White House Counsel's Office Linked To Illegal Deception

The White House counsel's office is worried about DoD contract data and funds transfers prior to Sept 2001 which supported illegal activity.

The President and his staff are involved with illegal efforts, training, and supervision to block Members of Congress from accessing this data. It remains to be explained why DoJ OPR has not provided, nor has Congress requested, details of this illegal training.

White House counsel is no longer independent, but appears to believe that it is a separate defendant in the war crimes litigation.

Counsel cannot credibly offer independent legal advice when their legal opinions have another objective: To shape public perceptions about what the White House counsel's office knew about illegal activity prior to Sept 2001, but they refused to remove themselves.

One of the few remaining options GOP and the White House counsel’s office have is to support additional distractions. The aim of the White House counsel is not to provide the President with a legal defense, but to minimize legal damage to themselves. Outside counsel, indirectly supporting the White House counsel's office is aware of, and part of the legal problem.

* * *

The White House Counsels office is well linked with the GOP efforts to distract attention from the President's war crimes. It remains to be understood which specific information provided to Members of Congress, well after the deceptions of 2002-3, are designed to shift attention from the President's alleged war crimes; and focus attention on symptoms of the President's reckless management of illegal combat operations.

Put aside the problem with using the AUMF for Afghanistan to expand illegal surveillance against Americans and the failure to link the events of Sept 2001 to Iraq. Open source information appears to be of concern to the President's legal advisers as it relates to alleged illegal activity not "explained" by the events of Sept 2001 or the AUMF.

Even using the most convoluted legal arguments, it is impossible to use the events of Sept 2001 to explain the illegal activity which occurred prior to Sept 2001. It appears the GOP hopes to pretend that this is "in the past". The truth is that the illegal activity, unrelated to the AUFM and Sept 2001, is inexplicable.

__ Why would any GOP Senator conclude there was "no crime committed" when the events of Sept 2001 fail to defend, justify, or explain the illegal activity occurring before Sept 2001?

Judiciary can find the information related to the pre-Sept 2001 illegal NSA activity. Once DoD-NSA transferred funds to the NSA contractors prior to Sept 2001 they fatally admitted they were doing something based on an event, authorization, and legal defense that had no yet occurred. The GOP and White House are stuck, and they know it.

The GOP has no credible defense in failing to convict the President for the illegal activity.

There is no credible executive privilege that can apply to hiding evidence of illegal activity. It is impossible to call activity prior to Sept 2001, and the AUMF "classified" or related to the "war on terror": The basis for that classification had not occurred. ORCON reminds us that it's illegal to classify information related to unlawful activity.

Continued public monitoring and discussion outside the attorney-client privilege in 2007 of events is problematic, indicating that the White House counsel's office is engaged in post-decision discussion, memorandum, and opinions. Post-decision memorandum related to illegal activity is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. For the communications between the White House and outside counsel to be protected, they cannot be revealed to third parties. Outside counsel has fatally reviewed, tracked, and discussed events which should have been resolved. Because the issue despite "closure" is still on the agenda, and the knowledge of this communication is known outside the legal counsel-White House attorney-client protection, these documents are no longer protected, classified, or enjoy any immunity to discovery and examination.

These discussions are known, open, public, and have been revealed to third parties outside the White House. The claim of privilege cannot be enforced on data, comments, and documents which are known to exist, but related to illegal activity. The FOIA requests would have a reasonable basis to request information related to these legal issues which are not related to pre-decisional memorandum, but post-decision illegal activity. The FOIA review would consider:

___ Which memorandum has the White House counsel generated after the President's illegal orders -- non-protected post-decision memorandum -- which is designed to further implement illegal activity, and is not protected by any bona fide claim of privileged, classification, or protection.

* * *

Relevant Links

Ref Indefensible Pre Sept 2001 illegal activity.

Ref Method for auditors, Members of Congress, and media to review the DoD and NSA funds transfers to contractors related to pre- Sept 2001 illegal activity

Ref Information of concern to Abraxas-connected entities, DoD contractors, and the intelligence community.

Ref White House counsel appears to have well coordinated on this illegal training by DoJ to unlawfully obstruct, delay, thwart, and not cooperate with lawful inquiry; and unlawfully block access to FOIA-related information which has been illegally classified.

Ref Well connected to legal issue, alleged illegal activity, and ongoing concern.

* * *

Opinions

Former White House counsel, now assigned to the firm appears to be part of the open monitoring system related to legal issues related to problems the President, DoJ Staff, and NSA have related to illegal activity.

The firm appears to be part of the open source monitoring team which closely monitors legal developments, challenges, and legal arguments related to the NSA, legal issues, and White House counsel’s office.

The firm is part of the legal team which is developing the legal arguments for the White House defense before the Judiciary, and impeachment. Information the firm gleans from various sources is used to craft media messages, assist with various GOP public statements, and other legal media relations including distractions for Congress.

Outside counsel appears to be part of the White House counsel's contract support. The firm appears to be one that provides legal assistance to the White House counsel's office, and there appears to be an ongoing relationship between the former White House counsel, the firm, and the White House.

It appears counsel is aware of problems with legal defense which, despite legal defenses of the AUMF, do not adequately explain illegal activity which the White House, DoJ Staff and White House counsel's staff knew or should have known was occurring prior to Sept 2001.

Judgments

Former and current White House counsel are concerned they are target of the war crimes investigation.

There is no credible legal defense related to Sept 2001 which explains of defends White House legal counsel’s office complicity with war crimes and illegal activity in early 2001.

White House counsel, DOJ Staff counsel, and outside counsel well know there are discovery options which cannot be legally thwarted.

White House counsel has been involved with illegal DoJ training to block Members of Congress from reviewing pre Sept 2001 data which cannot be legally hidden, protected, or destroyed. The evidence shows conclusively that there was illegal activity, funds transfers, and specific contractors involved with the illegal activity.