Sunday E-mail Intercepts: White House Counsel Reveals Attorney-Client Communications
Tonight we'll be live blogging the live intercepts between the White House Staff counsel, outside counsel, DoJ Staff, and the legal buffoons working with the GOP. Now that this information is in the blogosphere, you can contact the White House, DOJ, and GOP staff counsel to ask them why they remain stupidly arrogant in their defiance of the Geneva Conventions.
War crimes prosecutors and State Attorney Disciplinary Boards may wish to use this live feed to inquire in the commitment legal counsel have to enforce the Geneva Conventions. Perhaps someone who is with the American Bar Association may wish to ask the DC Bar whether they plan to open a disbarment investigation in light of the DOJ IG and DOJ OPR findings. That is, if the weather is favorable.
Come back, and you'll enjoy the insights. Mark tonight on your calendar when you expand discovery into the White House Staff war criminals' illegal firing of the US Attorneys.
Fatal to the White House staff counsel legal defense on issues of war crimes is the inexplicable reason why the continue to discuss issues that supposedly "do not matter," yet they are quick to point fingers at illusory problems. Perhaps Brad Dayspring can fill someone in on the clues about sending e-mails and making a fuss.
___ Care to explain "all this time" that you have to raise legal issues, Brad; but apparently aren't interested in confirming that White House counsel did confirm with the communications office on various legal issues, plans, and other things while you were there?
Brad, one of the problems you have with the Virginia Post office box is explaining the funds transfers associated with the GOP.
___ Care to explain why your name is on the same PO Box linked with Ken Mehlman?
This weekend, the legal community that is complicit with illegal war crimes planning -- the goons commonly referred to as "White House counsel" -- have had some interesting conversations with their beloved outside counsel.
The problem the White House and DOJ Staff counsel have is that they have been implicated in war crimes and illegal retaliation against US Attorneys. The common problem the DOJ and White House counsel have is that they've taken the same oath that the US Attorneys, with one minor exception: The US Attorneys were serious about their oath.
One of the discussion points going around the GOP legal community is how to explain the US Attorney firings in the "Clinton did it too"-non-sense. The error is to pretend that an illegal retaliation against a sitting US Attorney for official acts is the same as "not hiring someone" to be a prospective Nominee or appointee to the Federal Bench.
Unfortunately, what the GOP staff counsel fails to realize is that there is a difference between illegally retaliating against a Federal official -- a US Attorney -- and refusing to appoint someone to the Federal Bench. These are different issues.
It is for outside counsel to explain why the are attempting to mix apples and oranges.
___ Why is counsel and the White House public affairs attempting to muddy the waters?
___ Why is the White House attempting to pretend that [a] illegally retaliating against a US Attorney has any relationship with [b] a nomination decision with to the Federal Bench?
Outside counsel's discussion on these issues is, as usual, convoluted. The US Attorneys had a legal duty to act, as did counsel when they were assigned to the White House. The issue for outside counsel to explain is: Why despite that legal duty to enforce the Constitution -- including the Geneva conventions -- has outside counsel not swiftly removed themselves from these war crimes?
It is an error for the GOP and DOJ Staff counsel to pretend that the US Attorneys who were illegally fired are the same as prospective nominees to the bench. One situation involves people who have a position with the mandatory rollover provision; the other position does not have any rollover provision.
US Attorneys, unlike nominees to the bench, are federal employees. They retain rights, and when they are illegally retaliated against, as is the case, they enjoy special protections. It is called the investigatory power of the DOJ OPR, DOJ IG< Congress, and war crimes prosecutors. However, there is a larger issue. Once the GOP Staff counsel in concert with the small minded ones in DoJ and the White House attempted to screw with the US Justice system, they have invoked a special provision in the Constitution related to States' rights. Something they neglected to consider.
Walk with me, oh friends of the blogosphere, as we enter the small minds of the DOJ Staff, and present before the War Crimes prosecutors the small tale of woe which NATO prattled to warrant invasion of Yugoslavia. Within seconds, dear friends, you will realize that the DOJ, White House, and GOP staff counsel have miscalculated on their analysis.
