Fool me once . . . shame on . . . shame on you. Fool me . . . you can't get fooled again.

Aw, heck, what I mean to say is that, once someone has tricked you into supporting the illegal invasion and occupation of another country, you really shouldn't trust them. If you do, and they trick you again, well, like we used to say in back in Virginia: Tough titty!

The Bush administration continues to make "questionable" assertions relying upon the corporate media-supported notion that they are to be trusted unless someone proves the truth to be otherwise. I say, let's assume that Bush and Co. are prevaricating unless they prove otherwise. They did, after all, lie to get us into a war that has killed more than three thousand Americans (four thousand, if you count the deaths among private contractors) and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Would they hesitate to lie about e-mails that only cost eight people their jobs?

I say, if the Feds can read my private e-mails and tap my phone with impunity, it's perfectly reasonable for Congress to inspect the RNC's and Blackberry's e-mail backup systems. And the Bush administration, in the interest of proving their truthiness, should support Congress in obtaining such access.

Liberal blogs such as moveon.org could post a 100K reward for the recovery of these emails. Said emails would very quickly be found.

GG:

On CNN tonight, Jack Cafferty took this post and used it as the basis for his commentary

You're hitting the big time more and more often now, Glenn. Congratulations!

Cafferty:

"Kinda like a compost heap, Wolf, the more stuff you pile on it, the greater the odor that emanates from it."

Someone's not a gardener! Although, if what you're piling on is dead meat ...

“…kind of like a compost heap, Wolf, the more stuff you pile on it the bigger the odor emanating from it.”

~ Jack Cafferty after citing Glenn’s post on CNN

What’s that smell?

Blatant disregard for the law.

They don’t even pretend to hide it anymore. The administration no longer cares whether anyone knows about their systemic lawbreaking – it’s what the base wanted, and what Karl wrought. This was the plan; it wasn’t a mistake. They are actually proud of it.

Congrats Glenn and to Digg User "yugandhar" who submitted this post, because it has hit the big time as far as Digg goes. Currently at 744 Diggs.

Actually, this post and the prior one (about the Weekly Standard and its fondness for "near dictator powers") both made it to the front page of Digg and stayed there a good part of the day.

Would you consider sharing some of the readership figures for this blog? Do things like Digg spikes show up noticably in the figures?

Can you give us some idea how much more readership you get at salon versus what you had at Unclaimed Territory?

Average daily readership pretty much doubled the first full month I was here (March) as compared to the last couple months at the old blog.

At this point, no one link can really noticeably spike traffic for a day. I'd say, in terms of sheer quantity, an Atrios link actually delivers more than even the Digg feature did today. But Digg traffic was substantial.

More than the numbers, though, having a post featured in a place like that brings new readers, which is more important. An Atrios or Kos links sends people here who already know the blog, but Digg and other non-blog sources that promote a post here generate new readers, which I think is more important than one-day traffic spikes (that was the primary anticipated benefit of moving the blog to Salon - the doubling of the traffic is all from Salon readers who don't read blogs and therefore weren't that familiar, or familiar at all, with what I was writing).

As it's turned out, the biggest benefit of moving -- which I anticipated somewhat but nowhere near to the extent it has happened -- is that people (especially media and political types) just take much more seriously what is written at a place they know than an independent blog they don't know. That's stupid, but that's how it is. And that is what has enabled much more visibility for these posts, totally independent of the traffic. I can write a post here that, had I written it before, the targets would feel comfortable ignoring it or not responding. Now, they feel compelled to respond, and that only feeds the visibility and impact of what gets written still further.

Caferty File

Was this post just featured on CNN?

Yes - I didn't see it, but C&L has the video of it now (I'll add a link). Cafferty did a really good job with this post - basically took the best parts of every quote and showed the pattern of disappearing documents.

The Presidential Records Act doesn't contain explicit penalties for violations, and violating the P.R.A. may or may not constitute obstruction of justice, but the P.R.A. may be covered by some provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in which case the Sarbanes-Oxley penalties may be applicable. Sarbanes-Oxley applies to record-keeping requirements, whether or not any "official proceeding" is active or pending.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/sarox1.htm

Field Guidance on New Criminal Authorities Enacted in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (H.R. 3763) Concerning Corporate Fraud and Accountability

Section 802. Criminal Penalties for Altering Documents

Previous law: . . . While prosecution of obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 does not require "corrupt persuasion," it does require the existence of a pending proceeding . . .

Amendment: Section 802 adds two new criminal provisions, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 1520. Section 1519 expands existing law to cover the alteration, destruction or falsification of records, documents or tangible objects, by any person, with intent to impede, obstruct or influence, the investigation or proper administration of any "matters" within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, or any bankruptcy proceeding, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or proceeding. This section explicitly reaches activities by an individual "in relation to or contemplation of" any matters. No corrupt persuasion is required. New Section 1519 should be read in conjunction with the amendment to 18 U.S.C. 1512 added by Section 1102 of this Act, discussed below, which similarly bars corrupt acts to destroy, alter, mutilate or conceal evidence, in contemplation of an "official proceeding." . . .

New 18 U.S.C. § 1519 provides: Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Sec. 1102. Tampering with a Record or Otherwise Impeding an Official Proceeding.

Previous Law: Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512, in part, provides a 10 year maximum term of incarceration for an offender who corruptly persuades another person with the intent to, in part, destroy or alter evidence.

Amendment: The amendment adds new subsection (c) to Section 1512 and renumbers existing subsections (c) through (i) as (d) through (j). New subsection (c) imposes a fine and/or a term of imprisonment of up to 20 years on any person who corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record, document or other object with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding, or who corruptly otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes an official proceeding. Section 1512, as amended, should be read in conjunction with the new Section 1519, added by section 802 of this Act, which criminalizes certain acts intended to impede, obstruct or influence "any matter" within the jurisdiction of any Department or agency of the United States, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter. The term "corruptly" shall be construed as requiring proof of a criminal state of mind on the part of the defendant.

New Section 1512 (c) provides:
(c) Whoever corruptly-
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

I wonder if Fred Fielding has been boning up on Sarbanes-Oxley lately.