Constant's pations

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

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

White House E-mails Contradict President, Miers, Rove, Gonzalez

Ref Data from White House shows the President, Miers, Rove, and Attorney General have been misleading Congress, raising prospect of criminal indictments.

The President fired US Attorneys who didn't support his agenda. Nothing would have prevented the President from ordering the NSA to target one of his political opponents, especially when the FISA court was out of the loop. [Status: Details of ongoing criminal investigation, indictments ] [Direct link: ]: This website and e-mail is linked directly or indirectly to alleged unlawful use of official resources for partisan purposes, war crimes, and unlawful abrogations of the US Constution. [Detailed Evidence, discovery: Details from White House E-mail ] The website could be a method the WHite House Staff use to communiate, and hide them from Patrick Fitzgerald.

Ref Emails deleted, not provided to inquiry. Oh, wait: THat's the Plame deal. "Totally unrelated." [/snark]

___ How many of teh "missing" e-mails were sent via non-official computer systems the White House staff didn't want the FBI or the court to know about . . .

Records Link President to NSL System and Political Targeting

For details, click here . . .

* * *

There is a curious e-mail account in the information provided to the Congress. A White House employee e-mail traces to same TN PO Box used for Bush's AgendaForAmerica PAC and is reported in the FEC information for $17K to SmartTech, the firm linked with the Ohio election issues. Smartech requested 71.97; 04/14/2005 for phone costs, meaning there are records showing which phone calls they made, to whom; and how this organization fits in with the White House Staff using this e-mail system.

Speaking of the White House website which Smartech hosts, remember the Amdocs-related information connecting the White House website to the same firm handling the NSA billing intermediaries? This is where the DOJ NSLs fit in with the NARUS STA and Verizon:
White House is linked to a firm which has direct managerial control of law enforcement accounting for both the billing and the warrantless surveillance activities, and appears to be well connected to the secret/arguably unconstitutional national security letters [NSLs].
The firm's name is NeuStar. DoJ IG said the Staff counsel assigned to the NSL process weren't following procedures, code for "engaging in illegal activity."

___ What did the companies connected with the NSA-phone company billing-system do when they realized there had been no required warrants to support the data transfers from them to the White House and GOP?

___ What role did the White House play in using NSLs to target personnel, not just US Attorneys, who didn't support the "world view" of the President and Attorney General?

___ How were positions (i.e. opposition to the President in re illegal warfare, prisoner abuse, Geneve requirements) factored into the President's decision to target and punish American citizens, legal counsel, academics, and US government employees without using the required Judicial process?

___ Maybe Scott Jennings should share with the Committee his friendship with Lurita Doan. Any explanation why GSA would be involved with questionable use of official resources for partisan objectives? [ Details: (h/t) ]

Wow, Scott, 14 months on the job, and you find yourself in the middle of a war crimes investigation. Did the University of Louisville prepare you for this? Eight ball says. . . .[Doubtful]. Scott gets a love note from We the People:
This is our Constitution, not one for you to destroy. Choose between the Rule of Law or your alleged illegal rebellion. Did your office not have enough fun with Patrick Fitzgerald and the Libby investigation? We the People are fully prepared to do it again: There is no statute of limitations on war crimes.

___ Isn't it illegal to use White House facilities to raise money; or are political advisers not raising money with this e-mail account and phone number?

___ Who's been using their official positions to advance their personal, partisan objectives? [The Hnorable Congressman Waxman Would Like to Know: BTW, Scott: Guess who's got the subpoena power? That's right. ]

* * *

Other Damaging White House Email Related to US Attorneys

The release shows redacted information of personnel matters. Recommend Congress review the names at 8 of 80 below and seek their input to how personnel issues were resolved.

Of interest, was "Griffin" assigned to JAGs, working in the White House. He would be in a position to know 5100.77 Laws of War Program, and explain why the White House counsel's office was or was not fully assert ting their Article 82 Geneva requirements in re Rendition, NSL, and illegal use of information from abuse for purpose of other illegal activity.

___ Which data did the President illegally capture through NSA that was used to abuse POWs during rendition and interrogation; and why didn't Griffin raise his hand?

___ Or is there something Brad Dayspring might want to share about the public affairs angle; or is that a little too swift for him?