NATO justified attacking Yugoslavia because there was an enforcement provision for the laws of war. The states have the same guarantee under the US Constitution: Once the rule of law is not enforced, the States may lawfully target for disbarment, the DOJ, GOP, and White House counsel who are instrumental in coordinating these e-mails, on 25 March 2007.
Tonight, dear friends, you may sit back, and enjoy the show as the buffoons in DOJ, GOP, and White House coordinate with outside counsel to pretend they can do one over on the states, but nobody is going to realize what is going on. If you are interested in doing anything about this information, you are encouraged to review with your Member of Congress staff counsel and ask them about the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports. DoJ, White House, and outside counsel have neglected to include this in their war crimes defense. IT is a fatal oversight. Evidence that should be there isn't; and where there was no evidence, they fabricated it. Do not be alarmed, war crimes prosecutors well know the ruse. They have the same transcripts.
Let's talk about evening staff counsel work. We're asked to believe that this issue is going to blow over: That the US Attorney firings is "no big deal." Surely, dear counsel with the GOP, DoJ, White House, and outside counsel -- if there was nothing to this, you would not be spending your busy selves reading silly little comments on the weekend.
Your legal defense against war crimes is hopeless. Your e-mails openly show you have thwarted your legal duties. Your commitment to the Attorney Standards of conduct is dubious. The e-mails are fatal assertions of your intent to deny the States their guarantee to an enforcement mechanism. Hardly something to write to Yale or Harvard about in your newsletter: "Dear friends, this year I successfully destroyed the US Constitution, and made the world safe for tyranny." Aren't you stupid.
Before us are the intercepts. Counsel has fatally disclosed they are interested in issues that they shouldn't be if this was truly "not a big deal." Also before us are the lawfully captured discussions, data sets, and times that personnel were reviewing specific issues. These are available to the war crimes prosecutors, and have been forwarded.
DoJ, GOP, White House, and outside counsel Staff have a problem. As with the FISA violations, it's been too long in creating a story for something they supposedly coordinated on, agreed to, and had a plan.
___ How do we explain this counsel?
___ Where in your Continuing Legal Education [CLE] did you learn these wonderful skills to orchestrate cover-ups, war crimes, and illegal violations of the Constitution?
___ Did you never in your wildest imaginations believe that you would not be able to hide behind privilege, and that your e-mails would be openly discussed in real time?
Aren't you stupid. And you have how many more thousands of dollars to repay on your law school degrees, stuck with a mortgage, and are trying to figure out whether you might still have a job in a few hours. Very poor planning, especially given the larger problem for the GOP, DOJ, White House, and outside counsel: War crimes prosecutors may lawfully hunt you for eternity. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. You're stuck in America, hoping you're not rendered; hoping that nobody retaliates against the people who supposedly organized grave breaches of Geneva.
Enough of the generalities. Let's get to the good stuff. Counsel, in your discussions with your peers, it would be helpful on these late evenings if you were to remind yourselves that the red herrings are not appropriate. Recall, US Attorneys are not attempting to seek political appointments; they were, unlike you, attempting to assert their oath.
Contrary to the delusions in your minds, it is not appropriate to attempt to equate staff counsel who work in the US Attorneys office with the heathens who attempt to butter themselves up for the cameras attempting to win favor with the GOP for a judicial nomination. One group has a political goal of looking nice; the US Attorneys are nice. You are not nice.
Now that we've got that out of the way, let's discuss some of the other errors before us.
When you are preparing your talking points and sharing ideas on "what to do", remember that simple Americans well understand that there is a difference between someone who is attempting to get a nomination to the bench; and someone who is actively doing classified work related to prosecutions.
Your collective errors has been to fails to explain why the US Attorneys were openly berated using information that the American public did not know about. You can stop suggesting to each other that the public is going to be "upset" when the find out; they already have. They are enraged that you would have the audacity to believe that they would not be able to read your work.
Prosecutors have jobs to do. Your job is not to make the war crimes prosecutors jobs harder; rather, your job is to accept that your Article 82 Geneva obligations -- that of enforcing the laws of war -- remains central to your thinking. These are not political issues or related to the election. That was three years ago. The year is 2007, far away from the 2004 election.
