A Statement from Manuel Miranda

NEW PROOF COMES OUT OF DEMOCRAT TECH NEGLIGENCE “I told you so,” Miranda says.

Washington, DC. Today a former Grassley intern, with deep computer security experience, has stepped forward with a sworn affidavit attesting that he knew over two years ago that the Senate Judiciary Committee network lacked security protocols and was an open server, and that he discovered that documents of both Republican and Democrat staff could be accessed in the same manner recently described by Hatch staffers. The affidavit also states that the Grassley staffer informed other Grassley staffers and even members of the United States Secret Service of the failure in computer security protocols in the Judiciary Committee. The Secret Service did not appear interested, which is significant because they are responsible for the computer security of Congress.

“Today’s news will regrettably leave some Senators with egg on their face but it is not for lack of better counsel than that which they took. Democrat spinmeisters are proven today to be nothing more than rank liars for spinning tales of hacking to mask the gross negligence of their own technology staff. And the two or three news writers that soaked up the lies come out as fools and should be taken to task.”

“The revelation today, which arises by act of Providence, shows that the SAA investigation, promised to end today, was tainted from the start. It was tainted the moment that Senator Hatch made his early judge and jury comments before any report had settled the facts or anyone had studied computer law and practice, or Senate Rules. This taint was repeated by more judge and jury comments made by SAA Bill Pickle to the Associated Press. These were comments made, in both cases, in violation of the Senate Rules.”

“The information revealed by another young staffer confirms also that this investigation was contaminated from the outset when Senator Hatch threatened to fire any staffer with mere knowledge of the open server. This made the SAA investigation an exercise in terror, and not fact finding. The consequence is that the investigation has produced scapegoats and focused on two people who were forthcoming.”

“By pursuing this investigation with an Inspector Javert attitude, the SAA investigators and Republicans Senators have blinded themselves to computer gross negligence in favor of self-serving talk of wrongdoing.”

“As to wild charges of criminal conduct in the accessing of documents, I call on the Senate to hide nothing in releasing the SAA report that would open them up to charges of scapegoating or cover up. After spending $500,000, the American people are entitled to scrutinize the methods and premises of the probe and its non-speculative conclusions. For too long both Democrats and Republicans have abused their control over information. This must now stop.”

“Republican Senators have also surrendered to the use of the word unethical or improper. But ethics is neither morality nor etiquette. Ethics requires a code and no one has been able to point to any code that has been violated by reading documents, left unprotected and in a virtual common area, by a government employee. Whereas, I do point to the Code of Ethics for Government Service that would be rendered ineffectual if such a bar existed.

“If this matter comes down to the golden rule or gentlemen’s etiquette, then the American people will consider Republicans lacking in both schmartz and cojones, if they allow Democrats who have abused the Constitution and people’s good names in disgusting ways to get the high ground.”

“No one can fault Senator Hatch for an investigating whether a hacking occurred. But Republicans are also encouraging Democrat petulance by not being clear that the documents in question are not protected from the scrutiny of the American people by Senate Rule 29.5 and its 1992 legislative history. Republicans have made a grotesque error in allowing Democrats to treat their partisan documents as “confidential” and protected. The Senate has no power to protect such unethical conduct as the Democrat documents describe from the eyes of the American people.”

“I call on anyone holding Democrat documents to turn them over to the press or a House of Representatives Committee, since it seems that the Senate is unwilling to police itself on matters of greater substance.”

“People who protest so bitterly about their documents being read are people with something to hide. Had Democrats wanted to keep their unethical actions from the American people they should have been more careful to do so.”

CORRECTION: “In a previous statement I referred to a “glitch” as allowing the Democrat documents to be read easily. This was incorrect. “Glitch” turns out to be a term of art that suggests that a firewall existed. In this case there was no firewall at all.”

Some info, for your reading pleasure, of Democrats' history of leaking......

EXAMPLES OF DEMOCRAT LEAKS

“I can’t help but think there’s a journalistic double standard operating here in which partisan leaks to conservative journals and journalists (the Novak-Plame incident, for another example) are treated as capital crimes, but partisan leaks that wound Republicans are regarded as the highest form of truth telling.” (Jack Shafer, “Globe, Too Hot; Times, Too Cold,” Slate, 1/23/04)

2003: Leak Of Justice Department Draft Legislation, Praised By Leahy. “[A]n understandably anonymous whistleblower in the Justice Department leaked the 86-page draft of Attorney General John Ashcroft’s proposed USA Patriot Act II to Charles Lewis of the Committee on Public Integrity … Three days after the leak, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, said: ‘For months, and as recently as just last week, Justice Department officials have denied to members of the Judiciary Committee that they were drafting another anti-terrorism package.’” (Nat Hentoff, Op-Ed, “Hush-Hush At The Justice Department,” The Washington Times, 5/5/03)

June 2002: Use Of Misplaced Computer Disk. “In June of 2002, a White House intern lost a computer disk in Lafayette Park. A Democratic Senate aide happened to find it, discovering a PowerPoint presentation by Rove and White House political director Ken Mehlman. Moore and Slater find dark significance in one slide that urged Republicans to ‘focus on war and the economy.’ Democrats damned that advice as a Rove effort to ‘politicize’ terrorism.” (John F. Pitney, Jr., “Accidental Genius: Is Karl Rove Really Bush’s Brain?” Reason, 10/1/03)

