Login HereI'm going to revise what I said yesterday when I suggested there was no method to Scott Bloch's madness. After reading the longer document summarizing the Office of Special Counsel's Task Force investigations, several key patterns stick out:
- For investigations pertaining to DOJ, the Task Force's investigations got caught up in the turnover between Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey
- For the investigations pertaining to the politicization of federal agencies, the Task Force was presented with real jurisdictional issues that presented challenges for the inevstigation
This doesn't mean Bloch is a particularly good manager or investigator. It appears, rather, that he got in over his head when he attempted to take on this high level investigation in May 2007 and, certainly by November 2007, had made these investigations personal.
Timing
The timing reflected in the document reveals some of the problems with the Task Force itself. It was formed in May 2007 to conduct larger investigations--primarily the politicization of government agencies (arising out of Henry Waxman's own investigation of Lurita Doan), and the politicization of DOJ. Thus, it was started after both those events had significantly played out and (in the case of DOJ) many of the players had quit. The Task Force also inherited a couple of investigations started earlier--primarily an investigation into Rove's travel started in March 2006.
That means the Task Force didn't really get started until June 2007. On August 27, 2007, Alberto Gonzales resigned. Michael Mukasey was nominated on September 17, 2007, and approved by the Senate on November 8, 2007. Then this document was drafted on January 18, 2008. So what we're seeing in the document--particularly as it relates to anything pertaining to DOJ--are the activities taking place after the trauma resulting from the USA Purge and through the period of transition between Gonzales and Mukasey. This explains at least some of the issues surrounding the investigations into DOJ.
For example, OSC had already begun an investigation into the Iglesias firing on May 4, 2007. Remember--that investigation was originally started because the Administration stated publicly that they fired Iglesias because he was an "absentee landlord" because he traveled so much in connection with his service in the Naval Reserve. Firing Iglesias for such a reason would violate the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which prohibits firing a service member for absences due to military service. Somehow, by May 17, the newly-created Task Force was also investigating his firing as a possible Hatch Act violation, and by May 22, it was investigating the firing of all the USAs. So the OSC took an investigation over which OSC had clear jurisdiction and broadened it into one in which it didn't.
As early as May 4 (that is, even before the Task Force was created), this investigation conflicted with DOJ's joint Inspector General (OIG)/Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the firings. On May 4 and May 29, DOJ complained about jurisdictional issues, even involving unnamed people in Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).
Now, at this point, I don't necessarily fault Bloch for pursuing this investigation. Alberto Gonzales was attempting to bury the investigation by giving OPR sole jurisdiction, meaning the investigators would report directly to him and not produce a public report. And given the crap that has come out of the Bush OLC, who knows what OLC was saying to Bloch to justify their argument that he should drop his investigation?
The problem, though, is that OSC only would have jurisdiction if Bloch could prove that an executive branch employee--as distinct from a legislative branch employee or a local politico--pressured the USAs to conduct politicized investigations. In other words, if it was clear that Monica Goodling was pressuring Iglesias et al to prosecute Democrats, then Bloch would have jurisdiction; but if Senator Domenici and Heather Wilson did so, Bloch wouldn't have jurisdiction. And the only way Bloch might get evidence that executive branch employees were involved would be to get the kind of information that DOJ and--especially--the White House refused to turn over to Congress.
As it happens, OSC requested those documents on August 13, 2007, just two weeks before Gonzales resigned. DOJ didn't turn anything over by the OSC due date, September 13, after Gonzales resigned and just after Mukasey was nominated. The Task Force and Bloch spent the next several months wavering about whether to negotiate cooperation with DOJ or whether to subpoena documents. By the time they actually got into a real conversation with the now-Mukasey led DOJ about cooperating on January 16, DOJ was (according to public reports) deep into an OIG-led investigation into the firings. Since this document was published on January 18, just two days after DOJ asked OSC once again to hold off, we don't know from the document what has happened in the last four months.
Now, the timing concerning the politicized hiring (Monica Goodling's "over the line" stuff and civil rights hiring) is a little more curious. The Task Force apparently did not consider investigating this crystal clear violation of the Hatch Act until August 20. For some indication of how late that was, I first figured out that Goodling was issuing loyalty oaths on March 29, and Goodling testified to "crossing the line" on May 23. Bloch told the Task Force not to open an investigation into the politicized hiring on August 29, just two days after Gonzales resigned. Now, it appears that OSC did not move on the investigation because of the DOJ investigation into these issues. But it also appears they were learning about the DOJ investigation second-hand, via David Iglesias. In other words, unlike with the USA purge investigation, Bloch did not choose to fight with DOJ over this investigation, even though this one fits more squarely into OSC's jurisdiction.
