Fitzgerald Testifies Before HJC
He’s just answering questions–no statement.
Sanchez Do you think a President should consult with a Special Counsel on commutation.
PF The President has the power to pardon or commute.
Sanchez: Could you go whereever the evidence brought you?
PF No, I couldn’t go outside the scope. The subject matter jurisdiction was given to me, but I could follow the facts in terms of what I was investigating.
Sanchez: If Durham is given the same authority, would it be proper or improper to investigate underlying conduct.
PF I don’t feel comfortable opining about decisions others make.
Sanchez: You and your team expended significant time and energy. Should you have been required to submit a report to AG?
PF I was not required to submit a report. The AG was recused. Because a charge resulted, people learned a fair amount about what we did. I believe, I think it’s appropriate that when a GJ is used, we expect people to be candid, but we owe it back to people to respect the secrecy of the GJ. I don’t think a public report was allowed nor should it have been called for.
Sanchez: A report to Congress?
PF The executive branch has to have space in which it can conduct business and space for prosecutors to make decisions. I see the concerns on both sides, from my narrow POV we can’t break GJ rules.
Cannon: Distinction between special counsel and normal prosecutor.
PF One common misunderstanding is that we didn’t follow DOJ guidelines. I was bound by those guidelines. Many of the procedures I was the decision maker. When you prosecute as USA, you have to follow the guidelines. In an ordinary case, USA has an awful lot of power. In many cases, the volume of our cases, we can bring charges that will imprison people with out possibility of parole. No wiretap without DOJ, no immunity for witnesses, no govt appeal or attorney or member of the media.
PF Did need authority on racketeering statue for Gov Ryan, sometimes those powers are circumscribed.
Cannon You do consider the prominence of someone accused of a crime. More of a priority for prosecution.
PF In case of Ryan, widespread corruption in IL is something we ought to prosecute, not because he’s a public person, but for deterrent and very harmful. As with gangs, we’ll go after the most harmful bc of deterrent.
Cannon You did have guidelines to balance the priorities. Do you have guildelines to help sort?
PF The most important thing is to vet the crimes, to get a team of people who have experience to bat ideas around.
Conyers Did the investigation cost 1.5 million or more than that?
PF The last number was ballpark of 2.4 million. Bookkeeping cost–salaries of all of us who worked in the case. If I worked 50 hours on this plus 50 hours on USA Chicago tat didn’t get accounted. We had a pocket that was much less than that, much closer to zero, $550,000 by last count, $300,000 travel and much of the rest other court transcripts. Took us through trial and sentencing.
Conyers Who leaked it.
PF The name was discussed by three different officials. One was charged with perjury. [Ut oh, Pat, what about Ari? I count 4 people]
Sanchez Do you believe that conflicts subverts the confidence in DOJ?
Sanchez Why do you recuse if there’s the appearance?
PF So we can carry out justice. If I had better stockholdings, I wouldn’t investigate companies that affect my wealth. I’m blessed by not having that problem.
Is there a link? There’s none up at the committee site
EW published a link earlier to the McDevitt questionnaire relating to the White House e-mail scandals. The link is here.
Page 4.
MZM- Provided support for the implementation systems related to the email infrastrucfure.
That’s Mitchell Wade’s MZM, mind you. Interesting to hear that the Wade-Wilkes-Cunningham syndicate conveniently touches White House e-mail. Is ths the “mystery” office furniture contract from MZM for OVP?
Holy shit. and they spiked it when people started looking into MZM, in 2006!!
Shocked shocked I am…
Does this work?
http://judiciary.house.gov/
It took me awhile to find it. Follow that link, scroll through list of hearings in upper left corner until you get to the 1:15 p.m. hearing, click on link to webcast.
Marcy – that brings me to the RealPlayer home page. I was able to get the link earlier.
EW’s link works for me.
Now she’s rubbing her earlobe. She can’t stop touching herself!
EW’s link works for me too
FITZ!
It’s over.
And now, on to the pressing matter of getting Rezko some clean underwear.
fitz just told sanchez that he thinks
the rules on conflict of interest are
important to preserve both the system
of actual justice — and to preserve
the “appearance of propriety.” that was,
to my ears, plainly, a dig at mukasey’s
failure to give durham full-on special
counsel status.
ouch.
fitz just indicated, to sanchez, he
will answer written questions submitted
in the next five days.
hearing gaveled out.
