Constant's pations

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

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Domenici Makes Fatal Assertion, Substantially Supports Adverse Inference NSA Provided FISA Info to GOP

Senator Domenici has fatally failed to completely deny a concern. Domenici's feigned ignorance is not supported by the multiple communications, coordination, and staff involvement required to receive, review, respond to, and respond.

Ref With this kind of bungling, it's too late to hire an attorney. Kos

Ref Hastings looks like he's joining the GOP-Domenici Chorus, "Nothing in inappropriate happened." Whatever.

* * *

Lost in the discussion are the calls between the Senator and the outside entity providing him with the information; and then the people he reported to after he completed his phone call.

Domenici appears to be lying to feign ignorance about a communication he has yet to answer:

___ What information did he get which prompted you to call;

___ Where did this information come from;

___ How did the Senator learn about the status of a classified US Attorney action not released to anyone outside the US Attorneys office;

___ What is the status of the DOJ OPR review of this release of classified information from the US Attorneys office to a Member of Congress: Who leaked the inforation; did the data-release breach a DoJ security guideline; when was Gonzalez informed of the reuslts of this investigate;

___ What was the basis for the senator to believe that his phone call would not have been intercepted by GCHQ;

___ Who inside the GOP was organizing the flow of NSA information through the contractors and intermediaries to the Senator's office so that he would know about the status of a non-disclosed investigation;

___ Once the Senator completed hte call with the US Attorney, which staff were involved with the Senators' subsequent calls to the original people who provided him with the information;

___ What information did the Senator provide to third parties related to the US Attorney's responses;

___ What was the time line for the followup actions;

___ Which records over which days were related to the US Attorney Conversation;

___ Which meetings did the Senator engage after the US Attorney conversation;

___ What paperwork, memos, memorandum, or other things did the Senator exchange with the GOP, outside entities, or NSA contractors related to the information and responses from the US Attorney;

___ What decisions were made inside the GOP based on the information the senator provided;

___ Which media decisions and buys were made to organize the video production crew who was involved with the GOP campaign against the DNC in New Mexico

___ Which specific information on the NSA transcripts was forwarded to the video production crew for purposes of attacking the DNC candidate

___ Ho was the Senator's GOP-liaison involved with the discussions related to these media buys, script approvals, and decisions to approve the planned approach to target the DNC candidates during the election

* * *

Ref TPM has a number of important fatal denials and admissions.

It is rebutable whether someone, when they say they cannot recall something, are telling teh truth or not. As with Libby, selective memory problems, when they intended to leave a false impression, can be probative.

While I recall, as I stated previously, that I asked Mr. Iglesias about timing of the investigation, neither I nor those who overheard my side of the brief conversation recall my mentioning the November election to him.

Also, the Senator reveals he had nother people in the room. Small problem: This means that there is no doubt that the call and conversations are part of the Senator's Congressional correspond log.

Once logged, the Senator did not have to act stupid about anything; he could either look at the log and confirm or deny the statements; or remain silent.

The Senator chose a fourth approach, which is fatal to his legal defense.

* * *

Once someone, like a Senator, makes an assertion about their memory, but the issue is not memory, but the phone call, then before commenting the senator should have reviewed his records: Was the call logged or not in the Congressional correspond log?

The answer is either yes or no; it doesn't matter whether the Senator does or doesn't remember anything: The only issue was whtehr there had or had not been a Congressional communication with a specific person.

For purpose of discovery and adjudication, we take the Senators' assertion -- that there were other people in the room -- as true. The Senator has several problems, each of which are fatal to his defense, explanation and timeline:

1. Once the Senator admits, asserts, or represents that there were other people in the room when he called, the issue of the Senator's memory or the status of teh Congressional telephone records is secondary. Nobody needs to focus on the Senators memory when the focus of the question was whether or not the Senator called.

2. By admitting there were other people in the room when the Senator made the call, the issue of Staff involvement arises:

___ Who initiated the call -- which staffer got the number for the US Attorney; and which staffer physically made the call to get the US Attorney on the line;

___ How long did the Senators' staffer wait, with the US Attorney on the line, for the Senator to pick up the phone call.

3. The question isn't just what the Senator said, but what information the senator had that prompted him to [a] direct his staff to find the US Atty number; [2] initiate a call; and [3] collect his staff in his office to review the call.

4. Once the phone call concluded, all staff involved would know: [a] The call had been made; they were or were not aware of the details; and how the Senator got the information that prompted the call

5. Something had to physically enter the Senator's office to prompt him to call:

___ Which e-mail notified him of the ongoing US Atty action

___ Who inside the DOJ provided the information

___ What information was in the conversation

___ Where di the GOP get teh information to orchestrate this effort

___ How was the NSA-JTTF factored into the surveillance required to know that the US Attorney and FBI were working on something

___ What was the means by which the intercepted information of the US Atty and FBI was routed through the NSA, GOP, then into the Senator's office

___ What chain\ of events, notifications, or coordination preceded the decision to target this US Attorney's communications with the FBI and Senior DOJ managers

___ What specific information triggered the oversight, communicating, and call

___ How did the NSA factor into this specific information

___ When did the contractors working for the NSA realize that they were transcribing law enforcement information

___ Which GOP contractor has the resources to transcribe US Attorney telepohone calls, notes, and other memorandum; and how is this information forwarded from the transcription office to the GOP, then forwarded to interested members of Congress

* * *

The Senators' problem is that he's arguing over whether he can or cannot remember seomting; but that's irrelevant: He knew enough to know which meeting he had; which staffers might have been in the room; and to know enough to prompt the call.

The Senator's claim of a memory problem is not supported by the conversations, meeting, and staff knowledge which the Senator should have relied upon before commenting, especially on something that he knew was questionable.

Given the gravity of the issues, questions, and apparent fatal defenses, we judge the President and GOP specifically targeted the US Attorney classified conversations, and forwarded this information to the Senator who was directed by GOP to put pressure on the US Attorney to act.