Watergate 2004? Justice Dept. Opens Inquiry on Memo Theft

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/27/politics/27PROB.html

WASHINGTON, April 26 ? The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into accusations that Republican Congressional aides stole sensitive Democratic memorandums, and the department has tapped David N. Kelley, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, to lead the politically charged case, officials said Monday.

The decision to bring in Mr. Kelley, rather than have prosecutors in Washington pursue the case, came after lawmakers from both parties urged the Justice Department to appoint an independent prosecutor to avoid the appearance of a conflict.

The department said in a letter dated Monday that it was confident that Mr. Kelley would conduct the investigation "in a thorough, fair, impartial and professional manner." Several leading Democrats applauded his appointment, with Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York saying it was "a very good first step."

The opening of the criminal inquiry increases the significance of the case, which has provoked open hostilities between Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in their continuing battle over President Bush's judicial nominations.

In March, the Senate sergeant-at-arms concluded in a 65-page report that two Republican staff aides had engaged in widespread, unauthorized and possibly illegal spying by reading Democratic strategy memorandums on a Senate computer system.

Over at least 18 months, the aides improperly read, downloaded and printed 4,670 files concerning Democratic tactics in opposing many of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees, the report said, and some of the material was leaked to conservative groups supporting the nominees and news media outlets.

The sergeant-at-arms suggested that the unauthorized spying could have violated laws against the receipt of stolen property and lying to investigators, among others. The report also suggested that many other Republican aides might have been involved in trafficking in the stolen documents, and Democrats have questioned whether officials at the Justice Department and the White House were also privy to the material in working to support Mr. Bush's nominees and derail Democratic opposition.

The two aides implicated in the affair have both left the Senate. One, Manuel C. Miranda, who had worked for both the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has defended his conduct in numerous interviews, saying he was able to access the computer memorandums because of Democratic negligence in securing them, not because of any theft or criminal wrongdoing.

Some conservative groups have said that the memorandums reveal ethical improprieties by the Democrats in colluding with liberal groups to block Mr. Bush's nominations. But there is no indication that this will be an element of the criminal inquiry by Mr. Kelley, officials said.

Mr. Hatch, who said in March that he was "mortified" by the ethical breach, said through a spokesman on Monday that he "has every faith" that the Justice Department and Mr. Kelley's office "will do the right thing here."

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the judiciary panel, also welcomed the Justice Department's decision, saying, "With the powers available to a federal prosecutor, this matter can now be more thoroughly investigated, so that those who engaged in criminal conduct may be brought to justice."

Senator Schumer said that while Mr. Kelley, a Democrat, was an independent and capable prosecutor "without conflicts," Attorney General John Ashcroft should still remove himself from oversight of the case to avoid any potential conflicts.

A Democratic aide who spoke on condition of anonymity said, "Ashcroft has a potential conflict on many levels because he has a personal relationship with many of the Republican senators and he has direct control over Justice Department employees who may become involved in the investigation."

Mr. Kelley's office declined to comment. While the letter sent Monday by the Justice Department said that Mr. Kelley had been assigned to the case, it left open whether he would have the type of broad autonomy given to the prosecutor in another politically sensitive case involving the leak of a C.I.A. officer's identity.

In that case, Mr. Ashcroft recused himself after months of complaints from Democrats, and his deputy gave the United States attorney in Chicago, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, authority to conduct an independent investigation.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Yep, it isn't the "content" it's the seriousness of the charge. :roll:

It's fine though - maybe people will see the memos now if the public starts to care about this. The dems need to be careful - this has the potential to backfire on them if the public as a whole gets wind of the document's contents.

CkG
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Yes, CAD, the revelation that the dems consult with outside groups about judicial nominiees is much, much more serious than republicans stealing dems memos and then leaking them to the press for over a year.:roll:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,957
6,796
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep, it isn't the "content" it's the seriousness of the charge. :roll:

It's fine though - maybe people will see the memos now if the public starts to care about this. The dems need to be careful - this has the potential to backfire on them if the public as a whole gets wind of the document's contents.

CkG
Not really. Intelligent people like you and I will of course demand to see the same documents from the other side before coming to any conclusions. And clearly in the name of fair play I'm sure the Republicans will release theirs just so we can do that.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep, it isn't the "content" it's the seriousness of the charge. :roll:

It's fine though - maybe people will see the memos now if the public starts to care about this. The dems need to be careful - this has the potential to backfire on them if the public as a whole gets wind of the document's contents.

CkG

That is quite possibly the stupidest justification for unauthorized and possibly illegal spying on the part of Republican staffers. How would you feel if MoveOn.org hacked into Cheney's computers and distributed his secret energy task force documentation to the media? Yeah, that's right, we know how you'd feel about that . . .
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep, it isn't the "content" it's the seriousness of the charge. :roll:

It's fine though - maybe people will see the memos now if the public starts to care about this. The dems need to be careful - this has the potential to backfire on them if the public as a whole gets wind of the document's contents.

