White House Timeline On US Attorney Firing Discussions Not Consistent With Data Captures
President Backed Himself and GOP Into A Corner
The President has backed himself into a corner in his effort to hide his direct orders to violate the law on US Attorney firings.
There is open source information showing the President is lying, and that all White House counsel statements related to the supposed discussions are a ruse.
Using methods which the NSA cannot detect, the proposed White House Timeline -- over who did or did not discuss the attorney firings -- does not match the personnel timelines of those assigned to the White House. They are irreconcilable.
The White House counsel's problem is that the supposed timeline of discussions between Miers, Rove, and other White House counsel does not exist.
Supposedly, according to the e-mal provided to the NYT, the White House discussed an issue: That of firing all 93 US Attorneys around the election.
This was retroactively created as a ruse.
Put aside the facts or what really did or didn't happen. Let's focus, for the moment, on the rules of evidence related to executive privilege.
Privilege can only be asserted on something that is lawfully classified and has not been disclosed. This is the fatal problem for the President. Everything below will link affirmatively to the DOJ IG NSA finding; then into the Helix. Pay attention, you will see what the problem is.
First, under privilege, as soon as the President or anyone discloses any "fact" -- about a conversation inside the White House related to pre-decisions -- that claim of privilege is waived. Privilege applies to pre-decisional discussions. However, once the pre-decision discussion itself is revealed, it cannot no longer be claimed as being privileged. Elston raised this issue of "deliberative" privilge in the e-mail at 11:47 to Kyle who today resigned.
Rather, the opposite happens: The moment that the White House counsel -- whoever it was -- send the e-mail to the NYT and disclosed previously not disclosed information related to a pre-decisional memoranda, discussion, or plan, then privilege is waived. The President and White House counsel cannot put the genie back in the back.
Also, it's impossible to claim privilege or argue something is "deliberative" when the decision has already been made: To engage in illegal activity to violate the COnstitution; or illegal retaliate against people for their refusal to cooperate with unlawful activity or war crimes. The stated reasons for the US Attorney firings are different than the intention to retalate; and the concerns the President had with specific counsel on issues of war crimes and retalation against political opposition.
That's the first problem. The next problem relates to the evidence connected with that now-disclosed non-protected (pre-decisional) communication. Once the NYT received that e-mail, the public has fair access to all information supposedly connected with that pre-decision discussion to fire or not fire the US Attorneys.
Again, it does not matter what the facts are: It matters whether the White House counsel understands that they have walked into a trap:  Fatally denying something that is true [that the US Attorneys were fired because of partisan objectives];  disclosing the existence of a pre-decisional communication. All memoranda related to the disclosed communications becomes subject to discovery by the courts, Congress, and war crimes prosecutors.
Relevance of DOJ IG Findings To US Attorney Firings
Let's consider the DOJ IG findings on NSLs. This is linked with the US Attorney firings for purposes of evidence: Who was involved; which DoJ and White House staff were involved; and the normal communicaiton lines on a given tasking. Based on communicaitons the WHite House and DoJ Staff made on an issue they did not realize was being monitored sheds lights on the other communications they say did or did not occur on a separte issue related to other illegal activity.
___ What was the original pattern of communications;
___ Who was sent timely messages on the first interaction;
___ How do the notifications compare to the area of interest;
___ What changed and why are the patterns of communication different.
Reconsider the DOJ IG findings on NSL Recall the DoJ IG found that DoJ Staff counsel were not doing what they should. This means that here were specific legal requirements that they were not following.
Combine that with the above problem with the pre-decisional communications that the NYT supposedly was told about: Once there is a known legal requirement -- but the discussion was about not following the policy of DOJ on firings and replacement -- then the very problems identified in the DOJ IG NSL finding attach to all communications related to the same staff counsel who are jointly assigned to the [a] NSL; [b] Rendition; and [c] NSA violations; and [d] Guantanamo.
We can take the known illegal activity disclosed in teh DOJ IG in re NSLs, and make adverse infernces about similar communications with staff on related issues: They were not for bonafide, alwfu purposes; rather, they were for illegal purposes, and in contravention with the DOJ OPR standards. Enter the Attrorney Standards of COnduct applicable to all peole in the legal profession.
