Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Not All the DOJ Missing Emails Are Missing

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the 500-smoking-guns dept.

Republicans 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.

cancel ×

656 comments

Fortune (4, Funny)

Magada (741361) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143381)

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

Greg Palast's history (5, Informative)

0123456789 (467085) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Greg Palast's history is even better (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (3, Funny)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143887)

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....

Re:Greg Palast's history is even better (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143971)

Would you believe that 100% of all alleged electoral irregularities, and 125% of the proven cases, are perpetrated by Republicans?
I, for one, ceratainly do.
Those nice Democrats never do anything wrong, and it's simply shameful that the right-wing, Rove-controlled media just keeps dumping on them.
It makes my inner child frown just thinking about how mean those Republicans are.
Waaah.

Re:Greg Palast's history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143939)

How is this +5 Informative? Care to cite your source? (Conspiracy blogs don't count).

I'm a little skeptical (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144021)

I find the following a little too convenient:

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.
I'd like at least a clue of how such a gigantic "oops" could have happened. Is there a similarity with their e-mail address and someone else's? Perhaps a disgruntled GOP member didn't so much misaddress the e-mails?

That said, if you take this at face value, there's a plus and a minus here for Republicans. Plus: there are honest, ethical Republicans out there such as David Iglesias. Minus: They're not the ones currently running the show.

I must be new here... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#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...

Re:I must be new here... (-1, Troll)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143491)

You really trust your media? Enjoy your prechewed doctored spoonfed world. You are a sheep. you are brainwashed.

Re:I must be new here... (-1, Troll)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143511)

Still think 9/11 was not manipulation? You really are so OWNED.

Re:I must be new here... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:I must be new here... (2, Funny)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143595)

What about NASA missing the moon [washingtonpost.com] tapes? Personally, I find that more alarming. Surely those Apollo broadcasts were sent over the airwaves at some point, right? I say we build a temporal feedback warp bubble and redirect the radio broadcast waves back to earth, storing them on Blu-ray this time.

As for the missing emails? I salvaged a dead hard drive once by putting it in the freezer. Maybe we should put some politicians on cold ice for a spell. Maybe that will unjar a few memories.

Re:I must be new here... (4, Informative)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 7 years ago | (#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]

Re:I must be new here... (3, Insightful)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143669)

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?

Re:I must be new here... (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143797)

"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....

Re:I must be new here... (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143693)

Americans have been browbeaten into submissiveness. Even here on slashdot you will get many people who hate protests of any sort and hate people who protest. I remember there was a guy whose signature was something like "when I hear the word activist I reach for my gun".

We are just sheep now.

Re:I must be new here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143865)

"We are just sheep now."

No. Sheep are vertebrates with a sense of self presevation. There's really no animal that
displays the ignorance and cowardice of the average American.

Why they died out will be an intersting study for future anthropologists.

Re:I must be new here... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144029)

The only ones browbeaten into submissiveness are the ones who watch too much cable news.
Protest is good. Better still when the protester migrates from mere negative reactionary to someone stepping in to help:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

"Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

Re:I must be new here... (1, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143733)

It's not weird. Despite the best attempts of the US media, the US Attorney firings is a non-story. The US Attorneys serve at the "will of the President". According to the US Constitution, the President may fire any US Attorney at any time for any reason. It may be that you don't like the reason that President Bush fired these Attorney's. It may be that it was a bad reason. All of the things that everyone has alleged negatively about these firings may be true. It doesn't matter, it was legal. If you think it was inappropriate, don't vote for G.W. Bush when he runs for re-election. OH, that's right, he can't run for re-election. That means that this is a non-story. To summarize, the firings weren't illegal, the President can't run for re-election.

Re:I must be new here... (3, Insightful)

crath (80215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143893)

Finally, some rational thought about this event. My own take on the firings is the basically the same as Attila's; the headlines should have read, "Political appointees replaced by the party that appointed them." In other words, a non-event.

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... (5, Insightful)

kismet666 (653742) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143959)

You don't seem to understand what the uproar is over. The firings may have been unethical, but probably not illegal. The problems the administration has now are due to the effort to cover-up what happened. Like Watergate, Lewinsky, and many other scandals the cover-up is much worse than the original misguided activities.

Re:Non-story?! (2, Insightful)

rockout (1039072) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144055)

On Monday, yeah, 2 days ago, the Deputy AG announced he's resigning. Another sacrificial lamb in a last-ditch attempt to save Gonzales' job, and some face for the White House.

