The Wall Street Journal revisits the November 2003 story of the leaked Senate Judiciary Committee memos. When that story first broke I predicted that the most basic of security procedures (not implemented) was likely what made it possible for Republican staffer Manuel Miranda to view the work of Democratic staffers. I was right.
In addition it turns out that was not the first time there had been unauthorized access of data on Committee servers. Essentially the same thing happened in 1996, though the he roles were reversed, with Democratic staffers having a look at the work of Republican Committee staffers.



Comments (7)
I suppose that all of those... (Below threshold)1. Posted by JD | January 25, 2005 3:06 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I suppose that all of those moonbats who accused this fellow of "hacking" into the computer system will now step up and apologize since - 1) my 3 year old daughter could have accessed those documents, and 2) they had done the same thing previously. But, that is probably expecting too much from a group of whacko's that thought this was a criminal matter.
The thing that always really irked me about this situation was not the alleged hacking, it was the actual content of the memos, which frankly, was digusting, even by Sen. Kennedy's standards.
1. Posted by JD | January 25, 2005 3:06 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 25, 2005 15:06
2. Posted by Just Me | January 25, 2005 4:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I agree with JD.
I was always bothered that the story of how the memos were obtained overshadowed the content to the point that the content didn't matter.
And it also bothered me that the GOP sort of took the hits and fired the staffer, when they should have backed him up and raised Hell about what was in the memos, but they just rolled over.
2. Posted by Just Me | January 25, 2005 4:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 25, 2005 16:05
3. Posted by Senator Hiccup Kennedy | January 25, 2005 4:41 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Let's see if I can recall the content of these stolen memos. My gin soaked brain usually precludes this from happening, but in this instance, me and my liberal brethren were able to divert the willing liberal media away from the despicable political motivations outlined in the memos and managed to focus the media on the criminal, I tell you, criminal actions of those nefarious Rethuglicans. Those devious bastards managed to find outlines of how we were delaying appointments to the Federal bench in order to prevent the balance of the Court from being altered prior to their hearing the University of Michigan quota case - oops, did I say quota? I meant affirmative action. Regardless, tampering with the Court is alright as long as us "progressives" do it. The other stuff in those memos outlined how we could not allow Estrada to be confirmed, due, in part, to his being Hispanic. Heaven forbid that we allow an under-represented minority in the Federal government to be used by those racist bastards on the other side of the aisle. We have to show our committment to diversity, by ensuring that those Republicans do not pander to the minorities, and heaven forbid, allow them to appoint one to the bench. Hiccup.
3. Posted by Senator Hiccup Kennedy | January 25, 2005 4:41 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 25, 2005 16:41
4. Posted by Rob Hackney | January 25, 2005 4:56 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Scum sucker Liberal nazis ALWAYS seem to get off the hook.
Hopefully one day they'll know what it's like to have damn justice catch up with them.
4. Posted by Rob Hackney | January 25, 2005 4:56 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 25, 2005 16:56
5. Posted by TallDave | January 25, 2005 5:29 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ironically, the first time it asn't an issue because the Republicans weren't found to be doing anything unethical.
5. Posted by TallDave | January 25, 2005 5:29 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 25, 2005 17:29
6. Posted by Rick DeMent | January 25, 2005 6:35 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Scum sucker Liberal nazis ALWAYS seem to get off the hook.
..and they say reasoned discourse is dead.
6. Posted by Rick DeMent | January 25, 2005 6:35 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 25, 2005 18:35
7. Posted by RichinJapan | January 25, 2005 10:07 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I don't know about reasoned discusourse. Just seems redundant to me.
7. Posted by RichinJapan | January 25, 2005 10:07 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 25, 2005 22:07