My my, Rove gets really involved in the details of who runs the nameservers for his non-WH communications

The sharp folks at Corrente have found a photo of Rove carrying around info from a TN nameserver provider and speculates on the "services" that a close relationship with such a provider might permit.

Think of it - a political hacker's dream...All that candid email residing on a PRIVATELY OWNED server. Calling all hackers -- no federal crime need be committed in the theft of WH private communications.


Rove spotted in Chattanooga with brochure for gwb43.com nameserver host. Can we subpoena the records now? | CorrenteWire:

"So: Karl went out and hired his own, bespoke, politically wired nameserver company. Of course, Karl would never give business to any company that hadn’t sworn fealty to the authoritarian agenda, but I imagine Karl is also getting a level of, erm, personal service that he wouldn’t get from a fiddy-dollar administrator like GoDaddy or Yahoo or whatever."

Waxman Renews Niger Queries by Ordering Rice to Appear at Hearing

Waxman Renews Niger Queries :: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform :: United States House of Representatives:

Dear Madam Secretary:

On March 12, 2007, I sent you a letter renewing, as formal requests of the Committee, prior letter requests that I sent to you between 2003 and 2006. These requests sought information on the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, White House treatment of classified information, the appointment of Ambassador Jones as “special coordinator” for Iraq, and other subjects. My March 12 letter is attached.

The March 12 letter requested a response by March 23 to several of the inquiries, but the Committee received no response from you.

I now request your appearance before the Committee at a hearing on Wednesday, April 18, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building. At this hearing, you will be asked to provide testimony and respond to questions on the subjects outlined in the March 12 letter and the original request letters. …

Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman

Under oath??

John Bolton on Iraq [BBC]

Two different BBC videos on Bolton's current assessment of the War in Iraq worth perusing. His basic understanding of recent history is astounding, from 'there still may be "intellectual evidence" of WMDs in Iraq' to 'Good thing we won the revolution against British'...

Bolton on BBC w/ critical crowd
YouTube - John Bolton on Iraq [BBC]: "John Bolton on Iraq"

15 British sailors held by Iran | Iran | Guardian Unlimited

Gulf of Tonkin II anyone?

15 British sailors held by Iran | Iran | Guardian Unlimited: "The Iranian navy has detained up to 15 British sailors, the Ministry of Defence confirmed today.

The Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel were taken after they had boarded a dhow during a routine patrol in the Shatt al-Arab waterway at 10.30am local time.

While they were searching the fishing boat for possible smuggling activity, Iranian boats approached the vessel and captured the men at gunpoint and taken to an Iranian naval base.

The waterway has also been an important smuggling route for oil illegally exported from Iraq as well as a crossing point for groups opposed to the US-British occupation and seeking to infiltrate Iraq. The 120-mile tidal river is Iraq's only water access to the Gulf."

Collapsing Colonies: Death of Bees = Death of us?

While Der Spiegel leads with the sexy question about whether GM crops are to blame, the problem is worrisome, whatever the cause. Whole bee colonies are dying. In some places 60-70% of them. To paraphrase the quote from Einstein in the article: No bees=no pollination=no plants=no animals=no us.

Communist Party USA Gives Its History to N.Y.U. - New York Times

Communist Party USA Gives Its History to N.Y.U. - New York Times: "Communist Party USA Gives Its History to N.Y.U.
Michael Falco for The New York Times

The vast collection from the Communist Party USA includes personal letters, smuggled directives and photographs.



By PATRICIA COHEN
Published: March 20, 2007

The songwriter, labor organizer and folk hero Joe Hill has been the subject of poems, songs, an opera, books and movies. His will, written in verse the night before a Utah firing squad executed him in 1915 and later put to music, became part of the labor movement’s soundtrack. Now the original copy of that penciled will is among the unexpected historical gems unearthed from a vast collection of papers and photographs never before seen publicly that the Communist Party USA has donated to New York University."