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... (1, Flamebait)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143735)

We did revolt against economic control by the wealthy who control the federal government. Half the country tried to leave. We lost because we were out-manned and out-gunned. Put up a hell of a fight though. If I walked down the street today with my 1851 Colt Navy in a holster (which was completely legal to do prior to the failed revolution), I would be harassed and probably jailed before released because it is still not a crime. If I walked down down the street today with the same weapon that the current armed forces use, I would be in jail for a long time.

There used to be two options:
1) Armed revolt.
2) Stop paying taxes until the government collapses for lack of funds.

Armed revolt is no longer possible, because we aren't armed. Cutting off the money is no longer possible because the very wealthy will continue to fund the tyrant, because he is good for business.

The US is done. Europe is not far behind.

Re:I must be new here... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143841)

There is battleship sized irony in your comment when you consider that the new, more religious Republican party of George Bush is largely a southern phenomenon.

Re:I must be new here... (2, Insightful)

got2liv4him (966133) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143863)

That's funny... I always heard it the other way around, like...

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... (2, Insightful)

stuntpope (19736) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144059)

You mean the wealthy who controlled the South's means of production rebelled against the federal government trying to restrict slavery. Funny thing that many of the non-wealthy Southerners weren't so keen on fighting the plantation masters' war. West Virginia, East Tennessee, for example. Of course, the aristocrats sold the war as a noble cause (states' rights), just as today those in power sell a war as "spreading democracy".

Re:I must be new here... (1)

BigDogCH (760290) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144081)

Which brings up something I have always wondered. Divide the country up into 2 parts, poor and wealthy (yeah, that is oversimplifying, but stay with me here). The poor think that the tax burden should be mostly put upon the wealthy. The wealthy try to sidestep this, putting the burden on the poor.

If the burden is put on the wealthy, then the wealthy can continue to "fund the tyrant, because he is good for business", even though the poor want to revolt. So, in order for the poor to regain control of the country, do they need to accept the tax burden?

The only way I can see around this catch-22, is to outright ban any form of campaign contributions. No $ can be donated, no donations. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Each media outlet would be required to give X time to X parties to plead their case, exactly X days before election X. I believe this would also take our 2 party system and bust it into about a dozen pieces.

I know, this would never happen however, because of who owns the media giants.

Re:I must be new here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143907)

You must be new here.

Bush can fire WHOMEVER HE WANTS, for WHATEVER REASON HE WANTS.

The executive branch runs the Attorney Generals office, period.

Its only a news story because GWB is president. (And, NO I am not a fan of his).

Re:I must be new here... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144079)

Its called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE when Rove fired attorneys for not prosecuting Republican crimes or not being agressive enough prosecuting Democratic crimes.

Hmmm (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 7 years ago | (#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?

Re:Hmmm (3, Informative)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143419)

In the interview he claims to have sent them on to congress.

Re:Hmmm (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143581)

Does this mean that those emails are available for public scrutiny through some kind of freedom of information thing?

Re:Hmmm (1)

dotpavan (829804) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143653)

they can be seen here [georgewbush.org]

Re:Hmmm (1)

larsroe (966853) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143861)

Those all seem dated to 2004.

Re:Hmmm (1)

purplelocust (944662) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143475)

From TFA:

They were, you know -- Karl Rove, people think he's an evil genius, but that's only about half right. I mean, he's not necessarily the sharpest knife in the drawer, and he and his guys were mistyping their email addresses, sent them to georgewbush.org, instead of dotcom, which is an email domain owned by friends of ours, who shot them right to us.

Re:Hmmm (4, Insightful)

lixee (863589) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143549)

I don't know if you heard about the two blokes jailed for leaking a memo where Bush tells Blair that he wants to bomb the Al-Jazeera headquarters in Doha. Maybe Greg is afraid of an invocation of the patriot act?

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/10/bri tain.memo.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

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/63 70385.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Hmmm (1)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143753)

Heh, if he is jailed for leaking the e-mails, I suppose he could just say he misaddressed them...

Re:Hmmm (5, Insightful)

niiler (716140) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143607)

Here's how the mis-addressed email thing works. Politicos in the White House or elsewhere, have mistakenly typed .org instead of .gov when addressing their emails. The www.whitehouse.org [whitehouse.org] owners are none to happy with Bush's politics, and so routinely forward their emails to Greg Palast, whose reputation is well known. Mystery solved. Palast says this much in most of his books. While American networks avoid Palast like the plague, largely because he is at odds with the media-moguls, he has had his own show on the BBC for years and is considered a good source for what is really happening in the US by the Europeans. He has also appeared on the NPR show On the Media [onthemedia.org] and on Democracy Now [democracynow.org] from Pacifica Radio.

