Posted on 02/12/2004 3:13:25 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican snooping through Democrats' tactical memos on President Bush's judicial nominees has grown into a full-blown Capitol Hill uproar - with comparisons to Watergate, accusations of court tampering and conservatives attacking senior GOP senators.
Already, two staffers implicated in giving newspapers and conservative groups the memos stored on a shared Judiciary Committee computer server have been forced to leave. Secret Service agents are prowling the Capitol interviewing legislative aides, and some senators are calling for an outside investigation - perhaps by the FBI - and severe punishment if warranted.
"We know that dirty tricks have long been infecting the nation's politics, but they haven't infected the Senate or our committee until now," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who with Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., learned that some of his staff memos had been taken off the shared computer.
Kennedy compared it all to Watergate.
"In those days, break-ins required a physical presence, burglar's tools, lookouts and getaway cars," he said Thursday. "Today, theft may only require a computer and the skills to use it and the will to break in."
Parts of the memos concerned Democrats' strategy for blocking Bush nominees, and some Republicans say the politics of that strategy is what ought to be investigated.
Still, some Senate Republicans are calling for heads to roll in the snooping.
"Somebody needs to be fired," said Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the newest Judiciary Committee Republicans. "Somebody in Washington needs to eventually to lose their jobs, whether it's on weapons of mass destruction or this type of behavior."
The letter of the law: There is a federal prohibition against "having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access." It is also illegal if a person "embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record."
However, at least one of the staffers implicated - Manuel Miranda, a former GOP lawyer for the committee who resigned last week from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's staff because of the inquiry - has said he thinks he did nothing illegal.
"I determined for myself that no unlawful, unauthorized hacking was involved in reading these unprotected documents. I knew that in law the duty falls on the other party to protect their documents," Miranda said in his resignation letter to Frist.
Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has been investigating "Memogate" since November. Working with Secret Service agents and General Dynamics computer technicians, investigators have conducted more than 100 interviews and seized several computers. A final report is expected before the end of the month.
"Once the sergeant-at-arms' report is finalized, a day of reckoning will come," predicted the Senate committee's Republican chairman, Orrin Hatch of Utah.
The investigation has shown that the computer intrusion went on for at least two years starting in 2001, and that thousands of documents were downloaded, Judiciary Committee members said Thursday.
Only a small number of Senate Republican staffers were involved, and no senators were, committee members said. However, Democrats want to know if the White House, the Justice Department or any of President Bush's judicial nominees from that time period used the information to anticipate Democratic questions and attacks.
Both Hatch and Frist have been criticized by conservative groups for going along with Pickle's investigation instead of working to make the content of the Democrats' memos an issue.
Miranda filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee seeking an investigation based on the memos, not the snooping.
"I have read documents evidencing public corruption by elected officials and staff of the United States Senate," Miranda wrote. "This includes evidence of the direct influencing of the Senate's advice and consent role by the promise of campaign funding and election support in the last midterm election."
Federal law prohibits Congress from taking gifts, money or promises of support in direct exchange for votes or non-votes. But Democrats say they've done nothing wrong. "It's an incredible development, that I would have my name given to the Ethics Committee because I had documents stolen," Durbin said.
In one example of the politics involved, a Kennedy staff memo said Elaine Jones, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, wanted Democrats to delay a federal appellate court nominee from being confirmed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals until after the University of Michigan affirmative action case was decided.
"It has become evident that instances of serious wrongdoing may be documented in memos not released to the American public," said Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, which posted some of the Democratic memos on its Web site.
Jones left the NAACP job in January. Conservative groups have lodged ethics complaints against her with the Virginia State Bar.
I have always liked Graham. Whch makes his pathetic comments all the more disappointing. What the heck is wrong with this former House bulldog that he is going so soft on what the Democrats actually PLANNED IN THOSE MEMOS? If Jeff Sessions were Senate Judiciary Chairman, this story would be reporting about how Kennedy, Leahy, Levin et al plotted to torpedo specific Bush judicial nominees based on their race/ethnicity, and plotting to meddle with active judicial cases by fillibustering certain nominees. THIS IS THE SCANDAL. The only way you EVER EVER lose to Democrats is by going on the defensive. If the spinless RINO Hatch had stood his ground and refused all RAT entreaties, this would be a GOP propaganda win 100%. It is time for him to go!
Tag line winner! Freeper sign / bumper sticker material!
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.