We’ve tracked down another set of emails during the 18-day gap (available HERE) between Kyle Sampson and Brent Ward, the head of the federal obscenity task force. In the emails, Ward complains about resistance from several U.S. Attorneys to prosecuting obscenity cases, problems that the Bush administration now claims are responsible for the firings of prosecutors Daniel Bogden in Nevada and Paul Charlton in Arizona. In other words, it makes sense that the administration would include this set of emails and apparently virtually nothing else from that 18-day-gap, since the emails from Ward bolster the administration’s case that the firings were based on performance-related concerns.
UPDATE: More on the Ward emails from the Salt Lake Tribune.
Confirming what we already knew, they weren’t doing their jobs so Bush fired them. Next.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:21 pmO.K., so is it still officially a “gap” or not?
March 21st, 2007 at 5:22 pmOh, well then… Let’s forget about the whole thing. I’m so, so sorry Repubs. This is a huge mistake. NOT.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:22 pmPatrick1 exhibits the very sort of empiricism we’re used to from Bush supporters: confirmatory evidence is the only evidence.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:24 pmSo far, it is, underwhelm.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:27 pmConfirming what we already knew, they weren’t doing their jobs so Bush fired them.
Unka Karl says, get back under the desk and keep sucking.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:27 pmthis is not a smart move on the part of the white house/doj.
stuff like this will make both past and current u.s. attys more willing to speak out - and preemptively - before getting tarred.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:27 pmI am very dissapointed in George W. Bush for advocating torture. His followers are also not following my words because they look to him as a false God. Look at the posters here, who never question the modern day equivalent of Julius Ceasar.
-Jesus H. Christ
March 21st, 2007 at 5:28 pmThis would be the Brent Ward who insisted that prosecutors focus their efforts on marginally legal smut instead of child porn, would it not?
March 21st, 2007 at 5:28 pm#4- It’s called: Pull it out of your ass and pretend it’s a precious gold brick.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pmlet’s get on with the constitutional crisis… we’re way past the point of foot-dragging… it’s going to happen… it NEEDS to happen… let’s DO it…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
March 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pmsince the emails from Ward bolster the administration’s case that the firings were based on performance-related concerns
You mean the administration’s “case” that is torpedoed by its own USA evaluations? Some case!
That ignorant crap only fools the trolls (and that’s all they’re good for).
March 21st, 2007 at 5:33 pm.
You have to have a crisis first. This ain’t it. This is moonbats going down the tubes. And it only took three months, amazing.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:33 pmprofmarcus:
What if it takes a couple YEARS to resolve the issues? The Court process can move at a snail’s pace . . .
March 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pmSo far, it is, underwhelm.
Comment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Funny, that’s *exactly* how EVERYONE feels about your daily Jake’ing off. You’re VERY underwhelming…
March 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pmyou will want to read this nation article about ‘the white house porn plot against prosecutors’:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/blumenthal
March 21st, 2007 at 5:36 pmThis is moonbats going down the tubes.
I guess you missed the news from the committee today? Did you see what Specter and Cornyn said?
What am I saying? Ignorant crap like you don’t read the news, you wait ’till Hannity squirts his lies into your mouth, then you bring it over here.
Open wide, troll! Here it comes!
March 21st, 2007 at 5:36 pm.
You have to have a crisis first. This ain’t it. This is moonbats going down the tubes. And it only took three months, amazing. Comment by Patrick1 — March 21, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Yet, it’s you that’s perceived poorly by the American public. See, you right wingnuts, always claim that this is just like the Clinton affair. The difference? Clinton was popular, and you went after his *personal* life, because you couldn’t go after his administration.
What’s different with Bush? Who gives a dam about Bush’s flings with Gannon, we’re going after his violation of the duties of his office. Sorry, dimwit, but you guys passed your *tipping-point* months ago.
Hang on *princess*, this is going to be a bumpy ride for all of you *closet-cases*.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:36 pmBrent Ward was not getting much ‘business’ for his lil task force.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:37 pmWaah. Most prosecutors are trying to build cases they can win in court, where people’s lives are at stake. That doesn’t include obscenity cases.
Pouty lip, sagging shoulders, beedy eyes- Hail to the Thief! How’s that precious gold brick, W.? Push harder! I can see it! Push!
March 21st, 2007 at 5:37 pmWhat if it takes a couple YEARS to resolve the issues? The Court process can move at a snail’s pace . . . Comment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
So can your *boring* posts, and your *slow* learning process. Perhaps someone with your *tender* condition should keep on your safety helmet, and leave these discussions to people that don’t need your *special* care? Ok, sport?
March 21st, 2007 at 5:37 pmImpeach the little buggers (cabinet and su-cabinet).
March 21st, 2007 at 5:38 pmWhat if it takes a couple YEARS to resolve the issues?
Good. That will keep Republican sleaze before the public’s eyes right through the election.
The Republicans gambled and lost. Blew a chance to make this all go away, but I guess that’s because they know they can’t afford to. Their “offer” was a dead giveaway that they’re trapped.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:38 pm.
What if it takes a couple YEARS to resolve the issues? The Court process can move at a snail’s pace . . . Comment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
Another benefit of this? Who’ll pardon Bush and company when there’s a Dem in the whitehouse? Delay all you want - idiot! That’s a *great* tactic that I totally recommend!
March 21st, 2007 at 5:39 pmThis would be the Brent Ward who insisted that prosecutors focus their efforts on marginally legal smut instead of child porn, would it not?
Anything to protect the ReNAMBLAcans.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:39 pm.
Jerk and Patsy- Patsy and Jerk- I wonder who performs fellacio on whom.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:40 pmMaybe it’s me, but it would have been less suspicious if all the documents from that period are MIA. That could just be a glitch in the processing to be resolved later. The presence of a few documents that help the administration suggests everything else in that period must hurt the administration.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pmPatrick1 exhibits the very sort of empiricism we’re used to from Bush supporters: confirmatory evidence is the only evidence.