Re:Hmmm (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144069)

Actually, it was a .org vrs .com mixup. The White House (.gov) is required to retain email. The email is missing because it was on a separate channel (party controlled) that did have the inconvenience of automated retention.

Why are they talking to Karl Rove? (3, Insightful)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 7 years ago | (#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?

Re:Why are they talking to Karl Rove? (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143455)

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.

Re:Why are they talking to Karl Rove? (1)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143501)

There are lots of reasons they might have kept the email.

They could have been logging anything that comes in for security reasons.

They could be running a honey pot for spam statistics/analysis (if you have the bandwidth/processing to spare it can be a good way to spot spam, see what comes in on the invalid addresses, look for same sender, same content in the other mails)

They could just have set a default account to catch all other mail.

They could have had their mail system badly configured.

Or as you hinted at, they could have been hoping that they would get misaddressed email that they themselves should not have received.

Re:Why are they talking to Karl Rove? (1)

Ikoma Andy (41693) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143557)

They could have bought the domain and captured all e-mail coming to it praying to Jesus something like this would happen.

Re:Why are they talking to Karl Rove? (1)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143599)

Or they could be lying.

Let's see those emails.

Re:Why are they talking to Karl Rove? (1)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143671)

People in politics lying??

That would never happen!! ;)

Re:Why are they talking to Karl Rove? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143647)

My guess on reading the article is that the e-mails were addressed to georgewbush.org, and either no bounce messages came due to a misconfigured mail server or Rove and Co. are too stupid to read bounce messages. Either way, Rove deleted them when they were found to be possibly incriminating. Unbeknownst to Rove and Co., being sent to georgewbush.org put them in the hands of Chickenhead Productions, which owns and operates the site along with whitehouse.org. The sites are clearly anti-Bush and anti-Republican humor sites. The owner of Chickenhead, registered as John Wooden in both his Internic registration and in his trademark regstration, or someone working for Chickenhead probably forwarded them to Palast, a reporter well-known for breaking the voting irregularities in Florida prior to the 2000 U.S. presidential election

Re:Why are they talking to Karl Rove? (3, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#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:Why are they talking to Karl Rove? (2, Interesting)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143955)

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 Gonzo hearings that there was undue political interference in government business? One of the many outrages of the committee members overseeing the mess is that documentation and correspondence that *should* be on record have conveniently gone missing. Your argument that cabinet members have tough jobs and have to wear different hats from time to time is as unconvincing as Gonzales' "I don't remember" statements are ludicruous.

Must be the "liberal" media at work. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#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...

So Why Is This On Slashdot??!!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143587)

Remember when this site was once News for Nerds?? Why is slashdot so interesting in this one political story, instead of all the more important ones going on?

Seems slashdot likes to get political only when it involves those evil, nasty Republicans. It's embarassing how partisan this place is.

Re:So Why Is This On Slashdot??!!! (3, Funny)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143623)

Because it involves e-mails. Slashdot covers news involving technology, e-mails are technology.

Re:Must be the "liberal" media at work. (3, Insightful)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143675)

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)).)

Do I have to beg? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143415)

Can we SEE these emails?

Wow... (1)

jfade (1096961) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143431)

You know, you'd think that if someone was going to do something sneaky that they shouldn't be doing, they'd at least double check who they're sending this stuff to. Doing something like this is basically the equivalent of writing a fellow co-worker bashing your boss and then carbon copying that email to ... your boss.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143823)

To err is human.
The British dossier presented by the US on the threat of Saddam Hussein was found out to be a copy and paste of a pre-gulfwar 1 document by the press office due to the meta data in the word file. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgy_Dossier [wikipedia.org] .
Another example might be the classified pdf files put online by the US government, where the names etc were blacked out in the pdf, but not in the original document. A simple copy and paste of the text would reveal the 'classified' contents.
Even people that try to hide something make mistakes.

Re:Wow... (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143967)

Exactly, and that's why this sounds fake. What's more likely, that an uber-liberal group is lying in order to demonize Karl Rove even further, or that someone mistakenly sent emails from the RNC to an "enemy" group?

Riiiiight.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143433)

I can always trust Amy Goodman and the Democracy Now crew for unbiased news reporting... Hell, Even Clinton lit into her for distorting the truth several years ago.

