Earlier today, I posted about Sharyl Atkisson of CBS News whose computers were hacked last year by someone who searched through her documents and then tried to cover up what had been done. It seems that the likely culprit is the federal government which has the skills and the motive for the attack on Atkisson.
Over at Powerline blog, John Hinderacker has a post which says what many of us have been thinking upon hearing of this latest invasion into a reporter's notes and materials. Hinderacker says it reminds him of the Watergate breakin. His post is worth reading.
One last note on Atkisson: the Department of Justice has announced that "to its knowledge", the DOJ did not invade Atkisson's computer system. Amazing! DOJ can only tell us that it did not do this TO ITS KNOWLEDGE!! Are they kidding? They don't know for sure if it was them or not?
How can the Department of Justice of the United States of America be so poorly managed that the spokesman for DOJ is not sure whether or not that department spied on Atkisson?
Over at Powerline blog, John Hinderacker has a post which says what many of us have been thinking upon hearing of this latest invasion into a reporter's notes and materials. Hinderacker says it reminds him of the Watergate breakin. His post is worth reading.
One last note on Atkisson: the Department of Justice has announced that "to its knowledge", the DOJ did not invade Atkisson's computer system. Amazing! DOJ can only tell us that it did not do this TO ITS KNOWLEDGE!! Are they kidding? They don't know for sure if it was them or not?
How can the Department of Justice of the United States of America be so poorly managed that the spokesman for DOJ is not sure whether or not that department spied on Atkisson?
2 comments:
Perhaps a rogue Justice Department employee broke into her computer. The powers that be did not know about it and yet one would properly call that a break-in by Justice, since the Department is responsible for the acts of its employees. I suspect that it is to allow for that sort of scenario that some lawyer added "to its knowledge" in the denial. With so much misconduct having occurred in numerous agencies in the Obama Administration, it is understandable that they don't want to definitively deny misconduct, even if they have no knowledge of anything untoward having occurred. I would rather that they say that they have no knowledge of it rather than giving a definitive denial and being shown to be wrong in a week or two when a whistleblower comes forward from wherever he went for asylum and admits that he broke into the computer.
Perhaps a rogue Justice Department employee broke into her computer. The powers that be did not know about it and yet one would properly call that a break-in by Justice, since the Department is responsible for the acts of its employees. I suspect that it is to allow for that sort of scenario that some lawyer added "to its knowledge" in the denial. With so much misconduct having occurred in numerous agencies in the Obama Administration, it is understandable that they don't want to definitively deny misconduct, even if they have no knowledge of anything untoward having occurred. I would rather that they say that they have no knowledge of it rather than giving a definitive denial and being shown to be wrong in a week or two when a whistleblower comes forward from wherever he went for asylum and admits that he broke into the computer.
Post a Comment