[Everything Shii Knows]

Mr. Blank

From Everything Shii Knows, the only reliable source

Printable version

Someone with a very strong knowledge of Bush administration history is posting anonymously to TPMmuckraker and causing a lot of heads to turn, not only other liberal bloggers but all people interested in White House policy. For ease of reading I have archived all of "Mr. Blank" (alias: Constant)'s posts here from his most explosive thread. His other threads can be found and read through below, but beware-- he knows his stuff, and his posts are LONG and SCARY!

My Reddit headline--which I'm actually embarrassed by, I didn't get enough sleep that night--suggested there was a single post which reveals eeeeeverything, the one you will read below. This is wrong; he has been on the attack for all of July in TPM, and similar posts can be found on an anonymous blog. He isn't a "Deep Throat," just a Bob Woodward, doing the sort of investigation that the mainstream media unfortunately abandoned years ago. His contributions vary from pointed questions in regular blog style to original reporting not seen anywhere else. All comment threads he's posted in, in chronological order:

(I may have missed some but you'll find this list is more complete than the ones on DailyKos. Also, watch out for false positives. Several other people don't fill in the Name field, but Mr. Blank's style is extremely easy to tell. Also, feel free to ignore his posts where he injects his own opinion rather than providing extremely obscure and shocking evidence.)

Contents

[edit] The original post (by TPMmuckraker)

Snow: Mueller Didn't Mean What He Obviously Meant on TSP

The wages of obscuring a wide-ranging surveillance program are severe, and they force White House spokesmen to enter into absurdity.

Yesterday, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that former Deputy Attorney General James Comey had legal objections to the "much discussed" NSA program known, as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) pointed out, as the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Mueller's admission contradicted the sworn testimony of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has now staked his reputation -- and the results of a possible perjury investigation -- on the proposition that Comey objected to "other intelligence activities." You might say this is a bit of a problem for Gonzales.

Not so, says Tony Snow. During Snow's press briefing today, Snow employed the restricted definition of TSP-post-Comey ("that acknowledged program -- the program that the president disclosed to the American people") in order to say that, as Gonzales testified, "that program was not something that was legally controversial." But didn't Mueller's disclosure refute that argument, by conceding that Comey objected to the TSP? Nah, says Snow, because Mueller said "National Security Agency programs" instead of "TSP":


Actually, Snow tries to get away with a sleight of hand here. Mueller never said "programs" -- as in more than one program. He said -- oh, let's just go to the transcript:

Lee: Did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?
Mueller: I had an understanding that the discussion was on a, uh, a, uh -- an NSA program, yes.
Lee: I guess we use "TSP," we use "warrantless wiretapping," so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?
Mueller: The discussion was on a National -- uh, NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.

Very obviously, the program Mueller referred to was the Terrorist Surveillance Program. It doesn't matter that Mueller never used the term himself, as it's unambiguous from context. Had Mueller been so inclined, he could have very easily told Lee that he'd prefer to answer in closed session given classification worries, or that he wasn't sure, or that he couldn't recall. Instead, when asked if he was talking about TSP, Mueller said, "yes." In order for what Snow is saying to be true, "yes" would have to mean something more like "no."

The reporter here has it half-right. It's not that administration is employing two different definitions of TSP. It's that the administration is linguistically splicing a program in half; calling its own half "TSP"; and insisting that anyone not echoing its misleading distinction is talking about a different program. That's why Snow is so careful to describe "TSP" as, say, "the activity of providing surveillance of al-Qaeda members overseas, or al-Qaeda affiliates, talking with people in the United States or communicating with them, having the federal government go after them."

That definition satisfies the objections that Comey raised, which is why he ultimately signed off on a more-restrained program. What it neglects is everything else the surveillance program encompassed, from its inception in October 2001 until Comey's concerns in March 2004, that Comey and is DOJ colleague Jack Goldsmith found unacceptable.

Mueller's definition of the program is the all-encompassing one. The definition of TSP offered by Snow, and Gonzales, and Bush, isn't. And no amount of linguistic violence or contextual distortion can bring Mueller's testimony in line with Gonzales's.

[edit] Mr. Blank's first post: "STUDY MUELLER'S HESITATION" July 27, 2007 4:45 PM

[This initial post is pure speculation. --Shii]

STUDY MUELLER'S HESITATION

I would encourage a "fresh look" at not just the transcript, but the _audio_:

["Mueller: The discussion was on a National -- uh, NSA program that has been much discussed, yes."]

It appears he _almost_ mentioned "national security council" program. . . NSC is not the same as NSA. Another way to read between the lines . . ."National security program": Something that is _outside_ FISA; and _outside_ what the FISA current covers. . .although it was intended to cover _all_ things.

Listen closely to the pauses, spacing, and hemming and hawing. Mueller is dancing around something that -- it appears -- President and AG have said falls "outside" the FISA-coverage: This might be a Canadian-Australian-NZ-UK data transfer program: Whereby non-US interception methods are used, but the data is forwarded to the NSA through non-direct US means.

. . . .

Also, if the Senate's Leahy/Specter do not trust Gonzalez, why would they trust him on this AG-certifications under FISA? If he's been lying to the Senate, then his AG-certifications on "OK to do this without a warrant" are also in doubt. He could define anything -- rightly or wrongly -- as being under that umbrella. Question becomes: What certification has the AG made on things that not even the Gang of 8 was told about; and how was the NSC (not NSA) involved with the oversight of this, outside FISA-Gang of 8 review?

"National security" could mean: "Maintaining morale" or "maintaining confidence": That could mean providing false information to the public; or, based on data mining, issuing public news releases to justify public support for illegal activity; or maintain confidence in something that was an illegal contract. This would involve capture through NSA of meta-language; then stripping out identifying information;; then transferring that data to a firm like Flieshman Hilliard which would examine it, and issue public news releases on various government "public oversight" and "media messaging issues": Smith Act issues in re domestic propaganda: Possibly a "public service" announcement to maintain loyalty in non-sense. Something for AT&T to discuss.

[edit] "NSC-RUN PROGRAM" July 27, 2007 5:37 PM

NSC-RUN PROGRAM, LIKE IRAN-CONTRA, OUTSIDE CONGRESSIONAL-LEGAL OVERSIGHT

An "NSA/NSC" supporting function/unit does not necessarily mean intelligence gathering or intercepts. NSA-NSC-related units can be assigned anywhere; and their intelligence gathering is not isolated to electronic methods. It could involve civilian contractors assigned to commercial entities not obviously connected with the US government; and not obviously involved with verification of Signals intelligence. The personnel may or may not have any idea that they are assigned to a group that relies on NSA-collect information or that they are involved with verifying information the NSA/NSC has an interest.

"Why I suspect Darth Cheney involved in program origination? Comey Testimony. Philbin objected to legality of NSA program, and Addington had the biggest hand in ending Philbin's career. Payback for ruining Addington's pretty NSA operation. Comey dropped that name for a reason...."
Posted by: drational
Date: July 27, 2007 4:14 PM

Recall, it's CIA that was sharing info with the EU on the rendition; and Plame was retaliated against by OVP: and the OVP blocking the archivist audit. Addington knew about the European Detention centers.Not getting info on the naval-based detention centers.

Recall, Iran-Contra was an NSC-run operation: Cheney was involved. Could be the same kid of thing -- something run out of NSC, not the DoJ or NSA. Not clear that the "NSA" vs "NSC" is a typo: Suspect its different: NSC, not NSA, appears to be running these things.

Recall DoJ met with the intelligence personnel at various sports facilitates in DC. Keep thinking Plame and Cheney were about sending a message to Cheney' private intelligence network -- likely linked through Halliburton -- to send a message: "Plame outing" is what will happen if you crosss the VP. Seems to simplistic to say this is only about oil, and retaliating against others who spill the beans. Libby's name was mentioned in the context of "basketball," another program -- that came up during the Grand Jury reviews; his counsel was worried Fitzgerald had access to NSA-GCHQ-intercepted information of legal counsel.

. . .

Philbin was former OLC, meaning he probably clashed with Addington on the legal aspects of Rendition/prisoner abuse as well. Philbin documented his concerns, which the Congress can ask for since those memoranda and their existence on this subject have been disclosed. Mentioning Philbin may have been merely a suggestion of which people/memoranda to specifically ask for. Philbin was aware of the "security" issues of GTMO; and likely would have been involved with discussions in detaining prisoners in Eastern Europe.

  1. Support Aspect: NSA resources supporting, or outsourced
    "NSA" or "NSC" program doesn't necessarily have to mean just data interception, but _use_ and _support_ of other activities: Combat, intelligence analysis, interrogation, or direct support for the CIA. Problem NSA and DOJ have is when CIA -- possibly connected with this "other program" -- have talked to the EU. EU may have more information about this "other program" than the Congress has been directly told or understands.
  2. Direct reporting to NSC, outside Congressional oversight
    IF this is an NSA "program" it could be a support function for the NSC, or one of the combatant commanders; or made to _look_ that way to hide the real objective of the activity. They may have classified it as an "NSA Program" to bury its real objective as a domestic-CIA-cover action program, which is illegal, an "open secret" but explained away as a "training program" like Operation Falcon [a Gonzales pet project --Shii]: Use of Federal resources at the local level for training, manning support, and domestic intelligence gathering in conjunction with CIFA.
  3. Posse Comitatus
    This could be a special access program within DoD that is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, hidden as an "NSA program" but a domestic security force backed by combat forces/special forces units which have the power to issue arrest warrants, detain people, and target those who oppose the illegal activities.
  4. Individual Cells, untraceable, multi-agency
    I haven't seen anything to suggest that the President could not, through DoD and CIFA, establish a Gestapo-like "NSA program" within the DoD community, and then outsource this to local law enforcement -- JTTF. They've got people that cross flow between the guard units, local law enforcement, FBI, and to civilian jobs all day. They could be creating individual cells within JTTF units that are comprised of NSC contractors, data analysis, and law enforcement whose sole goal is to act as a direct reporting entity to the NSC. They could very well be reporting directly to people working for Cheney, and Congress and JCS might never realize who or what was actually assigned, or relying on DoD assets.
  5. DoD Entities With Personnel Assigned Stateside
    DoD could ery well have created "foreign entities" in other countries, who then are in charge of these personnel stationed in the US. DoD was given this power to establish foreign intelligence and combat support entities overseas; however, if that's mutated, the NSC may have subcontracted to these DoD entities US-based personnel who directly support NSC: In effect, creating an NSC-NSA support function under DoD foreign entities, but basing their contractors in the US..