A pound of salt and I still wouldn't listen to anything she had to say...

Not quite accurate editorializing... (4, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143443)

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?

Re:Not quite accurate editorializing... (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143495)

I find that the lag between coverage on DN! and the larger media is usually about six weeks. Slashdot does not count.

ATTN: SWITCHEURS! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143553)

If you don't know what Cmd-Shift-1 and Cmd-Shift-2 are for, GTFO.
If you think Firefox is a decent Mac application, GTFO.
If you're still looking for the "maximize" button, GTFO.
If the name "Clarus" means nothing to you, GTFO.

Bandwagon jumpers are not welcome among real [imageshack.us] Mac [imageshack.us] users [imageshack.us] . Keep your filthy, beige [imageshack.us] PC fingers to yourself.

Re:Not quite accurate editorializing... (-1, Troll)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143923)

Democracy Now is also the organization that, during a story on Cuba, played part of a propoganda piece created by a Castro admirer explaining how Castro established a democracy on the island and keeps getting re-elected because he's so loved.

They're left-wing-nuts. That doesn't mean they're never right, but it does mean that you should carefully scrutinize what comes out of there.

wow (0, Troll)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143477)

Mod me troll, but that article is horribly written. That, or I'm still not awake. Please proof this stuff....

It's a transcript (2, Informative)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143537)

There is a link at the top of the page to listen to (or watch) the interview. You still might not like the style or production quality but they really do have to differ from written news.

Re:wow (1)

Saib0t (204692) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143565)

Mod me troll, but that article is horribly written. That, or I'm still not awake. Please proof this stuff....

Aaah, for once someone who takes the time to read TFA!

I think the answer to your question might be in the fact that it's not an article but a transcript ;-)

Re:wow (1)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143655)

No. I only read the blurb on /. and was referring to this part:

Hylas [CC] sends us to Democracy Now for a newscast on the missing emails [CC], an interview with investigative journalist Greg Palast. Here's Palast talking about the fired US attorney from New Mexico, David Iglesias:

The part that throws the flow is: an interview with investigative journalist Greg Palast..

That's called a dangling modifier, and is something you learn not to do in high school. That sentence could have been written several different ways and been better. I'm being a total grammar-nazi here. /. admins need to put a bit more work into editing. Maybe that would help the standing of the site in general....

Hmm. sounds familier. (1)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143485)

Same old, same old. Politicians to not understand how technology can come back to haunt them. In the internet age things are rarely gone for good.

In the past politicians have released word doc press releases where journalists have been able to check the history and see what was originally typed, and I have lost count of the number of PDFs with redacted text that can be easily recovered (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/22/13 8210 [slashdot.org] ).

When will politicians learn?

What I don't understand - perhaps an american can explain this to me - is how the White House was in a position to be able to delete emails? Surely a better system would be to require (by law) a neutral party to oversee, backup and archive all political information. After all in a hundred years it will be a valuable part of your national history and heritage - instead its just an embarrassment.

And as for blaming it on a dead woman who cannot defend herself, thats just wrong. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toby-barlow/white-ho use-finds-someone_b_46344.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Hmm. sounds familier. (2, Informative)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143605)

That's part of the issue; that all these emails SHOULD have gone through government accounts, for precisely the reasons you mention. Instead they were using georgewbush.com. When people started asking questions, that was when they claimed hundreds of emails were "lost".

Quis custodiet.... (1)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143611)

What I don't understand - perhaps an american can explain this to me - is how the White House was in a position to be able to delete emails? Surely a better system would be to require (by law) a neutral party to oversee, backup and archive all political information. After all in a hundred years it will be a valuable part of your national history and heritage - instead its just an embarrassment.
The rules are made by politicians and no one in their right mind is going to lobby for a law which will get minimal public support (whom outside the /. community would really understand it) and which would prevent them from covering thier mistakes.

See the 'Yes Minister' episode 'The Skeleton in the Cupboard' [wikipedia.org] about the Official Secrets act for a full explanation

Considering the source I'll wait (-1, Flamebait)

cluge (114877) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143503)

This story has had zero play in the US media; it's been being carried on the BBC.

The BBC hasn't been known as of late for being....uhm....reliable, or even remotely handed. This story strains credibility. The entire scenario is more than a little far fetched, unless you're automatically predisposed to hate Karl Rove. I'll wait for a better, more credible source.

I would ask that those of you that have your logic gene shut off when discussing politics (on the right and left), please post long and mindless rants on the evil of (insert favorite political bogey man here) for my amusement.