It’s the only way they can bring themselves to support failed policy after failed policy, and to look up to people like Bush as “men.”
No wonder they’re infested with creationists. They thought they had harnessed stupid, but then caught the disease themselves. William F. Buckley looks like he wants to hang himself these days, just can’t deal with the freakshow the Republicans have become.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm.
Confirming what we already knew, they weren’t doing their jobs so Bush fired them. Next.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 21, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
What an idiot. All this e-mail reveals is that they couldn’t get the US Attorney in Arizona on board in the trial specified. We still don’t know the WHY of it. As you likely know (yet ignore because it really doesn’t bolster your defense of Bush & Co.) one attorney who was fired didn’t have a strong enough case in a particular trial and would have had to make up evidence to proceed. While YOU likely would have done that, any attorney who practices ethical behavior wouldn’t have.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pmEighteen days? Must be the magic number–are you among those of us old enough to remember Rosemary Wood’s 18 minute gap? I wouldn’t be too upset if both had the same result: removing a dishonest imperial president.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pmI see there’s been a shift change of Repuke trolls. Don’t forget to punch in on the time clock, trolls, or Karla Rove won’t pay you.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pmIf the Democrats are still dragging this out after Election Day 2008, I would have no problem with Presidential pardons for everyone in the Administration. Or, wait, are you going to impeach Bush for signing pardons now too?
March 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pm#24- Abosolutely f*ing right-on! I like the way you think, you devious thing, you.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pmLOL Dusty — damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:44 pmHey Jake - good luck in ‘08!
March 21st, 2007 at 5:45 pmChimpy’s new excuse for firing the attorneys is they weren’t prosecuting obscenity cases enough.
Maybe they had their hands full prosecuting REAL crimes. Murder, kidnapping, bank robbery….
Besides, obscenity cases are a waste of time to prosecute unless its kiddy porn. And I seriously doubt this was about kiddy porn.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:46 pmJake & Patrick1 - what do you hope to accomplish by your posts here? You aren’t going to change anyone’s mind, certainly not mine. I find it bizarre the amount of time you spend paying attention to these blogs & posting, with no hope of achieving anything positive whatsoever.
How do you do it? Are you both on disability? It’s obvious enough that you don’t have jobs, or if you do, whoever you’re working for is getting the shaft by giving either of you a paycheck.
Even though your posts are just spitting in the ocean, keep it up, I enjoy them and the reactions they get from those here who have no control over their emotions.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:47 pmAnd liberals are fascists. Because they oppose the unitary executive and torture and media consolidation. Oh yes, and political correctness was just like Nazi Germany, even though it was only a few universities for a few months who quickly apologized and pulled the speech codes off the table and there was never any threat of violence involved. And Republicans never engage in violent rhetoric threatening people whose opinions they disagree with, or use eliminationist rhetoric. Oh ya, and Bush’s tax cuts really did work and the economy is better than ever, and there is no deficit, and we shouldn’t consider the fact that we borrowed $800 billion last year, which all went into the economy, when we talk about Bush’s incredible 3.6% GDP growth last year, which totals about $400 billion. And Iraq really did have WMDs, which you liberal fascists all ignored, and Saddam really was working with Al Qaeda, which you liberal fascists support (nevermind the fact that Al Qaeda and rightwing Republicans all agree that moral values and religion are the most important issues, that feminism should be beaten down, that sexual vice and drugs and homosexuality should be punished severely by a powerful religious State with a robust military), and we are fighting them over there so we won’t fight them over here (nevermind that Bush’s war has created many more terrorists than it has killed, or that it has pushed moderate States with substantial Islamic populations to the precipice of overthrow, and that these States, and not the ragtag idiots associated with Osama bin Laden, have things like boats and submarines and missiles that might plausibly reach the United States, whereas Osama bin Laden has the power of an annual television conference), and voting DemocRAT is voting terrorist (nevermind that Osama bin clearly timed his 2004 video to help George Bush in the elections, which it did). Liberal fascists all of you!
March 21st, 2007 at 5:47 pmThey should hire five attorneys. They should all be powerful in their own right, but, in times of crisis, they combine together to form one super-attorney: Voltron! Defender of the Federal Government!
March 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pmYer doin’ a Heckuva job, Alberto!!
A Heckuva job!!
March 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pmWell, as Jake said on March 17th under the Bud Cummins thread, “performance covers quite a lot.”
To which I replied:
Yes, it does.
Poor performance due to ineptitude or corruption on the attorneys’ part or unethical behavior is one thing.
But firing them because they are not moving fast enough in investigating Democrats is a questionable tactic. I know you don’t agree with that, so tough sh*t.
As Cummins says, the administration lied about the performance part. You saying you know more than a U.S. attorney?
And then Jake didn’t respond. Maybe he’ll make my day and respond tonight.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pmobstruction of justice trolls. it’s really that simple - either they did or didn’t - if they didn’t then why all the fuss? show us what you got - prove it’s not related to ongoing cases against Cunningham and other repugs and everyone moves on -
heh!
March 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pmoh yes, i forgot to mention. i am not a closeted homosexual who hates myself, because no Republicans are like that.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:49 pmI’m rich.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:49 pmI’m retired, Namtillaku.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:50 pmI’m not a closeted homosexual either, and I’ve never boogered Jake, because Republicans are all God’s people, and there are never any closeted self-hating homos or pedophiles or adulterers who are Republican. God’s Party and all.
Toodle-oo you anklebiting atheists.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:50 pmi wear fashionable tasseled loafers in the Spring, to accompany my collection of pink Lacoste polos.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:52 pmHey Patrick1 - good luck in ‘08! All I can say is you better hope and pray God is on your side. Gotta bounce outta here for now - l8er g8ors!
March 21st, 2007 at 5:52 pmWC:
Sorry I missed your question back there — obviously, Cummins and the DoJ disagree about the performance part — fired employees rarely agreed to be fired. That being said, I don’t know more about the specifics than either Cummins or the DoJ. And, I hope that made your day : )
March 21st, 2007 at 5:53 pmPlease stop hijacking Patsy’s moniker.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:53 pmHe’s friggin stupid enough without the parody.