* * *


This is a quick look at the WHite House emails related to the US Atty Firings.

Ref The basis for removal included criteria the President and Miers have fatally asserted were not used.

Page 3 of 25: Kyle Memo, 2 Mar 2005

Remove: "chafed against Administration initiatives";

Retain: "exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General"

___ Does silence over war crimes and NSA illegal activity satisfy "loyalty"-requirement?

___ How was it decided that an "initiative" was different than what Gonzalez called a "program" at the 6 Feb 2006 testimony to Judiciary?

Page 4 of 25:

"Expiration of current term"

___ Huh: Where is "current term" something that is definite;

___ what is the basis for the "term" to be cut short?

5 of 25: Reconfirm Hatch call to Miers on 2 Mar 2005

Note: "expiring terms" again

___ What was the subject of the call?

___ Where are the memos of this phone call?

___ Why was this phone call documented in this e-mail?

* * *

9 of 25: White House tracks Oath: Whether taken or not

___ Why is this oath tracked?

___ What is the reason for requiring an oath?

___ What is the point of tracking an oath that the President punishes people for asserting?

___ What is the reason for tracking whether someone has or has not taken an oath; but the President is targeting those who dare to assert that oath in re war crimes, Geneva, prisoner abuse, NSA illegal activity, and things the DOJ IG found were not being done by DOJ Staff counsel?

* * *

11 of 25: Expiration dates:

___ Was it "too much of a hassle" to track this requirement?

___ What was the real reason the President didn't want to have the senate review?

___ GOP/Rove predicted GOP would take control of Congress: Why worry about whether GOP would or would not review the US Attorneys?

___ Why should anyone believe the assertion that a "new method" to oversee, appoint, was discussed; yet Rove was predicting victory?

___ Was the GOP credibly planning for defeat despite the voting intimidation and illegal activity connected to the White House to manipulate the voters over WMD and illegal warfare?

* * *

11 of 25 Court appointments

___ Why didn't the President like following the Constitution on Senate oversight?

___ If this process was "such a hassle" why didn't the GOP change the Constitution to permit the President to directly appoint without the GOP Senators having to review the issue?

___ Was Senator Hatch showing signs that he was bored with enforcing the law and conducting oversight; or was it Senator Specter who awoke to the problem with the President's "lack of interest" in the Constitution?

12 of 25 Jan 1 2006 Memoranda to Miers

This memo does not refer to any discussion about firing all Attorneys, as the NYT reports was discussed. Rather, the list was narrow.

The US Codes was specifically referenced, indicator Miers and Kyle well knew the proposed change in the code did not meet the Constitutional requirements; or they were reckless in not reviewing the Constitutional requirement. Any effort by the Senate to block affirming the Constitution is deemed to be evidence of their illegal rebellion and 5 USC 3331 violations. Refusing to permit discussions on illegal activity is not consistent with the oath of office mandating the Constitution be protected.

* * *

Ref 12 of 25: Blacked out text is available on page 20 of 25.

Ref 25 of 25: Hastert mentioned. Let's see the details: Memos, content, basis for concern; then contrast that with the other legal issues on Geneva: Why not "concern"?

This shows Hastert can call the White House. Reason for apparent reckless disregard for 5 USC 3331; and Article 82 Requirement in Geneva; or is there another explanation why DoJ and White House counsels have jointly agreed to not pay attention to Geneva requirements?

* * *

Part Two


Ref 1 of 38: Shows that DoJ and White House counsel were floating people back and forth. So much for the "wall" argument.

____ DoJ IG found the NSLs were not being enforced. What is Miers explanation for being clueless on what one of her attorneys was doing while assigned to DOJ; or did Miers not think it important to follow Article 82 requirements under Geneva to ensure only lawful abuse was imposed on prisoners?

* * *

Here's the President's e-mail website:

Sample e-mail to trace:

Ref Max reports the DNS links to a website owned by the RNC; and suggests this e-mail, because it is not an official White house EOP address, could be used to circumvent discovery. That may have been the intent, especially in light of the President's decision to seal National Archive information. ]See: Max 1 on March 13, 2007 - 1:33pm]

Ref Citizen92 asks the same thing March 13, 2007 05:33 PM

Ref William Ockham raises a good question: Isn't this a way that Rove hid some of the E-mails related to Libby and Iraq WMD from Fitzgerald?