That obviously ought to raise questions--why investigate the firings, when jurisdiction is a stretch, and not the hirings, where jurisdiction is clear? That's where I stop understanding Bloch's decision. Still, given all the rest of his decisions, it wouldn't surprise me if he was just struggling to turn these investigations into something meaningful with little real consideration of what his real mandate was.
There are two more investigations that fall under this timing: Siegelman and Schlozman. Both, though, fall into that grey transition time between the resignation of Gonzales and the start of Mukasey. The Task Force started investigating the Siegelman case in September 2007, and was told not to convene the investigation in October 2007. The Task Force started investigating the Schlozman case in November 2007 and was told not to open a case a week later.
Jurisdiction
The decisions surrounding OSC's investigation of the politicization of executive branch agencies seem to come from jurisdictional issues created by the way BushCo hid their politicization on the RNC server.
The short history of the OSC investigation into the politicization of executive branch agencies goes like this:
June 2007: The Task Force begins the investigation by requesting information from 25 executive branch agencies and the White House
September 2007: The Task Force begins to receive information in response to requests to agencies
October 2007: The Task Force receives information from White House
November 14, 2007: Bloch directs the Task Force to do some consolidation of investigations--and to close some other investigations
November 14, 2007: Bloch directs the Task Force to go after RNC emails--the Task Force registers an objection based on jurisdictional grounds
November 14, 2007: Bloch directs the Task Force to go after a large range of information wrt the Office of Public Affairs (Rove's old shop)--"the Special Counsel wants us to draft a 'hard hittting' [request] that will explain everything there is to know about OPA"--the Task Force again expresses concerns about the breadth of the requests
November 21, 2007: Bloch tells the Task Force to request all grant awards--Task Force objects that there is no evidence that suggests such information is necessary
November 26, 2007: The Task Force begins to go after RNC emails released to Congress pertaining to the USA purge
November 28, 2007: WSJ reports on Office of Personnel Management investigation of Bloch (updated per WO's comment)
December 14, 2007: The Task Force submits a draft subpoena for the RNC emails released to Congress pertaining to the USA purge
January 16, 2008: Bloch tells the Task Force to go much broader with its request for RNC emails--to cover 10 different topics
January 18, 2008 (the day this summary was completed): The Task Force subpoenas all RNC emails concerning grants and other executive branch agencies
I find this investigation a lot more curious than the investigations related to DOJ. At one level, after the OSC started receiving a bunch of information in November, it appeared that investigators judged there wasn't much there, and got uncomfortable with the scope of the requests Bloch was forcing them to submit. That suggests that Bloch was determined to find something, even if there was no evidence there. At around the same time, Bloch was pushing the Task Force to push a second investigation into Lurita Doan, so it appears that in November, Bloch was desperate to prove that his signature investigations had real substance.
There's one thing I don't particularly buy about that reading, though. One of the biggest smoking guns from the Lurita Doan/GSA investigation was the treatment of email from Scott Jennings (Rove's lackey) to Doan. The email, remember, went through the RNC server. And those involved wanted to keep it hush hush. In other words, BushCo deliberately tried to hide the way it was politicizing agencies by keeping all communication about it off of government servers.
Which is why I find the investigators' proposed actions surrounding the RNC emails inexplicable. While I respect their contention that asking for all emails sent by OPA employees using the RNC server may be too much, I also think there's ample reason to believe that those emails were deliberately used to hide stuff. And remember, we already knew by this time--in November 2007--that the RNC said it didn't have a bunch of these. So part of me wonders whether the investigators--and not Bloch--were trying to cover up BushCo Hatch Act abuses. Add in the fact that the Task Force's first request was even more inexplicable. How are emails turned over relating to the USA purge going to reveal anything about political briefings? In other words, after complaining that the Bloch's request for emails from the RNC was too broad, investigators then tried to request only emails that had nothing to do with the subject of the investigation!
So I don't know what to make of Bloch's big requests in November 2007. On one hand, they appear to be the work of a man obsessed, who found nothing on first glance and then decided to make hugely ambitious requests. On the other hand, his investigators seem--either out of genuine concern for their jurisdiction or because they don't want to find anything--unwilling to go after the most likely evidence of politicization.