SUMMARY

Mueller appears to be referring to a sub-contracted effort which indirectly supports the NSC with a special domestic security unit. These units engage in direct engagement with state-side personnel and civilians. Contractors, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel are assigned under non-direct-NSC-NSA units, but are hidden inside commercial entities. The groups appear capable of moving quickly, with no direct supervision, but act as internal security forces, completely outside FISA oversight. They appear to be entities unrelated to FISA, but are front line units which verify information, gather intelligence domestically, and help NSC pinpoint targets which NSC contractors are assigned.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Congress examine the Operation Falcon [helpful link --Shii]; determine which NSA/NSC personnel were assigned to oversee.

B. Examine the budget lines inside the DOD foreign entities support accounts; and determine which banks are used to challenge those funds. Determine how the DOD funds are funnelled overseas through the NSC entities, then back to the US to these individual groups.

C. Review the "investigative leads" and ground rules JTTF and local law enforcement use to dissuade detection of the domestic intelligence gathering efforts.

D. Review the destruction logs of the CIFA; and determine who was supposed to keep the logs related to these classified documents. Determine which signalling systems, monitoring, and other intelligence gathering the JTTF are using; and where this information is sent. Ultimately, it winds up somewhere: Which contractors, NSC staffers have access to these reports.

E. Examine with Congressional Counsel whether it is the intent that these domestic security services operate this way; and whether, as FISA is written, this type of activity would fall outside what the FISA Court can engage.

F. Review the DHS domestic interrogation facilities. Look at the gas mileage for the DHS pick up teams. Review the files they've had access to; and the basis for detaining someone. Review the complaints of citizens being forcibly removed from their cars, engines running, or being taken from their homes while school children are present in the early morning. Evidence includes car impound fees.

G. Discuss with POST and local LE efforts used to dissuade public awareness of intelligence gathering: Excuses given to hide pre-textual stops; and examine whether local officials do or do not keep adequate records related to officer complaints and requests for civilian oversight to examine officer misconduct.

H. Examine problems during audits: To what extent officers in LE, FBI, and DHS are concerned when reports of officer misconduct arise; and what methods auditors are aware to segregate complaints about officer misconduct from auditors:

  1. Have they been asked to leave the room; were concerns explained away; were officers complaining they were "short manned" an unable to supervise; and how do these explanations square with the officer conduct.
  2. How often are these units employed to provoke innocent civilians to respond to abuse?
  3. To what extent are these domestic units used to harass civilians based on a "hunch"?
  4. Would these units put the children of minors at risk to entrap a suspected target?
  5. Is there no report of any of these personnel ever exposing a minor to a potentially unsafe situation to engage a target?
  6. Has the FISA court, Congress, and Judiciary been fully apprised of how these units operate; their procedures; and oversight requirement to ensure 42 USC 1983 claims are minimized?
  7. What insurance do these units have if they are engaged in liable action?

[edit] "LEARN LESSON OF OLC" July 27, 2007 6:09 PM

LEARN LESSON OF OLC IN RE SUBPOENA RESPONSES

Recall, OLC issued a "memo" saying that WH Counsel did not have to testify. This, according to the WH, was "gospel." Untrue, but that's another issue. OLC made a "rule" and then everyone said, "See, that's what they said." Now, consider this, from TPMM quote, above: ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] That could mean anything, anybody, and without reference to any legal standard.

"not legally controversial" . . . _according to whom_. . . ?...:

. . .

What's their idea of "non legal controversy", as opposed to a "controversy that is real, but not based on a law, just the Constitution"?

What is someone like Darth Cheney said, "We need to justify this -- find a reason. Ignore words in the law if you need to. Just give me a memo. You get an appointment to the bench if you can figure this out." What if Roberts or Alito gave a really good opinion on this and made everyone -- in that room -- believe it was "not controversial", even though it was?

. . .

Again, saying ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could mean: A. "other programs" were controversial;

B. "other groups" _are_ doing illegal things, but you haven't asked us about them, so we haven't made up a lie. . . yet;

C. OLC "determined" (using a feather, some fairy dust, and after gazing into GOodling's eyes) that anything the NSC wanted to do under Cheney was OK, just as long as nobody traced the money.

. . .

There's another way of looking at this ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."]

D. "This program" is different from "that program" which has been hidden in another budget, unrelated to the NSA or NSC:

E. DoD _is_ allowed to do things overseas, and contractors have been assigned -- working for those _overseas_ entities -- in the US.

F. The data that is managed is channelled, but the contractors have no idea who it is they are monitoring: All they see is the raw data; someone else then recombines the data if there is a problem.

G. If we find a problem in the data, we then use the data we've collected to justify the warrant; if we can't get one, we self-issue one, and get the AG to certify it as being OK> Never mind that Qwest objected.

["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could also mean:

H. Legal counsel assigned to our units have been told to keep their comments to themselves

I. All contracts supporting this activity are -- by definition -- "legal contracts"; (just don't talk about whether they support a lawful or unlawful objective. Far too scary to contemplate!)

J. "not controversial" could mean all the legal views that opposed it were ignored; and the remaining opinions were in "full support".

K. The legal counsel who knew of the Constitutional violations were sent to Guantanamo, threatened with nasty things: "To the washroom, counsellor! No gloves for you."

L. Legal counsel who remained quiet were promised a "good rating" by "the decider" in their upcoming DOJ ranking list -- the names given to the Senate for Federal Benches.

"not legally controversial" could mean all case law showing it was illegal was ignored; or selectively rewritten, as Addington well did with the Iran-Contra minority report.

["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could mean: other programs were contentious; but since AG Gonzalez is on the pig-spit this week, we need to pretend we are concerned, even though we are not.

The people who said this was "no problem" and were not saying tat it was lawful, just that it wouldn't be a problem to find a judge who they could bribe to not take action.

"not legally controversial" does not mean that it was legal; only that the in "someone's mind" (God knows where) their idea of "controversial" is a different definition which does not use controversy. Maybe legal counsel who opposed were _not_ using spears with _poison_ tips, so the spin misters said, "See not controversial, if they ere really upset they would have had nasty poison, the kind that makes Ebola look like a fuzzy kitten." The infamy! How dare they!

[edit] RE: Larry Hanry July 27, 2007 6:12 PM

[Removed: This might be a different guy, it's not a very helpful post.]

[edit] RE: "Very obviously" July 27, 2007 6:17 PM

This is not necessarily true: ["Very obviously, the program Mueller referred to was the Terrorist Surveillance Program."]

The "other programs" could be things _far too scary_ to contempate. Recall, this Preident is linked with war crimes: It means nothing for him to set up camps, and make people disappear. "all for the cause. . ."

Put the burden on the President: Prove those internment camps you've built aren't being used; and that the prisoners aren't out "exercising" when the Auditors arrive.

[edit] "I don't personally..." July 27, 2007 6:32 PM

I don't personally think the fact that they are or are not referring to "this" or "that" or "TSP" or "Not TSP" is the issue: The fact is that there isn't a consistent story, raising the question: What other activity is occurring that may be an NSA-related function, but has been organized to fall _outside_ FISA oversight, but is still illegal under the Constitution:

Recall, the RNC has deleted/destroyed e-mail. If this "other program" were "OK," how does the RNC explain the failure to retain detain related to an ongoing "OK" activity? [I realizes this assumes the RNC e-mail was related to the activity; but isn't that the point: The RNC believes that this activity is lawful, so why not discuss it by email?" What if the RNC, when it first created the backup email system, through nobody would find out about it; and they assumed the e-mail would never see the light of day because of "privilege" claims. But when, what if someone from one of the law firms associated with he CIA went to the EU, and the RNC realized, "Oh, no. . . they've figure it out; it's not lawful; and we're in trouble. Destroy everything." IT doesn't make sense to destroy evidence related to a "legal program" when that activity -- if it were lawful and non-disclosed -- should be protected by privilege. Rather, it appears they realized private would not work, and the documents would not be shielded.

The question goes back to DOJ, OLC, and outside counsel: [ "When you learned of the "other programs" involved with this intelligence activity, did you fear that the information in the RNC accounts would be disclosed; or was there something you learned from the EU -- and CIA visits with the EU -- which prompted the evidence destruction related to rendition, FISA< prisoner abuse, and other things OLC apparently "all agreed" -- in a perverse Yoo-like fashion -- was "lawful". . . (never mind Geneva, FISA< or The Constitutional requirements)." ]

Sounds like a law firm which was auditing a company related to various NSA programs and prisoner transfers should have detected this chance of fraud, and internal control problems. Or is a law firm saying, despite attestations to the SEC on those financial statements, that they had "no idea" what was going on, despite counsel's awareness of the activity -- as evidenced by their meeting with the DoD General Counsel's staff on these very issues?

