The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I
For example, here in San Francisco some group successfully sued to get the original Word document rather than the distributed PDF version so that they could see the entire change history for the document. So not only do we have the right to the final document but the very first draft, every typo, every reconsideration of phrasing. To me this is stupid.

This overload prodcues so much detail that, in my opinion, the context gets lost.

You make valid points, but look at this US attorney mess. So far, the only defense the highest officials (Gonzalez and his direct staff) have been giving has been, "We didn't know what was going on." And if you just look at the final product of the action, you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise. But a few emails here and there and it's starting to look like that defense is an outright lie, that Gonzales, his staff, Rove knew very well what was going on. So where do you draw the line to ensure accountability?

[Not Afraid]

Soon, we'll have our Certified Records Manager on line and, I'm sure he'd be happy to comment.

[€uroMeinke]

I agree with Alex. Expecting all email be retained is stupid. The Hatch Act in the electronic era is also stupid and contributed to this mess.

The amount of email is becoming humanly impossible to read. We should require our officials to read their delivered mail (i.e. SPAM removed by software not humans) and make a judgement as to it's importance and whether or not in need be retained.

The RNC was stupid to lose the emails in such an arbitrary fashion (or so it has been characterized to me) the should have a regular process of purging and retaining and stick to it. To the extent they didn't they'll take a well deserved hit for that that ill make them look suspicious regardless if any smoking gun were to be found.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, hard to do? Tough.


Rove and his cohorts purposely do all their business over laptop email systems so their dirty work won't be uncovered. Government attracts crooks, and I believe drastic measures must be taken to thwart them.

Let them meet in dark alleys if they want to cheat the American people who pay their salaries, and subvert the Constitution they or their bosses are sworn to uphold. Tap their email, their cellphones, and equip them all with internal monitoring devices that record every frelling word they say as long as they are in office or work for an elected official.

Fvck their liberties. Their kind have abused power for generations, for centuries. As we attain the technology to reign them in and/or make their deceptions as difficult as possible, I say we use it to the full extent.

[€uroMeinke]

I don't want to take away their liberties, because I ant to retain mine. The various internet and email policies at my work place made me implement my own RNC solution. I don't want to have to be fired because someone sent me an off-color joke, or mention something that someone else could construe as immoral or offensive.

[Alex]

I can understand a "**** the government" point of view. I don't really understand it in conjunction with the progressive role for government you've previously expressed a preference for.

Government may attract crooks but so does treating everybody like a crook because the sane people aren't going to go anywhere near it.

[wendybeth]

Well, as the Government has no problem snooping into my business (we're in a war, dammit!) and goes to great lengths to circumvent and ignore existing privacy laws, I really have no problem whatsoever with inconveniencing them with regards to documents. I do have to say I was wrong about this administration: previously, I'd thought they hadn't learned a thing from history, but the events of Watergate seem to have taught them a thing or two.

[Alex]

Here's the really stupid thing: there was absolutely nothing wrong with the firings.

They should have just said (more diplomatically) "these people work for me. They're political appointments. I can fire them anytime I want for pretty much any reason I want. So bugger off. If you want to change things so they aren't political appointments any longer then get to work but remember that the last time -- In 1975 -- it was Republicans that tried to do that and the Democrats who thought it vital that they remain political offices."

[wendybeth]

I believe there is a certain protocol that was not followed, not to mention that the firings were so ****ing blatantly political that even the Repubs are embarrassed. Come on, devil's advocacy aside- do you really believe they went about this the proper way? This administration has pulled off more boners like this than any in recorded history, mostly because they wrongly believed to have a public mandate, or religious one if you really want to get right down to it, and now they are scrambling to extract themselves and do damage control. If they didn't do anything wrong, what's the big deal?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Here's the really stupid thing: there was absolutely nothing wrong with the firings.

They should have just said (more diplomatically) "these people work for me. They're political appointments. I can fire them anytime I want for pretty much any reason I want. So bugger off.

And had they done that, there wouldn't be hearings this week. But when the DOJ says things like they fired Carol Lam over her performance, specifically her performance regarding immigration, and then we learn that she received a letter of commendation in 2007 for this specific work, something doesn't add up.

From the transcript:

FEINSTEIN: … September 15, 2007, signed by the director of field operations of the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency. It’s sent to Carol Lam. And it is a letter of commendation, and I will just read a few sections.

To address the alien enforcement issue, your office supported the implementation of the Alien Smuggling Fast Track Program, and has demonstrated a commitment to aggressively address the alien smuggling recidivism rate.

In support of Border Patrol referrals for prosecution, your office maintains a 100 percent acceptance rate of criminal cases while staunchly refusing to reduce felony charges to misdemeanors and maintaining a minimal dismissal rate and supporting special prosecution efforts.

In validation of enforcement initiatives, your staff aggressively prosecuted enrollees in the Sentry program who engaged in smuggling to support a zero-tolerance posture. They have focused on cases of fraud, special-interest aliens, prosecution of criminal aliens and supported our sustained disrupt operations.

The prosecution’s unit presented 416 alien smuggling cases, which represents a 33 percent increase over the 314 cases presented in ‘05. The prosecutions unit identified and pursued the prosecution of several recidivist alien smugglers and presented 30 non-threshold alien smuggling cases for prosecution, resulting in a 100 percent conviction rate. This represents a 329 percent increase over the seven non-threshold cases presented in 2005.

Additionally, a cumulation study done by USA Today places Carol Lam as one of the top three attorneys in the United States for the prosecution of these cases. It is a real surprise to me that you would say here that the reason for her dismissal was immigration cases. Now, if I might go on, who, Mr. Sampson, was Dusty Foggo or is Dusty Foggo?

SAMPSON: I understand from news reports, Senator, and from general knowledge, that he was an employee at the CIA.

FEINSTEIN: And who is Mr. Wilkes?

SAMPSON: I don’t know. I understand, again from news reports, that he’s affiliated somehow with Mr. Foggo.

FEINSTEIN: And are you aware that on May 10th Carol Lam sent a notice to the Department of Justice saying she would be seeking a search warrant of the CIA investigation into Dusty Foggo and Brent Wilkes?

SAMPSON: I don’t remember ever seeing such a notice.

FEINSTEIN: But the next day you wrote the e-mail which says, The real problem we have right now — right now — with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day after her four-year term expires, that that relates to her immigration record.

SAMPSON: The real problem that I was referring to in that e-mail was her office’s failure to being sufficient immigration cases.

FEINSTEIN: OK.

If she was fired for actual poor performance, or even just because she serves at the pleasure of the President, that is one thing. If she was fired because she was seeking a search warrant on someone they didn't want her to investigate, I find that far more troubling.