And since they only made the big request from the RNC on January 18, 2008--the day this draft was written--we can't tell from the document what happened after they made that request.
Update: I was too deep into the timeline of the document. As William Ockham points out, Bloch starts ramping up this investigation in November just as it becomes clear the Office of Personnel Management was investigating him. That doesn't explain why his investigators wouldn't pursue the most likely potential evidence of Hatch Act violations, but it does explain why he ramped up his investigations in November. Thanks WO.
Update: Spelling typo fixed per MadDog.
Share This 
Spotlight
An investigation to cover-up stuff. Remember the story The Purloined Letter? He was running in place, sweating alot but going nowhere.
For Bloch to have jurisdiction for a Hatch Act violation, someone in the executive branch would have had to pressure the DOJ into its political firings/prosecutions?
Bloch could have heard rumors of that from every other bar stool in DC. He would not have needed to look into legislative pressure, except to find out who Domenici talked to in the White House and what they did about it.
What’s missing is why Bloch would have wanted to do that. He was a mid-level Bush appointee deemed reliable enought to be given control of a semi-independent office. He seems to have a track record of scuppering investigations into whistleblower complaints, with rumors that details of those complainants leaked to Cheney and others who had the greatest interest in silencing such critics.
OT but of interest. From the Raw Story
Quick OT, in Colbert’s interview with Arianna Huffington, she compared the war in Iraq to McSame’s little blue pills. Colbert’s reply:
(h/t thinkprogress)
EW,
Thanks for clarifying the Task Force doc and competing issues.
This from NPR:
.
and this on Mitzelfeld:
And it appears this is a Grand Jury formed irt IG OPM investigation, right?
Can someone explain how IG, OPM and Mitzelfeld will work together?
Will the depth of evidence gathered tie up other investigations or will it propel them forward?
Anything in your local news on Mitzelfeld EW?
ew,
What I think you’re missing here is the fact that the WSJ story was published on Nov. 28, 2007 and Bloch knew it was coming because he is quoted in it. Did Bloch know the article was coming a week earlier when he told the Task Force to ask for all the travel records?
Sorry WO, do you have a link?
Important point, in any case.
And she’ll be at a fundraiser with Michelle Obama…
Sure.
Thank you kindly. Updated accordingly.
Interesting thing though: what ramped up the OPM investigation between 2005 and November 2007? Who told them about the Geek Squad thing? Was Bloch after Rove specifically, or BushCo more generally?
Well, I speculated on a earlier thread about this bit from the article:
Geeks on Call visited Mr. Bloch’s government office in a nondescript office building on M Street in Washington twice, on Dec. 18 and Dec. 21, 2006, according to a receipt reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The total charge was $1,149, paid with an agency credit card, the receipt shows. The receipt says a seven-level wipe was performed but doesn’t mention any computer virus.
The agency that runs the federal government credit card program is, wait for it, the GSA.
Welcome back! I was in the green hills of Vermont at the time you were in the green hills of Ireland….
Still catching up on the Bloch timelines, and as you say, it is difficult to make sense of it all. What I am leaning towards is some kind of Operation Valkyrie among the Rethugs - Bloc was appalled by the worst excesses of Rove/BushCo and tried to take out Rove to preserve the party and the movement. Or not.
From the link @9 - Nov 28, 2007 “Mr. Rove has resigned from the White House and is no longer under jurisdiction of the Office of Special Counsel.”
August 13, 2007 - Rove announced his resignation as White House deputy chief of staff effective Aug. 31. So his last day under OSC jurisdiction was August 31.
I considered that. I’ve said repeatedly that they made the OSC investigation irrelvant (and the Goodling one too) once the offending parties resigned. But if Bloch were able to prove BushCo politicized govt agencies, it would be damaging for the Republicans as a whole. So I don’t think Rove’s non-jurisdiction made the investigation moot.
Duh. See what you miss when you go away?
I’ve been thinking about Bloch’s Geek Squad call a wee bit.
Just what was the purpose of the service he requested?
I know that it has been “reported” that Bloch had a virus infestation and wanted it removed, but was that really the purpose of the service request?
Given the prominence of this “factoid” in all the press reports, as well as the apparent interest it has drawn from the investigators, it is highly likely that something other or more than virus removal was the main purpose.
I do not believe it was scrubbing of Bloch’s emails since he’d not be in a position to scrub the email servers.