November 2000: Leak Of President’s DUI Arrest. “Claiming responsibility for the leak was Tom Connolly, a Portland, Maine, lawyer and former Democratic gubernatorial candidate who was a Gore delegate to the Democratic National Convention. Connolly told CNN he had gotten the information last Thursday and said ‘it came to me in my capacity as an attorney.’” (Kenneth T. Walsh; Angie Cannon; Gary Cohen, “A Bumpy, Bumptious Ride, Right To The End,” Newsweek, 11/13/00)

November 1999: Leak Of President’s College Transcripts. “The New Yorker magazine has published what it claims are the presidential candidate’s grades from Yale University. … Bush had declined to released [sic] the transcripts, but somebody at Yale managed to acquire the records - and leak them.” (Editorial, “Not Exactly An Honor-Roll Performance,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 11/14/99)

1998: Leak Of Linda Tripp’s Personnel File. “Last week Clinton’s Justice Department, after sitting on a Pentagon inspector general’s report for 20 months, decided it won’t prosecute anyone for illegally leaking contents of Tripp’s confidential personnel file to a magazine. The inspector general told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week he submitted his report to Justice in July 1998. The report detailed the role of Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon and another Defense Department employee in leaking embarrassing information from Tripp’s Pentagon file to New Yorker magazine, which Tripp says smeared her reputation.” (Editorial, “Tripp’s Travails,” Daily Oklahoman, 4/10/00)

December 1996: Leak Of Illegal Tape Of Republican Phone Call. “The Florida couple who admitted intercepting a cellular phone conversation among Republican leaders last December were both charged yesterday with violating the federal wiretap statute. The couple, John and Alice Martin, both agreed to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors. The identical one-count criminal informations were filed yesterday in Jacksonville, Fla. …In early January, three newspapers said they obtained a copy of the taped call: the New York Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Roll Call. The three papers declined to reveal their source. The Times did report that it had gotten its copy from a Democratic House Member. … [The Martins] delivered it to Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash), then the ethics committee’s ranking Democrat. … McDermott has refused to answer questions about whether he did provide the tape to news outlets or whether he has been questioned by the FBI.” (Benjamin Sheffner, “Florida Couple Set To Plead Guilty In Taped Call of Gingrich, GOP Leaders,” Roll Call, 4/24/97)

1991: Leak Of Confidential Memo Regarding Anita Hill. “Newsday reporter Timothy M. Phelps was notified March 16 that Senate Special Independent Counsel Peter E. Fleming Jr. had subpoenaed phone records from Sept. 23 through Oct. 6, his newspaper said in a news release. Meanwhile, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that National Public Radio reporter Nina Totenberg’s phone records were also subpoenaed. The Times said the personal phone records of both reporters, as well as those of their news organizations, were subpoenaed. The reporters have refused to tell Fleming how they learned of Professor Anita Hill’s allegations that Thomas had sexually harassed her when she worked for him. … Fleming, a New York attorney, was hired after the Senate voted to investigate leaks to the news media in two areas: the Hill-Thomas controversy and the Senate ethics investigation of five senators who assisted former thrift owner Charles H. Keating Jr.” (“S&P Says Major Newspaper Companies Show Signs of Improvement,” The Associated Press, 3/29/92)

January 1987: Leak Of Report Causes Leahy To Resign From Senate Intelligence Committee. “While Sen. Patrick Leahy says he regrets leaking a Senate Intelligence Committee draft staff report, the panel’s vice chairman says Leahy’s resignation from the committee should be a warning against similar disclosures. Leahy, in an unusual announcement Tuesday, disclosed that he quietly quit the intelligence panel last January because he was responsible for leaking a preliminary report on the panel’s 1986 Iran-Contra investigation. The Vermont Democrat said his decision to resign was ‘a suitable way to express .. regret and anger’ at the unauthorized release of the document. Committee vice chairman William Cohen, asked whether the incident might serve as a deterrent against future unauthorized leaks, said, ‘yes.’” (Larry Margasak, “Leahy Regrets Leak, Colleague Sees Committee Resignation As Warning,” The Associated Press, 7/29/87)

October 1985: Leak Of Classified Information About The Achille Lauro Incident. “Also in the ‘80s, [Vermont Sen. Patrick] Leahy gained some notoriety as a member of the Intelligence Committee. He was charged with revealing classified information during the Achille Lauro terrorist incident, outraging administration officials.” “After a CIA briefing at 5 a.m. on Oct. 11, 1985, Leahy appeared on the ‘CBS Morning News’ program at 7 a.m. to discuss the Achille Lauro hijacking.” An article in Reader’s Digest claimed “Leahy revealed the CIA knew that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was lying when Mubarak claimed the hijackers had left Egypt. ‘Our intelligence was very, very good,’ the article quotes Leahy as saying. Leahy calls the charge he revealed secret information ‘nonsense’ in a letter he sent to the editor of Reader’s Digest demanding an apology. In the letter, Leahy said the material he discussed in the show had already been disclosed by administration officials.” (Jay Nordlinger, “The ‘Nastiest’ Democrat: Sen. Patrick Leahy, Republican Nightmare,” The Weekly Standard, 7/9/01; United Press International, 10/30/86)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.