Nolo thanks for the link at you site. I used to with great success
LHP — no problemo. my pleasure!
p e a c e
this is great to hear
Well, so far the:
just makes me question that much more the issues of who could or couldn’t put the skids to a charging decision. Maybe that will come up more later.
Also, the point on the limited mandate and scope looks like it got addressed short, sweet and up front.
And I have to agree with him that we have a spacey Executive branch. Oh, what was that – an Executive Branch that needs space, oh, to uh, conduct business. Oh -is that what the USAs are calling it these days – the torture, kidnapping, lieing to Congress, political prosecutions, obstruction of justice, destruction of records stuff – “Executive business.”
Good to know.
I think that was his reference to executive privledge, though I have to admit that , for him, it seemed an imprecise way to refer to it
Also, don’t miss the underlying documents–they’re up now too.
14 – He’s a DOJ employee with a set of bosses. I’m forever putting him in the good guy category on the basis of getting into the public record, when he might have had a way around it, that Bush covertly planted deliberately misleading domestic propaganda for poltical benefit – pretty much as impeachable as it comes; but I never was a fan of in-housing and all the hearings and how people like Fitzgerald and Weinstein waltz around is why.
Who needs Dancing with the Stars when you’ve got Texas Two Stepping with the Dept of Justice?
The limitations of scope aside, it still quintessentially games the system to inhouse the investigations imo.
Oh, I agree there needs to be a new Outside Counsel statute. But since there wasn’t one availeble at the time of Pat’s appointment, I thoight Comey came up with a pretty creative solution.
Was the timing of both Waxman’s “Missing WH Email” hearing a coincidence with that of Fitz’ testimony on the Hill?
Do you think that perhaps Fitz got there early and decided/was invited to sit in on Henry’s hearing?
Or perhaps Henry just slipped Fitz a copy of these fantastic documents?
I smell a timeline coming on.
Heh heh heh.
Might that have included being the ones regularly wiping all the disks?
it’s all one big scandal? – everything and everyone is all connected? what kind of bad dream is this?
“it’s all one big scandal? – everything and everyone is all connected? what kind of bad dream is this?”
As I wrote downthread,
“Which would, kinda, y’know, make the whole thing a criminal enterprise from start to finish?”
Ricco, anyone?
Bob in HI
i’m just a little slower than you are…. *g*
BTW – Dana Jill Simpson just picked up the Special Prosecutor slack and pretty much called Rove out as a liar in a conf with Abrams. Clip up at TPM.
From the 1st document, more goodies:
Sounds like Harriet was in on the plan to make their own reality.
I keep tripping over more and more goodies with each paragraph I read:
OT – Google invests in new undersea cable:
Here’s a question, regarding the OVP search:
Why would they give over the January 23 document, but not the document from four days later? What is it about the number of emails found that would permit them not to hand over the document?
The gun wasn’t smoking on January 23?
But 4 days later all the bullets were gone?
Something smells and it smells like smoking guns.
Beginning to read the McDevitt interog responses, it seems carefully worded to depict only what the author did, as well as providing references to reports written and problems addressed early in his tenure; I think one of the reports he wrote which he says should be available at ocio, would provide more details about the environment mzm configured. It may be worth studying from the timeline perspective. It seems to fit the timeframe in which MZM worked under 4thBranch’s $155.k furniture plus IT contract originally. But later that year mzm’s contract became DoD budgeted FY2003-2007. I would wonder if the mzm work for dod was at wh on secure systems, or elsewhere unrelated. McD’s responses seem to allude to a threshold in September with respect to transitioning to a reliable, commercial-off-the-shelf email archival solution, without expounding with specificity on the part of the archiving problem that was mzm’s work, rather McD’s attention as stated, was upon solutions to remedy the weakness and gaps.
And more:
Funny how it is that Admiral Mikey McConnell, our non-political Director of National Intelligence, came to his new job from Booz Allen Hamilton.
FWIW and afaik, white supremacists hated Strom Thurmond, because he fought lynching.
Strom wasn’t altruistic. He correctly understood that segregation would be easier to preserve if he helped end the epidemic of lynching that extended after Reconstruction into the 1920’s. Lynching still happened after the 20’s, but it was far less frequent.
