We shall appreciate any comment, reference or update
for it.
U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242
VERMONT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy,
Ranking Democratic Member,
Senate Judiciary Committee
On The Pickle Report
On Stolen Judiciary Committee Computer Files
During A Joint Hatch-Leahy News Conference
March 4, 2004
“There is much in this report that is new, incriminating and revealing about
the stealing of these computer files. The evidence unequivocally confirms
that some Republican staff conspired to spy on and steal from their Democratic
colleagues. This report indisputably shows that this secret surveillance
was calculated, systematic and sweeping in its scope.
“We thank Sergeant At Arms Bill Pickle and his staff for their diligence
and their professionalism. I also thank Chairman Hatch for his cooperation.
“It is not difficult to conclude that this was criminal behavior. This
Senate investigation has established the basic facts. It is the first
step to achieving accountability for this wrongdoing. But more remains
to be done to answer questions about how these stolen files were used, and
by whom. Referring this report to the Department of Justice for criminal
investigation is one of the next steps we must consider.
“There can no longer be any doubt now, if there ever was, that these files
were stolen. In the information age, document theft may take the form
of a series of surreptitious strikes on a keyboard rather than the picking
of a filing cabinet lock, but it is still theft, and it is still wrong.
All senators understand the work of their staffs to be confidential.
The trust in this confidentiality goes to the very heart of the work of the
committees of the Senate and of the Senate itself. Much like the letters
that sit in the mailboxes on our porches, these files were not kept under
a physical lock and key, but nor were they there for anyone to open.
Taking things that do not belong to you is wrong, and there is no excusing
or whitewashing it.
“The calculating partisans who put their own ethics and agenda above the
good of the Senate have tainted the work of our committee. Their wrongdoing
cannot be tolerated, and they must be held accountable for their actions.
“As a former prosecutor, I know that we must take care to avoid compromising
any future criminal prosecutions that may arise from this sordid affair.
I want the full facts of this investigation to be brought to public light.
I also want full accountability for those responsible. We should strike
the right balance between those two goals.”
U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242
VERMONT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judiciary Democrats Send New Letter To Ashcroft On Stolen Memos
[ (Monday, March 1) Note: Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Schumer and Durbin Monday
released a letter they have sent to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking
what knowledge and/or involvement he and officials in the Department of Justice
may have had regarding the systematic pilfering and dissemination of internal
Democratic staff documents by Republican staffers on the Judiciary Committee.
The letter is one of two sent in recent days by the Democratic Senators,
who are attempting to determine what information and involvement various
federal agencies, departments and officials may have had relating to the
theft and the stolen computer records. A similar letter was sent to
the White House on Feb. 25. The text of that letter, to White House
Counsel Alberto Gonzales, is available by clicking here.]
February 27, 2004
The Honorable John D. Ashcroft
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
As you know, the Senate Sergeant at Arms is currently investigating the theft
by Republican staff of internal Democratic computer files from the Judiciary
Committee server. Thousands of computer files are involved, and the
secret surveillance apparently took place from at least 2001 into 2003.
It appears that those involved in this surveillance and theft passed along
information derived from their activities to partisan activists and to hand-picked
columnists and media organizations. The subject matter of most of the
stolen materials appears to have been judicial nominations.
Questions therefore arise as to whether anyone at the Department of Justice,
which is involved in supporting the Administration’s judicial nominees, was
involved in or aware of these activities or made privy to information obtained
through this course of conduct:
Did you or anyone working in the Office of Legal Policy or elsewhere in the
Justice Department, now or during the years 2001-2003 receive any of the
computer files of Democratic Senators or their staffs, or information derived
from those files?
Were you or anyone working at the Justice Department aware that Democratic
computer files were the objects of Republican staff spying, theft or dissemination?
Did you or anyone who worked at the Justice Department from 2001-03 receive
from C. Boyden Gray, Sean Rushton, Kay Daly, the Committee for Justice, the
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary or any other intermediary any of the computer
files of Democratic Senators or their staffs or information derived from
those files?