Mike Conwell [ March 13, 2007 07:05 PM ] Points to the TN PO Box: PO BOX 11181, which most likely matches a PO Box, as did Brad Daysprings FEC info. In this case, the TN PO Box traces to AGENDAFORAMERICA.COM, which is a PAC for Bush.

* * *

___ Ouch? Hurting yet?

7 of 38: "Pushing out" -- that sounds kind of like "forcing".

___ How does the President explain his firings; but pretending there was no problem with the war crimes issues?

___ Did the Eastern European rendition sites get raised during or after the discussions with the US Attorney concerns with Geneva violations?

___ How were the FISA violations and DOJ Staff recklessness factored into whether US Attorneys should or should not be fired?

* * *

7 of 38: "Concern" with "DoJ Operations".

DoJ was ignoring legal requirements, and FISA was getting ignored. Open source data shows Staff counsel were not working on required FISA warrants.

___ What "concern" with "operations" is Kyle referring to?

___ Did Kyle believe that "talking about" concern is the same thing as explaining why DoJ Staff counsel were not fully meeting their FISA-warrant requirements?

___ How does Kyle explain the "DoJ Operations" in light of the Verizon General counsel fatal admission that NSA may have been given access, but there was no specific mention of how the warrants or NSLs were factored into the ongoing NSA activity which DOJ was blocked from reviewing?

___ When DOJ OPR was blocked from reviewing these matters, did Kyle believe that the DoJ Operations would be "really well satisfied," or was the plan to continue to target US Attorneys who raised questions about the reckless war crimes this President was ordering?

* * *

Page 7 of 30:

"preferred person appointed":

___ how was that done?

___ What were the perceived "political costs" in 2005: GOP controlled the Senate. This makes no sense.

____ What specific "costs" was the President worried about that had any relationship to the NSA monitoring, DoJ Staff counsel disregard for FISA, or US Attorney decision to not enforce Geneva?

* * *

Ref 11 of 38, Sept 20 [Brent to Kyle ] White House was organizing this effort, then, as an after thought, thinking about Gonzalez. ["Do you think at this point that these names should go through channels to reach the AG, or is it enough for me to give the names to you?"]

* * *

Kyle to Miers: ""and be steeled to withstand any political upheaval that might result"

___ What kind of "upheaval" was the White House concerned with in 2005: That the DNC might win the 2006 election?

___ Why is anyone in 2005-6 discussing political "upheaval" when Karl Rove was forecasting the GOP would retain control of Congress, and there was no chance the President could be impeached for war crimes and his failure to enforce the law against DoJ Staff counsel who the DOJ IG found were violating the warrant requirements?

___ What did the White House staff, one week after the election, think might be a "concern" given the decision to go around the Constitution, and not let the Judiciary have any input to the nomination process?

___ Why were there "concerns' about upheaval when the White House, as a strategy to avoid oversight or questions, devised the direct appointment process?

___ Was the White House counsels officer concerned that someone might read the Constitution and conclude the direct appointment process was illegal?

___ What consideration, if any, did the DoJ and White House counsel's office give to cases that were overturned because of the illegal appointments?

____ Was it the intention of the President to gamble with investigations and prosecutions on the hope that defendants might not figure out the prosecutors had been illegally appointed in violation of the Constitution?

____ What thought did the White House counsel's office or anyone in DoJ give to the number of cases that were "acceptable losses" once US Attorney appointments were challenged as being illegal?

* * *

"If we start caving to complaining US Attorneys or Senators then we should do it -- it will be more trouble than it is worth."

Wow: And all this time we were led to believe that this was an "up and up" and "above board effort," yet the memoranda indicates that there were concerns, and that the backlash was sufficiently foreseeable, that there were considerations not to take this route. Yet, on they pressed.

___ What is the view of the "more trouble" that was supposedly going to happen?

___ Did it enter anyone's mind that the people reviewing this conduct might know something about the Attorney standards of conduct; and contrast [a] what was presented to Congress; with [b] the content of this e-mail; and [c] the model rules which apply to all attorneys?

___ Was it considered "no big deal" to engage in conduct that might compromise confidence in the US legal community and method by which US Attorneys are lawfully appointed; or was there no consideration to how the Iraqi insurgency and Afghan Taliban might review these events, rolling their eyes, "So much for the American version of law and order."

