Fresh after rolling over and playing dead over the Prescription Drug Benefit while simultaneously failing to recognize the long-term implications of their new jihad against the AARP, I don’t think this is an unfair question to ask:
“Exactly how stupid are the Democrats in Congress?”
The answer, it seems, is just as dumb as the people who vote for them. Check out these responses to the revelations that a Republican staffer stole secret internal Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee member memos.
Atrios calls this ‘Watergate II,” the Daily Kos notes that “Republicans are Thieves” and that “it shouldn’t be too surprising,” while chief muckraker and lead memeufacturer for the silly left Josh Marshall (fresh off being wrong about everything in North Korea) has this to say:
Caught red-handed. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch has placed one of his committee staffers on administrative leave for what the media reports are agreeing to call, with some delicacy, “improperly obtaining data from the secure computer networks of two Democratic senators.”
(Reminds me of my pals who used to get kicks by improperly obtaining Snickers bars from the local drug store when we were in grade school.)
Keep in mind, Democratic Senators raised questions about how an unsent memo from the Democratic staff on the Intel Committee ended up in the hands of radio chatmeister Sean Hannity three weeks ago.
Now that it seems the Judiciary Committee memo was in fact stolen, the Democrats’ demands that the other incident be investigated sounds a lot more compelling. Was that one ‘improperly obtained’ too?
Josh then links to a transcript that shows that Orrin Hatch is not only cooperating willingly with the investigation, but actually launched it at the behest of three Democrats (Kennedy, Leahy and Durbin). I don’t want there to be any confusion- if this staffer did indeed break the law, I think he should be punished, and I think that at the very least he should not work on Capitol Hill again, but how does this in any way excuse the disgusting behavior that is reflected by the actual memos?
How stupid, shortsighted, and myopic must this party be that they think this is going to sell well with the American public:
“Sure, we had secret internal memos detailing how our judicial selection process is beholden to special interests and explaining how we were conspiring to play race politics with certain minority nominees, but those MEMOS WERE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED FROM OUR SERVERS!”
Since Josh already made the leap of faith that if the memos from the Judiciary Committee were pilfered, the Rockefeller Intelligence Committee memos might be stolen as well, let’s do another thought experiment:
“Sure you caught us trying to politicize the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. We were going to bully the Chair, obfuscate evidence we found to our distaste, distort and leak out of context intelligence to the press, and then wait until the election cycle to launch our own partisan investigation for maximum political gain, BUT YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT. Those were private memos.”
Can you ever imagine yourself, while standing ina court of law, saying “Sure I e-mailed my mistress about my plans to kill my wife- but you weren’t supposed to read it” (and before the wingnuts claim I am equating the memos to murder, back off, fools)? Essentially, this is the sort of statement the Democrats are now willing to make loudly in the Court of Public Opinion, and the funniest thing is, they think it is going to help them.
This really is the party of Clinton- same tactics, same atttitudes, same short-sightedness. The problem is that Clinton had brains, style, charm, and could talk his way out of a heart attack. The current party is a ghoulish Frankenstein- one part Pelosi, one part Kennedy, one part Leahy, one part McAulliffe. By my read, that is one part West Coast liberal, one part eastern establishment elite, one part snarling condescension, and one part amoral big money- this ain’t your Daddy’s DNC.
I don’t have to remind you how the populace reacted to Shelly’s Frankenstein.
*** Update ***
Matt Stinson discusses the issue.
JKC
Orrin Hatch is a decent guy, John, even if I disagree with his politics. I’m not surprised that he’s co-operating with the investigation.
The Bush League ain’t exactly helping themselves out, though. By trying to shroud everything about 9/11 in Dick Cheney’s Veil Of Secrecy, they’re just giving the Dems ammunition. Even if they can’t shoot straight, do you really want to keep giving them bullets?
Jon Henke
Speaking of shrouding everything in secrecy, isn’t it ironic that the Democrats are now demanding this investigation be limited and they not have to turn over some evidence?
Rich.
hln
Next thing you know, they’ll be linking to Frank J.’s In My World posts as fact.
hln
Ricky
Reminds me of what happened in the 90s. Almost the same scenario.
Newt was discussing inside baseball politics with someone on a cell phone & that old couple the Martins “just happened” to be in their car with a scanner & illegally recorded the phone call. They turned it over to McDermott who illegally turned it over to the NYT.
