Nuggets
from Josh himself, over at TPM...
"A few more details about the Obama passport breach. According to a new piece out in the Post from Glenn Kessler, the breaches occurred Jan. 9th, Feb. 21st and March 14th.

That would be the day after the New Hampshire primary, the day of the Democratic debate in Texas and the day the Wright story really hit."

Those simply aren't co-incidence; one might be, but three notable dates means someone is deliberately looking for dirt to add to the dogpile.

But for Hillary or for McCain? Qui Bono?

Both?

Que pasa?

I’m really not sure what to make of this story but the Clinton-connected conspiracy theories really give me pause. But I can’t see this as anything more than Bush Administration “scandal.”

-Precedent. A previous Bush Administration has searched passport files before and was caught. Many have pointed this out.

-Mismanagement. You’ll recall that the whole US passport program was in disarray at the end of 2007 because the Bush Administration failed to plan for the Canada-Mexico-Carribean travel changes. Waits were stretching on for months. It’s possible these offending contractors may have been brought in to fill the gaps that the Bush Administration allowed to happen.

-Mismanagement II. You’ll also recall that Condi Rice refuses to take even symbolic responsibility for the day-to-day management of State. Blackwater contract? US Embassy in Baghdad? Contractor fraud? Cookie Krnogard? (A Relevant Article from the Post)

-Cover Up. Someone at State knew and didn’t report it up the chain. If a system was installed to track this information, then surely SOMEONE thought it to be important. So where did the info stop, or who suppressed it and why?

The Nutty Conspiracy Stuff

-Pat Kennedy. Was getting a lot of badmouthing yesterday on Kos and CNN. He’s worked for State since the 70’s. He’s a careerist, one of those folks the Bushies are trying to run out of government. Some were trying to make the case he was a Clinton plant. But his biggest jobs have come during the Bush Administration - first, he was the #3 at the UN. Then, he was the Admin coordinator for the newly created office of Director of National Intelligence. Now he’s an Assistant Secretary of State for something. (And all jobs carry the title of Ambassador). He’s not a Clinton plant. He may be a bad manager, or he may be willing to clean up all the Bush poop, but he’s not a Clinton plant.

-The Consular Affairs Ambassador. The lady who used to be an Ambassador to Paraguay under the Clinton Administration. Again, accusations that she was a Clinton plant. She too is a career foreign service officer. Her posting to Paraguay was as a career staffer at State - not as a political appointee. Administratively, yes, it’s accurate to say Clinton appointed her - because that’s the statuatory job of the President. But that’s just like saying that Clinton made Maj. Joe Bob a colonel in the US Army. The President “signs off” on all officer military promotions too. Again, crazy wild speculation. But this lady should be dinged for running a loose ship.

And just what are in these files anyway? Old passport applications? Birth certificate copies? Old headshot photos? Copies of old passports issued (you have to send in your old passport for review when you apply for a new one). Casework files? What did they really expect to find in there? That just tells me that just like those 1992 Bushies that looked through Clinton’s papers, the perpetrators were wholly ignorant of what would even be in the files.

It just smacks of stupidity and then a coverup. And AS ALWAYS, it’s the coverup that gets you in trouble.

Last night I watched Keith Olbermann's "first" Countdown @ 8 pm EDT, and then his second @ 10 pm, which was live rather than a repeat of 8 pm.

On the second, I believe, he interviewed Eric Holder, who's with the Obama campaign, and who, as I recall, used to be in the US Attorney's office in DC.

Holder had a series of questions that should be investigated about this. I'd like to see him on a few more news programs -- and I'd like to see the MSM covering this with a little more completeness [not p. 6 or 8 as in the WaPo & NYT].

Keith's first 18 min. segment is available over @ MSNBC. It's better than the shorter pieces that are up on YouTube, but it doesn't contain the Holder interview. Perhaps someone here can find and link. A link to any of Olbermann's coverage last night would be welcome; it's really comprehensive.

Citoyen92.... a nice rundown, but I am pretty certain that the foray into Clinton's files was directly connected to a trip to Moscow he took while studying abroad in England. Some Clinton critics were making a fuss about what he did on that trip and who he met with and if I remember reading his biography correctly, the snooping was directly related to that.
As it relates to the Obama situation, it's possible that whoever these people were, they were looking for something as specific as the Clinton case, not blindly grasping at straws.