___ "More trouble than it was worth": What could possibly have been some of the "trouble" that the White House foresaw as being possible: War crimes indictments; evidence linking Staff counsel to Geneva violations; a consistent pattern of conduct of recklessness that raised concerns with German War Crimes prosecutors; DoJ IG reviews of Staff counsel recklessness disregard for FISA; open hunting season to expand discovery beyond the fatal disclosures to the NYT, and show that claims of privilege were not for purely national security reasons, in contravention to Reynolds?

____ "More trouble than it was worth": That the German War crimes prosecutor might get access to this e-mail and show that the White House legal counsel had a lackadaisical attitude toward legal requirements; and they failed to fully assert their oath, or report illegal activity, as they had the responsibly to do, to DOJ OPR?

____"More trouble that it was wroth": That DOJ and White House counsel could be disbarred, and assigned counsel would have a "really hard time" repaying their home mortgages and law school debts, leaving the DoJ-White House counsels children with no prospect of having any nice inheritance?

* * *

17 of 38 Step 3: US Attorneys were lied to -- they were specifically targeted by specific people in the White House counsels office for refusing to target DNC politicians.

The White House not only knew about this, but directed and coordinated efforts to provide the same misleading information.

* * *

Ref New Steps They Failed To Include

Step 6: Find outside counsel to defend against war crimes indictment.

Step 7: Find hotel accommodations at The Hague.

Step 8: Kiss spouse and children goodbye.

Step 9: Board plane to be lawfully rendered to The Hague for lawful confrontation by war crimes prosecutors for alleged involvement with illegal activity, unconstitutional conduct, Geneva violations, war crimes, and refusals to permit US Attorneys to fully assert their Geneva Treaty Obligations, in violation of the laws of war.

* * *

20 of 38Ref Elston, allegedly under investigation for disbarment, writes a memo.

Kyle confirms he is waiting for a "green light" from the White House.

___ How's that preparation for the war crimes indictment going, Kyle?

___ Ever imagined your White House e-mail would be resting before a war crimes prosecutor?

___ How many Iraqi insurgents do you think have read your e-mail and would like to send you a love letter?

* * *

Deliberations: Privilege

Here’s the interesting part: They're discussing "deliberations" with the intent of [a] blocking this information; and [b] ensuring people don’t' see it.

Ref 20 of 38 -- Kyle to Elston at 11:47 on 2 Dec mentions "deliberative"

It looks as through they knew they were going to possibly have to answer for this. There were no evaluations, but a decision, which was retroactively created. This is a ruse: "Any chance that we get candid information from such evaluations would be gone if we just turned it over."

___ Where were the working papers for these "evaluations"?

Notice: Margolis memo -- 1 Dec 19:32 -- They were told in Dec06 Conyers was going to ask for the EARS evaluation information.

David: "Evidently I was wrong." That's right, David. You messed up on this one.

___How's that discussion with outside counsel on war crimes indictments, and DOJ-White House staff complicity with Geneva violations?

* * *

21 of 38 Miers linked to call to Senator Domenici [Ref: 4 Dec 2006 Memo from Kyle to William.]

____ Who are the Washington "leads" referred to in last line of Kyle's memo?

___ What is their role?

___ What is the relationship between these "leads" and the GOP?

* * *

Legal Counsel Coordination With PA

Remember Brad Dayspring who worked in the PA office at White House. The issue was what kind of coordination he had with legal. This is the answer: Legal will coordinate with PA before starting something.

see: Ref 21 of 38: William 4:48 memo.

Note: Leg, communications, and political all coordinate. This means any discrepancy between these three offices is a basis to expand inquiry. Unless they match in their responses, there is a known problem with a ruse.

* * *

Constellation Data 28 of 38: Note the list of CC: These are names affirmatively linked to the Constellation and Helix. Moschella was connected through FISA; and Elston with the disbarment investigation.

The same line of communication should be assumed to have been done with the Members of Congress on FISA, and the ruses in re Rendition, NSA illegal activity, Geneva: This shows what most likely happened in re the sham briefings to the Senate intelligence committee.