Creezus Jhist~!
I prefer Ralph Lauren polos. They feel much nicer against my freshly waxed chest.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:53 pmLOL!!! Liberals are fascists because we oppose the unitary executive.
Good satire. I bet the real Repuke troll is pissed off….or he’s stupid enough to agree with that spew.
Good point about Moslem countries being radicalized by the excesses of the US in the war on terra. Pakistan is particularly scary. Musharaf could get overthrown at any time and replaced with a fundy Islamic state which is friendly to Osama. Pakistan has French stealth subs with nukular cruise missiles. If OSama gets them, we are REALLY screwed.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:53 pmAnd Iraq really did have WMDs…
Comment by Patrick1 — March 21, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
No, No, No!
Rummy changed his tune after they weren’t found and said that the U.S. knew not of ACTUAL sites, but SUSPECTED sites. Remember???
March 21st, 2007 at 5:54 pm(fake) Jake and Patrick1:
By clicking “Post - I Agree” below, you acknowledged that you have read TP’s Terms of Use agreement and agreed to its terms, in particular, you agreed not to: “Impersonate any person or entity, including any APAF employees, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with any person or entity.”
That is all.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:54 pmTHE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. That’s what Bush wants from the American People. Unfortunately he’s gone to that WELL one to many times.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:55 pmWhat I can’t figure out is why a bunch of self-professed God-fearing “Christians” are are terrified of swearing an oath - in public - to their God, that they will tell the truth. I mean, lying is a sin (a big one, too - bearing false witness and all that; I don’t claim to be an expert, but I believe that’s one of those commandment thingies they’re always whining about), and they’re all a bunch of freaking holier-than-thou, party of God types, so you’d think they’d be chompin’ at the bit to get out there and rub their greasy palms (and whatnot) all over the good book. Hell, let ‘em handle a few snakes and speak in tongues, if it’ll make ‘em happy (give ‘em some crystal meth and gay hookers, too, for all I care).
March 21st, 2007 at 5:56 pm#42- Yeah, Patrick. I had sex with you that time in the bus station stall. Remember? You paid me to jerk you. Uh-huh- Why me drool?
March 21st, 2007 at 5:57 pmHey Patrick, the administration has threatened to tell us the REAL TRUTH as to why the attorneys were fired. Bring it on, bitches!
We’re still waiting…
March 21st, 2007 at 5:57 pmYet another Repuke talking point LIE.
All us Librrruls are godless Athiests or satanic Wiccans. LOL!!
Of course this blatant LIE flies in the face of the actual facts.
The left is just as religious and moral and spiritual as the right. Arguably MORE moral, since the Reich Wingnuts love war and torture.
Who Would Jesus Torture?
March 21st, 2007 at 5:58 pmI find it hilarious that the name of the defendant is redacted out, yet there it is, plain text in the subject line.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:59 pmI’m going to look up JM Productions and see what this case was about.
On 31 May 2006, the company as well as its principal Mike Norton and distributors were indicted for distribution of obscenity by the federal government. The named JM movies were American Bukkake 13, Gag Factor 15, Gag Factor 18 and Filthy Things 6. In Gag Factor 15 Ashley Blue performs a parody of throat f*cking torture in Abu Ghraib prison.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:01 pmFound this on Wiki re: JM productions
POSSIBLE BIG ISSUES FOR DEMOCRATS IN 2008
* Potholes: While spending all its time and money on terrorism, our roads have been neglected. Isn’t a bumpy ride the real terrorism? Democrats vow to fill potholes with whatever it is is supposed to go in them. Possibly tar.
* Teenagers: While fighting foreign enemies, the domestic one, adolescents, have gotten even bolder. They are now hanging out in front of an increasing number of businesses and wearing increasingly dumber looking clothing. Democrats vow to ask them to hang out somewhere else, and they won’t easily take “No” for an answer.
* Cold Hands: To fight cold hands, Democrats vow to fund mitten awareness. They think this problem can be eliminated by 2015.
* Lost: The American people have lost faith in the show Lost, and polls show that the majority now believe that a satisfying conclusion to the show is impossible. Democrats vow to get the cast of Lost off the island and to put a new reality show about singing and dancing in the time slot.
* Global Warming: It’s getting warmer, and it’s time to do something about that before… uh… it gets warmer than we’d like. The American people can rest assured that Democrat leaders are sitting in their 80,000 room homes with all the lights on (to scare away ghosts) thinking of solutions and buying carbon offsets to help save the world.
* Barking Dogs: While stuck in an illegal war, dogs have continued to bark, their pleas going unheard. Democrats vow to find whatever it is that the dogs are barking about and appease them.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:01 pmWe need another “Gap” commercial.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:01 pm(Fake Jake)
March 21st, 2007 at 6:02 pmThere is only one Jake in the whole world, and I happen to like Ralph Lauren knit polos.
We know where the WMD’s are.
They’re north, south, east and west of Baghdad.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:02 pmPatsy, sometimes I don’t know why I bother coming to the defense of your strawmen.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:03 pmAny comment on the postings re: JM Productions?
Has anyone considered the notion that these emails are fabricated?
Why did we have to “wait” to see these?
I am not saying they are mind you, but I think the way these particular emails came forward is highly suspicious.
And if you think I am wrong, and they are not, then answer me this.
Why did Brent Ward, MISSPELL HIS OWN NAME?
:|
March 21st, 2007 at 6:06 pmSorry I missed your question back there — obviously, Cummins and the DoJ disagree about the performance part — fired employees rarely agreed to be fired. That being said, I don’t know more about the specifics than either Cummins or the DoJ. And, I hope that made your day : )
Comment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Almost every one of the 8 fired attorneys had positive reviews on their most recent evaluations. You cannot deny this…it is FACT. And we are now to accept that they were fired for poor performance, which flies in the face of fact?
