Legal memo to the Democrats (Freeper published)

The Washington Times ^ | 12-04-03 | Jonathan M. Stein

[jmstein7]

Recently, several memos drafted by Senate Democrats have been leaked to the press. One memo, from the Intelligence Committee, exposes a Democrat plan to use the awesome power and resources of that committee as a political weapon against the president. The other memos detail how powerful left-wing lobbyists pressured Democrats to impermissibly oppose judicial nominations based on race and gender. Now the Democrats are outraged

[bmwcyle]

Good work!

[familyofman]

"A better analogy is a coat closet in an office."

I disagree, because your analogy assumes the item taken from the coat is "illegal", which the memos (internal) have not been proven to be. If you reach into someone else's pocket in a coat hanging in a closet & remove a personal letter/diary - I think you are guilty of theft. Once an item is obtained illegally, isn't it always "tainted" (constitutional search & seizure)?

[jmstein7]

You can't prove something if you can't or haven't investigated it, now can you?

An investigation is necessary to determine whether in fact the substance suggests illegality or is illegal.

You're assumption is that the memos are, per se, NOT illegal. We (and you) can't reach that conclusion because nobody has even begun to probe the substance here.

[Walkingfeather]

My head is spinning with the implications you have posted here. Something tells me this will begin to boil in the spring.

[familyofman]

"An investigation is necessary to determine whether in fact the substance suggests illegality or is illegal."
I agree, but your analogy assumed the item taken from someone else's coat was illegal (gun) and then turned into the police. Who and for what will the dems be prosecuted for as a result of what was contained in the memos?
Politics is not illegal, whereas theft is.

[BlessedBeGod]

Congratulations! That was excellent!

[thoughtomator]

Magnificent on all fronts: content, style, and placement! Very well done indeed!

[jmstein7]

*Abuse of office is an ethics violation

*Obstrcting justice is a crime

*Violating civil rights results in civil liability (42 USC 1983)

If you read the various memos (go to http://fairjudiciary.campsol.com/ and http://www.intelmemo.com/) you will find each of the above violations in black and white.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent piece!

[VRWC_minion]

How would this logic apply to an unlocked car?

Gov't documents are not copyrighted and by their nature cannot be copyrighted therefore they are not private property. The issue isn't the taking of property like your analogy of the borrowing of an auto. The issue is public disclosure of documents that may or may not have been privileged.

The question of disclosure is turned upside down. As they are servants of our gov't we have the right to full disclosure unless the gov;t has a compelling interest to keep it from us. The burden of proof that these doc's must be kept secret is upon their authors, not the whistle blowers. Any other perspective is contrary to an open government that our system requires for it to work.

[jmstein7]

And those are just a few of the issues that come to mind.

This is not merely politics as usual.

[jmstein7]

Bingo!

The burden of proof is on those claiming the privilege.

[xzins]

by all means.

don't quit until after finals.


huh? :>)

[Diver Dave]

Outstanding!!!
Thanks.

[Political Junkie Too]

you reach into someone else's pocket in a coat hanging in a closet & remove a personal letter/diary - I think you are guilty of theft.

I think your analogy mischaracterizes the nature of the committee setup, the computer system, and the memos.

This committee is the only bipartisan committee, meaning that they have one joint staff instead of two staffs, one joint computer instead of separate computers. The memos on the computer were accessible to all members and staffs. There was no firewall (perhaps a misnomer -- protected directories would be a better example) between the Republican side and the Democrat side of the computer. In fact, I think there would be more suspicions raised if the parties demanded separate protected space on a jointly shared computer on a bipartisan committee with one shared staff.

So, the memos were not stolen because the people using the computer (regardless of party) had a right to anything on the computer. If mistakes were made, it was made by the staffers who used the committee computer for partisan business in the first place. That is what personal laptops are for.

-PJ

[nuffsenuff]

Ah... Even better.

[Mich0127]

How about we wait until after we graduate
Or maybe we can have live broadcasts of Hannity and Rush in our law school classes..that would be fun :-)

[Gritty]

Great work!

The Democrats are flying in the face of the law. So, what else is new?

[familyofman]

"This committee is the only bipartisan committee, meaning that they have one joint staff instead of two staffs, one joint computer instead of separate computers."

Weren't there 2 committees from which the leaked memos came (Judiciary & Intelligence)? Do they both have shared servers?

[xzins]

Or maybe we can have live broadcasts of Hannity and Rush in our law school classes..that would be fun :-)

Oh, what a joy....if it actually were HANNITY & RUSH for a while....that'd be a lot of fun.

Wouldn't it be nice to dump Colmes for about a year or two -- until after the election, anyway.