US embassy officials bombed in Kabul

US embassy officials bombed in Kabul -News-World-Asia-TimesOnline:

"A number of US embassy officials were wounded and a 15-year-old Afghan civilian killed when a Taleban suicide car bomber blew himself up next to a convoy in Kabul this morning.

The explosion took place as the convoy made its way through a road located two miles from the embassy, scattering debris around the motorcade as well as passing pedestrians."

Look how freely they speak in their emails?

TPMmuckraker March 15, 2007:


"In the email, which has the subject line 'Re: Question from Karl Rove,' Kyle Sampson, who was then at the Justice Department, discusses with then-deputy White House Counsel David Leitch the idea of replacing '15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys,' because '80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc.'"

"[I]f Karl thinks there would be poliitical will to do it, then so do I," Sampson concludes.


UPDATE: It is looking more and more like the loyal Bushies have good reason to write so openly and freely in their emails even when the Presidential Records Act (PRA) is supposed to require the indexing and preservation of all Administration written communication -- They're using RNC email addresses from inside the White House and the Department of Justice.

America: The State of the Nation - OhmyNews International

Find any news of these points?

America: The State of the Nation - OhmyNews International:

1. "it has been announced that Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Harry Reid, will make a bipartisan display of unity in support of Israel, by appearing alongside Dick Cheney at the March meeting of the ultra-reactionary American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC has dominated American foreign policy for decades, strengthened since 2000 by the Project for a New American Century, the Bush shadow cabinet, which drew up the blueprints for American empire and the conquest of Iraq and Iran."

2. The European Union increased its abhorrence of the CIA kidnapping of innocent people on the streets of European cities, and their rendition to nations prepared to torture them in exchange for U.S. largesse. Both Italy and Germany have begun prosecutions on these illegal practices.

Reposited for Posterity's Sake

The Raw Story | Ex-White House adviser guilty of 4 of 5 counts, will appeal:

"Former White House adviser I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby has been found guilty of four of five charges, including perjury and obstruction of justice, in the federal court proceedings that resulting from the investigation of the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson."

Diebold Machines Become Liability to Bottom Line?

Wired: AP Technology and Business News from the Outside World on Wired.com:

"CLEVELAND (AP) -- Diebold Inc. saw great potential in the modernization of elections equipment. Now, analysts say, executives may be angling for ways to dump its e-voting subsidiary that's widely seen as tarnishing the company's reputation."

BSG S3E16 [spoilers below]

Not sure if you all have managed to see this yet, but Chief at one point actually says, "It's called a General Strike." (just before Adama threatens to kill Callie).

So, apparently the problems of a class society can be solved in a 3 minute drunk conversation between the Chief and The Pres. Only abstractly of course. My only hope is that the fact that he refuses another drink implies that he is already drunk and that what comes next is "cloud talk" so to speak.

Curiouser and Curiouser

(From RAWSTORY)

AP WIRE: "Vice President Dick Cheney made a visit to the hospital today after experiencing what his office called some 'discomfort' following his recent trip overseas," the Associated Press reports. "A statement from cheney's office said an ultrasound revealed a deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or 'blood clot' in his left lower leg and added his doctors will treat him with blood thinning medication for several months."

Submitted without comment

FT.com / World / US & Canada - Yellow ribbons dwindle with war support: "Magnet America, the largest manufacturer of the product, has seen sales fall from a peak of 1.2m in August 2004 to about 4,000 a month and now has an unsold stockpile of about 1m magnets."

On Libby Jury

Okay - my only speculative post on the Libby jury deliberations:

After a short day of deliberating today, the jury left two questions for the judge to answer for them at the start of the day Monday. You can see the actual handwritten notes here.

Ignoring the first question, I want to wager two guesses about what we can tell about jury from its contents. We'll see if I'm right.

Here is the content of the second jury question:

We would like clarification of the term "reasonble doubt." Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanely possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonble doubt?