As I said earlier, this recently released e-mail proves nothing. Yes, it hints at a performance issue, but that is as far as it goes. Let’s wait for more evidence, shall we?
March 21st, 2007 at 6:07 pmDoes Bill Clinton own JM Productions?
March 21st, 2007 at 6:07 pmIf there is any question about the authenticity of any of the emails, the answer is simple.
Subpoena the authors.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:07 pmThey used the Patriot Act to obstruct justice, and now the coverup gives them away.
Jake you should be serving, not bickering with libs. There’s a place for you in Iraq somewhere.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:08 pm-fill the potholes with ground republicans, & kill 2 birds with one stone
March 21st, 2007 at 6:08 pmWhat ever happened to mighty?
March 21st, 2007 at 6:09 pmBadger:
Where did Bush say “benefit of the doubt”? I did find this about COURTS giving the Chief Executive the benefit of the doubt:
As Congress inquires into this matter, it must be careful not to subvert the intended constitutional structure, and historical traditions in this area, by allowing its own political calculus or motivations to play a role.
From a historical perspective, the supervisory relationship between the President, his Attorney General and the nation’sbranch law offices, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices, is quite well-established. Thus, Congress should examine the relevant history, before making potentially baseless accusations concerning Attorney General Gonzáles’s efforts to oversee his department.
The History of The Relationship Between the Attorney General and Local U.S. Attorney’s Offices
At the founding of the Republic, the contours of the relationship between the Attorney General and U.S. Attorneys were perplexing, and unsatisfactorily-defined. In those times, supervision of U.S. Attorneys was rather oddly given to the State Department, which had little interest in such matters; after all, U.S. Attorneys’ jurisdiction is overwhelmingly domestic, not international. As a result, U.S. Attorneys pretty much did as much (or as little) as they wanted.
Appointed in 1790, Edmund Randolph, America’s first Attorney General, wisely asked for “directive” authority over the independently-minded officers who ran local U.S. Attorneys’ offices. However, Congress adjourned without addressing his request - and as a consequence, Attorneys General regrettably were compelled to operate in a rather haphazard way for close to 80 years. (Randolph even received only a half salary and was expected to supplement his income with the private practice of law. Ruefully, Randolph would describe himself as something of “a mongrel” settling for the scraps from the Cabinet’s table.)
By 1870, however, Congress had recognized both the need to create a formal Department of Justice, and the importance of placing the Department’s components under well-articulated lines of authority. The value of executive supervision of local offices had finally been grasped.
Historically-uninformed voices seeking short-term political advantage jeopardize this value with hasty calls for Gonzales’s removal or resignation. Any claims that the Attorney General ought to take a hands-off approach regarding local U.S. Attorney’s Offices are historically inaccurate. Worse, they ask us to repeat a mistake that Congress reversed as far back as 1870.
Historically, the Executive Has Received the Benefit of the Doubt on Removals of Executive Branch Officials
Not only does the Attorney General historically have authority with respect to local U.S. Attorney’s Offices, but he (or she) has also enjoyed the benefit of the doubt on removals of executive officers such as U.S. Attorneys, including those subject to Senate confirmation.
Why? Quite simply because it is the executive who is in the best position to evaluate U.S. Attorneys’ performance, and who is responsible for it. In 1923, Chief Justice Taft, the only member of the Supreme Court to have also served as president of the United States, affirmed that removal authority vis-Ã -vis executive officers, even those subject to Senate confirmation, was an incident of the president’s power to nominate, not the Senate’s power to confirm. Taft put it this way in the landmark case of Myers v. United States: “The power to prevent the removal of an officer who has served under the President is different from the authority to consent to or reject his appointment. When a nomination is made, it may be presumed that the Senate is, or may become, as well advised as to the fitness of the nominee as the President, but in the nature of things the defects in ability or intelligence or loyalty in the administration of the laws of one who has served as an officer under the President are facts as to which the President, or his trusted subordinates, must be better informed than the Senate, and the power to remove him may therefor be regarded as confined for very sound and practical reasons, to the governmental authority which has administrative control. The power of removal is incident to the power of appointment, not to the power of advising and consenting to appointment, . . .” (Emphasis added.)
Today, the powers of the office of the Attorney General fully reflect Taft’s insight. It is described as the “chief law enforcement officer of the United States, . . .guid[ing] the world’s largest law office in the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.” The United States Attorneys serve as the nation’s principal litigators, but as the DOJ website clearly specifies, they do so “under the direction of the Attorney General.”
True, a wise Attorney General will give sufficient professional latitude to each U.S. Attorney in order to best accomplish the prosecutorial and civil defense needs of each district. But latitude is not unaccountability - just as the refusal to micromanage is not an abdication of authority.
The Bush Administration Hardly Invented What Is Long-Established Removal Authority
History reveals that a defense of executive removal authority is far from merely the product of some wild-eyed theory of “unitary executive” invented by the Bush administration. Rather, it is — as every president since Ulysses S. Grant has insisted — a vital principle, consistent with “a faithful and efficient administration of the government.” After all, said Grant, “What faith can an executive put in officials forced upon him, [or] those, too, whom he has suspended for reason?” Put another way, a boss without power to hire and fire will typically be crippled in his or her effectiveness.
The eight dismissed U.S. Attorneys may all be fine men and women; that is not inconsistent with their having been dismissed. The Constitutional system, as it has taken form over our history, puts the choice of dismissal solely in the President’s hands (as he is chooses to be informed by his Attorney General). Accordingly, the President is within his rights to dismiss a U.S. Attorney even for the simple reason that he preferred someone else for the job.
Some have suggested at least some of the U.S. Attorneys were dismissed in order to shield criminal wrongdoing - that is, dismissed so that criminal prosecutions that they had overseen would fade away or be resolved with lenient plea agreements. Before making such serious accusations, however, the Congress ought to come forward with hard proof, not the whine of innuendo.