We soldier on.
from rep. waxman’s background materials, on
the lost/missing/destroyed/not looked after
emails — we garner this juicy tidbit:
[emphasis supplied.]
sickening. simply sickening.
there likely went dick cheney’s
most indictable [provable] offense:
suborning the perjury of one
scooter libby — by blackberry or e-mail.
p o o f.
Laura Rozen’s got the MZM email item up over at War and Piece
And to what does Ms. Payton owe her employment to? Could it be that she is a loyal Bushie?
Or could it be that Ms. Payton did exactly what she was hired to do? Hide the ball?
Sure looks that way, doesn’t it.
Also interesting that she says McDevitt reported to Deputy CIO for a time–he doesn’t say that. Suggests she was demoting him out the way or something.
Also, her more important job is to stall and prevent any reconstruction of tehse emails. a year and a half and counting so far–good work, Payton.
And McDevitt knew what was going down:
That’s another little slip on her part; she made at one other slip today.
Why was there a need for concern over PRA-compliant records or political records on the EOP at all?
Hatch Act.
One really aggravating thing about McDevitt’s responses is he never tells us how often “regular” manual and or automatic copying of the emails is.
It would help us figure out how much time people had to cover their tracks.
He says that it was daily:
After the issue of potential missing email was identified in October 2005, one of the
corrective actions was to implement a standardized formal daily procedure to ensure that
the daily process to copy email messages from the Exchange journals to .pst files
occurred without error and was completed as defined by the standard operating
procedure.
Which is curious, because McDevitt also said/warned this:
No, that’s after the email problem was discovered. And also, effectively after whatever attempt Libby made to hide evidence was over (bc of hte indictment). I’m talking about, say, the period from Sept 30 to October 6, 2003.
It was supposed to be daily before, I believe. That’s in the docs released to CREW through their FOIA. I’m on my way out the door now, but will definitely be back this evening with further comments. Pay close attention to how McDevitt describes management decisions.
Wow
Yeah. That was my WTF??? in the last thread.
3000 known users with access across the entire network.
This is utterly inexcusable. They cannot explain this because it simply defies even gross ignorance. They literally left every door wide, wide open.
That Philippino spy in Cheney’s office, for example? He had access to EVERYTHING.
For all we know he was a deliberate plant and the work he did was hidden by the hullabaloo about his so-called apprehension.
What’s $155,000 buy anyhow? I figure one really good tech and a hefty server, and hush-yo’-mouf money.
Oh, I know–this is the expanded version.
In any case, it sure does suggest the email Fitz got may be worthless.
Yeah, I damn near fainted when she actually said “3000 users”.
If that had been said in front of management at a Fortune 100 company I worked for, that the entire network for the corporate offices with 3000 users had been wide open like that, the network would have been shutdown immediately for intervention, and a human sacrifice would have been offered up before the end of the week, impaled on a pink slip.
But then to read it in McDevitt’s response? Sucks the wind completely out of one’s sails. The entire IT department knew about it, at the very minimum. The Waxman should subpoena every single person in A&E capacity below McDevitt, and the entire operations group responsible for backups and system integrity.
IIRC the House had problems with Republicans knowing that there was no password needed to get into the system and that the Democrats thought the system (and therefore their communications) required passwords to get into the system. Who knows who read who’s email? IIRC this was discovered in early 2007, and was addressed at the same time they passed a law prohibiting congressfolk (and more importantly, their staff) from insider stock trading.
You know that means there are archives of key peoples’ files out there somewhere. Just not in possession of the IT guys — the ones who should have them. I’d be looking into everyone who had a computer on the EOP net that was (is?) equipped with any form of high-capacity storage — big HD, RAID, DVD-R, tape drives, or even a bridge to another network (oh dear gawd, don’t let it be the public internet) where copies could be written to.
SmarTech.
PSTs were originally limited to 2 GB in size. Now they can be upto 18 GB. Used to fit easily on a DVD.
I would check out who in the WH has been purchasing/requisitioning DVDs. I’m kinda guessing Turdblossom (blackmail has always been his particular fetish), Deadeye (just like TB), and Hadley is probably weasel enough to participate too!
High capacity storage? A gigabyte can hold one heck of a lot of emails. And one Gig thumb drive these days are easy to get.