[edit] RE: mo2 July 27, 2007 9:49 PM/9:54 PM/9:59 PM

I think I have figured out why Mueller is parsing his words and what the White House is protecting:
The illegal Project X wiretaps had captured information on Zacarious Moussaoui that could have prevented the 9-11-2001 attacks from occurring at all.
"A senior FBI official attending the White House meeting on July 5th (2001) committed the bureau to redouble contacts with its foreign counterparts and to speed up transcription and analysis of wiretaps obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), among other steps.
But when the field agent in Phoenix, Arizona, reported the suspicions of a hijacking plot just five days later, the FBI did not share the report with any other agency. One must ask, why?
...
On August 15,2001, an alert civilian instructor at a Minnesota flight school called the FBI" ...
The FBI office in Minnesota attempted to get a FISA warrant, but they were rebuffed. A crucial mistake, because Zacarias Moussaoui’s possessions contained evidence that would have exposed key elements of the September 11th plot.
But, why was this request denied? Again, the historical facts must be analyzed.
In March 2001, an internal debate ignited at the Justice Department and the FBI over wiretap surveillance of certain terrorist groups. Prompted by questions raised by Royce C. Lamberth, the Chief Judge of the FISA Court, the Justice Department opened an inquiry into Michael Resnick an FBI official who coordinated the Act’s applications. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller (then deputy Attorney General), ordered a full review of all foreign surveillance authorizations.
...
The article goes on to state, “the men then phoned Bangor airport trying to get a flight to Boston but were told there was no flight that matched their desired departure time, the authorities said. The men then phoned Portland International JetPort, where two of them apparently made reservations for a flight to Boston on Tuesday morning.”
How would this information be gleaned so quickly? How would the FBI know to visit a store in Bangor, Maine only hours after the attacks? Moreover, how would they know the details of a phone conversation that occurred a week prior to the attacks?"
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/senatecommittee091802b.html
Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 5:19 PM
By Paul Kiel May 15, 2007 on TPM:
"The deadline for the Justice Department's providing its sign-off of the program was March 11th [2004] (the program required reauthorization every 45 days). On that day, Comey, then the acting AG, informed the White House that he "would not certify the legality" of the program."
By Spencer Ackerman today at TPM:
"The only relevance is Comey's objections to TSP -- the surveillance program that began in October 2001, no matter how the Bush administration wishes to obscure the issue."
By Spencer and Kiel yesterday - "Prior to 9/11, such surveillance had to be approved by a FISA judge so as not to violate the 4th Amendment."
My question is:
How do we know October 2001 was the beginning of the illegal spying program?

Excellent point: We don't; allegations are that the _illegal_ surveillance started _before_ Sept 2001.

Given that Bush/Rice were warned about al quaeda before Bush was sworn in in 2001, why is it thought that they did absolutely nothing before October 2001?

Good point again.

Because they say so is not good enough.

Right. Getting warmer.

Could it be that they did do something, but that something was illegal?

You are correct.

And they feel it is better to be called do-nothings than criminals?

Also, they like the idea people are focusing on the wrong surveillance, wrong time period: The confusion menas they can blame Congress for "not asking teh right questions."

Can somebody please provide the link to the testimony that says the TSP started on October 1, 2001?

Someone said that, you're correct; but TSP isn't necessarily what's being talked about.

Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 7:08 PM
"September 5--INS entered the September 4 notice of revocation of Mihdhar's visa into the INS lookout system. The State Department identified Mihdhar as a potential witness in an FBI investigation, and inspectors were told not to detain him."
For what FBI investigation was al Mihdhar a potential witness? Why was it first ordered to detain al Mihdhar because he was armed and dangerous and thereafter ordered to not detain him because he was a potential witness in an FBI investigation? Al Mihdhar was "armed and dangerous" and "participating in terrorist acts" that were defined as "airline hijackings" and using "weapons of mass destruction." Who ordered his non-detainment a mere five days before 9/11? Perhaps current Secretary of State Rice (former National Security Advisor on 9/11) or her State Department counsel, Philip Zelikow, (former 9/11 Commission Staff Director) might have some answers?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/the-kings-red-herring_b_12589.html
Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 7:50 PM
Sorry for more, but this seems relevent.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0301resnickerrors
"An FBI agent, angry over a glitch in an e-mail tracking program that has somehow mixed innocent non-targeted e-mails with those belonging to al-Qaeda, reportedly accidentally destroys all of the FBI’s Denver-based intercepts of bin Laden’s colleagues under investigation. "
It also says that the FBI’s deputy director has told agents that contacting prosecutors without the OIPR’s permission is a “career stopper.” [OIPR = Office of Intelligence Policy and Review at the Justice Department]"
Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 8:11 PM


Thanks. BTW: The "wall" argument [ in re FISA "needed reforms" ] falls apart: DSP combined the CIA and FBI info _before_ 9-11, making "the wall" irrelevant. It's not a real problem then, now; and the "solution" is a red herring.

- - - - -

THe point is: If the GOP will not convice Gonzalez for lying, then Gonzalez needs to explain why his comments are _true_: - What programs could exist under both the inconsenst statementes of Gonzalez; and also the disparity between what Gonzalez and Mueller are saying.

The GOP Senators canot have it both ways: Sayhing, "AG is telling the truth; but not having any information to support _that_ conclusion.

- - - - -

The problem they have: Not only were they doign illegal things _before_ Sept 2001; those illegal things did _not_ work.

There's no basis for the President to say, "We need to do more of this illegal stuff" as it didn't work before Sept 2001; rather, what's needed is the opposite: "Given we tried ilegal things, and _that_ didn't work, who has some other ideas?"

They can't ask _that_ question because they'll admit: 1. They screwed up 2. They have no clue 3. They're not able to hire someone to help them out

The only option they have is to pretend the problem is one thing; and then solve that "new problem" in a way that appears to solve it. Forget the fact that the problem they may be "sovling" is illusory. They may have defined the program in terms of what _appears_ to be a solveable problem.

IN other words, if they've realized that they can't win, they['ll [a] redefine the enemy in terms of what Congress can be led to believe is a credilbe threat; and [b] redefine the solution in terms of not solvinga real problem, but in terms of what appers to solve what they've created the impression is the problem.

Problems, solutions, reality, and the illusion may or may not be matching: This may explain why things are not appearing all that straightforward: They're still tring to figure out how they're in power despite their stupidity.

[edit] "KNOW THE NATURE OF..." July 28, 2007 6:53 PM

KNOW THE NATURE OF US GOVERNMENT LEGAL COUNSEL AND WHAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF DOING

I read this, and thought of the attorneys in DOJ who were saying gum this to death; and what Gonzalez has been saying/doing -- Lying, obstruction: ["Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay"]

The quote and subject are not as important as the point: US Government legal counsel will obstruct justice, and stupidly document that obstruction: How many of the RNC e-mails would WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ staff counsel have sent back and forth on their progress in blocking review of FISA, Geneva, and other illegal activity; then delete these e-mails when they learned it was on the Libby/Abramoff Grand Jury subpoena list?

Know who you're up against: People who have no remorse over engaging in illegal conduct, and (apparently) hiding evidence related to executions of people who opposite reckless conduct. These are lawyers who are doing this: The very people who supposedly are the "best" and "brightest" in the legal profession: The same people who are put on the Federal Benches. Congress needs to take a wider view of the DOJ Staff misconduct in re FISA, Geneva, rendition, and prisoner abuse.

Doesn't look as through Congress has really woken up to the recklessness in the legal community. Let's get some state level disbarment investigations going; and forward the results to the public so we can throw it back at them during future confirmation hearings.

The lawyers were behind the Watergate break-ins, and the Holocaust. We can't let this happen again, and the lawyers need to be put on a tight leash. They've defied their oath, putting their party and President before the Constitution. That which is not lawfully opposed, will continue; the legal profession, left unleashed, will do what is least expected: Turn the law inside out to justify genocide, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and defiance of their oath and Constitution.

A president does not do this on their own; nor does a Congress -- with lawful options to end it -- have much of a defense when they have powers to investigate, block funding, and compel oversight. The Ranking Members of the Committees have had this power to compel reviews since day one. Doesn't matter that the GOP "controlled" Congress: The DNC has the power to filibuster bills; and could have issued letters to the DoJ-NSA-CIA-DoD IG requesting assistance. There's no merit to any assertion that "nobody was going to do anything" -- how do the Members of Congress explain the effort to _do_ something: Pass proclamations calling for Congress to impeach _despite_ the GOP "controlling" the US Government.

One answer: There is a way to lawfully oppose. There is no merit to any assertion that there is no opting; or that were are stuck with this abuse. There is a way: If Congress will not oppose this abuse; and Congress will not end funding, then there is _someone else_ who can be trusted to assert their oath, and defend the Constitution. Assent to DNC-GOP joint assent to this despotism is unacceptable. It doesn't matter if its unwillingness to impeach, refusal to investigate, inaction on subpoenas, or stupid assent to DoJ-US Atty decisions to do nothing to enforce the law. _Someone else_ can be found who _will_ do their job. Stop listening to excuses of why this "cannot" be done;and _find_ a way to make those who have an oath to _do_ their job: Defend the Constitution, even it means prosecuting the President, VP, Speaker, and House Judiciary Chairman for [a] violating Geneva; and [b] refusing to enforce the Constitution using all lawful options. It is reckless -- this many years after 9-11 and the disclosures of the prisoner abuse and illegal NSA -- for Congress to be still rubber stamping legislation/funding: There are options to end the funding, which the DNC refuses; and there are options to lawfully target legal counsel complicit with this illegal activity.