So what was the real reason for the Geek Squad mission?
My guess would be incriminating documents. Documents constructed by some other party.
Stuff that Bloch wanted totally wiped from his hard drive, and I’m betting he had the Geek Squad re-do his system entirely.
But those “documents” were most excellent “thumbscrews”, and appropriately, Bloch tucked them away on a Thumbdrive.
Just my swag ramblings here. Nothing to see folks, so move along. *g*
Here’s a wonderful article I found with teh Google. It gives a bit of insight into Jim Mitzelfeld, but it is primarily a piece on the declining quality of coverage that news organizations were giving to government, state governments in particular. What’s really interesting is the article was written in 1998 and refers to the decline in coverage beginning in the early 1990s — well before the toobz posed any threat at all to the MSM. Here’s a couple of about news coverage snippets…
And a couple more about Mitzelfeld…
I’m hopeful that Mitzelfeld is just as interested in ferreting out government corruption now as he was then. If so, I look forward to what may come from this investigation…
Oh and EW, I know how you hate typos. You might want to change convine to convene. *g*
Maybe there is some interesting ancient background material in the transcript 60pp of Bloch’s nomination hearing at Senate Governmental Affairs, a committee since renamed and with multiple websites. I thought of Schlozman, too, as there is a striking physical resemblance between the two gentlemen, as if propinquity had bred some similarity in their respective visages. I was interested in the KS background he brought to the Capitol. Brownback was the homestate nominating senator. And there was some record of working both sides of the fence in employment law, and voting law. I also planned to evalute the Missouri region again and Thor Hearne’s effervescent appearances. The faith business was a controversial topic in 2005 in constitutional law discussion boards, and evidently Bloch was in that early; we know he led some of that program from DoJ. His formal prepared remarks at his hearing give prominence to his personal interest in Hatch act, as well as the quixotic Socrates as whistleblower; though the first link to the full transcript provides more nuance, here is the isolated abbreviated formal statement at the nomination hearing, regarding where he contemplated OSC should go, then 3 years into the post-sunset-of-the-IC-law. The sourcewatch profile has interesting hyperlinks, as well. Though I tend to agree, ew has placed Bloch at the unwitting center of a maelstrom of many budding scandals, certainly under a lot of pressure. Sen. Roberts approved of his nomination. I can see Bloch likely saw a lot more pushback from his OSC post than he could have imagined back in the days of the 108th congress when nominated.
It wasn’t Geek Squad but something similar…Geek Something
Yeah, WO listed the correct company, “Geeks on Call”, in his # 10 while I was busy typing away. Can’t afford to refresh in the middle of long ramble. *g*
I would post but I am mesmerized by the CampusFind.com ad.
And since I’m a rambling kinda guy, let me continue…
This is nothing but a total swag, minus any and all science, so caveat emptor!
What if Bloch got a hold of some nasty, incriminating documents from someone. Let’s say a whistleblower even. *g*
And what if Bloch decided to blackmail the party who constructed the document or who was made vulnerable in the document.
And what if Bloch got back to the whistleblower who provided the document and blew him/her off with a “nothing can be done” response.
And what if the whistleblower, who feared for his/her job, decided to say “Screw it!”, and called in the local federales?
Or what if the target of the blackmail decided that while politically embarrassing, the underlying issue was not illegal, and decided to call in the local federales?
Just swaggin’ away a Friday afternoon here. Nothing to see, so move along folks. *g*
Just thinking out loud here…
I’ve been wondering if he leaked a copy of the receipt himself? He did not seem too shaken when confronted on it.
If you were trying to look “faithful” to Bush, which is an image Bloch portrayed, why not leak the receipt yourself? The, “Look boss, took care of the evidence. Willing to do your dirty laundry.” A ball and shell (forgive the reference) game to hide evidence on thumb drives…
Anything else would make him a target for Bush and co. I think he knew that. If GSA leaked the receipt, of course he would have no ability to remain in Bush’s favor and I think he would have been “done in” a while ago. Knowing what he knew about Doan, don’t you think he would expect her to pull a stunt, like leaking that receipt?
Although, he did come up with the amazing story, “It was to get rid of a virus.”
Yeah, right. Virus.