These White House and DoJ Staff attorneys have a major problem right now: They've engaed in conduct which raises substantial questions about their ability to provide truthful statements as required during an official proceeding. The Attorney Standars of conduct require candor to a tribunal or investigative body. For details look at the draft disbarment investigation against Elston.
Here’s the problem: Based on the DOJ IG findings on the NSLs, we know that DoJ Staff counsel were knot doing what they should. However, Brad Berenson then with the White house counsel's office has publicly disclosed his knowledge of these pre-decisional communications on renditions and prisoner abuse.
They can't claim that their activity was for a bonafide national security issue when the real intention of that effort was to violate the law and not comply with the warrant requirements; nor follow the Constittional standards; nor comply with DOJ policies; nor cooperate with lawful inquiry by Congress. They can't pick and choose their evidence: It is stuck, attached to illegal activity, and they have not timely reported their informatoin to DoJ OPR as reqauired under their standards of conduct.
Two Inconsistent Timelines
Go back to the issue of the e-mail to the NYT from the White House: The problem with this disclosure, and the knowledge that this timeline does not exist, means that the people who are supposedly involved with this non-existent communications were actually doing something else.
Small problem: GCHQ knows the exact times that the President, his legal counsel, and all people connected with the White House were or were not at their computer; or what they were doing.
It is impossible for the White House to create a timeline of events to account for all the people that were supposedly involved with these discussions on the 93 attorney firings; while at the same time accounting for how these same people were using computers and physically located in a separate, known, and admissible location.
Staff counsel supposedly doing one thing cannot also be doing something else at the same time. Despite the fatal assertion that there were deliberations, the White House cannot point to any evidence showing that these were bonafide discussions; or that the substance of tehse discussions matches what the White House wants us to believe in 2007. They're overplaying their hand on something that was originally something else.
Here's the problem for the White House counsel:
A. The timeline they propose related to the 93 US Attorney firings -- which supposedly related to a series of conversations -- does not connect to the real times that have been stored and are discoverable.
B. There is insufficient time for the White House to go through all the IT records and fine a tine that all of the white House counsel supposedly brought this up; but then explain the full length of discussions that were covered
C. All the contemporaneous notes related to all White House dissuasions during this time period are admissible for one reason: They would show that the White House staff, Miers, and Rove are lying about whether they did talk about this; what they were really talking about
D. The revelations to the NYT have fatly disclosed a supposed discussion that never occurred; but that "discussion" becomes the basis for inquiry into all documents, events, and other memoranda that would show that the discussion was not real
E. All memoranda that were generated to support other discussions would show that hit was impossible for Rove and Miers have to done what they were really doing; while they would have us believe that they discussed something else.
F. Each of the lines of evidence above attaches to DOJ Staff conduct and White House counsel discussions related to NSA, Rendition, and the overseas abuse.
Here are The Questions For The White House To Answer
____ Why are you pretending that you can assert there were discussions, but GCHQ has data supporting other timelines of when personnel were supposedly discussing these issues
____ How does the White house explain the inconsistency: Personnel were supposedly discussing these issues, but there is no evidence, memoranda, or other supporting notes to show that these notes were made when the conversation occurred?
____ How does the White House explain the supposed timelines that support the concussion that personnel were discussing other topics, or doing other things; yet the timeline that Members of Congress are being asked to believe is not supported by the data that GCHQ has independently captured?
____What is the White House plan to defend itself before a War crimes prosecutor that knows about Branson’s conversations and the information contained in the real memoranda; but there is no basis to believe that the conversations related to the "93 US Attorney firings" was real?
The White House legal counsel knows they have a major disaster right now. They have no defense, and by fatally asserting that there was or was not a conversation, they've waived privilege, and fatally subjected themselves to inquiry on all the data related to that supposed conversation:
___ Who was there
___ What were the supposed timelines
___ What were the real subjects
___ What were the real timelines
___ What is the White House explanation for the inconsistency between [a] information GCHQ has on the resource utilization and what was really going on; with [b] the version White House counsel has fatally disclosed to the open media.
Every lesson you have about the Downing Street Memo applies. The White House is in a no win situation, they know the lines of evidence that they say exist are illusory, and this fatally opens the White House to a broad expansive discovery.