US passport applications changed on 1 February. Even if you've hold a passport and a have proof of citizenship, you are now required to list your parents names', DOB, and citizenship/country of origin, even if they are deceased. You are also required to list the info about current and former spouses. The amount of information they collect is astonishing. What are the chances Obama renewed his passport between 9 January and 14 March?

Could anyone point me to an article that explains the genesis of this story? How did it break, exactly, in chronological terms?

Who is the reporter that tipped off upper management at State? What does he or she have to say?

Yes, the Clinton snooping incident did appear to be an ill-fated expedition to dig dirt on the Russia trip. There is another NYT article out there (from 1992) that probes the subject deeper. The two ringleaders of the search were Bush political appointees (a 37 year old and a 30 year old). Here's the article

A State Department official who carried out the two-day search of passport files for information about Gov. Bill Clinton said today that he had resigned, just 48 hours before Federal investigators are expected to issue a report criticizing the search.

The official, Steven M. Moheban, was a top aide to Elizabeth M. Tamposi, the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs who was dismissed last week by President Bush for her role in the search of files on Mr. Clinton, his mother, Virginia Kelley, and Ross Perot, the independent Presidential candidate.

"I resigned Monday," said Mr. Moheban, a 30-year-old native of Nashua, N.H., Ms. Tamposi's hometown. "I no longer work for the State Department."

Mr. Moheban said he had not been asked to resign but had stepped down voluntarily to "pursue business opportunities in the private sector." Report Is Awaited

He was reluctant to give details about his role in the file search, saying he wanted to wait for a report from the inspector general of the State Department. But the timing of his resignation suggested that he was accepting some responsibility for the search and the way it was conducted.

Still, point being, for people who are supposed to be government professionals, it seems kind of silly to me that the head of consular affairs would be looking for dirt in a passport file. The best they could probably get would be old copies of pages of previous passports issued (if State bothered to take copies of those pages back then).

She should know that it's not in there.

These contractors, well, who knows.

Until we have more facts as to whether this was, in fact, bored cube-rats or devious longterm-sleeper double-reverse campaign spies, I propose that the significant story here is that this is the first newsworthy event to come out of Condoleeza Rice's State Department in at least two years.

The buried lede here is "contractors." Have you noticed how many contractors there are in these United States, lately? I strongly doubt the assertion that contractors' responsibilities in the Federal government are limited to "work like data entry, customer service and other administrative tasks for the Department."

I'm a career IT professional, and it's been ten years since I've seen more than a few full-time, permanent opportunities. Almost everything is "contract-to-hire."

For those of you who don't know, the primary advantage of using contractors is the limitation of liability. There are other factors, of course, e.g., zero cost to hire, exclusion from safety reporting, ability to legally terminate without notice, etc.

I leave the significance of contractors in our government--which includes the organization which decides policies regarding employment versus contracting--as an exercise to the reader. In fairness, government contractors are nothing new, but until fairly recently, they were limited to organizations like NASA. Further, it is unclear whether these contractors are under a subcontracting umbrella, or if they were individuals placed by a personnel agency.

Even private contractor employees still have to submit to federal background checks and vetting before they get access to federal databases containing sensitive or privacy-act protected material.

Let's also not lose sight that two were fired and one "discpilined."

I bet the one "disciplined" was the Bush political appointee who chose not to report the incident.

Until we have more information, the possibilities are nearly infinite. Probably best if we concentrate our energies on other things until we have more information. However, statistically, it is unlikely all three suffered from "imprudent curiosity." I do think it is remarkable that all three were "contract employees." I suspect we will know more by the end of today and certainly by early next week.

ROUTINE USES: The information solicited on this form may be made available as a routine use to other government agencies to assist the U.S. Department of State in adjudicating passport applications and requests for related services, and for law enforcement and administrative purposes. The information may be made available to foreign government agencies to fulfill passport control and immigration duties. The information may also be provided to foreign government agencies, international organizations and, in limited cases, private persons and organizations to investigate, prosecute, or otherwise address potential violations of law or to further the Secretary’s responsibility for the protection of U.S. citizens and non–citizen nationals abroad. The information may be made available to private U.S. citizen ‘wardens’ designated by the U.S. embassies and consulates. For a more detailed listing of the routine uses to which this information may be put, see the Prefatory Statement of Routine Uses and the listing of routine users set forth in the system descriptions for Overseas Citizen Services Records (State–05) and Passport Records (State–26) published in the Federal Register.

