How to Penetrate Sidley Austin and White House Counsel's Office
The White House counsel's office and Sidley Austin share common things.
The error is for anyone to pretend that these common elements are protected.
No, they are outside their control.
Brad Berenson has a problem. His communications can be tracked using methods the NSA cannot intercept; but are lawful.
Things which the White House and Sidley Austin are doing in concert; and things which the DOJ Staff Counsel are doing can be understood.
The same things happen together when they are part of something.
Counsel's error is to pretend they have privilege or an attorney-client protection, but they have not arrangement with We the People.
Brad, do you remember the things that Counsel Liked to do in the White House: Pretend that nobody would find something; or that there was a "good reason" why the law was violated; or how the "claim of ambiguity" was discussed.
The same non-sense the White House used to not follow procedures on NSLs, can be turned on its head and find all non-protected information which connects your law firm, the White House, and the Department of Justice.
Once that single instance of commonality is known, then you cannot claim privilege, especially when the times are known; and you would have us believe that the issue is secret. No, it is open, known, and can be understood.
Brad, your problem is that even if you decide to change computers, or send your friends to a public access point, you can be lawfully followed for purposes of supporting war crimes investigations which you are allegedly complicit.
Your duties under the Attorney Standards of Conduct also mean that you have a requirement to the Congress to disclose whether your client is or is not involved in illegal activity. This is a requirement under your attorney standards of conduct.
Your problem is that you are on both sides of the fence; but We the People have methods to pull from both sides through discovery.
Your job is to present yourself to Congress and explain fully why your firm continues to show concern in something that your office says is a closed matter. When your firm issues guidance and engaged in conversations that should be a solution.
Your problem is that you are in unfamiliar territory, outside the court, and cannot claim privilege for what you are doing, especially when your actions are not longer hidden, but openly visible.
The issue before us is to what extent you and your law firm would like to remain on the right side of the law; or whether you would like to continue doing things that warrant concern that you and your firm are complicit with war crimes.
Unlike a Congressional election cycle or statute of limitations on an issue of fraud, the issue facing you and your firm is that there is no statute of limitations war crimes.
Just as Enron and Andersen were lawfully destroyed through open scrutiny, so too can a President, Attorney General, law firm, and attorney be openly reviewed and ultimately left on the waste heap of history.
When there are allegations of war crimes and legal counsel is viewed as being complicit, then those law firms cannot lawfully claim attorney-client privilege on communications, memoranda, and other things which are after the illegal decision.
You cannot claim privilege on evidence you have openly revealed; nor what your client has not consistently argued.
IT doesn’t matter what the truth is: Your job, and you appear to have a problem with this, is that your client and your former boss are not on the same page.
I would encourage you to recall what the Constitution says. It does not give Sidley Austin or Brad Berenson free reign to pretend reality is something else. These are burdens for you, your firm, and your client to meet.
___ What is your concern with a legal issue that is supposedly solved?
___ Why is the White House and your firm meeting to discuss, communicate, or interact in forums you hoped the public would not know about?
___ Why are you attempting to discover information where the answer lies within your heart?
The attorney standards of conduct are there to guide you. You appear to have a hard time understand thing. They apply to you; and war crimes prosecutors are allowed to review your statements, and open source information, to assess to what extent you and your former White House counsel peers remain complicit with alleged war crimes.
War crimes do not appear out of the blue. Prisoners are not transferred without a reason. People are not abused without some sort of direction.
Your problem is that you and your client have openly discussed issues you would like to pretend are privileged. No, Reynolds is fair notice that when something is not related to National Security, privilege is not assured. ORCON also prohibits illegal activity and evidence from being classified.
Most of all, the oath of office does not permit any attorney to remain complicit with illegal war crimes, prisoner abuse, or other illegal things.
This is your problem, Brad. Your job is to dig yourself out. The burden of proof, unlike a court, is on you and your client.
Your problem is that every action you take can be checked against other actions to see whether you are or are not consistent. The issue isn't whether you can claim privilege, but whether you will be able to explain to anyone why you should be believed. Your issue as an attorney is your credibility.
As White House counsel your job was to serve the public, assert the rule of law, and help the President fully enforce the Constitution.
Before us is a small problem. Your office does not appear to have fully complied with the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports. Yet, you have openly discussed your knowledge of prisoner abuse in countries outside the United States. It doesn’t matter the details, or whether Syria wants to admit that it works with the White House to impose illegal abuse.
The issue is that where there is a lack of evidence and no documentation that traces back to you. You were there, working for Gonzalez.
To be understood are the lines of evidence physically linking your hand to the memos which the DOJ IG found: The small problem with the NSL procedures; and the communications with Viet Dinh in DoJ.
There are a finite number of council. None of them are necessarily loyal or disloyal to you. Your question is to consider how much evidence the German War Crimes prosecutor has about prisoner abuse; and which memos NSA and GCHQ have that Bolten has openly discussed.
Let's refresh your memory on an example. As you well know Libby was indicted and convicted for lying. Small problem: Someone thinks that they can hide something. Big problem: The information the Vice President put on the NYT Article doesn't track to a line of data he would like us to believe he used.
The issue is simple: GCHQ has transcripts, data and the intercept times when your office and Gonzalez were doing their magic on the US Constitution, Geneva, and FISA.
Guess how the prosecutors knew which documents to ask for; but they didn't necessarily have a direct line of evidence showing them which evidence to ask for?
You're getting warmer if you think back to the exception reports for the NSLs and what Viet Dinh did with the Patriot Act: Anything your office, the intermediaries, or NSA contractors can do, foreign powers can do the same.