Once the White House asserts any "fact" -- which GCHQ can either confirm or refute -- on what was or was not discussed, or who was there -- that is subject to review.
The fatal error was when the White House was challenged with a problem that they did not know how to handle, and they denied something that had not been other wise disclosed.
IT doesn’t matter whether the conversations were or were not real: It is impossible for Rove, Miers, and the White House counsels office to get on the same sheet of music.
Let's get back to the war crimes issue. Once the lines of evidence related to the above supposed 93 firings is reviewed, the White House will have to say what they were really talking about. Go back to the DOJ IG finding on NSLs: This is the means by which the Court gets brought into the nexus.
Once the issues with NSLs is shown to be linked with illegal activity, then this turns the DOJ Staff counsel arguments about the State Attorney Concerns with NSA violating the state privacy law on their head. Again, privilege goes out the window because the classification is not linked with a desire to protect national security, but with an effort to hide illegal activity.
It is a misreading of the court and DOJ to say that Reynolds prevents anyone from looking at this. Look closely that the language: Reynolds does not grant a blanker approval to classify anything; but the opposite: When there is a substantial reason for something, and the primary motivation of that privilege is largely connected with non-illegal activity, the privilege is recognized. However, if, based on the evidence of the NLS deception, it is how that the substantial purposes what not to protect national security, but to hide illegal activity -- has the DOJ IG found -- then Reynolds in the controlling language which says that the privilege cannot be recognized.
What’s happened is that using one fatal disclosure, the entire White House legal defense and wall related to privilege and national security was dealt a fatal blow. Once the evidence starts leaking through this hole, more is going to attach.
As the Congress digs into the discussions deeply, more of the inconsistencies are going to surface, we'll see more resignations, and more fatly disclosures to the Media broadening the possible pool of evidence that no longer is protected by privilege.
Each of the lines of evidence is related: It connects to the DOJ Staff counsel discussion on FISA, NSA, rendition, prisoner abuse.
GCHQ knows the timelines which the White House says were required for the "discussions on the 93 firings" is illusory. This timeline does not exist. Rather, the timelines that are being proposed can be shown to contradict the known White House resource utilization timelines. This is stored, and even if it destroyed, GCHQ has copies and data streams which Certified Fraud Examiners can review.
Congress needs to do the following: Anytime The White House says that they were discussing an issue related to the 93 firings, then it is the job of the White House to prove that the personnel supposedly involved in that conversation were really there; and they must account for the real conversations that really took place: When did these other conversations supposedly happen?
Also, Congress needs to get the timelines, entry-exit times from the secret service, and the IT access times. Regardless whether this information is forthcoming, know that GCHQ has the times that personnel were rally at their desks, what they were doing with the computers, and the conversations inside the Whet House. It's been compromised and is available for comparison.
The problem: White House counsel does not have enough time to reconstruct the timeline; then back trace it to weave between the information and timelines that are real; then provide this timeline Congress.
They key is to realize that as the White House counsel makes errors -- because they how this is ultimately linked with war crimes -- it is going to be easier to show that they have misled Congress, and that their errors are evidence of corruption, illegal activity, and forms the basis for broader war crimes discovery.
The White House counsel's office is in trouble. Outside counsel are also linked. Former White House counsel also are in panic mode because their conversations have been intercepted, and they cannot claim privilege on matters related to criminal activity, especially when the purpose of the classification is not substantially linked with a lawful objective..
The President well knows the above and he fully comprehends that he has absolutely no way out of this: He well knows the capabilities of GHCQ, and the real timelines related to these supposed conversations do not match the data he no longer controls or can tamper with.
The big problem was that this is known, traced, and can be shown using methods which the NSA cannot detect. Because the NSA is unable to monitor the conversations related to the outside monitoring, and these methods are implemented using data communication systems the NSA cannot intercept, the White House counsel is running in circles, as are the NSA contractors.
They're stuck. There is nothing they can do to get out of this. The above information is known to the German War Crimes prosecutor; and using methods the NSA cannot intercept the above lines of evidence have been affirmatively linked to the Constellation and the Helix. They have no hope of a credible defense. This is going to go to The Hague; and there are Members of Congress who have been complicit with this illegal activity.