Of course, the mantra from the Democrats back then was not how the info was illegally obtained, but “look at the shenanigans Newt & company are planning behind your back”.
BTW, yes, they’re very stupid.
Terry
The atrios claim of Watergate II appears especially bogus given his own pleading on his blog on 10/31/03 that Fox News staffers should leak internal Fox memos:
“Let me join Political Wire and positively beg for any fed up FNC employee to leak the morning memos to the world.
-Atrios 2:20 PM”
Fox memos:
HH
These are the same Dems who rejoiced when Newt Gingrich was “caught” discussing strategy over the phone a few years back.
Kimmitt
Valid, but the fact remains that someone actually hacked the computer systems of Democratic Senators to steal confidential files. This is, to put it mildly, a felony.
JadeGold
Cole has colored the story greatly to mask what happened.
At first, Hatch–who is not a nice guy, BTW–attempted to suggest the memos were handed over by a disgusted Dem staffer. However, there’s a very solid electronic trail leading directly to Hatch’s staff-prompting Hatch to reverse course and pledge full cooperation (which likely means we’ll see Hatch stonewall until this story vanishes).
Kimmitt’s right; hacking the Senate computer system is a felony (just as it would be for screwing with a DoD or DoJ system) for very good reason. There are classified and proprietary materials kept on those servers.
It bears no similarity to the Newt incident which Rickey Lee and Hanky well knows involved Newtie caught in the act of violating an agreement he had made with the House Ethics Committee.
John Cole
Apparently this flustered JadeGold:
“I don’t want there to be any confusion- if this staffer did indeed break the law, I think he should be punished, and I think that at the very least he should not work on Capitol Hill again, but how does this in any way excuse the disgusting behavior that is reflected by the actual memos?”
JadeGold
Cole continues to blow smoke by using the Glenn Reynolds’ Strategy of Obfuscation.
There is no ‘disgusting behavior’ reflected in the memos; the only thing ‘disgusting’ is your interpretation.
The memos in question presented critical evaluations of some of Dubya’s nominees. Are you really surprised the Dems might actually oppose some of these very flawed and unqualified nominees? If you are, I’ve got some beachfront property in Iowa you might be interested in.
As for the earlier memo WRT the Intel Committee, that has been debunked numerous times.
John Cole
JadeGold, you unrepentant lackey for the DNC line, go read the Stuart Buck piece that states had the Senate been a priavte business, their actions would have been racial discrimination.
And to read the Rockefeller intelligence memo any other way is absurd.
JadeGold
Again, you’re very, very wrong. So is Buck. The Dems, after all have confirmed something like 7, 8, or 9 Hispanic judges–so there goes the discrimination charge.
And the Rockefeller memo doesn’t say anything that’s not true or unethical or illegal or even untoward.
But, again, this is just your attempt to try and cover up a felony by trying to say it was justified.
John Cole
JAdeGold- You really are a putz, and I doubt you even read the Stuart Buck piece.
A determination of whether an individual was racially discriminated against does not rely on the behavior the accused exhibited to all other minorities. The Senate could confirm 9 bazillion minority judges, but if the expressed reason they are holding back Miguel Estrada is because he is latino, that is racial discrimination. It has nothing to do with the other minorities.
Since I know you did not even look for the Buck piece, here is the link:
http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_stuartbuck_archive.html#106796407351384917
John Cole
Essentially what you are saying is that it is ok to rape a woman, as long as the previous ten times you dealt with other women the sex was consensual.
HH
Yes the “debunking” amounted to all but rewriting the memo completely to make it appear innocent.
JadeGold
Wow.
Cole equates political posturing to rape.
I read the Buck piece earlier and found it underwhelming. The fact is the memo mentions Estrada is a latino. It doesn’t say the Dems oppose him because of his race, doesn’t say his race makes him unqualified, doesn’t say his race is a bar to the job he’s a nominee for. What it does say is the GOP will use his race as political leverage.
Guess what? That’s a fact not in dispute by anyone.
But, again, we’re far afield from the fact you’re once again excusing felonies so long as they’re committed on behalf of the GOP.
Terry
Is this (Jade Gold) the same individual that used to post inane and asinine comments on a number of blogs using a somewhat different pseudonym? Certainly, the comments of this individual resemble those of the other fool.