Thank You,
cluge

Re:Considering the source I'll wait (4, Insightful)

nagora (177841) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143573)

The BBC hasn't been known as of late for being....uhm....reliable, or even remotely handed.

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?

Re:Considering the source I'll wait (2, Insightful)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143665)

And which "even handed" "reliable" news source told you that? The same one that breathed a sigh of relief yesterday when Gonzalez was finally able to admit that it was all his just-resigned assistant's fault?

BBC reputation has never been higher (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143805)

I don't the BBC's reputation has ever been higher. Time and time again they've been proved right.

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-botscapt ain-iglesias-obstruction-of-justice-and-the-theft- of-2008/ [gregpalast.com]

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.

Palast has more interesting things to say (5, Interesting)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 7 years ago | (#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] .

hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143551)

i recall that yesterday the banter on the microsoft patents was all "show me the patents" and "without seeing what they're talking about it's just so much fud" but here not seeing the supposed missing e-mails is considered credible?

come on guys, the hypocrisy really needs to end somewhere.

Re:hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143627)

I'm going to have to agree with you. I would like to see the emails as well complete with headers and everything else along with them.

Why is it so hard for people to understand this? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143579)

Its the President's right to fire any of them at any time for any reason? His real mistake was not firing them all when he came into office.

Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand this (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143731)

Someone understands, wow! All this grandstanding by the Congresscritters is just that. They have no say in the matter and what they think is not real important. Remember, Clinton fired 92 of them in 93. The only one not fired? Chertoff, current head of Homeland Security. If any Dem gets the Presidency in 08 plan on all 93 getting canned within a week of Jan. 20 2009. They are political appointees and that's the way it works.

Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand this (1)

sphere (27305) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143905)

I know I am a Master of the Obvious here, but the fact that the US attorneys being fired is only part of the situation. It is why they are being fired that is the key. Look at that and you see why the Bush Administration is problematic to say the least.

Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143947)

Yes this may indeed be a problem to some. But it is not a crime, and definitely not something our congress men and women should be wasting time on.

It Has Had Some Play In the USA - But Not Much (2, Insightful)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

You're toos tupid to figure it out I guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143685)

"The Bush administration continues to openly flaunt their complete contempt for the laws of this country."

Maybe, but since no laws were broken by this incident, I don't know why you're mentioning it here.

Oh YES I DO, You're one of those ignorant slashtrolls who thinks every time Bush does something you don't like, that it must be illegal.

Well it wasn't. It wasn't even unusual.

Shut up now.

Re:You're toos tupid to figure it out I guess (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144067)

Is that what Rush tells you?

Maybe you should find yourself a non-drug-addled source for news.

what is the burden of proof for email evidence? (1)

Phantom of the Opera (1867) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143659)


Dear CmdTaco,
    Thanks for the money. I will now jump up and down like a monkey for your pleasure.

Sincerly,
      StrongBad

------------------------
Seriously, you have to take the actual boxes to a trusted neutral party and have them analyzed. Having emails "show up" somewhere is just one step of evidence gathering.

It is a non-issue (0, Troll)

LowellPorter (466257) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143677)

This story has had zero play in the US media; it's been being carried on the BBC. It is not playing in the US media because no law was broken when those attorneys were fired. The Democrats were trying to score political points by attempting to make a scandal out of it. When the American people understood that the firings were legal, then the scandal issue fizzled.

Re:It is a non-issue (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143775)

It was legal through one of many loopholes in the Patriot Act, which eroded a lot of the checks and balances that made the United States government fair. Surprisingly, some American people still care when something is legal, but not fair, because they want to change the law.

Re:It is a non-issue (1, Troll)

schon (31600) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143791)

It is not playing in the US media because no law was broken when those attorneys were fired.
Ahh - that explains why Clinton got hounded for a blowjob - we all know those are illegal!

Thanks for your insight.

Re: It is a non-issue (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144039)

It is not playing in the US media because no law was broken when those attorneys were fired.
Even if what you say is true, that's not the explanation. The media *has* been covering the firing story.