As with the US Attorneys in re the conference in Wednesday, the goal of the White House was to prevent Members of Congress chattering in a single place, or comparing notes. The classification wasn't to hide secrets, but to prevent legal counsel in Congress from reviewing the war crimes and illegal activity.

* * *

Chatter Management

22 of 38: Kyle wants help managing discussion.

Kyle, when you say you wanted help managing chatter, did you intend to manage war crimes prosecutors in reviewing your alleged involvement with these activities to avoid enforcing Geneva, as required under Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions?

Bush Political Lead

Ref 33 of 38

___ What types of communication does this "political lead" get from NSA?

___ How well connected is the "political lead" to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing -- firms which have shown an interest in Abraxas and the rendition efforts?

* * *

36 of 38
Kyles has a blackberry.

___ Where did he buy it?

___ Which credit card did he use?

___ What days does he get his bill for his blackberry?

___ How many days does he wait until he pays for his monthly charges?

* * *

36 of 38: William Kelley reports that Nevada Senator not in the loop and feels left out.

___ How's that "united" front in the GOP Senate to support the President?

___ Is everyone really on board with these war crimes, Kyle and William?

* * *

36 of 38: Ensign's Chief of Staff reported to have said it took 9 months under GOP to get a US Attorney approved. Uh, and the reason for gong around the Constitution was because the President wanted to fire people for not following his agenda of ignoring the Constitution.

Checks and balances are aw wonderful thing, William.

___ How's that Blackberry payment?

___ Got your "big check" ready; or do you prefer direct deposit?

Check: Ensign's Chief of Staff said he would call the AG after 8 Dec.

___ What did they discuss?

___ Where are the memoranda?

___ What did the AG Secretary do with the emails that AG Gonzalez sent?

___ Did the President look up some pictures of Iran sand dunes on the Google before or after the AG sent the "big e-mail" to the confused-decider?

William, did you ever suspect that your Blackberry hen scratches might help convict your President for war crimes; and affirmatively link your office with personnel inside the Eastern European detention centers were Geneva violations were being committed, but others like Brad Berenson who knew of that illegal activity allegedly did not fully asset their Article 82 obligation under Geneva to fully enforce the Conventions?

* * *

Ref 37 of 38 More "political leads".

* * *

37 of 38 William, 10:29: Domenici Chief of Staff "happy": Wow, sounds kind of curious in light of the Denials from Domenici, then him hiring legal counsel for something that was "no big deal."

38 of 38 Iglesias wants to put Gonzalez name on his résumé as a reference. There's a ringing endorsement: "I worked for a man indicted by the German War crimes prosecutor." LOL

* * *

Part ThreeRef

1 of 70 13 Apprehensions required before prosecuted. How does this compare to illegals who joined the service to get citizenship, but go AWOL? Do they get to keep their citizenship even if they do not complete their service; or if they are given a dishonorable discharge, are they sent back to the country they are from; or can they take citizenship, go AWOL, not get prosecuted, and remain in the United States?

2 of 70: Immigration Security: DHS-POC for exercises.

___ Why aren't the US Attorneys given this information -- basis for firing -- so they can adjust their activity and meet the White House objectives? [ 3 of 70 ]

* * *

Natalie: Travel Briefing Memo 3 of 70

___ Who signed off on this travel memo?

___ What relationship did this reviewer have with the NSA, NSLs, DoJ Staff reviews of Guantanamo, and the 5100.77 program?

5 of 70 Iglesius' evaluation was from 2002; briefed in 2005; and here they are using it in 2007 for a removal.

___ Were there no other reviews of Iglesius?

___ What kind of training did the US Attorneys have in re responding to this feedback; and implementing programs to meet the goals?

___ What did the AG provide by way of direction to the US Attorneys?

___ Was the AG making any effort to communicate specific goals; or was he relying on second hand information being indirectly given to the US Attorneys?

___ What has DoJ OPR found when reviewing this activity related to NSLs, war crimes, NSA violations, and FISA warrant problems: Was the Attorney General similarly not doing what he should have been; or was he relying on other indicators to decide which statutes to ignore?

* * *

Litigation Issue Disclosed 8 of 80

They forgot to redact this.

A. Martinez has a complaint. Let's get Congress looking at this one: Why is there a complaint; and why has this personnel matter been revealed outside EOP?