This isn't about DoJ, FISA, or RNC e-mails, but whether legal counsel -- with that "special position of trust before the court" -- can really be trusted; or whether they need to be overseen, audited, and intruded upon as if they were a branch of government. America's legal counsel have expected too much deference for reckless service; and this many years after the illegal activity has surfaced it is absurd for the American legal community to flaunt "how great it is" or ask anyone to embrace the "American model" when the lawyers have their disastrous results on _their_ hand. Their only solution appears to be to laugh at what they've done to gum things up; never realizing We the People have the option to get them disbarred, and make _them_ the lawful target of war crimes prosecutions. America's lawyers, indeed, did learn the lesson of the Holocaust: How to commit illegal warfare and not get caught. We the People have something to say about that. This is far from over. These are issues of international criminal law with one large defense pool: American legal counsel inside DoJ, OVP, DoD, and outside counsel

They wished this.

- - - -

[BTW: The quote is from the Tillman case in keeping criminal prosecutors from reviewing the close-range gun shot wounds to Tillman, leading some to believe that he was executed to silence him for his anti-war stances he was apparently going to advance outside the military. Tillman is reported to have been frustrated [a] there were too many shows going on in Afghanistan; [b] they were really not going after AlQueda; and [c] the staged engagements were just a dog and pony show, not really serious about defeating an enemy.]

[edit] RE: Jimbo July 29, 2007 2:04 PM

If their really were talking about two separate programs i.e. the one we know about and the one we don't, I have to wonder what the one we don't know about could possibly be.
The fact is they have access to our telephone calls (cell and land line) our email and snail mail, the web pages we visit , our financial transactions, what we borrow from a library, and our medical records. They even claim the right to enter our homes without telling us about it. I mean really, what's left, satellite photos??
Posted by: Jimbo
Date: July 29, 2007 10:49 AM

In my view the question of "are there one, two, or more programs" isn't relevant: The _known_ information shows there's been _illegal_ activity.

Whether there is _alot_ of illegal activity; or whether there is _multiple_ or _many_ program's merely confirms the foregone conclusion: There's illegal activity.

Time to stop digging for "confirmation" of what we know; and compel Congress to explain why -- despite the known illegalities -- they continue to fund what they know, or should know is illegal.

Murtha's cutting of the DoD COngressional liaision office budget shows that the budget tools are there: "Mr. President, cooeprate with our inquiry; or you get no money." The arugment that the GOP is 'blocking' the DNC is fiction: The DNC can cut the money and _make_ the GOP "pass" an Amemdnet to add money back.

Again, I appreciate there are people who want to spend time getting clues and "figuring things out" -- in my view, it would be more productive to take the information that we have, and give it to the DNC is a simple format: The FISA violations are known to be illegal; either cut the money, or we're going after you wtih prosecutions.

[edit] Re: TheraP July 29, 2007 5:19 PM

Another Question:
Remember back the weekend that Reagan died? bush was in France, a D-Day memorial or something. And some people distinctly heard a voice, not bush's, repeating words, which bush later spoke! [This appears to be an audio/video lag --Shii]
I know that that was discussed on some media blog that Danny.... (can't recall last name) heads - and he heard that voice! Just more confirmation that they have this capacity to provide answers for people. Chips under the skin? or what?
I understand that what we need to be doing here is to pull things together. And ask why the illegal activity is being funded. And that is a very good question. Why have things been reauthorized over and over?
And what blackmail or bribery or whatever is being used to keep people in line?
And, where is the paper trail for that?
Word is "crime."
Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 29, 2007 4:21 PM

TheraP" And ask why the illegal activity is being funded." [TP1]

TheraP: "And that is a very good question. Why have things been reauthorized over and over?" [TP2]

- - - -

TheraP: "And what blackmail or bribery or whatever is being used to keep people in line?" [TP3]

TheraP: "And, where is the paper trail for that?" [TP4]

- - -

1. There is the option to cut funding: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Murtha_says_Pentagon_frustrates_Congressional_oversight_0727.html

2. People who have been complicit with Geneva violations -- malfeasance in failing to cut budgets -- like to change the subject.

3. Google: [ descriptive summaries NSA 614113 R-2 ]

4. Google [ JROC NSA ]

5. Google [ " Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance in office on account of the scheming malevolence with which he administered injustice. "]

6. Google [5 USC 3331 malfeasance ]

[If you actually follow these instructions you will get nothing other than several pages of rants by Mr. Blank/Constant! But if you google `USC 3331` you'll find some useful info. --Shii]

7. Google [32 CFR 2800 Ad Hoc Committees ]

8. Google [ Statement Accounting standard 74 compliance ]

9. Before Sept 2001, NSA had program funding for a lawful NSA surveillance method which fully complied with FISA. JROC is the DoD group which oversees the funding/program authorization; they make decisions: "Is there a _cheaper_ way to do this?" They decided that they had to spend money. Then it was cancelled. Someone made the decision to _cancel_ what is _lawful_; but Congress is making a decision to _keep funding_ what is _illegal_.

10. Evidence is not only what exists; but the _absense_ what what should exist: The Ranking Members of the Committees 2001-2006 had the _option_ to document their concerns; and forward that concern to the DOD-NSA-CIA-DOJ IG. [See 6]

11. Compliance audits of OVP would have detected the documentation of whether OVP, Addington, and others aware of rendition, NSA survilance were or were not retaining records. The auditors have been blocked. [See 7, 8]

- - - -

_Q&A_

TP1: See 2, then 11.

TP2: See 1, then 10.

TP3: See 5, then 2.

TP4: See 3, then revisit 2, then 1; then reconsider 7, then link with 8; then reconsider 10.

[edit] RE: TheraP July 29, 2007 6:20 PM

"But now it makes me wonder if there are any events in the US related to the London bombings?"
Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 29, 2007 3:11 PM

- - - -

1. Google: ["attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay"]

2. Google: [ Procurement Guidance Documents Software PGD ]

- - - -

3. Consider: RNC offices were attacked in the run up to the 2006 elections.

4. Compare the following
A. Location of attacks on RNC offices before the election;
B. Point spread of RNC going into the election in those districts.

5. Consider: RNC wrote a note/letter to the unions "complaining" about "unions" attacking the RNC offices.

6. If you could convince someone "your opponent' was engaged in "dirty tricks" would that not convince some of the opposition to rejoin you and denounce "the opposition"?

7. Then consider: Supposedly the RNC 'knew" enough to write a letter to "who was involved"? Why didn't the US Atty's bring prosecutions:

8. The information in the RNC/DoJ offices will show you: A. What basis there was to conclude "the unions" were behind the attacks [none, fabricated, not followed up]; B. The subsequent discussion on prosecutions, or non-prosecutions; C. Which DoJ staff liaison were involved with the campaigns; D. The IP Numbers for the DOJ Staff not involved on processing FISA warrants, but engaged in discussions/non-official business using official government resources.

9. Evidence isn't just what exists, but what is _absent_ but what _should exist_

- - - - - - - _Q&A_

A. Funding, records: What physical evidence was retained of the RNC office destruction; who was assigned; and how was the investigation closed out: Either there is a report, and that report was given to the RNC as the basis for their "letter about the unions"; or there is no evidence, and no basis for the letter. [See 9]

B. These are issues of criminal law, not just e-mail or voting. That State AG would have to get information from the JTTF to understand what basis there was to conclude that terrorism was _not_ an issue; and who should have been involved with the preliminary review _before_ the RNC issued their letter to the DNC. [See 9]

C. Link to FISA warrants: The same DoJ Staff computers that were "supposed" to be working with the FISA warrants, are linked with non-official business. How did the RNC get the "fast answer" on what was 'going on' with these attacks; but the AG says that he's "undermanned" and "can't process FISA warrants"? [See 8, then 9]

D. Where is the US Atty review of the evidence related to these attacks on the RNC offices; and how did the US atty go through the process to decline prosecution: Which FBI agents were involved; which State officials were assigned to which fusion center; and how was CIFA involved; were there no NSLs issued to determine who was involved? [See 9]

E. What is the explanation of the FBI director, and those assigned to the FBI support staff: Do they have no OPR experience; or is there a supervising problem within the FBI; is there any record of any of the FBI agents "involved" with this "investigation" not fully reviewing anything, ever while they were a SAC, ASAC, or assigned to DOJ OPR; what review per SAS74/99 was done of the DOJ OPR/IG/FBI budgets in light of these fraud indicators? [See 8]

F. When the reports within the FBI of leadership not doing what they should, how was this addressed? [See 9-11, Sibel Edmonds. . .]

G. Issue: Voting fraud, absent/incomplete investigation files; property destruction. No JTTF concern or prosecutors?

H. JCS and CIFA are also involved with domestic surveillance. What was the DoD General Counsel's involvement with the notifications related to these domestic issues: Was terrorism not on the notification list; was the DOD General counsel not consulted; was DoD General counsel never in receipt of, connected to any briefing given to anyone at the White House related to DoD domestic intelligence gathering efforts?

Someone was briefed: No other explanation for the RNC letter. The question is whether the _appropriate_ investigations, notifications were or were not made: These calls, reports are logged in the correspondence logs; and they are tracked with various messages, workflows, and other assignments. Within Microsoft Outlook, there is a scheduling function: That information is familiar to you via the US Atty e-mail disclosures. Rove's link to Microsoft Outlook is clear; the question is whether the DOJ Staff IP numbers -- commonly linked to outside sites in other states -- were or were not reviewed by the Grand Jury when they examined the third-party-data transfer systems. Recall how quickly legal counsel coordinated on the Libby defense memoranda: They have a file sharing capability; however, Goodlings notifications of "delete this file" means that the auto-notification feature was turned off; or the file sharing system was not being used.