Moreover, and significantly, none of the dismissed prosecutors has come anywhere close to making that accusation. Surely, it should not be inferred.
In making its inquiry, then, Congress should be careful not to subvert what history has so well provided: the executive’s ability to dismiss its officers is the structural mechanism by which the President “takes care” that the law is faithfully executed.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ commentary/ 20070319_kmiec.html
March 21st, 2007 at 6:09 pmjeff:
How many 75-year olds do we have active duty in Iraq?
March 21st, 2007 at 6:11 pmWhat’s the big deal with this email exchange. This guy Ward wanted another lawyer to help on a case and he got one. Nothing about Bogden at all and nothing about Charleton being fired. Dumbasses also forgot to redact the name of the defendant from the email subject.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:11 pmFirst excuse for firing the attorneys was poor performance.
That turned out to be bullshit and was debunked.
Second excuse was they were not prosecuting porn cases.
That is also bullshit and has been debunked.
Third excuse is Chimpy can fire them for no reason at all.
That is also bullshit, it is illegal to fire them in the middle of an investigation. That’s in the law to protect the system from partisan attacks like the one Chimpy did to the 8 US Attorneys.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:12 pmJust as I suspected, Patlick1 has no credible answer. Or credible anything.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:12 pmHey namejacker, go ahead and jack away with patsy’s moniker. It’s a worthless pile of trash.
Jake, send your grandkids to Iraq.
Send all your relatives between 18 and 42 to Iraq.
Put up or shut up.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:13 pmSeriously.
Someone tell me why Brent Ward, signed his email “Brant”?
I mean, I’ve made typo’s before, but I’ve never misspelled my own name.
:|
Look at the emails. Look at the one from 10:22. He signs his name “BRANT”.
Not Brent.
BRANT.
At least it raises an eyebrow or two, doesn’t it?
March 21st, 2007 at 6:14 pm[…] it happens, a couple of emails have since been found in the gap. But there is some question about whether the non-missing emails were selected for […]
March 21st, 2007 at 6:16 pmThe 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution did away with slavery in this country, Rummy Dummy. We have an all-volunteer armed forces now.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:17 pmStupid LIE-berals:
sometimes when you are busy giving a handjob to the Preisdent, you have to type with one hand, and you misspell.
I am also filthy rich.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:19 pmI mean, he takes the time to write this schmoozy Thanksgiving day message at the end of the message, but misspells his own name?
I mean, I guess he could have, but it does at least raise a flag.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:21 pmThere’s no story here, dummies. Presidents have always lied to Congress, and obstructed justice. Oh, and obstruction of justice is not a crime if the President does it. Or any of his aides. Nobody in the White House can commit a crime, it’s unconstitutional. And you’re a traitor to this country for suggesting it.
Look it up, librul dummies.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:22 pmThe 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution did away with slavery in this country, Rummy Dummy. We have an all-volunteer armed forces now.
Comment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
So you’re telling the Americans who served in WW1, 2, Korea and VietNam that they were not soldiers, but slaves?
Good one.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:23 pmObstruction Of Justice…..that’s what Bush is worried about. The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, so Bush can fire them for ANY reason Except to Obstuct Justice.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:25 pmThe record of the BUSH presidency is one of Arrogance and Incompetence and Deception. I think one of those US attorneys was getting a little to close to the TrUTH.
With regards to the mispelling, here is one theory.
If someone was fabricating these messages, they’d probably hack into the mail server, or sneak into the room where its at and change the original message to say what they wanted it to say. If that is the case, then they likely would have been pressed for time. People often mispell words, but the one word most people never mispell, is their own first name. But someone might mispell someone elses name, particularly in a moment where they felt pressured or hurried. Hence, Brent, became “Brant”.
Just a thought. My own little mini-pelican brief.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:29 pmBogden opened a probe of Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons(R) and Charlton opened probes into Jim Kolbe (R) and Rick Renzi(R) before November elections, Charlton had clashed with the govt. over FBI interrogation rules.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:30 pmBOTH had reviews that were evaluated,”Very Positive”, and both were called “Well Respected” in their written Job Reviews.
Notice some of those e-mails have GWB43.com addresses? Well, lookee here…..turns out that Ohio’s statewide online election results were outsourced to the GOP in 2004! Remember the Rove war room where all of those Republicans were busy at ‘watching’ the results on their laptops?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/ discuss/ duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=467855&mesg_id=467855
Edited on Wed Mar-21-07 05:57 PM by jackstraw45
Just making sure before my head explodes:
1. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/7/144314/082
Ohio website for live Election Night Dashboard moves from State of Ohio to
SMARTechcorp.net IP address managed by the Republican National Committee
AND
2. From betterwhois.com:
AboutUs: GWB43.COM
Registrant:
Republican National Committee
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US
Domain Name: GWB43.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Republican National Committee dns@RNCHQ.ORG
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US
999 999 9999 fax: 999 999 9999
Record expires on 16-Jan-2008.
Record created on 16-Jan-2004.
Database last updated on 21-Mar-2007 17:45:46 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.CHA.SMARTECHCORP.NET
A.NS.TRESPASSERS-W.NET
AND
3. Look who was hosting the OHIO election result site on NOVEMBER 3, 2004:
Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.0 3-Nov-2004 64.203.98.137 SMARTECH CORPORATION
Spread the word…lets get those servers served.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:32 pmOf course, based on the performance of this administration so far, I guess its also possible he is just too stupid to spell his own name correctly.
:|
March 21st, 2007 at 6:32 pmThe trolls here think they are the Senate and the House and that they set policy for the entire country. They have this issue solved with the emails today. Well trolls since you have all the answer why don’t you just go have a nap.
Fortunately important issues like these aren’t as simple as you trolls are.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:40 pmNo, WORFEUS, as you can see from Rummy Dummy’s post to me, he / she wanted me to send all of my relative age 18 - 42 to Iraq. I said that it is impossible for me to “send” anyone to Iraq. The draft during both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam was entirely different.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:41 pmComment by Namtillaku — March 21, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Great post - well said.
