NEWS: Democrats Fuck Whisleblowers In Their Whistle Holes

Although the panel said it would not accept anonymous tips, it assured those who came forward that their identity would be held in the "strictest confidence."

But in an email sent out today, the committee inadvertently sent the email addresses of all the would-be whistleblowers to everyone who had written in to the tip line.

To announce careful new procedures about to be put in place by the committee for reviewing the tips received through the committee's website.

A technological error in a recent communication inadvertently disclosed certain email addresses. The Committee has not begun its review of the emails, and does not know if any of them are in fact from Justice Department employees as opposed to private citizens expressing more general views. The Committee apologizes for any concern this error may have caused, and is making every effort to protect the confidentiality of those who chose to provide information on the tip line.

Some of the email addresses appear to be transparently fake, but there's also, much more troubling, a vice_president@whitehouse.gov carbon copied on the email, which is the public email address for Vice President Dick Cheney.

Subject: Important notice re House Judiciary Committee tip line, e-mails.

You are among the people who have submitted e-mails to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on its Web site tip line for Department of Justice employees to report allegations or concerns regarding possible wrongdoing involving the Department. This message is to inform you that the Committee is now ending the tip line and has voted to approve procedures governing the confidentiality of the e-mails received.

Under these procedures, only Members of the Judiciary Committee, and Committee staff specifically designated by the Democratic Chairman or Ranking Republican Member, will have access to the e-mails, and they are prohibited from removing any e-mail from Committee offices. Any broader disclosure of any e-mail would first require a vote of the Committee to authorize it. It would be the Committees intent to consult with the sender of any e-mail before any such vote takes place.

This message is also to advise you that you have three business days – until 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday, October 30 – to notify us if you wish to withdraw your e-mail rather than have it reviewed by the Committee under these procedures. If you so notify us, your e-mail, along with any records pertaining to its submission, will be destroyed. If you do not so notify us, we will conclude that you have agreed to submit your e-mail to the Committee under these procedures.

Any request that an e-mail be withdrawn should state in the subject space "PLEASE WITHDRAW E-MAIL," and should include in the body of the request the e-mail address under which your e-mail was submitted, if different than the one used to make the request to withdraw. It should also specify the date and time, if known, or the approximate date and time, that the e-mail was submitted.

Thank you for your interest in the Judiciary Committees work.

Alberto Gonzales flat out lied to Congress on several occasions and will probably be prosecuted.

bald_eagle said:

This first half of the statement is quite factual. The second half is clearly an opinion. How is this irresponsible?

bald_eagle said:

This first half of the statement is quite factual. The second half is clearly an opinion. How is this irresponsible?

bald_eagle said:

Research and documentation!? How irresponsible of you.

bald_eagle said:
It's a statement of opinion. I guess when it's your own, expressing it doesn't make you irresponsible.

The U.S. Inspector General may recommend criminal prosecution of departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the conclusion of an investigation, possibly as early as next month, the fired former U.S. attorney for Western Washington told a Spokane audience Friday.

His refusal to open a federal criminal investigation into voter fraud allegations in Gov. Chris Gregoire's razor-thin victory over Republican challenger Dino Rossi in 2004 may be the reason he was fired, John McKay told the Federal Bar Association.

McKay said he was summoned to Washington, D.C., in June and questioned for eight hours about possible reasons for his firing by investigators with the Office of Inspector General, who will forward their final report to Congress.

"My best guess is it will be released sometime next month,'' and likely will include recommendations for criminal prosecutions of Gonzales and maybe others, McKay said.

It was reported last week that Gonzales has now retained a high-profile defense lawyer, and apparently is refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General, which could signify the investigation is nearly complete, McKay said.

"The chief law enforcement officer for the United States should not lie under oath,'' McKay told the bar association.

John Larkin McKay, a member of a prominent Republican family in the state, attended the University of Washington, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science in 1978. After working as an aide to Congressman Joel Pritchard (R-WA) in 1978-79, McKay earned his law degree at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska in 1982. He was admitted to the Washington State Bar and joined the Seattle law firm of Lane Powell Spears Lubersky in 1982, eventually becoming a litigation partner with that firm. During this time, he was admitted to practice before the United States District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.

jpaul256 said:

I respectfully disagree. Mixing fact and opinion is a tactic being adopted by the worst of the left and the right and is one of the reasons why getting information from the internet is a recipe for disaster. Standards related to debate and composition have been thrown out the window.

attn_ho said:

youre a joke.

bald_eagle said:

FTR said he probably will be prosecuted. You said there's no chance in hell that he will be prosecuted. What's the difference, other than one of the opinions being yours?

You later stated it as a plain fact - he won't be prosecuted. Now who's mixing fact and opinion?