Did you or anyone who worked at the Justice Department from 2001-03 receive
from Manuel Miranda or any other Senate employee or employees any of the
computer files of Democratic Senators or their staffs or information derived
from those files?
Did you or anyone who has served at the Justice Department receive from Administration
employees at the White House or elsewhere any of the computer files of Democratic
Senators or their staffs or information derived from those files?
Please detail the contacts you and those serving at the Justice Department
had with Manuel Miranda regarding judicial nominations. Did Mr. Miranda
ever indicate to anyone at the Department of Justice that he had a means
of obtaining inside information from the office of any Democratic Judiciary
Committee member? Did he ever offer to provide anyone at Justice with
such information?
Please detail the contacts you and those serving at the Justice Department
had with C. Boyden Gray, Sean Rushton, Kay Daly, the Committee for Justice,
and the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary regarding judicial nominations.
Did any of these individuals ever indicate to anyone at Justice that he or
she had a means of obtaining insider information from the office of any Democratic
Judiciary Committee member? Did he or she ever offer to provide anyone
at Justice with such information?
Given the frequency with which former Republican staffers of the Senate Judiciary
Committee find employment at the Department of Justice, what efforts have
you made to ensure that no one involved, implicated or aware of the computer
thefts has been hired by the Justice Department and that no one who previously
worked at the Judiciary Committee was involved, implicated or aware?
Please provide the results of your inquiry.
We would appreciate your candid and thorough response to each of these important
and relevant questions. We would also appreciate knowing what steps
you took to assure yourself that no one affiliated with the Justice Department
was involved, implicated, aware of or a beneficiary of these computer thefts.
We have yet to hear you or anyone from the Justice Department condemn this
activity. Respectfully, we believe that the Administration’s confrontational
and “by whatever means necessary” approach to its judicial nominations, as
to so many issues, greatly contributed to the atmosphere in which Republican
Senate offices committed these acts. As we are sure you would agree,
establishing full public accountability for these computer thefts is an important
first step toward restoring the basic trust that is necessary to restore
comity in the Senate and with the Executive Branch.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
United States Senator
EDWARD M KENNEDY
United States Senator
CHARLES E. SCHUMER
United States Senator
RICHARD J. DURBIN
United States Senator
# # # # #
Related Links:
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats' Letter To White House On Theft Of Stolen
Memos February 25, 2004
U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242
VERMONT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats' Letter
To White House On Theft Of Stolen Memos
February 25, 2004
The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Judge Gonzales,
As you know, the Senate Sergeant at Arms is currently investigating the theft
by Republican staff of internal Democratic computer files from the Judiciary
Committee server. Thousands of computer files are involved, and the secret
surveillance apparently took place from at least 2001 into 2003. It appears
that those involved in this surveillance and theft passed along information
derived from their activities to partisan activists and to hand_picked columnists
and media organizations.
Questions arise as to whether anyone at the White House was involved or aware
of these activities or made privy to information obtained through this course
of conduct:
Did you or anyone working in the White House Counsel’s Office or the White
House or anyone who formerly worked in that office or the White House receive
any of the computer files of Democratic Senators or their staffs, or information
derived from those files?
Were you or anyone who has served in your office or at the White House aware
that Democratic computer files were the objects of Republican staff spying,
theft and dissemination?
Did you or anyone who has served in your office or at the White House receive
from C. Boyden Gray, Sean Rushton, Kay Daly, the Committee for Justice, the
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary or any other intermediary any of the computer
files of Democratic Senators or their staffs or information derived from
those files?
Did you or anyone who has served in your office or at the White House receive
from Manuel Miranda or any other Senate employee or employees any of the
computer files of Democratic Senators or their staffs or information derived
from those files?
Did you or anyone who has served in your office or at the White House receive
from employees at the Department of Justice any of the computer files of
Democratic Senators or their staffs or information derived from those files?
Please detail the contacts you and those serving in your office and those
at the White House had with Manual Miranda regarding judicial nominations.