Thing you have to wonder about is all that negative energy they put forth every day. Others are here trying to learn and make progress and then trolls try to just muck things up.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:45 pmIf for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction you have to wonder what’s going on around them. Oh that’s right they don’t believe in science.
Well George, why don’t you just piss on our backs and tell us its raining. It’s the only thing Bush knows how to do, and very poorly because he get’s himself and the constitution all wet.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pmComment by The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS — March 21, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Exactly, it took an extra day to come up with completely innocuous emails. Either these were fabricated or the compromising ones were removed.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:51 pmOnly our trolls are dumb enough to believe there’s no reason for the delay.
That is also bullshit, it is illegal to fire them in the middle of an investigation. That’s in the law to protect the system from partisan attacks like the one Chimpy did to the 8 US Attorneys.
Comment by Rummy Dummy — March 21, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
And now Tony Snow says bush knew nothing about the firings.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:53 pmWe have an all-volunteer armed forces now.
Comment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
We won’t anymore now that we’ve killed or maimed so many brave soldiers for a war started on a lie.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:56 pmAnd then we held them way past their time to serve was up. I don’t think there will be enough volunteers for many years to come.
Nice job repukes.
A-HA! #37 proves that Patrick1 is actually Jonah Goldberg, and this is all of the book he’s completed!
Good work, Jonah. Now go nurse with your mommy and let the grownups talk about things over your pointy little head.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:57 pmSo I am the only one here that thinks its suspicious that Brent Ward misspelled his own first name?
March 21st, 2007 at 7:06 pmJake you could be a fluffer for Halliburton. Just take your chompers out, gramps. ;)
March 21st, 2007 at 7:14 pm#97, No I think it’s suspect as well.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pmEverytime I come over here, there’s the same troll making comments. Obviously he’s a paid shill.
My .02 is that he should be banned. I realize that may go against what some believe, but I think it jsut distracts the conversation. Repeatedly.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:35 pmSorry, jeff & Urban Pirate, I’m retired and I don’t get paid to post here — do you? I would, of course, argue that I should not be banned for simply bringing an Independent viewpoint to the table. I don’t think posts should be deleted either, but then again, I don’t own this web site. I don’t think I’ve violated any part of the Terms of Use agreement (unlike the fake Jake) and I at least try to stay on topic. As just one example, I’ve tried has hard as I could to debate what exactly was “nasty and bumbling” about Bush’s comments on that thread below, and NO ONE has dared quote one single instance. If that all qualifies me to be banned, then so be it.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:55 pmWow, the GOP is really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you’re only arguement against a vast conspiracy to remove USA’s is “Clinton did it too” What a bunch of losers. Well, you’ll have the next 10 years to mull over how to achieve electoral success since no majority of citizens will vote for Repubs for at least a decade.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:01 pmcheck the nation blog, the notion. they had a post or article about ward that’s pretty interesting.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:05 pmI’ve tried has hard as I could to debate what exactly was “nasty and bumbling†about Bush’s comments on that thread below, and NO ONE has dared quote one single instance.
Comment by Joke — March 21, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
Watch the video matlock.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:05 pmSo tell me Jake. Since you’re such a seeker of truth and all, why do you think Brent Ward mispelled his own first name, when signing his name?
How many people mispell their own first name when they’re signing their signature? It doesn’t happen, because its burned into your brain. If its your name.
So why then did he sign his name BRANT, instead of BRENT?
:|
I can’t figure it.
I mean, I considered a typo, but a and the e keys are not next to each other, so fat fingering is out. And the signature is so cleanly and prominently placed at the bottom of the email after a semi formal Thanksgiving day greeting.
Doesnt’ that just make you just a little bit suspicious of who actually wrote that email?
And when?
March 21st, 2007 at 8:11 pmBreathtaking idiocy by the trolls here. Not really worth addressing directly.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:13 pmTheres basically two answers here.
A. Someone other than Ward signed the message.
B, Brent Ward is so stupid he can’t even sign his own name.
:|
Please check one of the above.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:14 pmIf someone were going to produce a fake e-mail, you’d think they would PROOFREAD it. Unless… they were in a big hurry. or they are a real amateur.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:20 pmThe President perves at yours, but he won’t show you his.
The president can tap your phones, but he doesn’t have to show Congress his emails.
That’s not fair. I wanna see his.
Martin Gifford.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:20 pmThere’s more to the porn story. Charlton took the case and was presented with a motion to dismiss based on the fact that our government is in receivership of a larger porn outlet and was vending the same titles that Five Star was indicted for — after the indictment.
Details here.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:23 pmThe crank blogs of the Republic Party must be going under; why else would the toads.. er, trolls be out in such numbers?
March 21st, 2007 at 8:31 pmDo they get time&1/2 for being ass-holes when they work the week-end?
If someone were going to produce a fake e-mail, you’d think they would PROOFREAD it. Unless… they were in a big hurry. or they are a real amateur.
Comment by Badger — March 21, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
A point I addressed a few hours ago. See comment #85
With regards to the mispelling, here is one theory.
If someone was fabricating these messages, they’d probably hack into the mail server, or sneak into the room where its at and change the original message to say what they wanted it to say. If that is the case, then they likely would have been pressed for time. People often mispell words, but the one word most people never mispell, is their own first name. But someone might mispell someone elses name, particularly in a moment where they felt pressured or hurried. Hence, Brent, became “Brantâ€.
Just a thought. My own little mini-pelican brief.
Comment by The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS — March 21, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 8:39 pmBesides Badger. Your supposition, while a reasonable one, does not account for why a man who has signed his name about a billion times in his career, suddenly misspells his own first name.
And I did not say this was the only choice. I gave two choices. A and B.
Here they are again.
A. Someone other than Brent Ward signed the message.
B, Brent Ward is so stupid he can’t even sign his own name.