BTW, I haven’t seen this question addressed: In email systems of the type indicated, is it common to store attachments together with their message, or in a separate location? For example, I use Eudora, which keeps all attachments in a separate file. Ditto any embedded graphics (which are kept in a special folder named Embedded, IIRC). In other words, email messages in html could have their contents partialed out in a number of different locations. However, Lotus Notes and other mainstream email systems probably operate differently.
Bob in HI
Does this mean the WH isn’t encrypting ANY of its emails?
Well, maybe yes or maybe no. *g*
There is the “separate” email system used by all the folks on the National Security Council staff (and those who communicate with the NSC folks like Rove to Hadley for example *g*) which is operated by the WHCA – White House Communications Agency.
The WHCA is 90% staffed by active duty military folks – predominately Army with something like 55% of the slots.
The WHCA does journals/archives/backups of their Exchange Server email system.
There is even an open question in my mind as to whether the WHCA folks secretly backup the OA Exchange Server email system.
Which doc was that taken from? I wonder if it’s an ignorant commment (by whoever made it) or fact. If the later, it suggests to me incompetance rather than design (feature!!!). Centralized “signing” of email (eg. 3rd party “trusted” signing/encoding/decoding provided by companies such as RSA/Verisign for SSL/TLS email encryption) for “groups” or dedicated servers is now well established so far as retaining system wide administrator retention of required “keys” for decoding.
Put simply, this means a secure, centralized repository (database) of encryption passwords & keys for given email server(s) which would enable the decoding of any mail sent from any account on said server(s) by an authorized administrator. I can’t site a specific post, but tech issues relevant to just this kind of implementation were discussed in detail in Bruce Schneier’s blog. (Schneier’s books are cryptography 101 for computer professionals doing this security/encryption etc.). He actually released on open source, secure encrypted database for just this kind of thing that has been a model used widely for this “stuff”.
Beyond that, implementing what’s called “self-signing”… meaning having one’s own email server equipped with necessary validation procedures to handle all the RSA stuff, is widely used these days. It eliminates cost (RSA too pricey for many small startups, and unnecessary as well AFAIC), is as secure as RSA (or any other 3rd party “signer”), and makes it easy to centralize retention of all passwords/keys that would be necessary to establish a “facility to manage records retention of encrypted email”. All this “stuff” is integral part of my programming toolset, and something I’ve done a lot of for various HIPAA email.
If I’m Dick Cheney, and I tell architects of WH email system I want full administrative control to delete any records, any time, then I’d build an EXCHANGE server similiar to what these hearings (especially McDevitt’s charactarizations: system wide PST access) reveal as implementation. It also makes me thing that if indeed expunging records was integral, any encryption might be considered both unnecessary and also a hindrance when examining email that needed to be scrubbed.
MD, can you give me a source for all that?
This is one of the big problems probing through smokescreens of lies: leads to guesswork, however well founded, and ensuing uncertainty.
McDevitt is still a government employee over at FEMA. While it would seem as though he was pushed out of OA because he was disgruntled (or he knew too much) he still managed to land a job in a bureaucracy that vets all jobs through a political lens.
Do you suppose that McDevitt’s present job at FEMA it what stands between him and telling the full truth to the Committee?
PF The name was discussed by three different officials. One was charged with perjury. [Ut oh, Pat, what about Ari? I count 4 people]
Armitage, Rove, and Libby. I don’t think Ari ”counts” in Fitz’s eyes, because Libby was the original ”source” his leak.
Also Wolfie was dispatched to WSJ. From International Herald Tribune 2/9/07…’Libby recalled asking Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to deal with The Wall Street Journal.
“I don’t have as good a relationship with The Wall Street Journal as Secretary Wolfowitz did,” Libby told the grand jury. “I talked to Secretary Wolfowitz about trying to get that point across, and he undertook to do so.”
The Journal ran an editorial focusing on the theme Libby wanted. The editorial stated that the prewar intelligence the newspaper was describing had not come from the White House, “which to our mind has handled this story in a hamhanded fashion.”
28 – and remember that Booz got the “job” of “auditing” the SWIFT bank snooping program. The one the European privacy board found illegal. Which is one of the reasons I go back to whether or not what we have had telecoms do is illegal in other countries and where some of McConnell’s concerns about massive liability might (might not) come in too.