Please detail the contacts you and those serving in your office and those
at the White House had with C. Boyden Gray, Sean Rushton, Kay Daly, the Committee
for Justice, and the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary regarding judicial nominations.
We would appreciate your candid and thorough response to each of these important
and relevant questions. We would also appreciate knowing what steps you took
to assure yourself that no one in your office or at the White House was involved,
implicated, aware of or a beneficiary of these computer thefts.
We have yet to hear you or the President condemn this activity. Respectfully,
we believe that the Administration’s "by whatever means necessary" approach
to its judicial nominations, as to so many issues, greatly contributed to
the atmosphere in which Republican staff committed these acts. As we are
sure you would agree, establishing full public accountability for these computer
thefts is an important first step toward restoring the basic trust that is
necessary to restore comity in the Senate and with the Executive Branch.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
EDWARD M. KENNEDY
CHARLES E. SCHUMER
RICHARD J. DURBIN
SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY STATEMENT
ON THE RELEASE OF SARGEANT AT ARMS
WILLIAM PICKLE'S REPORT ON COMPUTER THEFTS
March 4, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release
Contact: David Smith / Jim Manley
(202) 224-2633
The Report is a startling and disturbing document.
Thousands of the most
private and confidential communications within Senate offices are now known
to
have been stolen, and we do not yet know how many more thousands or tens
of
thousands were taken.
Unfortunately this preliminary report leaves
as many questions un-answered
as it answers, and more work will need to be done by the investigators and
computer experts.
Eventually, when we get some of the blanks
filled in, we will also need a
special prosecutor to determine who should be prosecuted and for what.
How The Democrats Were Hax0red
The Boston Globe has the story about Washington's IT scene. Republican
staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee infiltrated opposition
computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically
passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The Globe. From the
spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff
exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic
communications without a password.
The actual technical issue involved is apparently one of simple file permissions:
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat
of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly
created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties --
even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with
the right password. However, sharing the same network and servers between
the parties, and using those servers to store partisan strategy documents,
looks to me like the more fundamental security problem.
Editorial Comment: And these guys make the LAWS that dictate technology usage??!!
Here is the story in the Globe:
Infiltration of files seen as extensive
Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 1/22/2004
WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee
infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy
memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told
The Globe.
From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee
staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted
Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of
memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings
discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight -- and with what
tactics.
The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched
an investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in
the pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website
last November.
With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the
US Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and
seized more than half a dozen computers -- including four Judiciary servers,
one server from the office of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee,
and several desktop hard drives.
But the scope of both the intrusions and the likely disclosures is now known
to have been far more extensive than the November incident, staffers and
others familiar with the investigation say.
The revelation comes as the battle of judicial nominees is reaching a new
level of intensity. Last week, President Bush used his recess power to appoint
Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, bypassing
a Democratic filibuster that blocked a vote on his nomination for a year
because of concerns over his civil rights record.
Democrats now claim their private memos formed the basis for a February 2003
column by conservative pundit Robert Novak that revealed plans pushed by
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, to filibuster certain
judicial nominees. Novak is also at the center of an investigation into who
leaked the identity of a CIA agent whose husband contradicted a Bush administration
claim about Iraqi nuclear programs.
Citing "internal Senate sources," Novak's column described closed-door Democratic
meetings about how to handle nominees.
Its details and direct quotes from Democrats -- characterizing former nominee
Miguel Estrada as a "stealth right-wing zealot" and describing the GOP agenda
as an "assembly line" for right-wing nominees -- are contained in talking
points and meeting accounts from the Democratic files now known to have been
compromised.
Novak declined to confirm or deny whether his column was based on these files.
"They're welcome to think anything they want," he said. "As has been demonstrated,
I don't reveal my sources."
As the extent to which Democratic communications were monitored came into
sharper focus, Republicans yesterday offered a new defense. They said that
in the summer of 2002, their computer technician informed his Democratic
counterpart of the glitch, but Democrats did nothing to fix the problem.