Oh, come on. The tortured phrasing? The ridiculous, almost rhetorical nature of the question ("it is not humanely possible...to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt")? One or more potential holdout jurors have been pinned to a very specific (and indefensible) interpretation of reasonable doubt and the burdens of proof, and the unifed block of jurors are sending it up for the smackdown. Don't forget, they sent out a note requesting a dictionary earlier this week and were told they could not have one by the judge.

Even more, I think you can read today's note as strongly suggesting that that a strong majority or supermajority have been able to force the potential holdout juror that it is was their responsibility to propose a definition of "reasonable doubt" that the judge will either confirm or reject. Since the dictionary couldn't be used to point out that "reasonable" and "not humanely possible" only have in common the fact that you can find the words in the same book, the supermajority of jurors are forcing the holdout into a dilemma of their own making.

Why is it likely that there is only one (or at most two) potential holdout jurors?

1. the language of the definition is so tortured with its double (or is it triple?) negation, that it doesn't seem likely that the contents of the defintion are a product of human collaborative effort. (If you look at the note, it has a couple of inserted words, suggesting that the group didn't discuss how exactly to formulate a very precise question. Hell, even the word "specifically" is added via insert. You can almost hear the foreperson now: "Alright, we're holding you to this: What is your specific threshold of doubt, beyond which you would agree that it is not reasonable for Libby to 'forget' what nine others remember pretty clearly? Come on, what is it? And be specific!"

2. Along these same lines -- only a strong majority could exert enough power in small group deliberations to force an individual member of the jury to commit themselves to one specific defintion in the first place. Even two or three people (or even one if they heldout strong enough) could generate enough solidarity and good will among the others to get them accept some other position as at least "reasonable". All that has to be said is that "Sorry gang, but I have doubts that the prosecution proved the charge. I can't just stop having them. And to me, a reasonable person, that means that the charge hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. " Ding dong, hung jury. No no. In our case the potential hold out has been forced to spell out their ridiculous supposition and subject it to open scrutiny of the embodiment of the law, the judge. That means the majority is strong enough to force the minority into an agreement to accept the judge's view of "reasonable doubt" as dispositive. Doubt is such a nebulous thing that I find it hard to believe that anything but a strong and vocal and clear majority could force deliberation to such a head.

3. Also, the ridiculous phrasing strongly suggests that there wasn't a lot of time given to the potential holdout for revision. "Why specifically do you think that the prosecution hasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt? What is your "reasonable doubt"? Oh? Because humans aren't perfect and do forget things? And, what's that you say? The prosecution never ever proved that humans can't forget things, so its still possible that Libby did forget things? Fine - we're sending this up to the judge right now, and asking him if it is okay to apply the standard of guilt you want to use. If the judge comes back saying that the standard we apply must be less that requiring the prosecution to prove that, as you said, "it is not humanely possible for a person not to recall an event" then you must admit you have no reasonble doubt about the defendant's guilt." Without any time to revise you end up with an off-the-cuff and under pressure 'shot in the dark' like an appeal to "I doubt because I've seen insufficient evidence that humans can't forget things." The point the potential holdout would have loved to have made -- if not under such pressure of time -- appears to be something like "Libby is a human, and that under certain circumstances humans can forget even the most amazing things. And I see several reasons for thinking that these were extraordinary times in the VP office., etc., etc.." Alas, a strong, clear majority who see the ridiculousness of this claim just the same, have agreed to exercise their collective power and not give endless time for perfecting the bullshit. Whether that is good or bad, meh.

ps. The other question the jury sent out today concerned a clarification of Charge I - the obstruction of justice charge. I've read several commentators this afternoon who interpreted this as an indication that either the jury is skipping around the charges (and therefore missing the forest for the trees) or that they're stuck even after so many days. Since I'm speculating, I'll wager that they've convicted (or will convict once "reasonable doubt" is settled) on all counts except Obstruction, and now have returned to it as the most serious and the charge that depends on the others. If they were going to aquit on all other counts II-V, would you really have a need to clarify the language in the overraching obstruction charge? And unless our single holdout digs in their heals, a guilty verdict on all counts comes back Tuesday early AM at the latest.