Any bets on what might be in the Friday evening
trashnews dump?(wherein I prove I can be even swaggier that MadDog)
Bloch’s charges for Geeks On Call were on Dec. 18, 2006 and Dec. 21, 2006. I started wondering if perhaps something happened around that time that might make him really nervous about having something on his computer. Searching through my ew archives, I came across this post on 12/14/2006 which references a WaPo article from the previous day about the ACLU being subpoenaed for the return of a document they got from a whistleblower. The feds claimed to be investigating an alleged Espionage Act violation.
My completely-off-the-wall speculation is that maybe the whistleblower sent the document to Bloch and the ACLU. According to the ACLU, the document did look like it should have been classified and was only mildly embarrassing to the government. When Bloch saw the story in the press, he freaked and wiped his computer (and a couple of others in the office). That would fit with his authoritarian personality.
oops. Obvious correction:
document did look like it should have been classified
should be:
document did not look like it should have been classified
Yeah. That occurred to me, too, but I’ve been too tied up to say that.
Might explain the body search; maybe somebody got pissed off at being over a barrel and knew there were documents undeleted somewhere…
Upon further examination, the document in question was declassified and published on 12/18/2006, so, unless Bloch was really clueless, I doubt this is it.
Your instincts on this seem right on so far–but that ACLU document was one showing the DOD policy on picture taking in the military (its leak was so important bc it showed that DOD changed the policy in response to Abu G). I can’t imagine anyone–even a whistleblower, and there’d be no reason to whistleblow this, even in the context of the anti-torture law passed in 2005–giving that to Bloch without it also going to his subordinates.
Perhaps Bloch received some information from Flynt Leverett that he later decided to purge. At least the timing fits and it appears that Leverett’s complaint could be seen as falling into another investigation of politicization of an official function:
Bloch is alleged to have wiped the computers of two of his subordinates.
and before you ask here’s the quote and link:
Bloch has admitted to hiring Geeks on Call — a computer servicing company — to purge his computer and two of his deputies’ computers, sources said.
Trying to figure out what is Rep. Davis’ interest in protecting Lurita Doan is, I found that he has a history. Did his and ICG’s (a lobbying firm) efforts get some contracts through Doan? This article is PACKED full of what Davis has done; and it is a lot.
July 28, 2006 -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01846.html
btw, it’s the purging of his subordinates’ computers that has always confused me about this. It indicates that the data he was desperate to delete was work-related in some way, but either he’s counting on his underlings to keep their mouths shut (unlikely), they didn’t understand the value of what was deleted, or it really was unrelated to all this.
Don’t forget that Davis was NRCC chair in the early Bush years and has admitted that the kind of campaign-related travel schedules went on under him, too.
Wm O –
That would have been within a few weeks of the USAGs being fired, wouldn’t it?
SaltInWound –
FWIW, I took some time to update the Alice FISHER and Alice MARTIN relationships and left an update on the bottom of the previous thread. I think that I have them sorted — Alice Fisher definitely ties in with Bloch in multiple ways, IMHO. But so does Alice Martin.
I thought the timing on that POGO doc was intriguing, so am really glad to see EW track it down. Look forward to reading it later.
—————————
OT:
Qu for klynn: I find it weird that Olmert is being ousted; what’s with the timing? And why are the Bushies throwing him under the bus? See paragraph 2:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters.....lmert.html
FWIW — In “Fall of the House of Bush“, Craig Unger points out that Bill Clinton’s ability to move Israeli/Palestinian peace talks forward were killed when Rabin was assassinated. In addition, almost immediately Clinton was hit with the Lewinsky scandal, which diverted him from anything other than ’survival mode’ and made it impossible for him to move MidEast peace process forward.
Now, I don’t know whether the ‘peace talks’ mentioned in this article about Olmert are legit diplomacy, or whether they’re kabuki. But it is evocative of Clinton being sabotaged by an ‘investigation’, which put peace talks on the back burner.
Deja vu all over again…?
If so, then who wants peace talks to stop? And why are they willing to take out Olmert? Is any of this linked to AIPAC? To the plans to attack Iran? (Many parties must have an interest in keeping the pot boiling.)
Don’t expect you to have answers, but it seems like the Olmert news must fit in with some of your other links.
PRC Inc is not a lobbying firm, it is part of Northrop Grumman. !
subordinates = distlist managers OR authorized calendar managers
Bet they had no idea. Bet he told them he thought he gave them a virus, too.
ROTL,
I’ve been looking into his five other corruption charges. This makes six. All with interesting timing. Add to it that his “weakened status” wrt the new corruption charges adds to what some see as a weak leader irt peace talks (both pro and con peace talks groups) and there is some frustration with his Abbas talks this past week.