Other staffers, however, denied that the Democrats were told anything about
it before November 2003.
The emerging scope of the GOP surveillance of confidential Democratic files
represents a major escalation in partisan warfare over judicial appointments.
The bitter fight traces back to 1987, when Democrats torpedoed Robert Bork's
nomination to the Supreme Court. In the 1990s, Republicans blocked many of
President Clinton's nominees. Since President Bush took office, those roles
have been reversed.
Against that backdrop, both sides have something to gain and lose from the
investigation into the computer files. For Democrats, the scandal highlights
GOP dirty tricks that could result in ethics complaints to the Senate and
the Washington Bar -- or even criminal charges under computer intrusion laws.
"They had an obligation to tell each of the people whose files they were
intruding upon -- assuming it was an accident -- that that was going on so
those people could protect themselves," said one Senate staffer. "To keep
on getting these files is just beyond the pale."
But for Republicans, the scandal also keeps attention on the memo contents,
which demonstrate the influence of liberal interest groups in choosing which
nominees Democratic senators would filibuster. Other revelations from the
memos include Democrats' race-based characterization of Estrada as "especially
dangerous, because . . . he is Latino," which they feared would make him
difficult to block from a later promotion to the Supreme Court.
And, at the request of the NAACP, the Democrats delayed any hearings for
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals until after it heard a landmark affirmative
action case -- though a memo noted that staffers "are a little concerned
about the propriety of scheduling hearings based on the resolution of a particular
case."
After the contents of those memos were made public in The Wall Street Journal
editorial pages and The Washington Times, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch,
Republican of Utah, made a preliminary inquiry and described himself as "mortified
that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential
files may have occurred on my watch."
Hatch also confirmed that "at least one current member of the Judiciary Committee
staff had improperly accessed at least some of the documents referenced in
media reports." He did not name the staffer, who he said was being placed
on leave and who sources said has since resigned, although he had apparently
already announced plans to return to school later this year.
Officials familiar with the investigation identified that person as a legislative
staff assistant whose name was removed from a list of Judiciary Committee
staff in the most recent update of a Capitol Hill directory. The staff member's
home number has been disconnected and he could not be reached for comment.
Hatch also said that a "former member of the Judiciary staff may have been
involved." Many news reports have subsequently identified that person as
Manuel Miranda, who formerly worked in the Judiciary Committee office and
now is the chief judicial nominee adviser in the Senate majority leader's
office. His computer hard drive name was stamped on an e-mail from the National
Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League that was posted along with
the Democratic Senate staff communications.
Reached at home, Miranda said he is on paternity leave; Frist's office said
he is on leave "pending the results of the investigation" -- he denied that
any of the handwritten comments on the memos were by his hand and said he
did not distribute the memos to the media. He also argued that the only wrongdoing
was on the part of the Democrats -- both for the content of their memos,
and for their negligence in placing them where they could be seen.
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of
any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there
is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are
not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official
business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently
by negligent [Democratic] staff."
Whether the memos are ultimately deemed to be official business will be a
central issue in any criminal case that could result. Unauthorized access
of such material could be punishable by up to a year in prison -- or, at
the least, sanction under a Senate non-disclosure rule.
The computer glitch dates to 2001, when Democrats took control of the Senate
after the defection from the GOP of Senator Jim Jeffords, Independent of
Vermont.
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat
of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly
created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties --
even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with
the right password.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
There are other stataments about
UNMOVIC inspections for United Nations in Iraq
An
Expert Witness Point of View
about Iraq weapons
published at
http://www.cita.es/inspections
Miguel Ángel Gallardo Ortiz
, Tel: +34 619776475 E-mail:
miguel@cita.es
WWW.CITA.ES
Apartado (P.O. Box) 17083, E-28080 Madrid, Spain
Tel: 914743809 Fax: 902998379 Móvil: 619776475
(C) 2004 Cooperación Internacional
en Tecnologías Avanzadas, SL en http://www.cita.es