37 – we’ve been around that ring before and I’m unchanged on thinking he came up with a solution most likely to protect who he perceived as his clients – Ashcroft and Bush. I know you think very differently and I respect the difference. Nothing I’ve seen changes me opinion though. But I admit pretty freely to a bias against all the torture enablers and cover up artisans and I admit that is where my opinion places Comey. So I’m a “consider the source” source of comment.
Re McDevitt – even if he didn’t have “operational” responsibility, didn’t he have supervisory responsiblity? Or not?
Here’s an interesting point.
WH didn’t want McDevitt to testify bc of deliberative discussions.
Is this one of them?
Sure sounds like WH doesn’t want us to know what Harriet and Andy Card told McDevitt in 2005, when they were still trying to keep this under wraps.
Hey, wait a sec. If the network was ”open” to anyone with access to it, does that mean that anyone on the network could have made copies of other people’s e-mail?
Ever notice how the emails we’ve seen in doc dumps have been curiously devoid of what you’d consider water cooler chatter?
They knew something was up.
Absolutely yes!
And if you were just to tired to make copies, you could at least read ‘em.
is this where Greg Palast comes in?
And EW, Jane, Christy, Glenn, you and me and millions more!
Arise ye serfs and throw off your chains! The world is ours and our enemies will be vanquished!
As good as Palast can be, he’s slow. This is a job for groups of people with investigative chops on a distributed basis.
So, should standard Congressional testimony always include the question, “Do you have any e-mails to support the testimony you provided today?”
I’ll bet there are a bunch of underlings who made bugga bugga copies everytime their bosses told them to do something questionable or stupid. The Nuremburg defense isn’t much to rely on, but if its all you’ve got, you might as well give it a shot.
Bob in HI
Holy shit, bingo:
I trust we are not at a loss for the apparent implications of that?
Next question. Why didn’t we have this little hoedown we are having today about one year ago??
Is anyone else coming to the conclusion that Henry Waxman’s bombshells today are part of an overarching Democratic election year strategy?
I’m thinking this:
1. Dems figured by mid-Feb that Presidential Nominees would be done. Didn’t quite happen on the Dem side, but bear with me.
2. Dems figured that Repugs would retreat to their last resort of the Turdblossom-conceived, Junya and Deadeye-implemented, and general Repug cheerleading of Fear Americans, Fear!
3. Dems figured that while the didn’t have the votes to impeach Junya and Deadeye (that wasn’t a good enough excuse in my eyes, but keep bearing with me *g*), they sure as hell had enough crimes and scandals to bury the Repug corpse continously for the rest of year until November arrives.
Is this the Democratic 08 Campaign strategy with teeth we’re finally seeing unfold?
The Repugs will try and sell their tired old fearmongering, and the Democrats will ramp up the voter anger at Repug criminals trying to get away with crimes?
If the House Democrats manage to standup to FISA Retroactive Immunity, I might buy into this theory myself. *g*
Maybe. If so, then I am not a happy camper though, because that means the Democrats are toying with propriety and justice, and on a grand scale, for petty political purposes. It may not be as bad as the Republicans, but it is about the same rotten deal. If that is true, those making those dicisions should be ridden out of town on a rail and driven right into incarceration with the Republicans.
I have just been trying to catch up here and have not gone and read the document you folks are working off of. Is it sworn or otherwise certified?
Yeah, I too would find that rather calculating. Twould seem to fit with folks like Rahm however, and I wouldn’t put political calculations past most politicians regardless of party.
Good question! McDevitt’s is called “Interrogatory of Steven McDevitt”. Sounds legalese to this non-lawyer’s ears, but not the same as “deposition”.
In civil litigation, interrogs are countersigned and certified as accurate by the client/respondent. Guess I better go look. Thanks
Man, I hope you’re right!
Bob in HI
For emphasis:
Q:
A:
This bit, from Q.44 –
This is another great way to hide responsive content, right under their noses.
Email sent, with a cryptic or non-existent subject, no text, only an attachment.
This is likely why she killed ECRMS.
Wait a minute. If someone on the EOP net was snooping the computers of other people on the EOP net, and sending it outside of the EOP net via some other network link — maybe a dedicated private and supposedly secure one from SmarTech etc., or maybe the insecure public internet — then there would have been no need to keep any backups within EOP, because backups of whatever they cared about were being kept elsewhere. Might help explain the very very odd nonchalance at not having any produceable backups.