MSNBC-Hillary's passport also breached last year.

Here's hoping that's the Bush Administration's version of the so-called FBI-Filegate during the Clinton Administration.

Technology has changed so much since those days. In 1993, there were paper FBI files. (Today, I bet any Administration official can go online and search FBI files).

MSNBC-The same person who snooped into Obama's on March 14 also looked at McCain's.

MSNBC-In the Clinton case it was a training mistake. Obama's breach was different..

"Unauthorized access" could mean that a bunch of curious snoopers lookied at files they shouldn't have.

"Hey Sally! Want to see where Obama traveled to last year?"

The fact Rice just informed Hillary that her info was also accessed makes me think that they have a log of who looks at what, and after Obama's breach they ordered a review of those same logs.

"Oh look. Asshat Numbnutts looked at Hillary's passport info last year. Fire his butt and get me Hillary on line 2."

I mean, who accesses passport records to dig up dirt on someone? On the face of it this doesn't look like a conspiracy.

Imprudent curiosity? Not a chance. Was this politically motivated? Absolutely.

We'll never know who was behind it. Whoever it was had the motive the means and the opportunity.

To believe it was an innocent breach of security that by mere coincidence happened three times, to one person's file, would require the suspension of all logic.

So what could anyone get from your personal passport file? The information could reveal every place a person has ever travelled, and where and why and who that person travelled with. Who they were going to see, how long they stayed. Then you can look into everything about those people and their associations.
Don't underestimate the ability of one piece of information leading to a hundred other pieces of information, and the next thing you know, there's some contrived twisted connection between Obama and Farrakhan, or a person who knew him.

Let's not kid ourselves. 8 years of being lied to and we don't even know what the truth looks like anymore.

Remember when the 60 minutes episode about the Siegelman scandal in Alabama? Strangely the eight-minute long segment was blacked out in, of all places, Alabama. If you believe it was just a technical problem, then you just haven't been paying enough attention to make a rational assessment of this passport breach.

The potential of a massive transfer of power breeds desperation and drives people to do whatever it takes to prevent it.

Let's not kid ourselves.

I have two observations.

One, how did the higher-ups learn about this? A reporter from the Washington Times? How did he hear about this? Was it someone in the office of the snoopers or someone else in the State Department? Or, was the info more wide-spread than State is acknowledging?

Regarding the breach of the Obama files. I understand that on the dates they took place he was in the news for various wins and defeats, but I don't think the information--if any was uncovered--would have been used right away but more likely used at another important point in the campaign.

Also, did they ever find out who sent the "Obama in Native Garb" picture to Drudge?

Mauimom wrote: Last night I watched Keith Olbermann's "first" Countdown @ 8 pm EDT, and then his second @ 10 pm, which was live rather than a repeat of 8 pm.

On the second, I believe, he interviewed Eric Holder, who's with the Obama campaign, and who, as I recall, used to be in the US Attorney's office in DC. ...

He did a great job cutting through the BS of his wingnut guests. He had on the showless Tucker, Andrea Mitchell, Lawrence O’Donnell, the “independent (LOL) counsel” Joe DiGenova and somebody even brought Lawrence Eagleburger out of stasis to dismiss the whole thing... nothing to see here... la la la la.

Andrea Mitchell was on a conference call with the State Department while on the show, seeming to be relaying the State Department’s alibis live, almost as if they were watching Dan’s show and trying to rebut it all in real time! Bizarre, I tell you.

I got the distinct impression that almost all of them were in the tank for the Bush Administration and running interference. “Independent (LOL) counsel” Joe DiGenova blamed it all on big liberal government... (that’s what you get!) while being the first to point out that the fired “contractors” were now out of reach of any IG investigation. How helpful and expedient and convenient!

The Showless Tucker chimed in, parroting Joe DiGenova’s talking point of how this is what you get with big gummint, so lump it. (He’d be shrieking his little bow tie off had this been a Democratic administration, I’m absolutely positive.)

And when Lawrence Eagleburger phoned in he was quick to assure the audience that nothing was going on, take it easy, calm down, etc. Lawrence Eagleburger? What rock did he come out from under, and who prodded him to call in and try to smother this baby in the crib? He sounded a bit desperate that all this talk of crimes and investigations was taking place.

Lawrence O’Donnell played his usual lickspittle self and attempted to downplay it all as the ‘darned “bureaucracy” run amok’ but certainly a completely innocent big gummint foul up. He even cited his past work in a Democratic administration to support his ‘darned bureaucracy run amok’ line.

