I was having some of the same thoughts, too. As a conspiracy, this doesn't quite add up. Why would a Justice Department, especially one as politicized and tightly linked to the White House as this one, allow the fingers to continue to be pointed so close to home? Even taking into account our slothful media, the trail could still have been pretty easy to follow from there.

I have to admit that in spite of that, this still makes a slightly more compelling case than the various "9/11 was an inside job" whackos. Too many disturbing elements to it, like RIchard Cohen's suspicious advance warning. Someone needs to subpoena that jellyfish, stat.

I work at the NIH, and of everyone I've talked to, the answer is an emphatic no. It's the same response I saw to the Powell UN presentation: "where is your data"?

It should also be noted that, even if the scientific data were all out on the table and seemingly above level, they would be unlikely to get a successful prosecution simply because they would probably never be able to fully demonstrate chain of custody of the evidence. From what has been said so far, the FBI was in collaboration with a number of external labs, working confidentially and passing samples back and forth. There's ample chance there for tampering or simple clerical errors ("oops, meant to write sample A rather than B").

And, of course, there is these astonishingly poorly-chosen words from one agent on the case: "We were practically inventing the science as we went along." Yeah, THAT instills confidence, for sure.

The always-repellent Michael Gerson, former Bush speechwriter, is tsk-tsk'ing about unnamed "liberals" who are criticizing Palin's insane snake-handling theocratic beliefs.

As a bonus, without a hint of irony, he mocks liberal Christians in the exact same column, for being tantamount to "secularists" and not being as numerous as "evangelicals" (of course, being as dishonest as he is, he compares one specific "liberal" denomination to the incredibly broad banner of "evangelicals" which spans a quite varied range of beliefs).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102842.html

largely because the account wasn't "hacked" per se; the "Anonymous" user was able to gain access to her email account simply because... get this...

Palin's password-reset question was "What is your ZIP code?"

That's all.

Palin may be able to file a civil suit, if she ever finds out the guy's identity. He used a proxy, though, and without a clear crime it's unlikely that law-enforcement officials will make much of an effort to pry beyond that.

Though now that I think about it, the corrupt Republican machinery will probably be able to pull some strings for their loopy puppet-girl.

That's like saying that someone who breaks into your house and makes copies of all your private papers and posts them online didn't really do anything wrong becuase you were stupid enough to leave your front-door key under your welcome mat.

Exactly what law was being broken, though? It's an outrage on privacy, of course, but if the Register is accurate, then law enforcement agencies are not following this up, and I assume there is a reason.

As I understand it, email hosts take great pains to tell users to never choose passwords or security questions that can be easily guessed. All part of a comprehensive CYA policy, natch, but the implicit attitude is that if someone guesses your password, sucks to be you, you're on your own.

Breaking into servers is clearly illegal and a serious crime, but that's not what happened here.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be snotty, some users were just arguing whether there is a criminal case to be made here, and I'm ignorant enough of the law that I'm not sure whether "some guy guesses your doofy password" is a prosecutable crime.

"In addition to every Republican Senator, those voting to authorize that repellent power... "

Every Republican, but one. Chafee voted nay.

I miss that guy.