Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, January 08, 2007

White House Counsel Well Connected to NSA Legal Issues

Fred F. Fielding of Wiley, Rein, & Fielding is well connected to Verizon, and other FCC related issues.

The White House views the alleged illegal NSA domestic surveillance as the most threatening legal issue facing the President. Negroponte was removed, in part, because of his opposition to expanded White House illegal ctivity. Ref

The President is also at risk of being prosecuted by the State Attorney Generals. Ref

The Administration believes the alleged NSA illegal activity is the most likely illegal activty the President is most likely to being charged with, and convicted of, a crime. If convicted, he could be removed from office and forced to get a new job.

* * *

The White House has chosen as the new White House Counsel someone from a firm that is familiar with the FBI's procurement issues, suggesting the White House views the NSA litigation as its top priority.

Wiley, Rein, & Fielding is Verizon's lobbyist, the firm allegedly connected with the illegal domestic surveillance, and well connected to the Helix.

You may presume Fielding knows about the Verizon internal notes system, where SACRA is the key name linking Verizon with the NSA, billing system, Amdocs, then into the Helix linking NSA to the intermediaries, NARUS, and the alleged illegal activity including rendition, Abraxis, Terremark, and Boeing.

Wiley, Rein, & Fielding is also a lobbyist for BellSouth, one of the firms allegedly connected with the billing data reviews which Amdocs and Narus were allegedly using to target American citizens.

The law firm is on the FCC advisory committee. Ref

One name is Nahra, a partner with Fielding, apparently aware of the FBI procurement issues.

* * *

Verizon and the White House are vulnerable. Verizon Counsel documented in the VerizonNotes [ Verizon@VZNotes ] where they publicly asked about the legal issues related to the very questions which Gonzalez and the President are feigning ignorance.

Fielding would know about the intermediaries for billing and for processing the subpoenas.

DoJ is vulnerable because, despite Gonzalez assurances to the contrary, public documents show DoJ Staff counsel were not occupied with official business, and could have processed the required warrants, as required under FISA. Ref

You may presume Fielding was aware of the non-sense responses given to the House Judiciary Committee.

* * *

Fielding, because of his connection with Verizon, should be presumed to be well familiar with the Verizon discussions with DoJ's Kiesler.

* * *

Fielding will likely be brought into the nexus to explain the following problems:

1. Why was the NSA engaged in illegal activity prior to Sept 2001;

2. Why did the Verizon General counsel Drew C. Arena kept open the possibility that the NSA had been give access to the Verizon facility;

3. Does the DOJ obstruction of state-level litigation over privacy issues amount to obstruction of justice

4. How was the allegedly illegally intercepted information used by the White House to target, through DHS, American civilians for interrogation, kidnapping, abuse, and illegal imprisonment?

5. How were the billing data accessed with the SWIFT warrants; and how was the information transferred from Terremark, Amdocs, and SAIC into the NSA for alleged illegal use in violation of the Constitution?

6. How was the John A. Rogovin [FCC] refusal to review the State-level-privacy claims related to the NSA and White House goals of blocking oversight of illegal activity?

7. How was Fleishman Hilliard's contract similar or different than the arrangement Wiley, Rein, & Fielding had with the White House: Confidentiality statements; prevention of disclosure of illegal activity.

8. What is the relationship between the illegal surveillance and the rendition efforts? Details

* * *

These legal arguments which have been discredited. Fielding has no credible defense for the White House, and he should be expected to use extraordinary legal diversions to avoid facing these issues during an impeachment.

Q: Which specific law would revealing the activity violate?

Answer: None, the activity is not legally classified and cannot be lawfully classified or hidden.

Q: In re New Jersey litigation and the NJ State Attorney involvement with the Verizon alleged illegal activity, what is the legal theory/basis for not responding to subpoena ?

Answer: None.

Q: What is the basis to assert that violations of FISA, non compliance with warrants is protected?

Answer: None, there is no legal defense to hiding this activity from Congress.

Q: Which specific statute authorizes classifying illegal conduct?

Answer: None, it is a violation of ORCON to classify evidence of illegal activity.

Q: What specific authority exists under McCulloh to not comply with FISA?

Answer: None.

Q: What legal theory permits the Supremacy Clause to be invoked to thwart investigation of illegal activity?

Answer: No credible legal theory. [ See 17 U.S. 316, supremacy of US government is not absolute ]

Q: Which legal theory or precedent does DoJ rely to block review of illegal activity?

Answer: An illusory theory which DoJ OPR knows is not valid.

Q: What is the basis to say that this activity has been lawfully classified?

Answer: No basis.

Q: Which specific DoJ Official in writing to any state admitted that this activity is lawfully classified?

Answer: There is no evidence.

* * *

Member of Congress Problem

With respect to the NSA surveillance, the problem goes deeper into the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports which Gonzalez and the President failed to comply. Discussion


Title 50 requires the President to report planned violations of the law to Congress. Either Congress knew about the illegal activity, and didn't ask about it; or the President violated Title 50.

Similarly, the Attorney General allegedly violated the Title 28 reporting requirements. Members of Congress, when they learned about the illegal activity, knew or should have known there was no title 28 reporting requirement, but did not review the gaps in the evidence.

Members of Congress have to file a report at the end of March 2007 discussing the effectiveness of the Congressional committee enforcement of these statutes. Ask about the status of this report which is due to the Congressional leadership in two months.

Other related statutes