Comments on: James Inhofe asks Barbara Boxer to investigate Climategate, but Boxer claims the leaker is the criminal

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:42:15 +0000

I don’t know, I did a quick search of my posts and I haven’t writtten abuthing about a connection. I like to think I would have if I had found something. It does make you wonder though. There must be something in it for her.

By: Dominique

Dominique — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:30:08 +0000

Just curious, but do you know if Barbara Boxer is reaping financially from the climate propaganda?

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 00:52:05 +0000

I understood what you meant.

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 00:51:28 +0000

That is a good point that I hadn’t thought about. I still want to see action taken on this matter however. There has to be something that we can do.

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 00:50:12 +0000

Correct! All of the information that was leaked was required to be released under a FOIA request yet the CRU refused to lawfully release the information. The leaker only made public the information that was supposed to legally be made public. That does not sound like a crime to me.

By: mamapajamas

mamapajamas — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:52:21 +0000

Addendum… re: “The only crime there was the stonewalling of the FOIA …”

By that, of course, I meant that the only “crime” involved in releasing the data.

The entire data fudging thing and suppression of opinion is the REAL crime in this.

By: mamapajamas

mamapajamas — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:48:56 +0000

Besides… how on earth is Boxer going to “investigate” a leaker who is undoubtedly a British citizen? What authority does she have to call him/her into a Senate hearing? Why should the UK government go along with an extradition request, given the way Obama’s been treating them?

I’m all for putting this on criminal trial, BTW. Just think of all the BS that could hit the fan during the discovery process…

By: mamapajamas

mamapajamas — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:45:32 +0000

re: Boxer; “You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate’

We may well have a hearing on this, we may not. We may have a briefing for senators, we may not,” Boxer said. “Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.

“This is a crime””

Uh… there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a FOIA-subject computer. The leaker merely took data that is the property of the British public and made it public, as it should be. The only crime there was the stonewalling of the FOIA requests by the CRU “scientists”, who attempted to KEEP public data from the public.

The only way “stolen” e-mails can be a crime on a FOIA computer would be if someone were sneaking around trying to blackmail over something in the e-mail. Then it would be straightforeward extortion. But making public data public is a public service, IMHO.

I work on a public computer, and am absolutely rolling on the floor laughing at the hissy-fit the left is throwing over the “criminal hacker”. From Day 1 of the Freedom of Information Act, we were TOLD to NEVER use our work computers for private communications… because they might end up on a FOIA data dump. There is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:51:19 +0000

HA! Good point!

By: rjjrdq

rjjrdq — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:28:18 +0000

You know its hit the fan when she puts herself in the position of defending a criminal conspiracy.