USAs was not the first firing; that some firings, including the Guam attorney in 2002, may have been done to obstruct investigations into Republican corruption; that high DOJ officials deceived investigators looking into the firings; that a lobbyist was able to get a USA removed; that the alleged corruption being initially investigated, of Guam's former governor, of the Marianas, and their lobbyist Abramoff, went uninvestigated.