John Cole
My god you are a moron. I did not equate rape to political posturing, I made an analogy. The formula for an analogy is A is to B as C is to D, not A is equal to B.
I hereby ignore any mindless dribble that comes out of your mouth, as you are simply a clueless idiot.
Kimmitt
“but how does this in any way excuse the disgusting behavior that is reflected by the actual memos?”
Note that I am not conceding that the behavior in question is “disgusting,” as such, merely that some persons believe that it is. I found both memos to be strident and cynical, but not particularly inappropriate for internal communications.
Since the memos are the result of an illegal theft, their validity and context are massively called into doubt. Simply put, if someone went into my hard drive and yanked out the things which are most likely to make me look bad, out of context, they could do a superb job — and those items would not be representative of my thoughts or approaches. The fact that the memos were stolen changes their release from being an inadvertant release of pertinent information into a deliberate smear job.
In short, the bias of the leakers changes, and that massively alters how we should interpret the memos themselves. We suddenly are aware of a massive subtext for which we have no roadmap.
DANEgerus
The (D)’s commit the crimes… document those crimes… then whine when the evidence is exposed.
Dwelling on the method of the exposure is a separate issue.
The staffer has been punished…
Yet the (D)’s are allowed to rant their victimhood and hide their crimes by the complicit media’s selective story choices…
This is a classic example of both the media complicity and the truth behind the racist, partisan and manipulative agenda of the (D)’s
Any other interpretation is just making excuses.
Terry
The following is drawn from Kimmit’s post above:
“..if someone went into my hard drive and yanked out the things which are most likely to make me look bad, out of context, they could do a superb job..”
I don’t think they would have to go into your hard drive or anything else to make you “look bad.” Your writing out here in plain view does that rather clearly and well, almost daily.
Fred
Have the Dems disavowed the memos? Have they said that they were drafts only and rejected? Have they said the memos were issued by rogue dems and rejected or unauthorized?
In a criminal court wrongfully obtained evidence is unacceptable. In the court of public opinion…
JadeGold
Must be careful; disagreeing with John Cole is the equivalent of rape or something.
The staffer has not been punished–he’s been placed on ‘administrative leave.’ Translated: he’s being paid not to work.
Laws are for other people; not GOPers.
Kevin
Kimmet – You are making up facts to suit your argument. Cite anywhere (aside from over reaching bloggers) where the term hacking was used. You can’t, because no “hacking” has taken place. Inappropriate access or unauthorized access is all that it alleged.
JadeGold makes up even more alleged facts:
Kimmitt’s right; hacking the Senate computer system is a felony (just as it would be for screwing with a DoD or DoJ system) for very good reason. There are classified and proprietary materials kept on those servers.
Congress is exempt from most of the laws you are thinking about. And again it’s an internal theft at this point. You are making up stuff when you say there are classified materials on those servers… Please cite your source. All electronic documents have a degree of proprietariness to them so that is a non starter.
This is a violation of Senate rules, and is being dealt with in typical Hill fashion. Before you go complain about that, remember Democrats crafted most of those rules. Republican control of anything on the Hill is a new phenomenon.
Andrew Lazarus
I am absolutely baffled at the reading that the Democrats opposed Miguel Estrada “because he was Latino”. It’s difficult to reconcile this with the fact the Dems approved many other Latino nominees. I’m surprised a head doesn’t burst from trying to contain such contradictory notions.
What the memo REALLY says, in perfectly clear English, is that it might be more difficult (“dangerous”) to oppose Estrada because, as a Latino with a rags-to-riches story, some people who don’t really like Estrada’s politics and jurisprudence could support his elevation to the bench anyway. (Just as a NY Giants fan might have rooted for Jackie Robinson to do well.) Now, doesn’t this version make a lot more sense?
Andrew Lazarus
I don’t think a Congressional staffer is any more exempt from the anti-hacking statutes than from the child pornography possession laws. If there is a valid defense, I think it would have to rely upon the possibility the law doesn’t cover unauthorized (hacked) access to individual files on a shared server for which one has legitimate overall access.
Kimmitt
“Cite anywhere (aside from over reaching bloggers) where the term hacking was used. ”
Heh. I apologize; you are quite correct. This is an abuse of administrative priveleges, not an outright hack, and the legal questions therefore less simple.