Questions:

A. Which DoJ Small Business Contract personnel were involved with the computer/IT/SW updates related to the DOJ-RNC file transfer systems; [See 2]

B. Where is a copy of the computer utilization meeting minutes where the pro/con of a file transfer system was discussed; who approved the budget profile within DoJ; and how was this decision coordinated with the RNC; [See 2]

C. If the file transfer system was in place -- and not subject to any "recent" review (Since 2001), why did Goodling not rely on the auto-notify feature when forwarding the updates to the readers?

D. Where are the e-mail notifications to the DoJ staff related to authorization for them to use, access, and transfer data using this file transfer system; when were the authorizations sent; who ensured the continued use and access to this system was proper; how were non-official uses of this system monitored; were there any efforts by non-DoJ personnel to use this system to transfer non-official records?

[edit] Summary post July 29, 2007 10:19 PM

S1: Procedure check sheets: "there must be paper trails of procedures." S2: Investigations: "Procedures for everything! And whether it is investigations that took place (or didn't)" S3: Evidence: "what kinds of paper trails may exist" S4: Storage: "what form they might be stored" S5: Indicators: "what the data suggest was happening"

"Just a tiny example of how one strange event can lead to another - and more evidence of something really strange - and probably illegal going on."

Yes. It's all connected: The open source will dance around the illegal information that has been illegally classified.

Google [ GAGAS ] These are some of the procedures to audit. Google [ CFR ] These are things that are standards that are audited. Note, an

EO may or may not apply; and a CFR may or may not apply.

Google [38 CFR 2800 ] These are the Security classification _procedures_ that the VP must comply related to _classified information_.

Google [ Statement Accounting Standard 74 Compliance ] This is the standard used to review entities receiving Federal Funds: To review their internal controls.

Google [ SAS 99 ] These are the fraud indicators used to assess whether auditors should increase or decrease audit scope. More indicators of fraud, trigger more sampling. If there are audit risks, but the auditor does _not_ increase audit scope, that is a problem for the _auditor_ not juts the original _audit target_.


Recent discussions about whether the President's EO "do or do not apply to OVP" are irrelevant: 38 CFR 2800 _does_.

Google [ Manual of Administrative Operations and Procedures ] and/or [ Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines ] -- These are the FBI standards.

Google [ USAM ]

These guidelines show how the prosecutors and investigators find evidence, comply with internal procedures, and do things to enforce the law.

Google [ CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS ] These are the guidelines for _Congress_ to meet.

Google [ PART 160 DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATORY SYSTEM ] -- These are some example guidelines of what people are supposed to follow. Auditors are supposed to review these requirements; then do audit/samples to test whether the procedures are or are not being followed.

Once the auditor completes their review, they provide an audit report. The report is sometimes called a report of an "audit engagement". Either the audit report exists or it does not; either management met the requirements, or it did not; either the management developed a plan to correct their problems, or they did not. Once an audit is done, there is required _follow-up to test whether the implemented solutions solve the _original_ problem identified. Either the program/solution is _solving_ the problem or it is not.

There's also problem the President has: There are mandatory audits which _he_ has to oversee, but the audit target is _outside his control_ This means, that we can test whether the _president's auditors_ were or were not doing their job.

Google [ PART 266 AUDITS OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AND OTHER NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS ]

That is the trap that Congress has laid. By funding these "non-US government entities", what Congress has created are entities which can _observe_ whether the President is or is not overseeing his auditors; and how competent the audits are.

Don't miss the point: Congress is allowed to set up dummy entities not to waste money, but to create _bait_ that the President is _required_ to engage, target, and put under surveillance. The Presidents' problem is that he doesn't know which of the companies are real; or which ones are bait that are direct reporting units to the Congressional staffers.

Anything that the bait detects is then back challenged to Congress: Has the team from the President's office attempted to do something inappropriate; have the audit rules been followed; or have there been unusual interactions suggesting that the President and RNC have attempted to deploy "people not related to the President".

The problem: Once Congress creates this dummy entity, from that point on, all interactions with that entity are from a specific _time_. Congress can then use the President's efforts to interact -- directly or indirectly -- and test:

A. What are the President's method to share information about the upcoming target;

B. Who is coordinating;

C. And are the President's personnel able to professional respond to unusual situations.

These are part of the _designed_ problems the President is forced to confront. Then, going backwards from the audit, we can examine

  1. Which data fields did the President's auditors use, access, and adjust when _preparing_ for the audit;
  2. Which records _only related to this dummy audit_ were created; and how were those records updated; and how was the information sent/transmitted/stored
  3. Once we let this data sit for a while, and then create the impression that there ha has been illegal activity, what effort do legal counsel, the President, DOJ staff, and others make to destroy that audit data that was _only_ connected to that bogus entity.

This is what has happened with the President right now. He and his auditors have been set up; the records that they've destroyed were based on discrete communications on specific dates and times. Before that information was received, the records were fine; after the data was received, the records were destroyed.

SO we can pinpoint:

  1. What the President, DoJ Staff, legal counsel, OVP, EOP, and others were told; how they were told; and the means that the records were stored;
  2. The time that the triggering event occurred;
  3. Then trace the record holes -- knowing that a credible search would trigger responses related to the known target.

Once those known targets are missing, then we broaden the line of inquiry:

A. When did legal counsel review the information, procedures, and conduct an audit;

B. Who last had access;

C. Who had the responsibility to establish this baseline.

It can't be changed. Either its there; or its not. The President's problem is he doesn't know which of the data sets have been planted; and that doesn't matter: There are known holes that were once linked with information that outside personnel put there _knowing_ they would be removed.

There is a second set of data that can be compared to the existing data set. That second data set is a clean version of all the data. Had the auditors done their job, and the records not been destroyed, the clean/secure version would match the President's version. Again, we don't need t to see any details of how they do things: We only need to plant the data, and let the President put that information where it is supposed to go; then let him destroy it. Then the second/secure data set is presented to the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury can see the holes; and the _time_ that the holes were created.

That is his problem with the FISA, Prisoner abuse, and the Geneva violations. Discrete information was transmitted; and on specific dates the NSA, NSC, and President were _known_ to believe something that was orchestrated. They've reacted to something they thought was real. Whether it was or was not real is irrelevant. The point is that the data existed; then its missing; and the missing holes are linked with specific lines of data and evidence that only specific people were told.

Those people are linked with specific offices, budgets, computers. It's all been stored, secure, and even if they destroy the records, they have no idea what other things are happening. This has been done using methods the NSA cannot detect. There are Trojan horses inside the NSA systems, WH computers, and other things: They are not viruses, but they are discrete information packages that are organized in unique ways. They're either there, as they're supposed to be; or they've been destroyed.

Part of the answer to this is the Congressional Correspond log. These are the records that show when Members of Congress were notified by letter of certain things. JCS, NSA, WH, and all other departments have the same type of tracking systems. If you noticed on the DOJ e-mails, you may have come across something called a "work flow": These are discrete tasks. Once a person is assigned a task, that is logged; either the log is OK, and has the information; or the log has been tampered with.

Again, once NSC and NSA have been triggered with a known event that will catch their attention, that package of information will get stored. Either it is still there as it should be, and the auditors can locate it; or its not there, because its been tampered with. Once the auditors know which information they're looking for, but that information is gone, then they can tell something about the entities responsiveness; procedural compliance. If its there, fine; but if its missing, then they do a flow charge of the procedures from data collection to data storage. They can tell who accessed it; which personnel had which authorities; and when the information -- known to have been stored -- was removed. That removal is linked with pre-destruction e-mails, guidance, and other memoranda linked with the legal counsel. The problem is when legal counsel also has missing gaps at the same time as the data is missing.

Here's the problem for the President and Congress and outside legal counsel: Once the dummy entity is created, it can be determined who was aware of that information; and the means by which Congress, the President, outside counsel and others coordinated their efforts to retaliate, identify, and discredit those who are involved.

Once the President and/or Congress and/or legal counsel issue a subpoena for something that is _false_; and has been created with the intent to _identify_ the methods the President is using to support illegal activity, that court action is linked to that discrete task. The problem is the legal counsel, Congress, and President have rushed without thinking, and have generated evidence, memoranda, notes, and communications.

The issue isn't what _is_ going one, but is the _line of evidence_ that should be in the Congressional computers, Presidents' files, and the legal counsel records be there? Their problem is they cannot control the records _of their responses, messages, communications, and documentation_ which have been stored _outside their control_. Again, we have two sets of data: The data that should be there if things were going as required; and the remaining data that will have holes.

Once we align the two timelines, the holes will then be traceable to legal counsel communications, presidential notes, conversations, and Member of Congress communications. Don't miss the point: Congress and the President, not just legal counsel, have a problem. There are required stops that all three have taken; and then not acted on. They're stuck. This goes back to 2001. They can't prevent the comparison between what should have happened; vs what their records say happened. The holes are things they can't go back and fill. They're not sure exactly what they were dealing with.

REVIEW

The first line of evidence is in the Congressional correspond logs. These are the notification dates to Congress on FISA violations, illegal activity, prisoner abuse, and other things.

The second lines of evidence is the IG memoranda they get from the ranking Members related to problems.

The third line of evidence is the audit engagement and workflow.

The fourth line of evidence is the audit report of compliance related to that audit engagement.

The fifth line of evidence is the safeguarded information which the President, Congress, and legal counsel have been exposed to and either: Ignored, reacted to, panicked, or did what they were supposed to do.