Just to follow the train of thought, I guess if it were being sent over the public internet, then any Narus-type taps would have snarfed it all up, so the NSA — or the CIA, or Amdocs, or whomever — would also have a copy of everything. So I’m guessing if it happened, it wouldn’t have been over the public internet.
I think it’s pretty well established that there was some sort of RNC-furnished computer network operating inside the White House. Whether it was Blackberries, or a wireless LAN, a full wired network with RNC computers, or just some sort of hole opened up in the EOP firewall to access RNC webmail it is not clear. But the capability was there.
It’s not far from using a jump drive to download the EOP’s network files and dispatch them off the the RNC using computer equipment on the next desk over.
But, aside from the BlackBerries, you need someone inside the WH complex (18 acres) to make it happen. Staffers don’t have control of the physical campus. Secret Service and the career staff do.
So if it was a wired network, someone would have had to allow the RNC to come in, with their computers, run wires and set up.
If it was a wireless network, much of the same.
So who’s the inside person? Does this also relate to the Secret Service visitor records? Would the crack team from RNC Tech Support or SmarTech Corp’s visit to install the parallel network also need to be hideen like Abramoff and Jeff Gannon’s visits?
Think of all the topics beyond the Plame one – btw, did anyone ask Fitzgerald today if he was aware or became suspicious of PResidential Records Act or Hatch Act violations that were outside of the scope of his mandate and if so if he made any requests or referrals for investigation of those matters?
Anyway, there was voter suppression and rigging, politicizing prosecutions, torture, kidnap, disappearing children, use of military bases for kidnap and torture conspiracies, setting up black sites for torture, the many oopses and releases on the torture front, money laundering, covering for Foggo, defense contracting thievery, Abramoff, casinos, mob killings, Indian funds, the Dept of Interior investigations that barely got going, and on and on. A glance at Hugh’s lists and the things which might have had some bits and pieces of an email trail are staggering.
If history is prologue, this next year will see the remaining rats jumping ship and a few will have to turn witness to save themselves. Also, this administration has been so sloppy and far-reaching corrupt that a smart Dem staffer who joins the White House staff in Jan 09 will find something left behind to pursue. I know that’s what I’d be doing instead of coffee breaks
somewhat OT
Theresa Payton CIO – Government Organization
Current CIO at US Government
Past SVP at Bank of America
SVP at Wachovia
Senior Manager at Barnett Banks, Inc.
Education University of Virginia
Immaculata University
Theresa Payton’s Experience
CIO
US Government
(Government Agency; 1001-5000 employees; Government Administration industry)
May 2006 — Present (1 year 10 months)
SVP
Bank of America
(Public Company; 10,001 or more employees; BAC; Banking industry)
September 2004 — April 2006 (1 year 8 months)
SVP
Wachovia
(Public Company; 10,001 or more employees; WB; Banking industry)
July 1995 — September 2004 (9 years 3 months)
Senior Manager
Barnett Banks, Inc.
(Public Company; 10,001 or more employees; BBI; Banking industry)
July 1990 — July 1995 (5 years 1 month)
Theresa Payton’s Education
University of Virginia
M.S., Management Information Systems, 1989 — 1990
Immaculata University
B.A., Economics, Business Administration, 1985 — 1989
Mission Statement
Immaculata University is a Catholic, comprehensive, coeducational (since 2005) institution of higher education sponsored by the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Its programs, rooted in academic rigor, ethical integrity and Christian core values, encourage a commitment to lifelong learning and professional excellence. With belief in the dignity and potential of all men and women, Immaculata integrates students into a community of service and empowers them to assume meaningful roles in a diverse and changing world. Contributing to the development of the whole person of any faith, Immaculata affirms liberal education as an integrative process in the formation of a truly educated person who is value-oriented and committed to truth, service, justice, and peace.
…In June 2002, Immaculata College received confirmation of university status from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Effective August 2002, the college is now known as Immaculata University.
In October 2003, after in-depth studies, the university decided to welcome men into its traditional undergraduate college beginning fall 2005. The University’s three-college structure now includes the College of Undergraduate Studies, the College of LifeLong Learning, and the College of Graduate Studies.
I went to the Judiciary website to find a link to the hearing, could not find. If I want to watch it a later date…where do I find it.