Dan wasn’t buying any of it but it was striking how Joe DiGenova, Lawrence Eagleburger, Showless Tucker and Lawrence O’Donnell all seemed to have the same talking points which were totally dismissive of anything but the most innocent explanations, and bonus points go to “independent (LOL) counsel” Joe DiGenova for being the first out of the gate with blaming it all on big liberal gummint!

I think this could turn out to be big. With all the politicization that's been going one, it wouldn't surprise me if some of these guys are connected to Clinton or McCain. So far we're getting the same old story. "We can't do an
investigation because there's no proof of wrong doing and since there's no proof of wrongdoing we can't do an investigation."

It's odd how quickly two of these guys were fired. Now the State Department IG can't question them. How convenient. And it's odd that no one forwarded this to upper management at the State Department. It's not like it was some factory worker in Detroit whose passport file was looked at. It was a potential Presidential candidate
and the dates the unauthorized access took place were pivotal dates in the Democratic Primary.

I can predict all the talking points that will come out of this and I've heard some already and *here* no less! "Obama will be a big beneficiary of this" as though that should make him back off on trying to find out what might have been done and why. Heck, I suspect Coulter or Ingram to say Obama was behind it so he could get sympathy and distract from the Jeremiah Wright situation!

"A few rotten apples" will no doubt be trotted out. And I expect Condi Rice to say "No one could have expected that these contractors would be doing what they shouldn't have been." I can hear Rush or Hannity or Beck saying "If there's nothing to hide in his file then he shouldn't be afraid for anyone to see it" and it's even been said earlier in the comments here.

Bush will say, well, nothing because he can't comment on an ongoing investigation. Great leadership.

I've already heard someone say this couldn't be conspiratorial because they were so inept. Unlike the Watergate burglars, I guess. And I heard Joe DiGenova say at least three times this is what you get with big government. "This kind of thing is inevitable", he said. Geez, I wonder what other stuff at State or DOD will "inevitably" get out? Too bad they can't buy better security with the billions they have to spend. Database security is such hard work, I guess.

The FBI needs to talk to those 2 fired contractors to find out who they work for and for whom the principles of that company have done work for. McCain? Clinton? Bush? They need to look at their bank accounts to see if there have been any transfers in the past few months. We know they have the tools. They just used them all on Eliot Spitzer.

And finally, most important of all, this thing needs a name! I think "Passport-gate" seems appropriate.

Well, as long as Pat Kennedy says he "*fully* acknowledges" (emphasis mine) this information should have been passed up the line then I guess it's OK. Bush is always *fully* understanding stuff so *fully* acknowledging is probably the best we can expect.

I definitely think it is suspicious. Much too coincidental to be just curious low-level workers. However, I suspect the GOP rather than Hillary. The GOP REALLY wants to run against Hillary in the GE, so they are trying to destroy Obama. I can't believe that Hillary would take the risk, and stoop that low. (and I'm an Obama supporter!)But I could be wrong.

Anybody think it's strange that a trainee can access Hillary Clinton's passport file???????

TOO MANY CONTRACTORS BEING USED IN GOVERNMENT!!

They're playing "I am Spartacus." And it dishonors Spartacus!

Yep, all they had to do over at BUSHCO was release the astonishing "news" (wink) that ALL 3 CANDIDATES' passport files were peeked at! WOW! Go figure! How could it happen? Oh, well. We are SORRY, and this is from Queen Condi herself.

I'm satisfied.

susiehussein wrote:
... The GOP REALLY wants to run against Hillary in the GE, so they are trying to destroy Obama. ...

The GOP does seem to believe they have a better chance running against Clinton but their only hope is a divided Democratic Party electorate.

I've noticed in the past that Hannity has gone out of his way to "credit" Clinton when he smears Obama. And Drudge claimed that a Clinton campaign insider emailed him that Somali photo of Obama (he produced no email of course). And Insight Magazine also tried to "credit" a Clinton campaign insider for the first 'Obama is a Muslim' lies.

Why would any 'Clinton campaign insiders' be stupid enough to identify themselves to any of these foam-at-the-mouth wingnuts (who hate them) in order to smear Obama when they could easily have fed any of those smears to the wingnut media annonymously?

The GOP will do their worst to divide the Democratic Party's voters. That's their only hope.