This information relates to the safeguarded information provided to outside personnel at the EU; and has been transmitted by the CIA to foreign entities.

Then we go down the oath of office, list of malfeasance standards, and start our prosecutions of Members of Congress, the President, VP, legal counsel, DoJ-EOP-OVP legal staff. They're stuck. This isn't just a data retention problem, this is related to allegations of war crimes, malfeasance.

Small tiny problem: It's July 2007, sixteen [16] months before the 2008 election. Congress, the President, and legal counsel know they are stuck. Normally, they have the advantage on their side: They can find a scapegoat, and agree to pin the problem on them; this time -- they are the problem, and they can't bury this.

All the notifications to Congress are documented; legislative immunity falls apart; and their defenses fall away when we look at what they did; then compare it with what they should have done per 5 USC 3331, their oath of office. We need only look at the FISA violations -- as reported publicly -- then compare that with the open information -- of that illegal activity -- and contrast that with the votes: They, knowing there was a problem with illegal activity, continued to fund and spend money on things that violated the Constitution. Nobody made them. they freely chose to do this; despite knowing of that illegal activity, they did not -- as they had the power to do -- either document their concerns with the IGS or US Atty; nor did they remove themselves from the votes to pay for what they should have known was not lawful.

_Your Points_

S1: Procedure check sheets: "there must be paper trails of procedures." -- Yes, and these are not classified. They are open records. Auditors' compliance testing is also public evidence.

S2: Investigations: [ "Procedures for everything! And whether it is investigations that took place (or didn't)" ] Indeed.

S3: Evidence: [ "what kinds of paper trails may exist" ] Right again. Not complicated.

S4: Storage: [ "what form they might be stored" ] Right, and there are standards not only for the way the data is stored; but also the physical infrastructure used: Not just information, but security of that IT hardware that comes up with a 32 CFR 2800 audit.

S5: Indicators: [ "what the data suggest was happening" ] Right, all we have to do is ook at the holes. The bigger the hole, the bigger the problem _they_ have. The key is the timeline: What happened; what was their _known_ response; and then what is missing _despite_ their procedures to follow when notified of that event/information.

Evidence is not needed proving that they didn't do their job; the fact that there are holes this big, and no correction, but continued funding is enough. Take your pick: This is all over the place. You have to decide your deadline to make this decision; and when you want to stop. _That's_ the concern: It appears people are spending so much time digging through this evidence, that they're missing the big picture: Each line of evidence isn't telling us new information: It's part of the same kettle of fish: Malfeasance in re FISA violations, prisoner abuse, rendition, war crimes, and oath of office.

Time to engage with the State AGs. All fifty [50] of them, and bring in the Certified Fraud Examiners, Auditors, and some people who have some inclination of the prosecution possible against the Members of Congress, president, VP, and legal counsel in OVP, DoJ, EOP, and outside legal counsel. We don't need more evidence; we need some public trials, indictments, prosecutions, legal counsel disbarments, and jail time. The oath wasn't enough to inspire them.

[edit] Re: The Oracle July 29, 2007 10:30 PM

"Terrorist Surveillance Program" is just a later incarnation of the "Total Information Awareness" program that supposedly was scrapped, due to it's blatantly illegal domestic data collection activities. Warrant? Who needs a warrant when building a data-base on all U.S. citizens and covering everything that can be uncovered about all U.S. citizens?
This TIA program was the one BushCo instituted in early 2001 before the 9/11 attacks, as they started converting the federal government into the 2nd edition of the Nixon administration.
After 9/11, the Bush administration essentially just dropped the name TIA (voila, it disappeared), and replaced the name TIA with their "Terrorist Surveillance Program" designation, while keeping intact all the illegal, warrantless surveillance and data collection processes that BushCo had established with all the "lap dog" telecommunications companies in the U.S..
This is why the "lap dog" telecommunication companies are trying to get legislation passed to make them immune from lawsuits filed by patriotic U.S. citizens who are defending their constitutional rights, defending their right to privacy and their right to be free from illegal searches and seizures.
TIA was being developed as a giant intelligence and surveillance vacuum cleaner, sucking up everything on American citizens that it could, while totally bypassing the FISA court.
BushCo dumped the name, but kept the program (as TSP), still totally bypassing the FISA court. This is what BushCo is trying to hide. This is what even spooked some lifelong Republicans in the Justice Department. They recognized a program that was just as illegal as anyone Richard Nixon had set up, an illegal domestic data collection program that had it's inception before the 9/11 attacks.
Posted by: The Oracle
Date: July 28, 2007 2:04 AM

You are correct. They use a system of intermediaries who process the FISA warrants. They're also located overseas.

Also, think broadly when you See the word "data mining" What could someone be induced to believe was "lawful"? If a "computer" does the "mining" does that mean a "person" isn't violating the Constitution? Someone's argued that.

The problem is fiduciary duty; and responsibility. Someone had to write the software; and that software was written with the intent it do something; then someone has to audit that software to ensure it meets the requirements. That auditor is supposed to review:

A. What are the legal requirements, restrictions; B. What is this software doing; C. Are there any problems D. Has the certification of that legal compliance been tested independently?

Oversight means overseeing, not pointing to confusion, and hoping it remains hidden behind a secret briefing. Either it's explained in plain English; or it is not. The problem is when FISA violations are rubber stamped on the basis of gobbly goop.

The Constitution is very simple and clear. All that is required is that you comply with it. When you ignore it, then you have a problem: The "excuses to ignore" these simple rules, then become the same excuse to ignore planning, leadership, oversight, backups, training, and audits. Then we have Katrina, botched operations in Afghanistan, and a President that has to be fed lines because he can't think on his feet. We need real leadership, not what we have.

[edit] Re: TheraP July 29, 2007 11:56 PM

"So that's why they had to classify everything!!!"
Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 29, 2007 10:52 PM

Google [ ORCON Executive Order corruption ]

Yes, and there's a rule about that as well: ORCON, it's illegal go classify evidence of illegal activity.

Which takes us back to the dispute over Cheney's assertion that "that" EO "didn't apply." The "EO that did or didn't apply" contains the rules on ORCON. It doesn't matter whether the "_EO_" did or didn't apply, the _32 CFR 2800_ does apply: It has OVP name on it. It can be enforced through prosecutions; and that CFR _does_ list EOs which _do_ apply.

Whether the _standards listed_ does or does not apply is meaningless; the issue is whether the _requirement_ regardless which standard is used, ignored, or explained away is _legally enforceable_. Arguing over which EO does or doesn't apply is a distraction from [a] the ORCON requirements which prohibit classification of that data; and [b] the data which _must_ be protected per the applicable CFR: 38 CFR 2800.

This takes us back to the RNC e-mails. Recall, the White House legal counsel did something very stupid: 1. Determined that the information would be protected by privilege 2. Created an illegal backup database 3. Destroyed that database

Here's the problem, and why we know legal counsel was involved: Once someone assumes a database will "never" see the light of day; they have a choice: Do they talk candidly; or do they use that "to be forever hidden" database to hide illegal activity?

Here's how we know something very important: Once the evidence of illegal activity was _known_ to be revealed; and that _claims_ of executive privilege would _fail_, then they had a problem: The backup e-mail could be detected; and the _existence_ and content of that backup e-mail could be breached. In other words, one does not destroy evidence in the RNC e-mails unless they believe that privilege would fail; but then contradict themselves and say, "But we have executive privilege". That defies reason. Again, if the _expectation_ of privilege -- going forward from time of creation -- were real, then there would have been [wait for it] [a] no reason to have a backup systems; no reason to have an e-mail system that violated the law; and no reason to _destroy_ the very thing that would "forever" enjoy a shield of privilege.

Rule: Privilege isn't a power: It's a _claim_ that the _court_ doe snot have to recognize. If a claim of privilege has been abused; or adverse inferences _about missing data_ suggest that the evidence was _illegally destroyed_, the claim of privilege is one that the court is _not required_ to recognize. A defendant can do things that will make the claim meaningless, without effect, or irrelevant: By disclosing that information in an e-mail, as Miers did with the DoJ e-mail. Executive privilege isn't something the _court_ is required to recognize. It can be claimed, asserted, and demanded as a "right" but that's meaningless: It is a _court recognized_ claim that the court -- for whatever reason it chooses -- can refuse.

The key is for the Grand Jury to know: It can decide that the _claim_ of privilege was not real; and that it was _not_ reasonable for legal counsel to believe that the claim of privilege was bonafide. In other words, going forward from the time that the e-mail was created, and the fact that that "supposedly privileged e-mail was destroyed" wold _undermine_ confidence that counsel _really_ believed that the evidence was privileged or protected. Again, it makes no sense for counsel to argue "but it's privilege" _while_ that supposed "stuff which would never see the light of day" is destroyed.

This then translates into whether legal counsel's _assertions_ to the grand jury about what they _believed_ was privileged are true; or whether the legal counsel has _retroactively_ asserted something which is not supported by the subsequent actions. Namely, once legal counsel says -- in hindsight -- we "believed' our actions were lawful, they key point is: That is a _dubious belief_ and a _dubious assertion of what was a belief_ because of the subsequent destruction of information that was supposedly going to be shielded.

In so many words, the problem legal counsel has is that their "assertion of a belief" about that evidence and legality of that data archiving method gets called into question: And forms _for the Grand Jury_ a reasonable basis to impeach that legal counsel as a witness. This means that the Grand Jury says, "We do not believe this witness"; whether they want to investigate that legal counsel further over that dubious claim is what the Libby Grand Jury did.


In other words, going back to our discrete events, RNC legal counsel and WH Counsel established that illegal database and e-mail system; but _then_ were alerted to [a] questions about that content; but then [b] worried that their _claim_ of executive privilege would fail.