On the HJC website, on the upper left quadrant is the “Schedule”.
It has a scrollbar and if you scroll down in that box, you will see the links to the individual hearings.
Based on what I’ve seen there right now, they only do the webcasts live. You can “read” the testimony from the earlier hearings, but apparently you can’t re-run the webcasts.
Perhaps some other kind soul here knows where the previous webcasts can be found.
Leen – which hearing do you want? i don’t have everything, but i did make an audio recording of this morning’s hearing on voter suppression and i did make a video recording (for what it’s worth) of fitz’s testimony. if either of those is of interest to you (or anyone else here), i’ll post them.
We weren’t able to see today’s hearing and would love to see your video recording of fitz’s testimony. Thanks. That would be great.
Yes both. Thanks Selise
As for the hole in the EOP computer firewall to access RNC webmail, we know that the Clinton Administration prohibited and bloced access to all web-email type sites.
And we know from McDevitt’s questionnaire that, at least on paper, that was the policy of the Bush Administration.
So question is, did they enforce the policy, or OOPS, just like all net files were available to any user on the system, web access was also free and open?
What part of the following is a gross exaggeration?
The Exec Branch may not only be anxious to hide the emails; it may also be terribly embarassed by its culpability — and the really bad PR — that could head its way should it become generally realized just how STUPID and INEPT they have been.
I’m guessing the OA network was firewalled against intrusion, but that doesn’t mean that an intelligence service wouldn’t compromise some WH staffer to burn a whole bunch of DVDs daily.
Could have been Rove’s failsafe to keep everyone in line from telling secrets. Nothing’s more revealing than someone’s unvarnished e-mails.
Yeh, one way or the other. Don’t these people realize that WH emails are practically the Holy Grail of intelligence gathering? Who wouldn’t want to know which way the elephant is going to roll? Unless the deliberations in the system have grown so centered on engineering the downfall of our previously-rather-democratic system that they are of no interest to observers outside our borders — elephant in process of imploding; no change.
I don’t believe the WH system was open to everyone. I believe this is a CYA talking point. Whose ass does this cover? Everyone’s except for tech support and their managers.
Totally C/T territory here, but Wachovia was the bank for of all the bad NRCC accounts being handled by Chris Ward.
Yup, I was thinking the same thing. Though it was after she left, I think. They’ve only switched to Wachovia branches in the last few years.
I just want to pick up on what earlofhuntingdon said last thread:
McDevitt said that one of the rationales for the Notes-Exchange switch was that LookOut/Exchange was used on the campaign, and they wanted better MSOffice compatibility. Now, I can sorta kinda accept that, but a presidential campaign’s records aren’t the property of the people.
Absolutely. You just get the sense that BushCo’s political ops brigade thought that the official channels were a drag. They’d done things one way as private citizens, and they weren’t going to change it to satisfy the responsibilities of the office.
The MZM connection? Weren’t they meant to be providing threat scanning? I’m not sure if there’s a smoking gun there, except for the fact that anything MZM touched from a tech standpoint turned to shit.
Payton u’grad degree listed from Imm. University 1989, 13 years before it became a “university”. Er..ah..,
…In June 2002, Immaculata College received confirmation of university status from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Effective August 2002, the college is now known as Immaculata University.
re kspena @72
I think it’s far more important to note that Payton does not have a technical background at all. There’s nothing in her CV that indicates she really understands the technology for which she was ultimately responsible.
The only qualifying credential I can see is that bit about Immaculata College — was she an authoritarian adherent? Was she always someone who’d ask How high, sir? whenever asked to jump? Yeah, I can see DeadEye and Co. digging on that attribute.
A minor point that seems to be confusing some people. The access that everyone had to the servers is about stuff that is stored on those servers. People could read, write, and erase things on the servers just like you would to a file on the hard drive of your desktop machine. The network itself is ethernet and that is promiscuous by design. Everyone on the network has access to all the packets that are traversing the network (though you need appropriate software to see them). In order to prevent packets being seen by non-authorized people, you need either encryption or a physical break in the network (like a firewall).
So anyone on the net could have archived all the traffic that was being generated (probably vetted to avoid all the web-based crap) if they were determined to do so, without having any access to the servers. Access to the servers just lets people with no particular expertise in networking play god with the email records.