Please check one of the above.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:43 pmhahahahahahahahaha!!!! Unka Karl… I love you, Dave, whoever you are…
March 21st, 2007 at 8:57 pmComment by Libby Spencer — March 21, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Great find! Seeing how the idiot trolls won’t read the info at the link, I’m going to provide the good stuff:
The case centers on an adult video vendor, Five Star Video, LC, that was indicted in May 06 for interstate transportation of obscene materials, namely a certain four videos. But here’s where it gets interesting. Five Star was not the only vendor. A bigger retailer, Castle Megastores was also selling and renting the same videos across state lines. Ironically, Castle was, and is, “under the supervision of the U.S. Trustee’s Office of the Department of Justice, and the United States Bankruptcy Court of the District of Arizona.” In other words, our government is profiting from the same videos, while indicting a competitor for violating obscenity laws.
It makes no sense to waste federal resources on penny ante pot busts and it’s certainly nearly impossible to argue one company is violating community decency standards when our own government is setting the standard by vending the same titles.
So what do ya say, Jake and Patrick?
March 21st, 2007 at 9:17 pmWhy would anyone be surprised that the Republican “editors” released anti-pornography November 2006 e-mails, claiming that certain U.S. Attorneys were fired in December 2006 because they just weren’t tough enough on porn?
Play to the base. Play to the base. Play to the base. In other words, this bogus claim may play in the Bible Belt, but practically nowhere else.
But let’s put these anti-porn November 2006 e-mails in context, which might help identify further e-mails that the Bush administration is hiding from Congress.
During the preceding month, October 2006, and leading up to election day in November, the Republican Party was besieged by a huge sex scandal: FOLEYGATE.
A Republican representative from Florida, Mark Foley, apparently had been soliciting homosexual sex with young male House pages 1) for years, 2) with the knowledge of the Republican House leadership 3) with the knowledge of Republican Party officials in Florida and 4) with the knowledge of Karl Rove who pushed Foley to run for re-election in 2006 even as rumors circulated about Mark Foley being homosexual and propositioning young male House pages.
Wow, what an embarassment for the Republican Party, the party of morality, a “holier-than-thou” attitude and with a “get the gays” agenda. Some righteous members of their “base” might actually find offensive the Republican Party leadership hiding a homosexual, borderline pedophile, thus subjecting young male House pages to the further sexual predations of Republican representative Mark Foley.
Mark Foley resigned, but the steamy Republican scandal kept gathering more steam as October progressed and election day drew closer. So, damage control from Foleygate became a top priority of the Republicans in October, and who do the Republicans usually call in such instances: KARL ROVE, the top Bushite, Republicanite political strategist.
So, here’s my theory about what Karl Rove, with the help of Alberto Gonzales, hit upon as a counter-attack against Democrats last October over Foleygate.
To drive headlines about Foleygate out of their dominant position in the October 2006 pre-election news, they tried to get U.S. Attorneys around the country (all appointed by Bush) to drag the names of Democrats into local and national headlines, either through announcing indictments, or stating that Democrats were under investigation, or making “voter fraud” an issue, which would be played up as something only the Democrats were doing.
Of course, this Rovian/Gonzalesian attempt to replace negative Republican news with negative Democratic news didn’t work, primarily because Foleygate was such a huge scandal…and involved sex.
But I just bet thousands of e-mails were exchanged in October last year between all the Republicans, including the offices of the U.S. Attorneys, who were involved in this pre-election campaign to smear Democrats to neutralize the damage done by the Foleygate revelations, especially the damage done between the “moral” Republican leadership and their “moral” evangelical sheep.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:27 pm110 and 115 - Thank you - I had read that too and wanted to make sure TP knew about it as well - you’ve saved me the trouble!
March 21st, 2007 at 9:29 pmI would like to know what the actual “obscenity cases” were. Maybe they were linked to Foleygate? Where for instance Democratic candidates had described the text of the IM’s in rather graphic terms in public and the WH now tried to get investigations going against them?
It sounds like Karl’s shop might have such a trick up it’s sleeve to try to deflect attention away from their GOP-candidate.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:54 pm“Liberals are FASCISTS?” IF THAT ISN’T THE GODDAMNDEST MOST IDIOTIC PIECE OF STINKING HYENA-SHIT TO COME OUT OF A repugnant-repub rightwingnut crank fudge-pachyderm troll’s FILTHY UNLEARNED ILLITERATE MAW—–RIGHT OUT OF THE PAGES OF FAT-F*CK Rovian SWIFT-BOAT-SHIT-SKID-MARK TACTICS—-BLAME THE OPPOSING PARTY, IN THIS CASE, “LIBERALS” OF BEING FASCISTS—–YOU trolls AND Bushland Uber Allies ARE THE FASCIST-NAZIS, ACTING LIKE THE JINGOISTIC DEMAGOGUE LYING SACKS OF HYENA SHIT YOU ALL ARE, GOOSESTEPPING and ASS-GOOSING QUEERS who SLAVISHLY LICK THE FILTHY BUTTHOLES OF CHIMPya, FRANKENCheney, FAT-F*CK Rove and Bushland Uber Allies!!!!! HAH!!!!!
March 21st, 2007 at 10:06 pmKnow this. The President’s EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE means you can’t supeana him. That’s what Bill O’Reilly was saying in his “talking points” segment.
So suck on that libs.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:25 pmNot only is the name Brant misspelled, the “From: ” part of the e-mail header is wrong too.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:28 pmNot only is the name Brant misspelled, the “From: †part of the e-mail header is wrong too.
Comment by Willem van Oranje — March 21, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
Another excellent point Willem. I noticed this also.
I am not sure why that FROM: field would be corrupted like that in the SMTP header, but unless someone can provide a technically sound and reasonable answer, I’d say that along with the mispelling of his own signature, make it clear that someone needs to ask the authors who wrote what.
And ask them under oath.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:03 pmCome on, is anyone else noticing this???
:|
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:05 pmA pattern of destroyed emails is developing:
March 21st, 2007 at 11:11 pmWhite House e-mails missing in CIA leak case:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11150000/
I
knew
Bush
was
lying
when
he
said
This
started
with
Gonzalez
testifying
to
Congress
innaccurately….