There are many levels to what is going on, as you are questioning. The peace process, 60 Anniversary, Bush visit next week…As for AIPAC? Goodness. Where. To. Start.
I’ll try to pull more together for you.
In the meantime, this Juan Cole post from last year might perk your ideas as far as connections and what is going on right now:
http://www.juancole.com/2007/04/israel-vs.html
Sorry, that didn’t make sense.
from link above - “Two months before Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) became chairman of the powerful House Government Reform Committee in January 2003, one of his close friends [Donald W. Upson] formed ICG Government, a consulting company for technology firms seeking government contracts.”
“Prior to his appointment as Virginia’ s Secretary of Technology, Mr. Upson was Vice President of Business Development for Litton PRC, a leading government systems integrator headquartered in Virginia.. Joining the company in 1992, his responsibilities included marketing and media, government affairs and strategic alliances.”
http://www.icggov.com/Upson_bio.htm
PRC Inc was bought by Litton, and Litton was bought by Northrop Grumman.
12/22/00 - “Litton, based in Woodland Hills, Calif., had announced Dec. 5 it was reorganizing PRC Inc., its IT subsidiary, creating three divisions which, along with Litton TASC, would form the corporation’s Information Systems Group.”
http://www.washingtontechnolog.....042-1.html
I hadn’t noticed that Davis released the transcript of a staff interview of Bloch done on March 4, 2008. It’s pretty interesting.
“I think you’d be hard pressed to say that we started to take sides in something in any kind of manner, undue manner, where we used the power of this committee to alter a decision that was against the interests of the American people or the taxpayers ,” Davis said
Note he didn’t end the sentence at “decisision” but has rationalized that the committee can do whatever it wants as long as they think it is in the interest of the American people or taxpayers.
He probably even has a different definition for “taxpayer” than one would think. To him taxpayer = corporations, so his committee can do anything in the interest of people or corporations.
And just some more swagging on that “virus” excuse.
This is a most unlikely explanation for Bloch having his and his subordinates (h/t WO!) computers wiped.
It is highly likely that being a government-issued computer on a government-run network, that the computers at issue were running Enterprise versions of either McAfee or Norton Anti-virus packages.
These are the most commonplace Enterprise Anti-virus packages and they do a pretty fair job. Not perfect mind you, but pretty fair.
Both Enterprise version stop almost all of the commonplace viruses. To be infected, Bloch’s system would have had to been infected by one of the rarer viruses. That is most unlikely.
I find it implausible to say the least that Bloch somehow got bit by one of these rare critters, and he had to have a seven-level wipe done on his computer to get rid of it.
I’ve cleansed PCs of viruses many, many times over many years, and I’ve never had to wipe the hard drive and install all the software over again.
Additionally, most organizations use “Imaging” software to reduce the time it takes to install a total system, and to ensure that every system installed in the organization is setup and configured identically according to the standards of the organization.
A techie from “Geeks on Call” would not have access to the Master Image that would be required to reinstall Bloch’s system.
A techie from “Geeks on Call” would not have the necessary Administrative privileges to successfully add Bloch’s reinstalled system back into the necessary Windows Server Domain.
A techie from “Geeks on Call” would not have the proper information nor have the proper application software to reinstall Bloch’s system according to the organization’s standards.
A techie from “Geeks on Call” would not have the government paid for Enterprise-level license information for either the Windows Operating System nor the Microsoft Office applications.
I could go on, but nothing to see here folks. Just move right along. *g*
Jiminy Crickets WO, you are really firing on all cylinders today!
You get the feeling Bloch thought he had been bugged or some kind of spyware put into his computers?
It must be the new widescreen 22-inch monitor. Makes it easier to compare information from multiple sources.
No. That doesn’t make sense–then why save files?
My reply @ 24 was in relation to this interview. When I read it earlier, I interpreted his answers as lacking any uneasiness wrt wiping the hard drive. That is why I wondered if he possibly leaked the Geeks receipt.
I know, crazy.
Actually, to Bloch, maybe it does. He displays a charming naivete about computers. To wit:
Q The documents in your C drive, though, are certainly accessible by the IT folks on the network, right?
A No.
Q You don’t think they are?
A Not on the C drive. They can’t just get at them from the network.
Q Okay.
A Unless, you know, they do some kind of hacking. But I don’t even know how that works.
