Maybe you are sick and tired of Miranda communiqués and maybe you aren't. I received the following email from him and felt like posting the transactions that followed:
Original Miranda Email...
Today LIVE from 3 to 4 Eastern on RighTalk.com...
I will answer questions I received from last week's show on Memogate (see
www.mirandafund.com), including Bill Pickle's sorry role; Orrin Hatch's
self-serving betrayal; and what the White House knew and when did they know
it? And why the liberal newspapers, like Roll Call, dropped the
journalistic ball; and the effect on Hill writers of the Stockholm Syndrome.
We will also discuss the confirmation debates on Brown and Pryor, and the
looming storm over others. Finally, I will tell you what I know about
whether we will have a S. Ct vacancy.
Remember, you can call in. And you can listen to my broadcast at any other
time later today on RighTalk.com.
My Response
You're hilarious. Sorry, not interested. One or two documents getting
inadvertently slipped your way I can believe... a few thousand? I think you
have a future in sales.
Miranda
Well, actually, your facts are wrong. I never had or saw a few thoudand documents. But it is a fact that does not really matter, one Pentagon Paper or 1,000 Pentagon Papers did not affect the law then...and does not in this case, or the Code of Ethics for Government Service, article 9.
Me
Nice try.
I'm going to see how well that goes today. There's a guy here in the office who was dumb enough to leave his house unlocked. One look at the guy would tell you he's up to something, so... being the good, responsible citizen that I am (good citizenship code of ethics, article 9)... I'm going to go into his house and rifle through the closets to see if I can dig anything up. Hell he was dumb enough to leave it unlocked so he has it coming. If I get caught I can only hope that I find something in there that will help justify my actions. Maybe he will have a black book with the number of his mistress and some notes about where they plan to run off to! Maybe he has some plans for a terrorist act. When the cops arrest me for breaking and entering I'll cry foul! It's those damn hypocrite adulterers trying to nail me to the wall... they cheat all the time, this is no big deal. If I feel that somebody is up to something, then I should have the right to go where I want when I want to dig up the stuff I need shouldn't I?
Miranda
Is there a difference in your relationship with you and your father and you and your son? If you understand that there is, then you will understand that there is a difference between you and a policeman, or you and a government employee who takes an oath. Your analogy doea not work because you do not acknowledge the nature of the hat one wears at different times.
If you are interested in your analogies go to www.miranda.com and read my Law Review article.
Me
I doubt that I will read your review... especially if it contains more of the same silly justifications for your actions as you present below. If I see someone doing something wrong... I report it. If they ask me to do something wrong... I report it. I don't go digging into places I have no earthly business to see if maybe there is something there that might indicate they have done something wrong. I have read the Pickle report and find it a very good review of what happened.
Let's see if I have it...
Lundell sees network admin get into server space... decides for fun to try it himself (see, I'm a network admin and deal with teenagers that do this crap all the time)... Lundell discovers that he can and has access to all sorts of fun stuff. He must have been just giggly about it.
Let's stop here for a moment. Nowhere up to this point is there any indication that some sort of Senate wrongdoing is going on... just a clerk getting all giddy about getting where he should not be. I wonder here... why didn't he report to the network admin that there was a bit of a security issue with their system? Wouldn't that have been a very ethical thing to do? Isn't that what you are all about... ethics? After all... there were folders for both Republicans and Democrats right there!
So... thinking he found some good stuff he prints a couple hundred pages he finds on the Pickering nomination and sends it to his supervisor. His supervisor admonishes him for doing this (should have fired him right there) and then shreds the documents.
Ah... but in comes Manuel Miranda. Apparently when Lundell showed you what he discovered you had no qualms at all about his activities. You helped him use this little secret to find things that would reflect poorly on the Democrats serving on the committee.
Let's stop here... Why didn't you report the apparent security issues discovered to the network admin? Just curious. I mean... that would have been a very ethical thing to do... you being all about ethics and all.
Anyway... the forensic trail confirms that your well trained pup, Lundell, continued sending you goodies while you worked for Frist. Very nice.
Let's examine this with some logic:
If you were truly interested in the contents of communications between Democrats on the committee, why not just ask them for the documents?
My guess is that you figured they would have told you to take a flying leap... right? (I'm sure they would have)
So... when you found that Lundell had the key to the bottom drawer of daddy's desk... you went at it like a buzzard on a carcass... knowing full well that what you were digging into was none of your business... right?