Think back to the discussion you had over the NSC funding concerns with the NSA programs: There are problems, not all things can be detected, and there are things happening which NSA isn't necessarily aware.
Your decision Brad is to decide whether you want to pretend that you are on the right side of the law; or whether you get there. You are an officer of the court. You have a home. You have personal interests.
War crimes prosecutors are not held to the same standards of conduct. They are permitted, as you well know, to use any lawful ruse to get evidence, acquire information, and secure convictions to enforce the Geneva conventions.
Anything that you believe is protected cannot be assured. Anything your clients say may or may not be true. Anything you do may or may not be understood outside the American legal community. Anything you believe may or may not be true.
Your problem is your client and the Attorney General have issued inconsistent statements. Your job is to explain to We the People why we should not disbar you; or turn over the evidence of what your law firm is doing.
Attorney Client privilege does not apply when the purpose of that privilege is to hide additional illegal objectives, or to suppress evidence of war crimes. Once your office, DOJ Staff, and the White House are linked in any way, and that disclosure is unrelated to any agreement, then all bets are off.
You know how the NSA works. You know how warrants are secured. Imagine if you will living in a world where those rules do not apply; and the warrant and privilege requirements are not followed.
War crimes prosecutors may use intelligence collection methods, and lawfully direct counsel and investigators to open lines of evidence. Your error is to gamble that this open lines of evidence do not exist; or that nobody will find the common link.
You made a poor choice.
Your client Sampson has fatally contradicted the Attorney General. One of them is lying. Either your client lied under oath; or the Attorney General is making false accusations about your client.
Small problem: Once the AG made his conclusions public about your client, this opens the barn door to discovery on all performance issues related to your client. The AG also asserted something about your client that, if it is false, should have generated form you a complaint to the DC Bar and DOJ OPR for review.
Your lack of timely action to announce your complaint indicates that you believe that your client is wrong; and that the AG is correct.
Using methods which the NSA cannot detect, you have apparently failed to do the following:
___ review the AG comments;
___ Raise a concern that there were problems with the AG statement;
___ Identify to the Bar the specific challenges the AG raised that unfairly question the competence of your client;
___ Discuss the basis to call into question the AG's assessments about an attorney peer without following proper DOJ procedures
___ Demand that the AG follow procedures and report his concerns to DOJ OPR as required
___ Demand that the AG keep his accusations of criminal conduct to himself and not openly defame your client of criminal conduct
Silence. Clear procedures, but it appears you and your client are not doing what should reasonably be done if there was a valid complaint about the AG's statements.
When you were in the White House, your job was to put your oath first. Based on what little you've said it appears you have a problem: The evidence does not support the conclusion that you can be trusted to put your oath before your partisan loyalty.
While in the white House you had a duty to fully assert the law; and enforce the Geneva Conventions. It appears you made excuses to violate Geneva, and that something that should have been done was not done.
In the GOP there are also people who well know the 5100.77 Laws of War program. These are the standards the SecDef must implement to fully assert the Geneva Conventions. Gonzalez has fatally asserted that Geneva, despite the precedents of Nuremburg, is vague. This is irrelevant.
Your job is to decide whether you want to remain under investigation by the German War Crimes prosecutor; and to what extent your association with the Attorney General will or will not be something that is considered during a war crimes adjudication.
Before us is the open evidence showing you knew there were prisoner transfers; yet you would ask that your client be protected from examinations of these issues. DOJ IG concludes the DOJ Staff counsel did not do what they should have done.
___ How are you as outside counsel going to prevent DOJ OPR and DOJ IG from reviewing the legal memoranda going between the White House and the Department of justice?
___ What method do you propose to use, as outside counsel, to thwart the DoJ OPR and DOJ IG from reporting in the open media any evidence related to alleged war crimes planning between the White House counsel's office, DOJ Staff, and the Department of defense?
____ Share with the world your plan to create an invisible shield and block reviews of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports that your office in 2002 should have provided to Congress, but there is nothing there?
This is not going to end until We the People conclude our investigation.
Look at the list of standards, and consider what was or was not done in re illegal surveillance, use of that data to support flight schedules, and the transfer of prisoners for abuse.
___ How are you going to remove your name from the documents?
___ What is the method you will use to pretend that your name is not on any e-mail?
___ How are you going to explain your knowledge of those prisoner transfers?
___ Are you saying that you were unaware of things that you've openly admitted that you knew?
The same problem facing your client is one you are in: Public statements do not match the written law. You had a duty under Geneva to fully assert your oath; but it appears you did not do that, remained complicity with war crimes, and refused to assert your Article 82 requirement to ensure the Geneva conventions were fully asserted.
___ What happened?
___ What got in the way of you doing what you should have?
___ Is there a reason why the attorney standards of conduct say one thing, but what you are apparently doing is something else?
___ What got in the way of you fully doing what you should have done?
___ What do you think a solution to this problem is?
You are an officer of the court. You have distinguished yourself with service to the President in the White House Counsel's office. It's not as though you can get much higher than that, unless you plan to run for public office and be a President.
Perhaps you may wish to share your aspirations, your motivations, and what is in your heart motivating you to have your clients believe that you are fully doing your job; yet, the evidence before us suggests the opposite.
___ How do you reconcile the difference?
___ What is your plan to resolve this issue?
___ Do you have a plan to fully assert your oath?
___ How much evidence of a link between the DoJ Staff, your office, and the White House counsel's office has to be disclosed before it penetrates your mind that you have a legal problem and have no hope of explaining this away?
You were there, but you apparently want We the People to believe you didn't know anything.
That defies reason. The burden of proof is on you Brad Berenson.