This is linked to the Grand Jury subpoenas in re Libby and Ashcroft. Once the evidence destruction _time_ is known, we can pinpoint _what_ they were responding to. Again, if the privilege claims were bonafide -- that the WH counsel "believed" the documents were privileged -- they wold not have a reason to set up any backup system; or destroy the very thing that was supposed to be shielded.

The key is subtle: _When_ did WH counsel suddenly get religion and realize, "Our dubious belief that this claim of privilege would prevail isn't going to work; someones told them what is here; we can't hide this behind privilege; we have to destroy this."

The only people who cold understand [a] what data there was; [b] where it was located; [c] how it was crated; and [d] the assumptions they had relative to executive privilege were the people who made the rules, did the vetting for the documents, and knew the rules of privilege.

At some point _after_ the Grand Jury subpoena landed, WH counsel had two paths they attempted to go down at the same time: First, their legal/public position of asserting privileged; but second, the private path of comparing which documents would most likely be admissible, and not survive the claim of privilege, and had to be destroyed.

Someone did a comparison _after_ the Subpoena landed, but moved quickly enough to sort through the data, and get rid of the things that had _previously_ been retained. In other words, someone convinced themselves -- after a first look -- that the documents would be protected; but then something changed.


Timeline: (Time from left to right)

There are seven milestones: [ A-G ]
[ ] --[1] -- X ---[2] ---- 0 -----[3] ------- D
A. [ ] Origination of data
B. [Phase 1]
C. X First visit/review
D. [Phase 2]
E. 0 Subpoenas land
F. [Phase 3]
G. D Destruction


The time line is simple: After first creation point [ ], A , there is a timeline of data; that was not tampered with _for some time_ [Phase 1], B; then, they had a problem, looked at the data [c] , but decided to do nothing [Phase 2], D; then they had a real problem [E]: Ooops, we aren't going to be able to hide this [Phase 3], F; then the destruction orders went out [G].

Each of those points is discrete; and things were kept; and other things were not kept; things were reviewed; and there were discussions inside the RNC and WH Counsel's office.

Again, we're not talking about conversations that are privilege, but the WH Counsel's office discussions about the _problematic data_: That discussion is different, and not protected. That's what the outside legal counsel has a problem with right now: They were the ones who knew the standards; did the audit; and came back with certifications.

Either they found problems and documented them; or they didn't find the problems and left them alone. Their problem: They don't know which data was deliberately placed in the WH Datasets, and sent through the RNC e-mails with the intent that it be _destroyed_: It would create a hole for the auditors to ask: "Why isn't this here?" RNC doesn't know what was test data; and which was real data. They can't tell the difference. Someone else does. Not them.

The problem they have is that they didn't realize what was happening _while_ it happened. Again, this isn't just in the WH, but all over the place. and not just in the President's office, but OSC, DoJ, EOP, OVP, NSA, NSC, and Congress. They have no control over the baseline data which has been captured, and remains secure outside their control. They're being led to believe the data -- including all backups -- has been totally destroyed. Now they realize they have a problem.

But it's worse than they imagined. CIA transferred data to the EU: This is connected with the NSA intercepts of the war crimes; confirming the timing of the notifications to the White House; and explaining the timelines of the destruction actions. Add in the Libby and Abramoff investigations and destruction, and the President has another problem: Too many discrete events that the RNC is _responding to_; and too many holes that are only linked with concerns about _discrete events_.

The destruction wasn't random, but related to awareness by WH counsel that their original delusions weren't going to prevail. That's the key: It only takes one link between notification, and subsequent destruction for the WH Counsel to hang themselves. It's already happened. Multiple Times. Take your pick:

A. Conversations over whether to transfer prisoners after disclosure of Eastern European prisoner abuses; B. Whether to, after the Supreme Court ruled against them, to move the prisoners; C. Coordination with members of Congress to start investigation of the _leaks_, despite the President knowing for one year that the NYT had been looking at things. Surely if the President was "concerned" about leaks, he wouldn't talk tot he NYT to confirm or Deny anything,b but would have -- without talking to the NYT -- order an investigation.

But the silly President got it backwards: Ordered the investigation _publicly_ _after_ the NYT disclosed what was a "big secret".

The key is simple: hat should have been happening; and what _did_ happen; what should counsel have been doing, but what _were_ they doing. They want us to believe X, but reality best supports something other than X.

The timelines don't match. The GOP-Rove, and RNC have attempted to create a separate timeline that does not match what the CIA and EU know to be true about rendition, notification, and prisoner abuse. These are war crimes; and that evidence destruction relates to _war crimes prosecution obstruction_. This isn't about RNC e-mails, but about _war crimes evidence_.

The FISA violations aren't about the law, they're about _transferring_ data for illegal objectives, including the support of illegal war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other breaches of Geneva. AG Gonzalez doesn't care about FISA violations because his _real_ concern are the war crimes which the CIA has confirmed to the EU.

Keep in mind who you're dealing with: Legal counsel who believe they are generals, but have failed in military campaigns. Their idea of "winning" is to block enforcement of the law and hiding evidence of _their complicity_ with war crimes. The think they are above the law. They're not. The holes tell us something else.

[edit] To those who are asking for views July 30, 2007 6:24 PM

To those who are asking for views/comments/reactions, I would encourage you to take a large perspective on this Gonzalez situation. I'm going to point you to something that may not seem related, but with time you'll see there is something to this.

1 Enter as URL [ http://mpuc.informe.org/easyfile/easyweb.php?func=easyweb_query ]

2. At the second block, "Case ID" -- Enter this number [ 2006274 ]

The case file you are looking at is the backup information and messages related to the Maine Power Utility Lawsuit against Verizon. [Earlier post by Constant --Shii] This relates to the recent ruling that the state AG's of Vermont, Maine, Missouri, and New Jersey can proceed with the litigation on re NSA at the _state_ level. Recall DoJ threatened to sue the state AGs to dissuade them from taking action, in re Honorable Vaughn R. Walker.

There are some important things to notice in the casefile: If you go through the records, as you have with the DOJ E-mail dumps you're going to see some interesting things.

Disclosed Verizon E-mail Addresses Link To NSA, FISA Intermediaries [Disclosures mean Verizon cannot hide e-mails from Grand Jury]

Recall, one of the problems has been the missing RNC e-mails. There's an answer to the missing holes. Inside the Maine PUC file for the Verizon, are their e-mail addresses for their internal e-mails. These were not supposed to have been disclosed; but one of the counsel's memoranda lists an e-mail for the internal system. To make a long story short, once you index the e-mails for the Verizon internal e-mail system, you can then use open source information to cross-index with the outside NSA-FISA intermediaries: One of them is AMDOCS. Within the Verizon e-mail is also open disclosure of the Verizon General Counsel request for and receipt of information related to specific legal questions related to various litigation issues of interest to the FISA-NSA surveillance.

In court, once something has been disclosed, that cannot be hidden. In light of the Gonzalez testimony on FISA, and the Verizon GC disclosures, plus the knowledge that Verizon does have this internal e-mail system, I would encourage a broad view: There is an overlap between the WH, RNC, Verizon, DoJ on the FISA through the AMDCOS-intermediary link within the Verizon e-mail.

ALso, you will notice that the Verizon GC initially _failed to deny_ (very important) something that they later _changed their position_ (also important) on whether the NSA did or did not have "access" to their systems/facilities. Verizon is also linked through the NSA with one of its certified fiber optic test centers; and this NSA contractor appears on the JROC funding/operational documents within the pentagon; and is also listed on classified documents related to testing, performance, and other things.

The point is simple: The MAINE PUC data set on this case -- like the DOJ Staff e-mails -- is a gold mine of information related to the very things the DOJ and President are refusing to provide to Congress on the ground of privilege. As a heads up to the Verizon e-mails in the PUC data, they're somewhat clunky to link to. I would encourage you to reference them not by links, but by the _date_ of the file. [If you attempt to directly Link to the PDF file from TPM, it can be a problem.]

Here are my suggestions:

  1. In light of the FISA-DoJ-US Atty-DoJ Staff e-mail lessons (thinks that are surfacing, or disclosures by the General counsel), look through the documents.
  2. Make a records of any Verizon e-mail reference; and then do a cross index with all NSA contractors, intermediaries, and RNC business units linked with the White House IT department. You will be able to see that the White House-RNC e-mail connection on the RNC e0-mails is also something that traces from the WH to the RNC IT then into the Verizon e-mail system: The common link will be the companies names listed on the Verizon BCC copies.
  3. Note closely the comments of the Verizon General Counsel immediately after they were asked questions: They have said some things about NSA access.
  4. Then, you want to compare the nature, and terms of the Verizon contract with the various media-messaging firms within the GOP-WH-DOJ that are linked with AT&T. One of the names that may appear is Fleishman Hilliard. This firm's name is one that has been linked with AT&T, and could very well have a contract that permits it to get the stripped down versions of the NSA intercept data; and which they use to develop some sort of media messages. The speculation is that the Gonzalez testimony about "this program" or "that program" relates to the method by which NSA data is stripped of identifying information; and how this non-specific information is then transferred possibly through an Intermediary to a firm associated with DoJ and DoD. As you dig into the Fleishman Hilliard Contracts, you Will find a common contract number that crosses multiple Presidential programs and appropriations -- DoJ, DHS, DoD. The contract numbers are essentially the same.