Terminated
for
performance
reasons/
Not
terminated
for
performance
reasons.
Didn’t Abu Gonzalez ever learn you don’t have to remember what you said if you always tell the truth.
Bush
wants
to protect
Rove
from
perjury.
Sorry
Bushie,
no
passes
for
doublespeak,
prevarication
or
outright
lies.
Rove
March 21st, 2007 at 11:30 pmmust
testify
under
oath.
TAFKaW, it sure seems fishy. I can’t see any explanation why there would suddenly appear a “Mit” instead of “om: “.
The mail from “Brant” to Kyle ends with:
“I hope you are able to enjoy some extra time with your family on Thanksgiving. We have a great deal to be thankful for. Best wishes.”
And Kyle responds with:
“thx, Brent”
I’m not an American but wouldn’t you respond with something like:
March 21st, 2007 at 11:45 pm“Thx, same to you”
One possible reason for the spelling of ‘Brent’ as ‘Brant’ could be that he was responding through his Blackberry - that would explain the lack of line breaks and missing spaces - and possibly the stray underline mark.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:54 pmj4k, what do you think about that “FrMit”?
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 amWell, that could possibly explain it I guess.
However normally when messages are sent from a Blackberry it is indicated in the message body. Maybe if they run their own Blackberry server, then its possible they eliminated that I guess.
Also if it went through his Blackberry the server records will show it going through their internal Blackberry server.
Also that still doesn’t explain the corrupted From: field.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:03 amthe FrMit is not from the blackberry, that is produced by the printing mailprogram, it’s the label of a header field and will always get printed as “From: “
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:03 amIndeed, I’ve seen a lot of messages with “sent with my blackberry” (or something like that)
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:05 amAlso, look at the rest of the message. It is meticulous. Punctuation. Capitalization.
But he mispells his own first name.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think using his Blackberry explains it.
He managed to get everything else right, but not his name?
Not likely.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:06 amAre we the only people asking these questions?
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 amIndeed, I’ve seen a lot of messages with “sent with my blackberry†(or something like that)
Comment by Willem van Oranje — March 22, 2007 @ 12:05 am
Thats right. It usually looks like this.
————————–
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:09 amSent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
I’ve posted a link to the article; the Brant misspelling; and the FrMit on TPMmuckraker as well with a reference to here. So far, only j4k has picked it up.
Keep an eye on it. I think it deserves more attention as well.
Something else: does the House Committee get the same “pdf” files as we are working on or do they get the “original” print-outs?
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:20 am- that would explain the lack of line breaks and missing spaces - and possibly the stray underline mark.
Comment by j4k — March 21, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Another explanation for all of these things you mention j4k is that the message was built from inside of a remote terminal shell.
When data is entered manually through a terminal window, you lose formatting, and will see characters like the hyphen.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:21 amSomething else: does the House Committee get the same “pdf†files as we are working on or do they get the “original†print-outs?
Comment by Willem van Oranje — March 22, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Well thats always been the real mystery for me so to speak. Where and what do they see?
I mean, are these emails coming from the original mail server logs? Are they coming from the client workstations mail program? Are they coming from the receiving end server logs, (assuming the SMTP server logs the DATA field in the SMTP packets) is it coming from the receiving end clients mail program, or is it coming from backups. And if from backups, who’s backups? Or is it coming from some form of Carnivore program.
And who has technical oversight? Who ensures the data is not tampered with?
Lots of questions there.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 amI can’t explain the ‘Frmit’ - nor can I explain why the lines:
.fm told this is now on track
**Charlton has been directed…
are both outside the left margin.
I did find out that Sigal Mandelker was on the Senior Executive Service performance review board - fwiw.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 amTAFKaW, from the article above (the Libby defence team accused Fitzgerald of not providing the defence with all the material Fitzgerald had, pertinent to the case). Fitzgerald wrote back: “We advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.â€
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 amPeople just don’t mispell their own first names like this.
If someone is typing someone elses name, and if hes in a hurry, and is under pressure or afraid of getting caught, then in his haste, he might mispell someone ELSES name.
But people don’t mispell their own first names.
Particularly when signing them.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 amSuppose it was typed on a BlackBerry, are the A and the E close to each other? I can only imagine an error in such a case. On a standard keyboard I would think it’s impossible too, typing your name is on automatic pilot
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:00 amProblem with that Willem, is it doesn’t explain the corrupted From field.
If I had to give my opinion I’d say that message seems to have been tampered with.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 amBut the Blackberry keyboard thing is a good guess.
I could see that, but there is more than just him mispelling his own first name.
But I am open to any reasonable explanations. I am sure there is one. But it is suspicious, considering the circumstances the message is being released under, including the time delay and the fact we are still missing the bulk of the messages from the 18 day period.
Somethings fishy.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 amIts possible they were copied from the email client to a text editor, and the transcriber hit the keyboard or something, with regards to the corrupted From field.
But then we are not getting the messages, but simply someone copying the message, and they could write in anything.
That might be the explanation though. It may be they just manually copied them over, and screwed up while doing it.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 amIf it was manually copied then its worthless anyway. It you need to screenshot these for this kind of stuff, so they can’t be modified. And you need the server backups to corroborate them.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 amIf they were manually copied, then not only does that no rule out tampering, it suggests it.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 amSo Bush does not mind running campaigns against free speech?
…this is supoposed to be his rallying cry?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 amat 79 & 95
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 ambut are they all volunteers in uncoerced choice?some are.
they’ve kept the draft–by judicial process.
some would be there (h/m?) because they were given the army/ gaol option for lowish level offences
[…] and the beginning of December no longer exist. So there is no gap. That will be all. Until there is more. Or less. Or more. Thank […]
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:16 am#64
Rum Dummy’s comment claimed the WMDs were
“They’re north, south, east and west of Tikrit“.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:00 pm