B. Lucinda Toya.

EOP Failed To redact the Following Litigation Issues

Privilege has been denied on the following; and Congress and NSA litigators may use this information to review the FOIA compliance procedures in the US Attorney Office. 8 of 80 Martinez has a complaint; and Lucinda Toya's name listed on Litigation Issues.

Toya got a five day suspension for not paying a credit card bill; but if you're in DoD or a contactor and you have a bill to pay, they don't care. Why the difference? seems kind of harsh to let Halliburtun and others allegedly commit fraud, but Toya loses 5 days of work.

* * *

16 of 70: Intelligence Chief Specialist.

___ Does it take any intelligence about the Geneva conventions for US Attorneys to know about the laws of war and adjudicate war crimes against the President?

* * *

Stats data shows no trend information; it's useful.

___ Benchmarks the AG is using for oversight, feedback and training?

* * *

38 of 70 Griffin and JAG experience.

___ 5100.77: Why wasn't this JAG related information injected into the war crimes issues on NSLs, Rendition, and prisoner abuse?

44 of 70 Griffin overlaps with Dayspring in RNC support.

____What was Griffin’s role in reviewing Eastern European detention issues, Guantanamo, Prisoner abuse issues while in the White House?

___ What did Griffin know about Brad Berenson and the movement of prisoners to Syria?

___ When Griffin was assigned to the White House what evidence does he have that he fully asserted the 5100.77 Laws of War pogroms on issues of NSA data for war crimes; prisoner abuse; or Geneva compliance?

44 of 70 Griffin linked with Chertoff in OIA; relates to Extradition. [Mar 2001]

___ What role did Chertoff and Griffin have in organizing with Berenson the movement or prisoners from the US to Syria?

45 of 50 Griffin knows about subpoenas and search warrants.

___ What happened on the NSLs?

___ reason why there were no adequate warrants on FISA?

___ What's up with the NSA not getting required FISA warrants; but Griffin supposedly knows something from his JAG experience about not using illegally gathered information to support war crimes against prisoners during interrogations?

____ Did Griffin every give any though to how NSA illegally captured data was used to schedule Boeing aircraft; and how this prisoner abuse in Syria would be explainable by Berenson or Dayspring?

Ref DoD Regulations prohibit Military personnel from working on political matters.

57 of 70: Shows the US military and RNC incomes.

___ How did Griffin explain his overlap/waving timeline between the US Army and Politics?

___ He was assigned to the US Army, but working on campaigns. What is this JAG officer explanation for his political activity for a partisan effort; yet him still reporting that he was assigned to active duty?

___ What kind of waiver did DoD give to Griffin to allow him to work on RNC efforts; but still claim to be an "independently" minded JAG officer in the US Army?

& & &

Stats On Holdovers: 54 of 74.

Ref 54 of 74: Koffsky

Concern: Repeal of AG Appointment Authority

65 of 70:

___ Why was AG Gonzalez and staff counsel concerned a GOP-controlled Congress/GOP-stopping=action-in-Senate might revoke the AG authority?

House can eliminate all funds AG Gonzalez requires to implement unlawful authority outside the US Constitution.

___ Which DOJ Staff counsel are complicit with this unlawful assertion of non-delegated powers, in contravention to the US Constitution?

___ How large are their home mortgages?

___ They worked for the RNC in which years?

___ What kind of organizing did they do to suppress "chatter" about the Iraq WMD concerns?

White House Dilatory

Good faith efforts to stall. 65 of 70

They've openly admitted they're delaying, and the problem rests with the GOP. Remember, this was December 2006, when the GOP still controlled Congress. The best the buffoons in White House can offer is dilatory efforts.

____ Their reasons for asking to be let back into the white house in 2008 are, what again?

* * *

Ref 65 of 70: All options are on the table, and are intended to be used.

Here’s something that turns the GOP arguments about martial law and detention of US citizens on its head: Notice the contrast with the Patriot Act --"we don't need to have this, it's just in case --- "if we don't ever exercise it then what our point in having it?"

Translation White House counsel wants the authority to target US citizens who attempt to oppose illegal US government activity; and they intend to put them in jail in violation of the US Constitution without prospect for trial.

* * *

66 of 70 Spinning the news, DOJ-White House staff spinning the GOP propaganda on illegal activity, Constitutional violations, and abuse of power.