However, if you want to make the absurd argument as you continue to do that is an election-related decision of the President, then you are fatally admitting that the President was involved with something that you were involved. We do not need to review the detailed e-mails to know the following:
A. Your work this weekend is related to the President's legal problem;
B. You are stupid enough to discuss this information in the open without any guarantee that your communications would remain confidential; and
C. You have fatally asserted the President was involved with issues that you would like some to believe he had not clue about.
This is what some would prefer: When your President attempts to retaliate against US Attorneys, it would be preferable if you accept: This means he is involved. Once you openly discuss, as you continue to do, your concern with these issues, you cannot assert these issues are privileged.
But enough of the dubious claims of privilege. Let’s turn to the next major absurdity. Could someone in the White House, GOP, DoJ, or outside counsel dare to explain why the President would have anyone -- including the buffoons in your legal community -- believe that he could delegate any authority to the Attorney General to hire and fire anyone, yet the Statute delegates this authority only to the President.
This mess is before your office because the GOP, DoJ, and outside counsel aren't on the same page with the White House. You've been to law school, you know the attorney standards of conduct, and you know how disbarment investigations work. Maybe one of you can catch "the big clue" and ask: "Why didn't we have hearings on this?"
If the President wants anyone to take the blame, it belongs with the GOP Senators who, in the wake of the November 2006 defeat, knew they had to act quickly to maintain the illusion they were competent. They chose the opposite. Rather than providing leadership and passing bills, they passed the buck.
Stop whining that you have to spend time on the weekends doing this. This is your mess, and your leadership refused to resolve these issues lawfully. The nights are going to get longer; and the blogosphere is more interested in what you are discussing.
Your job is to explain what happened to your leadership in the Legal community; and why the GOP war criminals expected to get away with this. The ABA and GOP have a problem they need to solve, but we have no plan, thanks to your fine planning on illegal activity; but no plan to solve this mess you helped engineer. The error is for you to believe that you can pass this onto someone else. No, this is your mess. You need to have a plan; and you're not going to pretend there is going to be a "backlash" against others. The backlash is against you for:
A. Planning illegal warfare;
B. Pretending that there were problems with enforcing the law;
C. But taking no action to exploit the issues that you say were supposedly "slam dunks" for the benefit of the GOP.
Where there is no action but excuses, the public can reasonably infer your drivels is evidence of lack of contrition. Fully admissible for war crimes tribunal.
Contrary to the illusion that the President has to nominate anyone, he cannot claim that an illegal firing "forced" his hand. No, this is, as with Iraq, an illusory timeline. The problem for the GOP is to explain why you have no plan to resolve your mess.
When the Senate Judiciary GOP staff and Senators pretend, as they continue, that there is no issue with perjury, perhaps you might remind your mind in the Oval Office, that it is not nice to retaliate against US Attorneys. When they decide that there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute that is their decision. They expect your support, not Sunday-evening second guessing as you are doing now.
However, the tables are turned. Where the President, DOJ Staff, and White House counsel were second guessing others, now war crimes prosecutors are second guessing you. Consider your problem: There is evidence of war crimes but no action by the GOP; yet where there is no evidence you have retaliated. That's not fun. It's a war crime to refuse to enforce Geneva and do what you're doing tonight: Continuing with the charade that this is going to continue.
Wrong. This is a problem for the President. It is not a problem for his opponents. When you do discuss these issues again on Monday, perhaps you can review the statute -- as you have not carefully done -- and explain why the firings occurred on the assumption of a vacancy, but the vacancy was not coordinated with [a] the rollover requirement; or [b] the requirement that the US Attorney remains in place until the nominee has been appointed as the Constitution, not Gonzalez, proscribes.
Quite a mess you have. The Constitution does not allow illegal appointments; and when there are illegal appointments, you know that the US Attorneys remain in place, doing their job. This is your error.
The current prosecutions related to these illegally appointed US Attorneys mean that the cases are up in the air. This is not a problem with the Senate, but with your illegal activity to deny an enforcement mechanism.
Your drivel this weekend has been rather amusing. This disaster is one you chose to create. There were lawful solutions. You chose illegal activity.
This Attorney General has no plans in place to work with you to appoint a special counsel.