No, I take that back. I think he believed he was being tapped:
THAT’S IT.
He used an encrypted secure USB drive…and they knew it. They COULD SEE IT on the network, probably ran up a flag.
He also knew damned well they could see his hard drive and knew the content on it, because their backup systems and network monitoring were probably more advanced than the POS system at EO-OA.
The problem would be the encrypted device; the network monitoring could likely see it since they obviously didn’t have the USB ports disabled on computers. (If it were my network, I’d certainly be watching for the use of such devices.)
They’ll use national security as the argument against him claiming loss of classified data if necessary.
Just hope to God he didn’t get a secure device with biometric protection.
Yep. It certainly reads as if he thought someone was actively messing with his system.
I’m a bit suspicious of his unwillingness to name his friend who put him in touch with Geeks. Either, there was no friend and he found Geeks in the Yellow Pages (since he doesn’t appear to have the tech savvy to manage Google) or his friend was a boyfriend/girlfriend he doesn’t want people to know about, or he talked to a pal at NSA or something.
But, what really strikes me about this is the gross incompetence of the IT group. If I worked in IT anywhere in the executive branch, I would be chomping at the bit to give my two cents to the grand jury. They must be getting seriously tired of being endlessly portrayed as a bunch of bumbling nincompoops.
Forgot to add: Bet you he had content that was “disappearing” off his hard drive — and he put a stop to that.
It would look like a worm, or you could describe it as such, since the content would be there and then it wouldn’t. But he knew it wasn’t a worm, because the content was targeted and specific.
Or the person who gave him Geeks’ name was the person who those files concerned.
I think you got something there Rayne, that makes a lot of sense to me. IT wasn’t incompetent, he didn’t trust them. Someone put him on to the notion of encrypted harddrives and all hell broke loose.
Yep. Did you catch the “private” material he referred to, which he then tried to pass off as “personnel” related? Unfortunately, “personal” and “personnel” are homonyms so it may be a transcription thing, but here the distinction could be important.
Yup, that ’splains why gummint has been insisting on backdoors on all that encryption stuff.
Would he be able to use a fifth amendment defense against a court order for using his “thumb” to open the drive?
What the hell was OSC 2000? when was it installed?
We also need to look more closely at Bloch’s background; this guy knew enough to ask an expert, because even the average moderately techie dude is not going to suggest an encrypted drive.
Was Bloch walking a fine line?
I was thinking that the “friend” he talked to got a whole paranoid earful from Bloch about “people are watching me, snooping my computer, reading my mind…”, and Bloch may have even been right. *g*
He probably forfeited that right as part of any security clearance he signed, probably has fingerprints on file anyhow. But it would have been a very ugly, awkward moment for him if he’d been asked to scan in to open the drive.
There is the possibility this was more banal; maybe like that IronKey device to which I linked, he was using it for inappropriate surfing. But that just doesn’t seem to fit here; on the other hand, they could use that against him, claim that he was doing it.
I;m not sure he didn’t mean Office 2000, are you? Besides the fact that he mentioned Excel and Powerpoint thereafter.
Jeebus, did NONE of the political appointees in this administration receive a briefing on records retention??? I’m beginning to think it was on purpose ; )
Reading over his testimony, I’d say that Bloch is pretty much a technopeasant. Listen to his description of the issues he was having:
That is to say, you know, you would have one e‐mail bounce back; a little frustration. The next thing that would happen is the computer would start flashing and doing funny things and then more e‐mails would bounce. And then, you know, after that e‐mails would disappear, you don’t know what happened. And with each progressive kind of incident, there would be more discussion and more frustration of why don’t we know what this is, why can’t we just deal with this like we do everything else, just fix it.
And answers weren’t forthcoming, I didn’t have a sense that it was getting better, it was actually getting worse until the actual failure of the computer crashed and everything was gone.
Then when his computer crashed, here’s what he did:
What happened was it just started spewing ‐ it went black, the screen went black and then it just started spewing information up and down, just rolling like some kind of spy movie. And I’m looking at this wondering what has happened. And I’m pushing buttons, I’m punching, I’m rebooting, I’m doing anything I know how to do, you know, and the thing is going, it’s gone, I mean, there’s just things spewing.