Your job should be to consider the Gonzalez testimony and WH efforts to claim privilege as a _subset_ effort to shield attention from the open source information that can be back doored into the WH, DoJ, and DOD. IN other words, the WH, DoJ, and AG are screaming, "You can't come in this door," and apparently hoping you don't realize that the stuff they're hiding, and the WH connection, isn't noticed through the Maine PUC data. I'll leave it up to you to independently conclude whether the link is real; or whether the data supports something else.

To review, the Maine PUC data affirmatively links Verizon e-mail with a FISA intermediary; Verizon General counsel disclosures outside the firm; and to WH IT entities that have been liked with the NSA Fiber optic testing facilities and NSA budgeting documents held at the JROC level. Also within the data set is information suggesting that the DOJ Staff counsel -- after the Verizon GC commented in writing -- did intervene behind the scenes to provide a copy of WH EOP/OVP/OLC legal positions on issues of privilege.

It would appear, given the disclosures, change in position, and the link between Verizon and the NSA -- through their openly available documents -- that the Congress has the basis to subpoena those who are familiar with the DoJ OLC-Verizon GC coordination related to the media inquiry. Because the Verizon GC has changed their position, this forms the basis to ask about what they have disclosed. Further, once the Walker Court ruled the State AGs could proceed with the litigation, we need to look at the DoJ Staff counsel "threats" against State AGs and determine whether this was an improper use of DOJ resources, an illegal threat of prosecution, or other actionable conduct per DC Bar Rules.

Also consider the Vaughn Court finding: That the States are not required to assent to the Federal law; and that the states are not behold to follow the lead of Congress, DoJ, or the President when the Federal Government is not protecting the state citizens' rights. This is important when planning the State AG prosecutions of the President, VP, and Members of congress: State AGs do have standing, and the inaction of Congress on these matters does not mean the State AGs are forced into inaction.

The point is simple: If the Congress and DoJ-WH Counsel_President get into a tug of war, and protracted litigation over the RNC e0-mails, remember there are NSA contractors who, with the right financial leverage applied to them, can be inducted to disclose more of what they've already disclosed. Congress has the power of the purse: The Congress can say to the President, AG, and NSA contractors: WE know about your internal e-mails; we've got open records linking the WH with the NSA contractors on this n arrow issue of FISA warrants; and we also have the contract numbers of the Media messaging firm. Either you give us the documents we are asking for, or we in Congress -- like Murtha did -- will zero-out the budgets for those contractor facilities, test ranges, system program offices, and other activities which the NSA contractors are currently working under. If you want your money, give us the information; no information means no money -- but the litigation will continue.

In other words, don't let the WH-President make you believe that you have to play nice "while the RNC-WH Counsel" waste your time in court arguing over privilege. You have leverage _right now_ to go to the Joint staff and say: We want the information by Close of business today; if you don't get it, your budgets are going to get zeroed out, just like Murtha did with the congressional liaison. Then the NSA contractors will have to decide whether they're going to want to go through termination negotiations, and lose funding; or whether they're going to turn over the evidence linked with these disclosed Verizon documents. Don't wait for congress and the DOJ to agree: Press now for the Congress to cut the budget first; then tell the WH to provide the information, or the litigation will continue, and he has no prospect of getting that money returned. Time to remind the President: If he refuses to cooperate, hes' going to get no money; and the Congress is fully prepared to litigate. The money gets taken first.

All information you glean is then then admissible to the State AGs as the prepare to prosecute the Members of Congress, contractors, President, VP, and legal counsel for their alleged complicity with, and refusal to prevent FISA violations, war crimes, prisoner abuse, rendition, and other illegal activity. As you collect the responses, keep in mind you'll want to organize it so the Grand Jury can understand what happened first; and they can see the inconsistent statements between [a] the contracts; [b] the e-mail responses before DOJ intervened; [c] the e-mails after DoJ intervened; and [d] the subsequent response to you, Congress, or the media on this subject. As stated above, the problem the President, DOJ, and the NSA have is that they're stuck with the original lines of evidence that have been captured, retained, and stored outside their control.

[edit] "FOCUSING ON VERIZON" July 30, 2007 7:08 PM

FOCUSING ON VERIZON GC COMMENTS _BEFORE_ DOJ STAFF COORDINATED ON FISA RESPONSES

1. Sample file

When you look at the MPUC file, you'll want to go to the first records, at the end of the file. The date you want to look for is May 2006. Currently, this file is at the _end_ on page 9; if the future, as more documents are added at the beginning, this last page will increase.

Today, the last page is page 9 of the file. Look for this file, and open it: [Click on the far _left_ yellow file folder] which has this information on the line [Columns_# left to right]: - Col_2: Date: 05/08/2006 - Col_4: DocTYpe: Initial Filing - Col_12: Name: Cowie

You'll see two files, click on the one that is 58 pages, the top row; pdf file is on the left. Click that icon. The file we're focusing on is 58 pages long.

- - - - -

2. Arena

Scroll to the end, page 58: You'll see a name: The Verizon GC name listed is "Arena", the one who isn't the primary Verizon GC: Here's your first connection with the FISA: "Arena" is a former DoJ Type; and has been linked with the intermediaries; and his name is linked with the same AT&T-conference attendees in re NSA-JTTF-FISA intermediaries for processing warrants.

- Play with the phone numbers in the DC Madam list. Just for fun.

- - - - -

3. Verizon Internal E-mail Format Disclosed

Go to page 56 of 58: This is the funny part: Look at the e-mails: That is a unique Verizon internal e-mail format that can be cross indexed within the RNC and WH e-mail systems to get some hits; as well as with DoJ, DoD, NSA, and outside legal counsel. This is the third party data transfer system we've been talking about. . . someone said it was "impossible" -- sorry, there it is. That e-mail is linked with an IP number; which is then cross indexed with various US government computers in other databases. Ooops! Funny, weren't those DOJ Staff supposed to be processing warrants not using their computers for unofficial things?

The format also includes the CITY where the Particular verizon emloyee is assigned. YOu'll have to review how the employee transfers related to changes or no changes in designations.

Here's the neat thing: Verizon in that e-mail on page 56 has an EMPL format: That means "employee": Verizon General counsel has foolish in disclosing their e-mail outside their office; also Verizon _contractors_ have another formatted code. If you play with this format, you're going to see the open records, and you can eventually find which Verizon employees have been sharing information with the FISA intermediaries.

- - - -

4. Out of court Inconsistent statements

YOu want to comare what Arena first said to Cowie with all subsequent Verizon-Gonzalez statements. The short version: What Arena said doesn't later match with the DoJ "version" of spin, subsequent sent through the Verizon GC.

- - - - -

5. Subpoenas of Verizon E-mail senders/recivers

Page 54 has an e-mail, and you can find others. The point is that, as with the RNC e-mails in the DOJ Staff dump to the Congress, Verizon has disclosed that there is a _contractor_ e-mail system which -- with their own records -- links them to the FISA intermediaries. This means that those working with the JTTF, NSLs, and the DoJ FISA processing warrants' system have to explain why their computers and e-mails include the Verizon notes in them. Congress needs to go to the DOJ and say, "OK, we know about these e-mails; and can link them to the FISA; let's see the DOJ, NSA, DOJ, and WH/OVP e-mails sent to coordinate the Verizon responses which _contradict_ Arena's first statements.

- Why did the DOJ's later responses adjust what Arena first said?

DoJ, OVP, EOP, RNC, and Verizon are stuck: The e-mails have been disclosed; and the link between Verizon and the NSA fiber optic testing center matches the NSA budgeting documents at the JROC, which are disclosed through an executive order. No wonder they OVP said they didn't apply: "We don't want you to look there."

- - - - - -

6. COnnections to FISA, NSA, and White House

Bottom line: The RNC e-mails can be cross indexed with the holes within the Verizon e-mails system: And any of the US government e-mails sent to these Verizon addresses can be requested. We know there was coordination because the DOJ and Verizon openly confirmed their cooperation; but this isn't "provided" because it relates to an inconsistent statement by the Verizon counsel: Did NSA and Verizon have an agreement; and why did the first response of "may" have given access not match the later "refuse to comment"?

The answer is the same as what Berenson was saying about Rendition: First he commented on PBS; then it went to "can nether conform nor deny.," IT appears WH Counsel, DoJ Staff, OLC and Sidley Austin-Verizon changed their position. That is admissible: There would have been a meeting, agreement, or communication to go from the original position to the second one. Where documents have been destroyed, or not provided, adverse inferences may be made.

- - - - -

7. Where to find the baseilne data to check for RNC and Verizon Email Destruction/Holes

The key will be to find any verizon e-mails sent _oustide_ the US government, use those as a baseline; then look in teh verizon archives to see if any of those sent e-mails -- unrelated to the nSA-DoJ -- have also been destroyed/removed. Verizon has no clue where else these are being stored right now. Yes, the files were sent; but who knows about those files; and who has forwarded them to the Grand Jury, TPM, and Congress?

[edit] Re: Oilwellian July 31, 2007 3:24 PM

Anon, I think I love you. Your posts are a thing of beauty. :D
Posted by: Oilwellian
Date: July 31, 2007 2:50 PM

Remember, this information is open. Anyone can do this. The key is to notice the leverage We the People have on Congress, the President, and US government.

Time for them to join We the People with the Constitution. Now, not "next election". Today. Need actions and results; not excuses or hand waving.

Without action and results, We the People can discuss alternatives: State AG prosecutions of the VP, and President oustide Congress and outside impeachment; and methods to ensure the oath of office means something and is asserted by all Members of Congress, US government officials and legal counsel.

There is a way.

Retrieved from "http://shii.org/knows/Mr._Blank"

This page has been accessed 24,055 times. This page was last modified 13:16, 2 August 2007. Content is available under Attribution 2.5 .