Let me get this straight... (0, Troll)

Churla (936633) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143683)

Things you have to buy to believe this guy:

a) They "typoed" .org instead of .com , for those of us who type in domain names constantly this may be feasible since our brains are probably a few words ahead and .org is in the muscular memory of our typing fingers just as much as .com , but these are bureaucrats and politicians who we're being told aren't all that savvy...
b) They manually typed in the addresses. Just this point doesn't make sense. How many addresses do you manually type in? Not click from an address book, not type in the first couple letters and hit TAB to auto-complete... If anything the less savvy user would lean on crutches like mailing lists and auto-completion far more than manually typing in long addresses.
c) If he's really REALLY so interested in the right thing happening, and all that, why hasn't he forwarded these to the congressmen who are looking into these matters instead of announcing them on the radio?
d) How hard, exactly, is it to fake an SMTP message again? What kind of authenticity can he lend to this? How does he know that someone didn't fake the mail and send it to that domain? Heaven knows it couldn't have been spoofed, right?

Oh yeah, and he happens to be on the publicity trail for a new book now is he? hurm...

The reason this isn't getting much media hype is probably that most of the MSM have strong enough doubts as to the credibility of the evidence as to make it non viable to bring up.

Why Does This Matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143691)

The United States Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired for no reason at any time by the President. Just ask Bill Clinton. He fired all 93 Attorney Generals in one fell swoop when he took office in '93. SO what is the big deal. Heck even I can be fired at any time for any reason by my boss. Maybe even for posting to slashdot.

Re:Why Does This Matter (3, Interesting)

frank249 (100528) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144009)

Why does this matter? I suspect you could compare it to Bill Clinton and Nixon. They were not threatened with impeachment for the original crimes but more for the cover ups and perjury. If Bush came out and said 'ya I fired them - so what?', that would have been it but now there are 'missing emails', Gonzalles on the stand making a fool out himself claiming he does not remember anything and the White House tap dancing all around the issue making it worse and worse. Frankly, when you add this to the made up intelligence that lead to an illegal war that lead to the outing of a CIA intelligence officer, illegal wiretaps, Guantanimo detentions, secret CIA prisons and the whole slew of other cover-ups, I can not understand why the Democrats have not started the impeachment proceedings [impeachbush.tv] by now. I mean really, they were shocked, I say SHOCKED at Clinton's morals for getting a blow job in the oval office yet Bush is a swell guy and we should over look all these little indiscressions?

Feed the Trolls (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143713)

You are being lied to and used. And you deserve it for refusing to open your eyes even a little.

500 emails when the tides roll down you she said (1)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143715)

i don't think it counts if only their spam mails for enlarged pen15 pills count as what people wanted to hear about finding some emails

see a real live caging list (1)

wixi (1065094) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143785)

some found lost emails [georgewbush.org] : search Caging-1.xls already scooped here [reddit.com] .. Karl Rove's caging guy, Tim Griffin, replaced of one of the fired U.S. Attorneys.. it's gonna be a painful 600 days for the Republicans.. the Dems are smart not to impeach, even though that's what the country (and world) really needs..

Democrats like you are jackasses (0, Flamebait)

ThoreauHD (213527) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143801)

If Karl Rove emailed his mama and said he wanted to fire all you useless socialist democrats it still wouldn't matter. The President can and does- every freaking term- say "Fire them". And again, democrats provide no proof of wrong doing. Just saying the Karl Rove guy doesn't know where every email went does not make him guilty of killing 700 million people in your beloved communist shitholes across the world. Bush lied People died! You fucking cockroaches have no memory. Every country including ours said they were packing. I'm no fan of Republicans either, but you democrats are some serious pussified pieces of shit. When the revolution comes, and you cowering bitches are hiding in metro areas- You'll be the first to eat it.

Re:Democrats like you are jackasses (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143877)

Feel strongly about this do ya?

Get over it Already (-1, Troll)

sycodon (149926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143835)

1. The U.S. Attorney's position is a political patronage job.
2. The President can fire them anytime for any reason. Period.
3. Clinton Fired all of them to get his guys in.
4. Bush stupidly left many Clinton holdovers in power, he should have fired them all also.
5. No mater what any breathless, emptyheaded DNC staffer or MSM stooge says, their cannot be a crime here. Period, over and out.

Re:Get over it Already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19143993)

4. Bush stupidly left many Clinton holdovers in power, he should have fired them all also.

Cite an example please. IIRC Bush fired every one of Clintons back in 2001

Slashdot should stay out of politics (0, Flamebait)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#19143885)

It brings out all the closet ignorant right wing assholes who should stay hidden and not let anyone else see what 20 year old morons they are.

Is there any proof at all? (2, Insightful)

Aaron England (681534) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Did anyone read the article? (3, Informative)

dekkerdreyer (1007957) | more than 7 years ago | (#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?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...