___ Do you wish to comment on these discussions; and why there was no decision to appoint a special counsel; or do you have another explanation why the special counsel statute has not been invoked despite the DOJ IG and DOJ OPR opening the barn door to your e-mails?
You've had plenty of time to discuss this. The question is why you did not announce this. US Attorneys do have the means to issue a press release. Were you expecting the US Attorneys and FBI not to review these issues; or was there an other reason you were discussing classified FBI investigations which had not been disclosed?
Your leadership is a problem. You have a legal requirement to stand up and assert your oath. When there is wrong doing, you may believe that it is a partisan matter. This is irrelevant. The issue is whether you accept that your e-mails can be reviewed in real time.
Time for you to discuss your explanation for not having raised the issue in a timely manner; and get on the schedule to raise this issue with the AG OTUS2007. Ouch on that C:Drive download, Karl. GWB43.com.
As to your discussions with GOP General Counsel and Member of Congress Counsel, you may wish to revisit your timeline and get a better story as to why there was no consistent testimony. The committees have a calendar. You have only so many hours in the day. Use your time wisely.
The firing plan is openly known. The issue isn't whether there was or was not an illegal decision. The question is why, despite e-mail, you appear to have a hard time getting your story straight. We know your intentions were illegal; and that your common purpose was to support war crimes. If you believe the GOP is on the rebound, you're fooling yourselves.
If there was a credible explanation for what you are doing, you would not be spending this much time on the weekend attempting to create a smokescreen about judicial appointments. This is a separate matter: Your war crimes-related effort to illegally retaliate against people attempting to the enforce the law.
Is there a particular reason that you believe that this planning -- which you are involved on the weekend -- is something that will not be understood and reviewed?
Once you meet and discuss these issues, that meeting, whether it is via e-mail, telecom, or VTC, is admissible.
Those who remain involved in these discussions must accept that it should not take this long to develop a coherent explanation for what was previously agreed.
Dayspring's problem is the time he has to get involved with irrelevant information; but then when pressed on the issue, we have silence. Isn't that curious.
Does the Attorney General not have a plan for how he will explain [a] his lack of understanding of the laws of war; and [b] he absurd assertion that there is no war crimes issue her in the US Attorney firings.
Whether Gonzalez as White House counsel did or did not understand something is meaningless. He is presumed to have had your assistance. The asserted confusion is not credible.
It is a problem when Rove, Miers, and the President are linked with common discussions, and White House counsel is involved with planning meetings on issues supposedly "not a concern". That makes no sense.
If there were no issue, you would not attempt to muddy the waters, or pretend that a judicial appointment is relevant to an illegal firing.
If there was no problem with what you continue to wrestle with tonight, then you should not have a problem openly discussing what the public would want to reward you with: More votes because of your expertise, wisdom, and competence.
You are stuck. You want the public to believe you deserve support, but you fail to make the case that you want to share this "good news" and "great leadership" with those who might be able to use some support: Your peers sitting on the State Disciplinary Boards.
___ How are you going to explain this convoluted mess?
___ Do you think these e-mails are going to help your case?
___ What's the sense in hiring counsel who are tainted?
The political goals of 2008 are meaningless. Your job is to make it through tonight. Monday morning is a day to accept: It is going to get worse, more questions about your discussions this weakened, and your duty to remove yourself from these ongoing war crimes plans.
Some of you have agreed to cooperate. You cannot believe that these issues are going to remain out of the hands of the voters or the campaign contributors.
Next time you want to discuss your duty, think about those who you've let down who once believed in the dream of the GOP. You owe them more than a reimbursement, you own them an apology: You betrayed their trust, abused their loyalty, and have shown nothing but contempt for the laws of the land.
You have shown with your continued conversations that you defy your oath; and you remain an enemy of the Constitution.
Your continued discussion shows you are grasping for straws, and not ending what should not have started: Illegal war crimes planning. There is no need to hide in the shadows. If you believe what you're doing is honorable, then issue a press release, and let the world know that you have no intention of wavering in your commitment to illegal warfare.
The Taliban and Iraqi insurgency, as are war crimes prosecutors, are taking notes. You alone can choose when you surrender.