I mean, if you figured it was no big deal you would have just called up Ted Kennedy to let him know you were rummaging through his folders on the server wouldn't you?
So... in summary... I'm not sure what "hat" you were wearing when you met Mr. Lundell, or what "oath" bound you to dig where you had no business without even a semblance of what might be considered probable cause (that's what a cop needs to get a search warrant to go into your house to look for stuff that might indicate you did something bad).
I think you are just an opportunist looking to make a name for yourself with the big boys and you didn't give a rip what methods you had to employ to do so. You can quote article 9 or any other legal baloney you choose... nothing you say will change this.
So have your fun on RightTalk... I'm sure you'll find someone gullible enough to buy into the idea that there was some vast conspiracy at work that lead to your demise. Unfortunately for you, the runner-up on American Idol will garner more attention.
Miranda
There are many incorrect facts here, but two stand out. I did consider the thics of the matter and told him to desist until I looked into it. I did. I concluded that there was no duty and that he had shown me enough of evidence of wrondoing. I told him that we had an obligation, however, to let the syst admin know of the problem. He told me that our systems guy had tried to inform the sytems admin.
Again, under your reasoning any government whistleblower (all of whom discover something not intended for their eyes) would be unjustified and should be vilified. Moreover you are ignorant of the Secrecy Clause.
If you are a network admin, then you should read the technical (entitled) sections, they were written with the help of technical and legal expert on computer law and workings. .
Buddy, I am not out to persuade an asshole like you of anything. I think these are interesting issues.
Fair enough... the last paragraph, that is.
Me
Well... I've already spent too much time on this. I have to admit that I have some odd fascination with your attempts to twist something so obviously wrong into an act of honor. If you wanted to be honorable, then perhaps the story should have gone like this:
Lundell: Hey Manuel... look at what I found while unethically rummaging through the computer files of senate judiciary committee members. Files which I, of course, have no business looking through. (Hands Manuel reams of incriminating papers).
Miranda: Well Mr. Lundell, that's very nice but your supervisor has already admonished you for doing this. I'm going to see to it that you are immediately fired for insubordination and possible violations relating to the use of government computer systems. (Takes ream of paper from Lundell).
Later...
Miranda: Senator Hatch... I know that this is a very precarious thing, but I have just been handed some documents that seem very incriminating to certain democratic committee members. The methods used to obtain the information were very unethical, but I have dealt with the offender. My concern was that someone with no sense of duty... dare I say no "ethics" ... might have continued on with this possibly illegal behavior and might very well have leaked this information to certain news organizations for personal and political gain. I'm handing them to you to do with them as you please in order to avoid the appearance that I may have encouraged or abetted this unethical behavior.
See? That would have made Manuel Miranda far more believable don't you think?
Miranda
No. If I could do it over it would have been like this.
JL. Hey look what I found. (Shows MM evidence of unethical activity, breach of public trust in violation of Senate rules amd Code of Ethics, and law.
MM: Is there more of this?
JL: Yes.
MM: Copy it on five CD's.
MM: Gives CDs to Ethics Committee, US Attorney for District of Columbia, Washington Post,....one to his lawyer. Calls press conference. Goes to St. Joseph's and prays for the best. Maybe departs as planned, maybe not.
Me
OK... One last question, just so I'm clear on this:
Do you consider the method used to obtain this information; a. Ethical, b. In keeping with the "public trust" and c. Legal ?
Yeah... it's kind of a trick question isn't it.
Miranda
The method used was...reading.
Ethics--Yes--Read my Law Review section on Ethics. Ethics is the science of duty.
Legal--Of course, read my Law Review for more.
Public Trust--Yes, when not linked to law or other obligation, public trust usually means what "the people expect." .In this case, that expectation is found in the Secrecy Clause of the Const, Senate Rule 29, the Code of Ethics, and to some extent the Free Flow of Information Act.
I am not sure what the trick question is.
The trouble you may be having is that some blowhard senators said something different....so what. They were distracting from their own wrongdoing...but do not worry they will not get the last word.
You may be judging the situation under standards that apply in the private sector (or places with express workplace restrictions such as INS) or your own personal sense (Golden Rule, etc)....these do not apply to the public sector or to Congress in particular.
There you have it. I don't know what I could possibly add... it's just too strange. I have to go wash my hands now.
I'm dying to hear your opinions with respect to standards that apply in congress and standards that apply in public... and if there is truly some significant difference.