HH
“Now, doesn’t this version make a lot more sense?”
Perhaps if you’re interested in whitewashing it… but it’s rather tortured in reality.
Emperor Misha I
Perhaps if you’re interested in whitewashing it…
Sorta difficult to wash the Segregationist Party any whiter than they are without pulling sheets over their heads and telling them to burn crosses, don’t you think?
Of course, they’ve already done that.
cameron
I just get a good laugh at the (R)s going all ape sh*t over the blocking of,what is it, 4 judicial nominees out of , what, over 160 confirmed?
“But we want all our nominees confirmed! WAHWAHWAHWAHWAHAWHA….”
I think Estrada is just overrated. And I think there is a little social concern in the Republican ranks. I think they are desirous to see a spanish person do well…..
Andrew Lazarus
HH, would you like to take a try at explaining why the Dems stopped Estrada because he was Hispanic even though (1) they approved other Hispanics and (2) they stopped non-Hispanic ultra-conservatives, like Pickering?
The one point I’ll concede is the memo shows close ties between the Dems and certain so-called special interest groups (although, to my mind, the Federalist Society is also a special interest group). There us no evidence in that memo that Estrada is targetted because he is Latino, and I dare you to explain otherwise.
JadeGold
I see Kevin is parsing words in an attempt to cover up a felony.
It’s not hacking
Yes, Kevin–it is hacking. Again, we have an attempt by GOP felony-enablers to try and parse the small stuff. Hacking doesn’t just include a brute force intrusion into a system. The charges will be along the lines of unauthorized access and use of govt. computers.
M. Scott Eiland
“HH, would you like to take a try at explaining why the Dems stopped Estrada because he was Hispanic even though (1) they approved other Hispanics and (2) they stopped non-Hispanic ultra-conservatives, like Pickering?”
Because this particular Hispanic was seen as a possible future candidate for the Supreme Court, which would have threatened the Democrats’ strategy to keep minority votes by keeping a monopoly on the high-profile patronage for minority groups, perhaps? Why do you think that Condi Rice and Colin Powell provoke such venom from the race pimps? They’re endangering the gravy train.
Andrew Lazarus
I think that’s only a small PART of the Dem’s strategy for retaining minority votes, but otherwise, I’m not disagreeing with this. I don’t see this as “racism” or “bigotry”; I see it as politics.
Now you’re going over the top. That’s the only reason you can think of? Heaven knows what you’d say about that half-Jewish Olympian on the 1936 German team.
JadeGold
Explaining life to Eiland could be a full-time gig.
First, all federal court appointees are potential candidates for the US Supreme Court. All of them.
Second, since the Dems have previously confirmed 7, 8. or 9 Hispanic appointees–your point about patronage of minority groups goes the same way as the Flat Earth theory.
Third, WRT Rice and Powell; the fact is these folks have been treated with kid gloves by the media despite the fact their tenures have been marked by an unending string of failures.
Fourth, given the fact your president has made exactly zero progress in attracting minority voters, one can only conclude your boy isn’t very good at playing the race card.
Kimmitt
Powell gets a lot less grief than Rice, both because of his impressive military service and because of his acknowledgement that Affirmative Action was a necessary condition for him to express his full talent. It is believed that he serves under an Administration which holds a view on AA which is not the same as his. Life’s like that.
Condoleeza Rice gets a lot of grief because she acknowledges that AA was a part of what allowed her to express her talents, then has gone to great lengths to dismantle such programs during her various administrative tenures. She’s pulling the ladder up behind her, which makes her a juicier target all around.
SDN
Wait a minute, guys, does this mean that there should have been a problem with publishing the Pentagon Papers. The Republican staffer should just claim whistleblower status and move on.
Oh, and Fred, wrongfully obtained evidence is only unadmissable if obtained by an “officer of the court”: a cop, one of the DAs or their staff, even a lawyer for the opposing teams. OTOH, if I break into your house as an outraged citizen and steal the evidence of your defrauding the government on taxes, or tape record your calls involving a ton of Columbian coke, etc. and turn that evidence over to the cops, THEY can use it freely. I’M still liable both criminally and civilly for my acts, but that has nothing to do with the use of the evidence.
Kimmitt
I was under the impression that this President had rather gutted the various whistleblower protections.