CkG

That is quite possibly the stupidest justification for unauthorized and possibly illegal spying on the part of Republican staffers. How would you feel if MoveOn.org hacked into Cheney's computers and distributed his secret energy task force documentation to the media? Yeah, that's right, we know how you'd feel about that . . .

Yeah :roll: my post was really a "justification" :roll:

Now why don't your try READING next time. Oh, and this issue is pretty much a non-issue because there was a lack of security that people were supposedly aware of. Does that make taking the docs "OK"? No, I didn't say it did - but the contents of the documents are pretty damning and my post was about the potential for a backlash if this gets played out AGAIN in the media and the contents are actually discussed this time.

Do you need me to use smaller words or do you now understand that there was no "justification" in what I posted.

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Oh please.

Yep, it isn't the "content" it's the seriousness of the charge.

It's fine though - maybe people will see the memos now if the public starts to care about this. The dems need to be careful - this has the potential to backfire on them if the public as a whole gets wind of the document's contents.

Let's see - first you divert and dismiss the seriousness of the theft with your usual excuse - remember the memos are "racist," therefore it's a good thing they were stolen and released.

Next, you claim "It's fine though ..." and perhaps everyone will get to see these memos. Nope, you're not excusing the actual crime of stealing the memos at all, are you?

Whatever Cad.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Oh please.

Yep, it isn't the "content" it's the seriousness of the charge.

It's fine though - maybe people will see the memos now if the public starts to care about this. The dems need to be careful - this has the potential to backfire on them if the public as a whole gets wind of the document's contents.

Let's see - first you divert and dismiss the seriousness of the theft with your usual excuse - remember the memos are "racist," therefore it's a good thing they were stolen and released.

Next, you claim "It's fine though ..." and perhaps everyone will get to see these memos. Nope, you're not excusing the actual crime of stealing the memos at all, are you?

Whatever Cad.


I am not a republican or a democrat - but I think it is a good idea they were released under any means and I would applaud anyone who could steal Cheney's "MurderIraqis so I can sell their oil" task force papers too.

Racism should not be allowed in politics -EVER!
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
OK, I guess I was wrong. We should let people steal stuff as long as there was a good reason for doing so. Woops. My bad.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Oh please.

Yep, it isn't the "content" it's the seriousness of the charge.

It's fine though - maybe people will see the memos now if the public starts to care about this. The dems need to be careful - this has the potential to backfire on them if the public as a whole gets wind of the document's contents.

Let's see - first you divert and dismiss the seriousness of the theft with your usual excuse - remember the memos are "racist," therefore it's a good thing they were stolen and released.

Next, you claim "It's fine though ..." and perhaps everyone will get to see these memos. Nope, you're not excusing the actual crime of stealing the memos at all, are you?

Whatever Cad.

That's a nice try DM but not even kerry would try that....ok maybe he would:p

Your little attempt at trying to say talking about the CONTENT is a diversion is laughable. The content is entirely relevent to this in regards to what I posted. The backlash potential is quite real - do you not understand that? This issue has been out there for quite some time. The public isn't interested in it - but they may if this is stirred up with indictments and such. People aren't dumb, DM, they will ask what the memos were about. Maybe I just have too much faith in the people of America...

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Yes, Cad, you have WAY too much faith in the American public. They don't care about this. There are bigger fish to fry out there in politico-land and they don't care about that either. Unless it pre-empts American Idol and then they're up-in-arms.

More importantly, you'd recommend that the dems NOT take legal action or that an investigation is NOT launched? It's probably too late for that now, however I find it hard to believe they would just let this go.

And as for your diversions about the content, you seem to think that's more important than the stealing part. Funny. I'm exactly the opposite, I find the stealing part the more serious problem.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, Cad, you have WAY too much faith in the American public. They don't care about this. There are bigger fish to fry out there in politico-land and they don't care about that either. Unless it pre-empts American Idol and then they're up-in-arms.

More importantly, you'd recommend that the dems NOT take legal action or that an investigation is NOT launched? It's probably too late for that now, however I find it hard to believe they would just let this go.

And as for your diversions about the content, you seem to think that's more important than the stealing part. Funny. I'm exactly the opposite, I find the stealing part the more serious problem.

No, that's where your assumptions get in the way... You assume I don't care about how the files were accessed or taken; or care about it less than the content. I think they are both relevant in this. The Gov't needs to be more transparent - this being a perfect example of why. I hear people on the left decrying the "secrecy" and pandering to lobbyists and such all the time - but in this case they just look the other way?
Sorry, but to me - they are both issues that need to be looked at and discussed.

Meh - you are entitled to your opinion and I will have mine...

CkG