He did absolutely the worst thing you can do when your Windows machine bluescreens. Then he wonders why his tech guys stayed there all night trying to recover his files. When they get him a new machine, he can’t deal with it and demands his old machine back. I bet he wasn’t the IT dept’s favorite customer
I don’t think he meant that at all, since he pointedly said :document control system.” That’s definitely not an office suite; he may not entirely understand it since he didn’t call it a “content management system” or a “document management system”, which would be a more likely description in enterprise environments. Suggests to me that whatever it was might have been partially customized for the DOJ or other .gov entity.
Okay, that’s pretty persuasive.
But at no point do these guys say, “Hey, it’s a motherboard problem,” or “Maybe it’s the wiring harness,” or any other problem that might cause this mess. They continue to plug away at getting to the content on the drive.
WTF? There is no effing way that I’d have let a tech go more than 4 hours on a laptop without insisting on a complete rebuild. We’re talking serious time and money, lost opportunity cost; these guys either knew something fricking serious was going on with the data, or they were incompetent. I lean toward the fricking serious part, because even an incompetent tech wouldn’t sacrifice a night’s sleep over a fried motherboard.
Where’s the chat with Wing Leung? I’ll bet you there is one somewhere already. Wing might actually have referred him to an external source since the by-the-book solutions would have exposed Bloch to more problems — and Bloch may have shielded him.
This part from Bloch’s transcript is most curious:
My cynical read is that Bloch laid out his desperate desire to permanently erase some stuff on his hard drive to his “friend” and he was told that the only way to ensure that someone couldn’t reconstruct the data was to use this “seven level wipe”.
Bloch seems to be trying to give the appearance that the idea for the permanent deletion did not come from him, but he also doesn’t seem to lie very well.
It’s as if Bloch is thinking that if I say “I could have heard it from the person…”, that would be weasely enough to deter a fookin’ jury!
I’m betting his “friend” might not testify to being the person who suggested wiping the hard drive, and instead, lay it right back on Bloch!
His “friend” was a tech. He’s using the term that we’d give lay people, “seven level wipe” versus “military wipe”.
And the same friend referred him to an encrypted USB. Not exactly the first thing you grab off the shelf at BestBuy. Possible, but not the first.
Where’s the receipt for the drive?
As to being compelled to use his thumb to open a biometric device, there are case decisions coming down both ways on that very issue. The caselaw is pretty well-established that the 5th Amendment allows one to refuse to tell a password or combination (b/c that would require one to speak or communicate) but, OTOH, you cannot refuse to turn over a physical key. Which is why one should get combination locks rather than keyed locks.
The thumbprint is somewhere in between and courts are struggling with it.
Also, why has no one bothered to mention the cavity searches he was put through when they were executing the warrants the other day. The gov’t wants that flash drive.
I think this link nails OSC 2000 as Rayne surmised.
I thought OSC 2000 might have been a sexy name for something like a customized document management program, i.e., “Office of Special Counsel 2000″, but that’s just speculation on my part.
To be fair, as head of the office it’s not really his job to be totally immersed in dealing with all sorts of computer issues. It’s his job to be in charge and have things work properly so he can be in charge.
Frankly, just about everyone outside of (a) highly tech savvy people and (b) prior victims of the Blue Screen of Death (which would include everyone in (a)) would likely do what he did when the machine went nuts.
And, yes, I think someone was hacking his system and he knew something was wrong, even if he wasn’t tech-savvy enough to recognize it as a hack in progress.
Or you could read this link:
The link was posted while I was writing and posting my comment.
To quote Mr. Addington: “great minds think alike”.
EW
Any idea about the other subpoenas? I only know about three out of the seventeen.
Are you sensing the investigation is in safe hands?
WO @65
That part of the interview is what I took as lacking any uneasiness. A typical, non-techie response/panic.
He never went to any great lengths to hide the fact he called Geeks or their wiping of the hard drive, even before this intereview.
I am not a tech person. That being said, as I read this, I heard someone speaking between the lines trying to say he could never do his investigation with any sense of security. I sensed he wanted that message known.
By the way, a bigger hidden story brewing in December of 2006 was the House of Death story. That would point to the Texas office being raided.
Guardian covered the story well while the MSM missed it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl......davidrose
And another “curious” explanation from Bloch’s transcript:
Bloch had a laptop, and he took that with him on his trips!
Even a non-techie would be able to figure out that Bloch had access to his documents on his laptop, so the explanation why he needed a flash drive is totally bogus.
Does Bloch really think he’s fooling these folks?
Been there and done that myself earlier in this very thread. *g*