(Republicans in a) Pickle Report - Parts 1 and 2, at Findlaw

[TacticalPeek]

(For the snoopy among us.)


I. The Scope and Methodology of the Investigation

A. Events Preceding the Investigation

On Friday, November 14, 2003, a Wall Street Journal editorial set forth excerpts of five documents that the Journal described as Democratic "staff strategy memos." The following day the Washington Times reported that it had obtained 14 internal Democratic staff memoranda. The article specifically states the 14 documents "did not come from a Senate staffer." (The two articles are attached to this report as Attachment "A.") On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, 28 pages of material represented to be "the Democrat memos on judicial nominations," including those referenced in the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times articles over the weekend, were posted on the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary's website at www.fairjudiciary.com. (The 19 relevant documents from the website are attached to this report at Attachment "B.")

On Saturday, November 15, 2003, the Deputy Sergeant at Arms was first notified by Senator Kennedy's Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, Mr. _____, that there was a potential security problem with the Judiciary Committee computer system. At the request of Mr. _____, the Deputy Sergeant at Arms arranged for a member of the Assistant Sergeant at Arms - Chief Information Officer's staff to meet Mr. _____ at his office to provide him technical assistance in assessing the situation.

Later that weekend, in consultation with the Deputy Sergeant at Arms, the Majority and Minority Staff Directors for the Committee agreed to place the Committee's server backup tapes in the custody of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) for preservation. The Committee's System Administrator gathered the backup tapes and just after midnight on Sunday, November 16, 2003, the USCP took into custody a box containing 20 tapes, two access cards that allow users to remotely access the network, and an envelope containing 3 pieces of paper with what appeared system administrator passwords noted. At this time, the door to the Committee's computer room, SD 222, was sealed with police tape.

B. The Beginning of the Investigation . . .

lots more
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/senate/pickle30404rpt1.html

[TacticalPeek]

1. Josh Marshall has some sections already tenderized.

For instance, if you look at pages 21-22 of the report (we've uploaded these sections to the TPM Document Collection), you see that Jason Lundell -- the little gizmocrat who first discovered he could get access to the memos -- was also responsible for "speaking with the Department of Justice Legislative Affairs and Legal Policy representatives."

So he worked in a liaison capacity with the people who run the judicial appointments at Justice.

It turns out there's a footnote to that sentence I just quoted.

And when you go to the bottom of the page you see that footnote reads: "As of the time this report is being completed, the Department of Justice still has under consideration investigators' request to interview the employee who Mr. Lundell reports having contacts with."

...

The report says Miranda "declined to give investigators the name of the friend stating that he did not want to prolong the investigation. He also refused to give investigators the names of his White House legislative contacts for the same reason."

I bet Martha Stewart wishes she'd known about this right of non-prolongation, don't you?


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

[seemslikeadream]

2. I was talking to myself about that alittle while ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1204942

[TacticalPeek]

4. Kick. n/t

[thebigidea]

3. I'm puzzled as to why this is getting so little attention

I mean, even the Dems aren't hollering about it. If they are, I haven't hear a word...

anything from Leahy?

And how could the newsdrones not want to report on stories that feature a man named "Bill Pickle"?

[seemslikeadream]

5. for the snoopy amoug us

It is highly unusual that a sitting United States Senator, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, would appear on two fringe internet radio broadcasts in two weeks. The same could be said for a top staffer in the Senate Leader’s office, especially in the busy days leading up to the Republicans’ faux filibuster.


For reasonable observers, it is hard to believe that the timing of these events is purly coincidental. This is one reason a criminal investigation is absolutely necessary.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0305-01.htm

[enough]

6. I hope this thing is starting to take on a life of its own.

If so, we don't have to start screaming about it yet, except to let our Senators know we know.

[seemslikeadream]

7. TacticalPeak

What do you make of this?

Memo report jeopardizes prosecution

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES




Senate staffers were stunned to learn that more than a dozen names of fellow aides and former staffers were printed in what was supposed to be a confidential investigation report into how Republicans obtained Democratic Judiciary Committee computer files.
Democrats are concerned that this new information about the leak could ruin any hopes for a criminal prosecution against the Republican snoopers.
After deciding Thursday afternoon to release the report, senators on the Judiciary Committee ordered Sergeant-at-Arms William H. Pickle, who had conducted the three-month investigation, to prepare and photocopy a version of the report with all names and sensitive information deleted for distribution to reporters.
Only after several dozen copies of the 65-page report had been distributed did senators realize that staffers in Mr. Pickle's office had photocopied and helped distribute the confidential version intended only for top Senate leaders.
"It was released inadvertently, as I understand it," said Mr. Pickle's assistant, Al Concordian, who referred further questions to the Judiciary Committee. "It's the Judiciary's property."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040307-115024-1003r.htm

[thebigidea]

8. I could make a hat, or use it to line an imaginary birdcage with

just the mere mention of the "Washington Times" causes me to crack up. I'm afraid I will never be able to live down asking the editor-in-chief if he still thought Rev. Moon was the Messiah.

[TacticalPeek]

9. It's one side of a potential legal case, courtesy of the Moonie press.

"Earlier, Mr. Hatch labeled the full report that was ultimately
released 'committee confidential,' prohibiting it from being
released beyond the committee."


Journalists could still treat this as 'background', protect 'sources', etc. Especially if encouraged to do so by those who feed them, as has worked so well with the White House crew. The article is silent on whether the several dozen 'inadvertently' released copies were recovered to any degree.

Probably little significant worth in publishing the names of 'witnesses' at this point. If I understand correctly, there was no sworn testimony, no subpoena power to compel testimony, etc. Sort of a 'gentlemen's inquiry'.

It would be expected and proper for Mr. Lundell's attorney to frame things as he does in the most favorable light for his client, but unless he holds a signed immunity deal, that's about all he has now: framing. No jury pool is poisoned, there's no prosecutorial misconduct because there's no prosecution. Yet.

Since this is another leaking government, administration conspiracy/disinformation type of case, it obviously should be added to special prosecutor Fitzgerald's provenance.

:evilgrin: