Goodling's Handwriting Appears On Redacted Text

Ref The House Judiciary Committee e-mails can be read by placing the text in anothe reader.

"Some of the redacted portions can be easily read by copying to a program (e.g. Photoshop, Apple's Preview) that allows enlargement of the document." -- Mary V. April 13, 2007 11:51 AM

This appears to be Goodling's writing near the redacted text. Ref

* * *



Ref Original image located here.

Read more . . .

White House Violated Agreement With Grand Jury To Retain Data

White House Agreement With Fitzgerald Violated; Opens Possibility Fitzgerald May Ignore Agreement Not To Prosecute Rove

Ref RNC Lawyer reverses himself.

It's meaningless to talk about what e-mail Rove supposedly thought Fitzgerald had; or what Rove through the Grand Jury looked at.

The real question: What agreement terms did the White House have with the Grand Jury and US Attorney's office to avoid prosecution. Fitzgerald appears to have had concerns with the e-mail prompting questions of Libby. It appears Fitzgerald made a deal with the White House: Solve your supposed problem with the e-mails, and I'll back off.

However, given the White House does not appear to have complied with that agreement, it raises questions about the motivations of White house counsel who discussed the terms of the agreement. One Fitzgerald was led to believe that the e-mail retention issue was a "reasonable error, but could be remedied" yet the White House cannot remedy this "simple problem," We have to ask: If the solution that was supposedly simple was not done; why would we belie the original assertion the White House gave that the error was honest; or believe they were sincere in their promise to address this issue with e-mail to aoid prosecution.

It appears the "solution" the White House proposed in the deal with Fitzgerald was not sincere; they knew the real problem was a deliberate action; and the White House failure to demonstrate to Fitzgerald that it would manage Rove's e-mails as promised casts doubt on the White House original promises, defenses, and representations to the Grand Jury and Fitzgerald.

* * *

Agreement Terms Between White House And Grand Jury

The essential data retention requirements apart of the agreement between the Grand Jury and US Attorney appear to have been violated. This is a basis for Fitzgerald to re-open the Grand Jury review and find out what the White House said it would do to address his concerns; but was not done.

IT appears Fitzgerald did not peruse an investigation because he believes that the white House would resolve this issue. However, in light of this apparent violation o the Agreement, Fitzgerald has a reasonable basis to re-open the investigation and empanel the Grand Jury.

* * *

Before the story was confusion; now there is certainty. It still doesn't make sense.

The RNC lawyer would have us believe that Rove did something appropriate. Wrong. If Fitzgerald had any e-mails, then the issue isn't what Rove did or didn't do, but why didn't the agreement between the RNC and US Attorney -- how e-mail would be retained -- remain in full force.

RNC lawyers would have us believe that this deviation was up to Rove. No, there was an agreement between an ousted entity and the White House: What would the computer experts do to comply with the Grand Jury concerns.

What Rove supposedly did or didn't do is meaningless.

The question goes to the IT Department in the White House: Why, despite fairing warning fro the Grand Jury of their concerns with e-mail retention over Valarie Plame, did the IT department not ensue the e-mail was or wasn't retained.

* * *

RNC counsel and Rove have no credibility. They've shifted the focus form whether something was or wasn't lawful; to a secondary issue.

This has little to do with the RNC or Rove, but central to what the White House IT department agreed, but apparently did not do, to comply with the Grand Jury concerns about e-mail retention problems.

RNC and Rove are secondary. The issue is the agreement between the White House and the US Attorney's office over what would be done to remedy the procedures to comply with the Presidential Records Act.

Read more . . .

White House Implicated In Hand Written Notes

DoJ released new documents today to the House Judiciary Committee. The hand written notes indicate the White House and President were fully aware of the Gonzalez decision, and approved the retaliation against the US Attorneys.

7 of 76 Goodling's hand written notes indicate that "WH [White House] cleared".

* * *

"DoJ put the list together of problematic people; sent to WH; WH cleared"

Look at fifth line below " Reasons?", "Was Pres [President] told about this?"

___ Why doesn't GOodling, who was DoJ-WH liaison, not understand this?

* * *

It doe snot make sens for Goodling to say, in her role as liaison to be confused about the White House. It looks as though GOodling has discussed the DoJ role -- presumably including the Attorney General meeting, decision -- and has fatally asserted in writing that the President approved the decision.

Or are we to believe that the "White House clearing" something does not include the President who supposedly is "the decider"?

Read more . . .

White House Policy To Retaliate For Refusing To Inappropriately Leak Information

Goodling Comments on Insubordination On Information Sharing

The objective of the retaliation against US Attorneys, as with Valarie Plame, was not to enforce any law, but to impose order, discipline, and blind allegience to illegal activity.

Goodling’s hand written notes expressed an unstated policy that the US Attorneys were to disclose information political information to the GOP, but were not properly managed on that activity. Ref

The information which the US Attorneys were asked to provide appears to have been useful for the White House and GOP to direct the FBI to issue NSLs, engage in warrantless surveillance, and target personnel for monitoring. The illegal White House effort, which Goodling appears to have been a part of in taking retaliatory efforts, appears to be linked with inappropriately harassing American citizens for their opposition to the President; and in using this information to support war crimes and abuse against prisoners of war.

It is a flawed dichotomy to narrow the analysis to either [a] the US Attorneys were not authorized to disclose the information and were punished for not cooperating with inappropriate access; or [b] the US Attorneys, despite a requirement to disclose information, did not properly have fair warnings of this issue.

Rather, the US Attorneys were not told about the "real reasons" for their firing because those reasons were not lawful and were orechstrated to hide the real objective: Retalation to impose discpline and obedience to the GOP use of senstive infromation to impose power on people lawfully opposing abuse of power around the globe and in the Untited States.

* * *

Handwritten notes: Ref

Look at the right side, notice the arrow from "pattern of" then arrow goes up to right, "insubord [insubordination] on info sharing"

* * *

Notice the original 8 of 76. Focus on the scratched out words on the right hand side.

It appears to say, "Will face" [scratched out] insubordination for info sharing.

Goodling's Handwriting: Semi-Capitol F, Not Consistently Below the Line

Goodling does not consistently write the "f" either as a capitol, or with a dangling loop in the lower case. This is important. One view is the scratched out words could not include an "f" because Goodling has a hanging loop, and the "F" would fall below the line, which does not appear in the case.

However, if we look to the left side of the document: look for "chiara" underlined. Look to the third line to the right: Notice the "fractured office" -- Goodling when she writes an "f" does not always drop her loop below the line, but has a semi-capital "F" which forms above the line. "Fractured" is a semi-capitol letter, without any hanging loop.

This suggests that the conclusion about "Find" is valid; and that the lack of a hanging loop below the line in the scratched out word does not support the assertion that it could not be an "f". Rather, it suggest that Goodling wrote "Find" consistent with how she wrote "fractured" hear Chiara.

* * *

Review of original "Will Face Insubordination" then Change To "pattern of Insubordination"

Putting aside the details, let's consider the implications of Goodling’s notes related to insubordination. We judge the following:

1. There was some sort of information sharing requirement or policy, which the US Attorney did not agree, was not following, or refused to cooperate;
2. There were proposed sanctions for violating the policy; or there were some directions to share information that US Attorney refused;
3. There was no management documentation or criminal charge for the US Attorney "misconduct", suggesting that the "failure to disclose information" was not an enforceable requirement, but a political desire of the White House to get something it was not allowed to directly ask for
4. There were threatened retaliation: Charges of insubordination as in, "You will face a charge of insubordination if you do not release this information about the status of the cases."
5. Then they changed the notes from "will face" [scratched out], to a second note below, which has the arrow, to soften it, "Pattern of insubordination for info sharing."

This appears to indicate that someone at the meeting was discussing their frustration with a failure to disclose information that the RNC wanted; and they first discussed some sort of legal action. However, realizing that this legal action would result in public disclosure of that charge, they changed it to a disciplinary issue which is a "pattern of."

This shifts the issue from a criminal-court review, to one of a private administrative action.

* * *

Commentary on Information Above

Question: What information sharing does a US Attorney have discretion; who was requesting the information; and why wasn't this information requested directly?

How does the "info sharing" relate, if at all, to NSLs, data transfers for warrants, or transfer of information between agencies?

If the information should have been shared, and it was a requirement, the question turns: Who documented this "insubordination"; or was the "insubordination" an accusation because the US Attorney was correctly not revaluing information he should not have been?

It appears the "insubordination" is because of a refusal to disclose information to White House/RNC that should not have been disclosed."

Possibilities:

A. Status of US Attorney cases;

B. Problems US Attorneys had with the President;

C. Useful information for the RNC to get political advantage;

D. Release of confidential FBI information to the RNC for purposes of smearing and targeting;

E. Use of confidential grand jury or classified FBI information useful to justify NSA surveillance, JTTF targeting, or DHS warrantless searches-interviews

F. Refusal to provide classified information which JTTF, White House, and NSA were using as a pretext to broaden their reviews, interrogations, and monitoring of US citizen communications

* * *

There is nothing before us, in light of the DOJ IG findings on NSLs and the DOJ OPR from being blocked, to suggest that it could not have been any of the above.

The accusation of "insubordinate on information sharing" could be mean anything; and the DOJ Staff appears to have had enough examples to communicate what this insubordination meant.

It appears to implicate the DOJ Staff in their knowledge of what the information sharing was; and fails to consider the possibility that the US Attorney to refuse to provide that information may have been appropriate.

The understood policy within the White House appears to be: The GOP, Rove, White House counsel, DOJ Staff could assert they needed information -- regardless the legality of illegality of providing or transferring that information -- and should expect to get the information without question.

* * *

Congressional Inquiry

___ What occurred at the meeting to change the focus from charging the US Attorney with insubordination, and changing it to a pattern of insubordination?

___ What discussion point, and who raised this issues that shifted the focus of the discussion from taking action against the US Attorney direction with a charge or confrontation, but using a retroactive, administrative punishment?

It appears the answer is: The White House counsel, DOJ Staff and GOP knew that the basis for retaliating against the US Attorneys for refusing to disclose information only the GOP wanted, but was not appropriately released was the GOP, White House, and DOJ Staff knew that their request for this information was not appropriate.

However, given their objective was to retaliate for this inappropriate policy; and to punish the US Attorneys for refusing to disclose information of interest to the US Attorney, they crated this ruse.

The real story has nothing to do with immigrations or the US Attorneys, but the refusal of the US Attorney to give a heads up to the CIA that they were going to prosecute them for bribery. The real issue: The GOP couldn't trust these US Attorneys to be quiet about the GOP money laundering used to finance voter fraud; and to not be quiet about the issues of information transfer out of the US Attorney office which could have been used for political targeting in the form of NSLs, surveillance, harassment, and increased JTTF-NSA monitoring of political targets.

The US Attorney firing has nothing to do with immigration, but with the DOJ Staff knowledge that it was illegal for them to request sensitive information for partisan purposes. The aim of the US Attorney firings, as with the Valerie Plame outing, was to impose order on the remaining personnel in the DoJ and intelligence community: Give us what we want, ignore the law, and you will be rewarded. If you attempt to bock us from imposing our will on you, then you will suffer.

This is connected to Cheney, Addington, Libby, and his private intelligence network which he independently runs outside Congressional oversight.

This is fascism under this White House, Department of Justice, and what this Congress refuses to impeach. Rather than confront this President for illegal warfare, this arrogant, reckless House Judiciary Chairman and Speaker have taken impeachment off the table, and have refused to enforce the laws of war. Nuremburg is precedent for imposing legal consequences on Members of Congress for their reckless failure to enforce the laws of war with impeachment.

* * *

Summation

Gooddling's notes are evidence that there was a policy in place by the White House and DOJ Staff to inappropriately use information for unlawful purposes. The NSLs, rendition, prisoner abuse, and illegal FISA surveillance is connected.

The Goodling Memoranda suggests there was overwhelming evidence that the White House engaged in illegal activity, warrants impeachment, but the House Judiciary Chairman has been reckless in not keeping impeachment on the table.

The way forward is to end the investigations, and bring charges against the Speaker and the House Judiciary Chairman for their alleged refusal to enforce the laws of war with impeachment; and to point to the Goodling Memo as evidence of the larger abuses which this House Judiciary Chairman refuses to vote to support an investigation.

These are issues of international war crimes. If the US government refuses to enforce the laws of war, then foreign fighters -- under the principle of reciprocity -- may lawfully engage in like retaliation against the Speaker, House Judiciary Chairman for any and all abuses they have refused to enforce, which they know this President is doing: Using illegally captured information to implement war crimes: Prisoner abuse, summary execution, and trial without access to evidence.

It is reckless for this House Judiciary Chairman, given his legal background, to ignore the Nuremburg Precedents, and remove impeachment as an option to enforce the laws of war.

Goodling's memo is evidence that the DOJ Staff and White House knew the requires for information was not appropriate. Rather than change their policy, they attempted to go behind the back of the US Attorney, create a sham story, and intimidate them to accept a false reality.

The problem is not with the US Attorney, but the reckless leadership in the White House that engages in illegal warfare; and the complicit Congress which refuses to use impeachment and investigations into impeachment charges as a means to enforce the laws of war.

The error is to enable a war criminal. The second crime is for legal authority to refuse to enforce the laws of war. We don’t need new investigations. We need a new system of governance which compels the lazy buffoons in the GOP and DNC to enforce the law, not make excuses to “wait until the next election” until they think the weather is favorable.

This excuse for inaction is the same non-sense the British Parliament pretended was tolerable. This is absurd and not governance but recklessness disguised as something else.

Read more . . .

President Must Comply With Law To Maintain Executive Privildge

President for e-mail purging before he was for hiding, then protection, then suppression, then denial, then assertion it was appropriate

Ref President cannot have it both ways.

He claims that the e-mails to the RNC aren't archived, as required, because they're not part of the White House; yet, he claims the e-mails, which have not been stored properly, are protected by the President's Privilege.

Impossible.

The President is delusional: He (supposedly) wants to protect something he (apparently) believes is not associated with the White House.

Bush Delusion Calendar Check This is a repeat pattern of the Geneva violations at Guantanamo, FISA violations, and abuses with Eastern European Detention Centers:

Monday: Release e-mails, and say there is no problem
Tuesday: Denial about e-mail;
Wednesday: Hide e-mail meetings;
Thursday: Claim it is his job;
Friday: Blame others for the e-mail;

Saturday: Assert he has the right to destroy, not retain, and purge the e-mail because it's not his e-mail or official and not connected with the White House

Sunday: Pretends he can refuse to release the evidence he's fatally released on Monday.

Monday : Pretend the e-mail is connected with the White House and ignore the previous week. But let's not talk about the meetings he attended because he's no longer the decider. He's the Delusion-ister.

Tuesday: Offer no explanation why he [1] wants to destroy e-mail that has been released; or pretend that the e-mail is not connected with the White House as a basis to destroy it; but then reverses himself and [2] claim the released e-mail is connected with the White House but hasn't been retained under the Presidential Records Act; but then reverse himself again and [3] pretend that the e-mail -- he's previously said was not connected with the White House, and could be purged-- is linked with the White House and protected by privilege; never mind that the e-mail he says is privileged has been both purged in violation of the law and released to the bublic.

Nobody can hide illegal activity once it's disclosed. ORCON rules say it's illegal to ally any evidnce of illegal ctivity to be hidden by any classificaiton or executive order.

Conclusion: This President -- the best the GOP can offer as leadership -- is retarded and has hired stupid legal counsel.

* * *

Either:

A. The President failed to retain the data according to the rules which apply to Presidential records; or

B. The records were not stored as required because they were not intended to be retrieved, as required; or

C. The President is claiming privilege for something he did not want to be associated with: OR

D. The President hopes to pretend that something that he doesn't want to be associated with, and hide behind another communication system, is part of the White House that he wants to be associated with and protect; or

E. The President can't decide if he was for the e-mail protection before he was against it.

* * *

For the President to claim privilege, he cannot allow that data to be released. Once the information is disclosed, even inadvertently, the evidence is not protected.

The issue isn't the content of the e-mails; but the extent to which the e-mails unrelated to the White House have been used for official purposes.

Once the President asserts the evidence is privileged, he must show that the evidence has been retained lawfully.

He can't claim that the evidence is privileged, yet it can be purged without comply with with the Presidential records act.

Either the e-mail complies with the Presidential records; or the President cannot claim privilege.

Once the President failed to ensure the e-mails were retained as required, he cannot show that he hoped to use those e-mails for lawful purposes. Rather, the double standard on privilege asks us to believe two realities at once.

No way.

Read more . . .

Plame Grand Jury Investigation Triggered Constraints on Rove E-Mail Deletions

Rove E-Mail Purge Blocked Because of Problems Fitzgerald Grand Jury Had Investigating Plame Name Leak

As the Grand Jury investigation into the leaking of Valarie Plame's name broadened, legal counsel to the President were advised of requirements to manage Rove'e e-mail uses.

Because of expanding Grand Jury inquiry, Rove e-mail activity was reviewed. He had special procedures in place because of problems with e-mail deletions.

___ Why is there close coordination with political [Rove] and legal [WHite Houes counsel Miers] on US Atty firings; yet we're asked to believe that RNC legal [Kelner] isn't aware of the legal issues inside the White House? This is (supposedly) an inconsistent coordination on legal issues: One Standard of coordination between the political-legal offices for the US Attorney firing emails; but a different standard on supposed legal issues. This does not seem credible.

___ Why is the White House tyring to pretend that the GOP isn't in the loop on some legal issues; but is on others? Does not make sense.

___ In light of the Foley and Plame investigations, why wasn't this e-mail retention issue resolved? No credible reason.

* * *

Model Rules of Attorney Standards of Conduct

Kelner is legal counsel to the RNC. Notice the various hats that Kelner may have been waring, and how the Model Rules could be twisted to feign ignorance:

Ref Candor to Tribunal
Ref Fairness to opposing counsel
Ref Impartiality
Ref Duty as Witness
Ref Advocate at non-adjudicative proceedings

Attorney standars of conduct require candor before a tribunal; however, if Kelner looks as his primary loyalty ot the President not GOP, then Keyler may be misleading Congress, or thinking that this interview is not an official appearing by him as counsel to the RNC.

___ Has Kelner feigned stupidity on legal issues; or is he treating Congress not as a tribunal but as a legal adversary as Klener represents the President and the RNC before Congress?

___ Which hat was Kelner wearing when he appeared before Wasman: Counsel to RNC; counsel to President; witness before a tribunal; counsel for a client with an adversarial interest to Congress?

* * *

The US Attorney Firing e-mails are linked to procedures Rove was required to follow. Despite the Grand Jury review and problem Fitzgerald had with e-mails, the White House moved the communications to new servers, but continued not to properly comply with the law.

Mr. Kelner also explained that starting in 2005, the RNC began to treat Mr. Rove’s emails in a special fashion. At some point in 2005, the RNC commenced an automatic archive policy for Mr. Rove, but not for any other White House officials. According to Mr. Kelner, this archive policy removed Mr. Rove’s ability to personally delete his e-mails from the RNC server. Mr. Kelner did not provide many details about why this special policy was adopted for Mr. Rove. But he did indicate that one factor was the presence of investigative or discovery requests or other legal concerns.Ref

It appears the President and White House counsel well know of the original illegal activity -- the leaking of Plame's name, which had not been properly retained as evidence in the e-mails -- and this prompted pressure to find a backup communication system.

Hoeer, despite this backup communication method, Rove was denied the ability to remove e-mail.

Given the gravity of the Plame investigation it's unclear why the White House asserted there was no formal report; yet ther was administrative action to manage Rove's e-mail access.

If the E-mail retention problem Rove had related to Plame was real, then the White House counsel and RNC leadership would have known about this illegal activity, but appear t have been reckless in not responding to the problems the Grand Jury had with e-mail retention.

It remains unclear why the procedures which were applied to Rove in re Plame were not applied to all White House staff for all e-mails and electronic communication methods.

* * *

Notes

See Waxman letter:

Plame Outing Prompted White House To Block Rove From Deleting E-mails

___ How was this done?

___ Why was Rove blocked from deleting e-mails, yet we were told that there was no investiation report into the breach of Plame’s name?

___ Why wasn’t Kelner, counsel for the RNC, not knowledgeable why Rove was blocked?

___ Why was the RNC part of the email commcantio; but the RNC counsel is not are of the legal isues prompting the uS of the RNC resources: Why didn’t he find
out; and are there issues of legal counsel non-cooperation with House Overnight Board?

* * *

Rove was prevented from deleting e- mails because of the Libby investigation. Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury had problems with the White House, and this is subject
of secret grand jury evidence which has not been released.

* * *

Appears Kelner was sent because he had no clue what the Grand Jury talked about.

___ Need to talk to Fitzgerald?

___ Keler not cooeprating with the Tribunal as required under his Attorney Standards of conduct?

___ Why hasn't White House counsel and RNC counsel shared information on the legal issues related to these policies?

Read more . . .

E-Mail Inventory Deadline: 3 May -- Inputs to Waxman

Ref Your e-mail inventories are due.

In light of the failure of the primary archiving systems to meet their legal requirements under the statute, Congressman Waxman is required to request all indirect personnel not necessarily related with the RNC to retain all White House and DOJ staff-related communications.

You are expected to include in your commentary and information you believe may shed light on the war crimes issues.

Samples follow.

In your summaries include lists of questions that you believe should be asked; or lines of inquiry that you may believe might be helpful for others to consider. These questions might be lists of interrogatories during cross examination; or lists of documents that you believe Members of Congress would be asking for, review, or should have access to.

If you do have information about statutes that are applicable to the areas that you are interested in, or have information showing the relationship between your concern or question and the statutes that would be welcome.

* * *

Samples: How This Fits Together

You'll get an idea what this blog is about.

Each sample (listed below) connects with the Helix and Constellation; and traces to entities, firms, intermediaries, contracts, and pesonnel associated with the draft war crimes indictments.

Note the link to the NARUS STA System and the NSA intermediaries indirectly connected with the White House IT department and commercial entities.

Sample FOIA, interrogatory Ref Rendition in re scheduling, use of NSA illegally capture information, and interaction with contractors allegedly complicit with war crimes

Sample FOIA, interrogatory Ref Abraxas: Firm allegedly placing CIA personnel used to implement war crimes, FISA violations, prisoner abuse, and unlawful kidnapping in violation of laws of war.

Sample budget trace Ref See Item 2

Sample equipment trace Ref Identifying links beteween equipment use, origin, funding, and contractors and intermediaries indiretly linked with the alleged lllegal use of equipment to the White House-connected entities. [Note the pay stations which were identified and linked to NSA and Columbus DFAS.]

Sample trace between alleged war-related entity; and e-mail/instant message identifying information. Ref For war crimes prosecutors.

Sample suggestion: Ref See Item 6 for cross reference between a commercial entity and staff agency currently under investigation. Others will know to watch for these documents and issues as they review the DoJ internal operations and contracting issues. [ Details ]

Sample Non-official instant message analysis Ref [NSA]

Sample Work station analysis to assist forensics: here [Rove]

Sample Work station analysis showing President Gonzalez lying about FISA compliance Ref Confirmation Assigned Personnel not meeting legal requirements. [DoJ not fully using all staff counsel for warrant processing]

Sample Website archive analysis based on visits from that work station Ref [ NRLA ]

Sample Discovery plan for intermediaries, outside counsel, and indirect communication systems between RNC, White House, and outside counsel Ref [Sidley Austin]

Sample Sweep of White House internal and external communications Ref [White House, Sampson, Sidley Austin]

* * *

E-mail Request

Congressman Waxman requests, and you will comply with the following:

preserve all e-mails received from White House officials who used 'gwb43.com,' 'georgewbush.com,' 'rnchq.org,' or other nongovernmental e-mail accounts. The Committee also asks you to preserve any e-mails sent to White House officials at anv of these accounts."

provide the Committee with an inventory of any e-mail communications in the agency's possession or control that meet the description in the preceding paragraph. This inventory should include the name and e-mail address of the sender, the name and e-mail address of the recipient, the date of the e-mail, and a brief description of the subject of the e-mail. This inventory should be provided to the Committee by May 3,2007."

* * *

The problem is larger than e-mails. What Congress will be asking for next are the larger communication systems and networks other than e-mails.

This link shows you what forensics experts are going to ask for. This means the following:

A. If you have any details from your files, data, or private captures related to bookmarks, URLs, or anything else which may assist investigators, prosecutors, and war crimes adjudicators understand intent;

B. If you have data showing you was physically assigned to a specific computer work station, that would be helpful

C. If ou have seating charts showing which computers were using which search engines. Not well known, Google has a desktop feature which caches e-mails. There are other options which other search engines do as well which may be of interest.

D. If you have time cards showing which personnel are assigned to which work stations, those computer numbers can be cross referenced with names; personnel entry times to the buildings; and understand other systems they may be using outside official channels.

The goal isn't to simply capture e-mails, but to identify the likely other sources of information, communication, and methods of interaction that have remained hidden.

* * *

It will be helpful if you identify any expertise in the e-mail sender or receiver who has communicated with the RNC; and identify their expertise in document retention. Congress will have the information to determine whehtr the White House, RNC, and others did or did not appropriately rely on professional expertise associated with these outside entities to implement the correct document retention procedures.

* * *

As standby, we need to have ready a subsequent submittal. To meet this requirement, the appropriate response will also include a matrix of all identifying data for that workstation; and any other identifying information about the computer system including browser type, screen size, and details which may assist forensics experts in identifying which specific communications systems were used.

IN your response include a relationship diagram showing:

A. The depth, frequency, and volume of the e-mails

B. Nodes of communications;

C. Sites of back-up locations where the White House staff, outside counsel, and DOJ personnel are known to interact with each other outside direct observation;

D. The sign-in names of the White House, DoJ, and NSA personnel using the instant messaging systems;

E. Copies of the clusters where indirect entities, contractors, and outside counsel have been confirmed to discuss these issues while the primary communications, e-mails, and issues were being discussed using instant messages or other data transmission systems.

* * *

TO Assist Congress and WAR Crimes Prosecutors I expect to see the following:

1. Information which will comply with this detailed requirement, listed here and here;

2. Copies of all public, private, and other information which will shed light on which entities have been involved with illegal activity while assigned to NSA, White House, DOJ, or any other uS government facility

3. Evidence that personnel were not engaged in official duties while using government resources

4. Evidence that DOJ, White House, or NSA staff counsel were coordinating with other individuals, entities, and intermediaries using non-official e-mails and instant messaging systems

5. Copies of the common data transmission times; indicators that data packages from one location were commonly sent to common individuals associated with the RNC, DOJ< White House, or NSA

6. Confirmed locations where personnel from the White House, DoJ, NSA, or other Executive Branch personnel were meeting to exchange e-mails, data, and other things without using e-mails or instant messaging

7. Names of all staff counsel assigned to these entities, and the date that they were entered into their state bar.

8. Seating charts inside the White House, DoJ, NSA

9. Updated cell phone lists cross indexed with e-mail and other contact information

10. Records of meeting minutes, budget documents, signed policy memos, or other presentation materials where DOJ Staff were assigned; visiting; or conducting business related to the RNC while on official duty hours.

11. Ciopes of all identifying information, communications, travel reports, budgets, and travel vouchers related to the transfer of funds from the RNC counsel, and their relationship with outside lobbyists; and copies of the tickets or payment stubs which may or may not be filed with the travel reports.

Read more . . .

Reviewing Congressional Oversight of NSA, DOJ Inspector Generals

Revising the Constitution and Creating A 4th Branch of Investigators: Solving The The Problem With Direct Presidential, Agency Head Appointments of NSA, DOJ IG And Investigators

It cannot be argued that the current system of checks and balances have served us well. They have been ignored, not enforced. This cannot happen again. New laws and new leaders are meaningless. We need structural changes to the way the US government interacts. For We the People this requires a New Constitution, something Congress has no input.

For Congress, the way forward is to examine what failed with the Inspector Generals. We cannot continue with this reckless oversight of the OIG offices. This note discusses a remedy and change in direction.

* * *

We need to look at the Congressional oversight of the President's appointment of the Inspector Generals, law enforcement leadership, and criminal prosecutors. This note argues that these abuse functions need to be removed from the control of the President, and placed in a fourth branch of government that is independent, and has loyalty only to the Constitution and We the People. The aim of this Fourth Branch would be to enforce the Constitution regardless which political party were in power.

Reviewing Congressional Oversight of NSA, DOJ Inspector Generals

* * *

Examining Problems With Current Inspector Gernal Oversight

When we're looking at what failed with the DOJ and NSA in re illegal activity since 2001, one area to review is the auditing and inspector generals. We've previously outlined some legislative reforms, desertification, and a requirement of the NSA IG to get certification sunder penalty of perjury.

Senator Leahy well outlined his concerns the Executive Branch has betrayed America's and the Constitution. Part of the problem has been the failure of auditors to independently audit and report illegal activity.

It is not longer acceptable for the President to have an unsupervised power to appoint anyone as an inspector General, but the Congress not have some input into whether that IG needs to be given some incentives to directly confront the President for illegal orders or guidance to the NSA or DOJ IG.

I would encourage the Congress to review the terms under which inspector Generals are appointed; how often the OIG leadership is audited; and what timely action can be taken investigate OIG regardless who controls congress or the Executive Branch.

One approach is to create a fourth branch of government where all investigators are assigned; and they are afforded the military power to directly confront a President that has been determined to be in violation of the laws of war. Yes, I'm talking giving the leadership of the 4th Branch special combat and arrest powers to enforce investigations, and use lawful military force to arrest and capture a President who has engaged in war crimes.

* * *

A Sample Bill

I realize this is "old' legislation, but things like this have a bad habit of quickly appearing in bills without Congress paying attention. This is not going to work, especially under the current environment where the President is thwarting NSA and DOJ IG from doing their jobj:

(Sec. 435) Amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 to require the head of the NRO, DIA, NSA, and NGIA to appoint an independent inspector general for each such agency (thus giving such inspectors general the same information-gathering power and independence as is currently held by inspectors general of other federal agencies). Allows the DNI or the Secretary of Defense to prohibit the inspector general of an IC element from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation if such Director or Secretary determines that the prohibition is necessary to protect vital U.S. national security interests. Requires notification of such determination to the defense and intelligence committees.Ref

Let's get the NSA IG appointment issue on the table: What is the President and NSA Directing thinking that they should continue to have non-Senate involvement with the appointment of the Inspector Generals?

Why does the President believe that he can directly appoint anyone, but not have that supposed "direct reporting auditor to Congress" not subject to Congressional monitoring?

Read more . . .

Decerififying NSA and DOJ OIG Offices

Based on a review of the repeat findings in the NSA verification audit, we recommend Congress, GAO, and DOD IG discuss desertification of the NSA and DoD Inspector Gernal's offices.

Both OIG have not well demonstrated their Independence or trustworthiness in reviewing the legality of the activities.

* * *

Here is the verification audit done on NSA IG. in light of the illegal activity of the Prescient, and otherConstitional violations, we have no confidence NSA IG can adequately meet these requirements.

Until NSA IG is decerified, and submits to a subsequent verificatino audit, we have no choice but to conclude NSA and DOJ OIG are compromised.

Verification Audit

Verification audits are done to show that the NSA and DOJ IG are meeting their procedures. The issue is not whether the NSA is or is not doing the right thing, but whether the internal controls, audits, and checklists NSA OIG is using will or will not catch audit risks.

Based on the illegal activity disclosed in the illegal domestic surveillance activity, and the fact that the illegally NSL issues were not self reproted, but prompted by Congress, we conclude that the OIG in both DOJ and NSA cannot be trusted to independently audit either NSA or the Department of Justice.

It remains a separate issue whether the NSA and DOJ are or are not meeting their statutory requirements. It is a secondary issue whether the entire Departments of Justice or National Security Agency are decrtified and transferred under direct Congerssoinal Control.

Based on Article 1 Section 8 powers to raise and support armies, Congress does have the legal authority to appoint a special master to direct the transition of NSA and DOJ personnel to direct Congressional Control.

The President cannot argue that he has primary control of these agencies when they are being illegally used, do not meet audit requirements, and have been unwilling to comply with the law.

Eitehr Congress decertifies the Agencies, transfers them to COngerssoinal control as direct reporting agencies under Article 1 Section 8; or the Congress redefine a new oversight system which will compel investigations regardless who controls any branch of government.

Read more . . .

War Crimes Challenge for NSA Inspector General

NSA IG has a problem. Despite a legal requirement to oversee audits, NSA personnel have been using non-official instant messaging systems which are not secure to transact NSA activities. These are serious issues.

Under the laws of war, foreign fighters are permitted to engaged in like retaliation against US government officials who violate, do not enforce, and fail to comply with the Geneva Conventions.

NSA IG needs to immediately get a certification under penalty of perjury by all NSA employees whether they have or have not fully complied with all NSA security requirements. NSA personnel shall immediately certify under oath and penalty of perjury that they have not used NSA resources or facilities in conjunction with non-official e-mail or instant messaging systems.

Update: NSA IG office recommended for decertification.

* * *

Ref Security issues in re NSA Audit: What is getting in the way of independence in re the instant messaging issues?

Ref How have the checklists incorpoated the revisions to NSDD 298?

Ref Why is there a repeat finding on Issue 15: Computer security?

Once all NSA employees have certified under penalty of perjury that they have never used any commercial, non-official e-mail or instant messaging systems then a list of NSA personnel who have been using these non-secure systems will be provided. The list will not be available until the NSA IG gets all NSA personnel to certify. Once personnel have certified, on a random basis NSA employees who are known to have engaged in this non-official commendations; or may be complicit with war crimes may or may not be identified publicly.

D0 not take any action based on this information: This is a sample. This is a sample of what foreign fighters are permitted to do under the laws of war against alleged war criminals who have allegedly refused to surrender; and not timely prevented abuse under the laws of war.

Current and former White House counsel, NSA personnel, and US government officials associated with the CIA and Intelligence community may be lawfully targeted under the laws of war. Any abuse committed by any US person in violation of Geneva -- not limited to prisoner abuse, summary execution, and like violations of Geneva -- may be lawfully committed by foreign fighters against current and former US government officials. All US Government orders to violate Geneva, not full enforce, or deprive prisoners of any right protected under Geneva may be similarly denied to anyone foreign fighters -- on accusation alone -- deem to be worthy of retaliatory acts. Geneva permits this under the laws of war.

* * *

War crimes prosecutors would like to know which NSA IG reports and investigations have been suppressed as they related to use of NSA non-official communion systems to coordinate data transfers for to implement war crimes. It is serious business when NSA personnel have interacted with non-official e-mail systems, denied the use of that technology to NSA authorities, but have used those communication systems to implement war crimes, and transfer data to support kidnapping, rendition, illegal prisoner abuse and unlawful warfare.

The National Security Agency is expected to provide to congress a list of all personnel who have been using non-official e-mails and instant messaging systems for official business.

All NSA Personnel are expected to under go a security screening and audit to verify whether they are or are not in compliance with this data retention requirement.

All NSA personnel who have been using non-official commendations systems shall testify and assert under penalty of perjury whether they have or have not fully complied with the NSA combination requireme3nts.

Any NSA personnel who falsely certify that they have not been using non-official e=mail and instant messaging for official combinations may be prosecuted.

These are serious issues. NSA personnel have been linked with non-official communication systems. NSA employees have not provided assurances that all personnel using these unauthorized communications systems have been decertified.

It is the job of the NSA leadership to explain why NSA personnel are not willing to fully comply with the information retention requirements; why they are using non-official e-mail and instant messaging systems for official communications; and why NSA personnel are not willing to on the record today, under penalty of perjury, certifying that they have not used any non-official communion systems while conducting NSA operations, activities, or combinations.

* * *

There are some serious problems for the NSA IG and Members of Congress to review.

The OIG is authorized access to all information, records, reports, documents, electronic systems/material, personnel and physical areas at NSA/CSS HQ and at all field sites.

___ Why are the records with Q2 indicating who has or has not disclosed classified information not included statements on use of non-secure e-mail and non-secure instant messaging using official NSA resources to conduct communication, discussion, and planning between NSA employees, outside entities and intermediaries?

* * *

The OIG has several areas of responsibility. With regard to oversight, the OIG is responsible for overseeing compliance with Executive Order 12333 and related implementing directives and regulations to ensure the lawful execution of intelligence operations.

___ When does NSA IG and the IOB plan to review all NSA combinations to determine who has violated Executive Order 12333 and has illegally classified evidence that NSA employees have been using non-official communication systems to transact business?

* * *

Results of their oversight efforts are reported to the Department of Defense and the President's IOB.

___ What has the IOB not been reviewing this breach in security?

___ When does the IOB plan to review this breach of NSA communications?

___ How long has the President, White House counsel, and National Security Council known about this use of non-official communications systems by personnel in the intelligence community?

* * *

In addition, the Deputy Director, NSA, chairs an NSA Intelligence Oversight Board consisting of the Deputy Director, the Inspector General, and the General Counsel.

___ When does the NSA General Counsel plan to discuss their knowledge of the evidence and document retention requirements?

___ Why has there been insufficient auditing of the NSA commendations systems to thwart, detect, or prosecute NSA personnel who are using non-official communication systems to conduct Agency planning and official business?

* * *

The Board conducts oversight reviews of NSA activities. The NSA General Counsel as well as an office within the Directorate of Operations conduct oversight activities as well.

___ Why has the IOB not reviewed this use of non-official NSA commendations system?

___ Who has refused to certify in writing to the IOB that they have not used unofficial communion systems within the NSA to conduct NSA business; or communicate with entities and contractors related to the NSA?

* * *

NSA/CSS has its own internal oversight process within the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The OIG has the authority to conduct inspections, audits and investigations to ensure that NSA/CSS operates with integrity, efficiency and effectiveness.

___ Who has been blocking NSA OIG from reviewing the non-secure communication systems NSA employees are reviewing?

___ What's the reason the NSA General Counsel has not timely reviewed these issues in light of the White House and RNC e-mail retention "problem" in re the US Attorney firings?

* * *

Summation

NSA IG and NSA General Counsel have a common problem. Personnel linked with the NSA are allegedly complicit with illegal activity. Personnel include individuals who have cooperated in the illegal use of data used to detain, abuse, kidnap, and summarily execute without trail. Any abuse NSA personnel have been complicit may be adjudicated as war crimes.

NSA personnel in violation of the laws of war, have attempted to use non-official e-mail and instant messaging systems to thwart detection by war crimes prosecutors. These are alleged subsequent crimes under the laws of war.

Geneva permits retaliatory acts by foreign fighters under the laws of war to enforce Geneva. NSA IG and the NSA IOB must decide whether they are going to side with the Conventions, Congress, the Constitution, and We the People; or whether they are going to advance illegal warfare by this President.

IF NSA IG refuses to cooperate with Congress and war crimes prosecutors in identifying the NSA personnel who have engaged in these war crimes; or used the non-official commutation methods to thwart detection of, but implement war crimes, the NSA IG may be adjudicated with war crimes.

If you refuse to cooperate, you may be lawfully targeted by foreign fighters using methods which the Congress has not stopped, and the President said were permissible: Summary execution without trial; no access to secret evidence, and abuse after detention, and no prosecute you may be able to appeal the summary judgment without a fair trial. This remain on the table as a lawful option for foreign fighters.

Cooperate with this war crimes investigation; or foreign fighters may take this despite to the battlefield and expand combat operations worldwide against NSA-related entities, personnel, contractors, officials, and intermediaries worldwide. Remedy your alleged rebellion against the rule of law and laws of war now.

Read more . . .

NSA Personnel Use Pidgin Instant Messaging To Coordinate Activites

The National Security Agency at Fort Meade has learned well from the White House e-mail retention problems. Or so they thought.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Senator Leahy, charged with enforcing the laws of war against the United States government, has some comments for the White House, NSA, DoJ, and intelligence community: You have no credibility and you will respond to the subpoenas related to this electronic data.

The NSA has been linked with the Pidgin private messaging system which appears to circumvent the data retention requirements. This link discusses how to analyze the NSA's Pidgin IM messaging system which the NSA personnel have been using; where to look for the information; and how to analyze the NSA personnel actions when they use this non-official, commercial product for ongoing communications.

Karl Rove has been using Windows. This link goes into an analysis of the bookmarks and cache system outside counsel at Sidley Austin are familiar. There is no credibility to any White House assertion that they did not have enough guidance on document retention standards. Sidley Austin was available to conduct peer reviews and IT audits of the White House counsel policies, guidance, and memoranda.

Investigators from Congress and international war crimes prosecutors are encouraged to review the NSA personnel in their procurement office to determine why the NSA is discussing contracts to hire, use, and work with agencies and entities that place personnel in non-official cover status in the United States.

* * *

___ What is the plan of Congress to subpoena all records related to the NSA Pidgin system as it relates to war crimes, prisoners abuse, illegal warrants, inappropriate use of NSLs, transfer of data to target lawful activity, or other US government actions to thwart enforcement of the laws of war?

___ When did Sidley Austin discuss document retention standards with the White House counsel's office?

___ When will Members of Congress review all third-party orders and direction by the NSA legal counsel to delegate from their cache system all records and evidence related to the US of any instant messaging sytem to coordinate any official activity?

___ What is the plan today to scan for the Pidgin system on all NSA employee work stations, NSA contractors, and other intermediaries affiliated directly or indirectly with the intelligence community, White House, DoJ, and Republican Party?

___ When will the NSA IG discuss their plan with Members of Congress to use certified fraud examiners to review the time lines, data, and other evidence NSA personnel have sent using instant messaging systems?

___ Is there a reason that the National Security Agency personnel are using AOL and the Pidgin system to coordinate the use of CIA contract employees inside the United States?

___ When does the NSA plan to fully disclose to Congress their operational plans, communications, and other data sent through these instant messages as they relate to coordination unlawful use of illegally captured information for the FBI to self-issue National Security Letters; or support illegal surveillance; or support unlawful kidnapping referred to as rendition?

___ When does NSA IG plan to discuss the document retention standards applicable to NSA personnel using these commercial instant messaging systems?

___ What are the reasons why NSA is using commercial products to coordinate NSA official activities?

___ Why are these non-secure products being used at any time by personnel associated with the National Security Agency?

___ What is the status of Q2's investigation into personnel who have been using these instant messaging systems?

___ Is the intent of the IM system so that under polygraph NSA personnel can affrimatiley say, "I have not used e-mail to discuss classified information"?

___ Why have NSA personnel been incorrectly told that illegal activity, war crimes, and other unlawful violations of the laws of war, when classified, cannot be discussed; or that activity is appropriate use of e-mail and IM systems?

___ When does the NSA legal counsel plan to remind NSA personnel that it is illegal to classify evidence of war crimes; put a gag order on NSA personnel or contractors related to war crimes or illegal activity; and that it is not lawful to create a contract vehicle or use contract language that compels contractors to remain silent about illegal warfare or activity which puts into effect rendition, prisoner abuse, illegal warrants, or FISA violations?

___ Why isn't NSA Q2 specifically asking why NSA personnel are not using instant messaging systems to engage in illegal activity, or plan official NSA operations?

___ Reason why NSA personnel are discussing methods to use commercial products which are not designed to interface, retain, or store data for Members of Congress?

___ When did NSA IG Plan to present these findings to the Congress?

___ Given the high visibility of the White House e-mail retention problem, did it not enter the minds of NSA management or the NSA IG that this instant messaging product requires some sort of legal memorandum?

___ How did the NSA leadership plan to incorporate the lessons learned from the White House and properly issue guidance to retain all e-mails and instant messages that the NSA personnel have been sending?

___ What coordination has there been between NSA and CIA-related entities to target, track, and monitor personnel using NSLs?

___ Why is the National Security Agency interfacing with entities designed to circumvent the United States Code?

___ How many of the NSA personnel assigned to Ft. Meade or their contracting facilities are knowlwedable of the information going between intermediaries, NSA contractors, and other firms related to the of illegally captured information for purposes of abusing prisoners of war?

___ When did the NSA management plan to discuss with Congress their knowledge that the NSA personnel were interfacing with entities, personnel, and other government agents and contractors who have been implicated in war crimes?

___ Is there a reason that the NSA senior management has not reviewed the scope of contracts the NSA has with entities which illegally use information; or transfer that information to personnel assigned by those entities for purpose of committing war crimes?

___ What is the explanation the National Security Agency has for allowing personnel assigned to the NSA to use commercial instant messaging systems; but there be no adequate explanation why those products are linked with commercial entities used to support war crimes, implement Geneva violations, or carry out unlawful acts of war?

___ What role did the NSA procurement office have in acquiring non-official instant messaging systems used to coordinate information transfer from the NSA to support illegal kidnapping, prisoners abuse, and war crimes?

___ When does the NSA IG plan to discuss how the NSA personnel were using instant messaging systems to coordinate the transfer of information, people, and data from the NSA to the CIA for purposes of disseminating illegally captured information used to engage in war crimes, kidnap civilians, engage in prisoner abuse, and schedule the transport of personnel across international borders?

___ Does the NSA IG have any plan to review the use of NSA personnel use of instant messaging to transfer data from the NSA to commercial entities used to manage the NSA domestic surveillance program?

___ When does the NSA plan to fully cooperate with a war crimes investigation into use of NSA resources to support, implement, and carry out violations of the laws of war?

Read more . . .

Proposed FISA Changes No Help To President

John M. "Mike" McConnell released some meaningless changes to FISA which do not help the President, even if retroactively applied.

Ref The Proposed FISA changes, even if implemented, would not have legalized what the President has done.

This analysis shows there remain many questions which the Congress needs better information.

The proposed changes sound like efforts to incorporate NSL-related abuses and illegal activity the DOJ IG identified.

* * *

1. US Nationals were monitored without approval of FISA;

2. Even if standards of proof were revised, the President has been ignoring them.

3. Even if warrants were extended from 120 to one year, Gonzalez still ignored the FISA court;

4. Whether phone companies have civil immunity for violations i meaningless when those data captures are used to support prisoner abuses and war crimes.

5. Even if emergency warrants were extended from 72 hours to one week, Gonzalez ignored the FISA court and did not get extensions well after many months.

6. Even if the above changes were available, it's not clear why the White House was conducting illegal activity prior to Sept 2001.

Read more . . .

Potential War Crimes Evidence At Republican National Lawyers Association

RNC lawyers inside the Department of Justice have allegedly attempted to remove information which could be probative for a war crimes tribunal. Evidence destruction is not a good thing when it is linked with alleged war crimes. Bad timing, RNLA. If you had nothing to hide, why are you . . . uh, hiding it?

This is on top of the fatally admitted White House violations of the Presidential records act. Looks liked DOJ Staff counsel working for RNLA well knew the FBI had all but elinated their reviews of white collar crime: How much did they expect the FBI to turn its back on government corruption inside the Department of Justice? If you have a President you know is blocking the DOJ OPR from reviewing matters, the RNLC looks like it has a free reign to commit war crimes and no one would do anything.

Reportedly, at least fifty [50 White House staffers have not cimplied. This number seems low in that there are over 1,000 staffers. SOme like Rove send 95% o ftheir e-mail throu the private e-mails; and the RNC purges the e-mail every 30 days.

Not to worry, Ref Here's the archive of the site that they've attempted to remove. We will find the names, and understand why the GOP has attempted to apparently thwart enforcement of the laws of war.

Note, there is a compare option which facilitates the speedy identification of which names have been added or subtracted. Were the GOP lawyers aware that the additional changes could be very easily tracked? Apparently, not.

* * *

Prosecutor Contact Details

Ref ICC Prosecutor

Ref German

Ref Milan, Italy

* * *

War Crimes: Are the DOJ Staff Counsel Connected with the RNLA Better or Worse Than The Nazi Lawyers?

Unlike WWII Germany that did confront Hitler on Geneva and War Crimes, the DOJ Staff appears to have not even met the standards of the Third Reich:

Further evidence concerning the problem of terror flyers, through examination of the witnesses Colonel-General Jodl and Field-Marshal Keitel, proves that not only the Foreign Office but Herr von Ribbentrop personally had pledged themselves in principle to uphold the Geneva Convention, and that Herr von Ribbentrop together with other leading personalities took pains to assure the retention of at least the basic human principles, even approaching Hitler at his most ruthless periods.Ref

Evidence destruction is not what one would call a "retention of basic principles" but the oppoiste: Recklessness. Very disappointing that the American legal community has been linked with war crimes, and has not met the standards of even the Nazi lawyers.

The evidence before us suggest the DOJ Staff counsel, as evidenced by the Bybee Memo failed to meet the Geneva Standards even the Third Reich, at times, attempted to meet. Unlike Staff counsel who attempted to confront Hitler over Geneva, the lazy DOJ Staff counsel refused to confront the President, but did the opposite than the Nazis: Enabled war crimes. Not good timing to disclose this RNLA evidence deletion.

Here is the evidence that the DOJ Staff counsel is no better than the Nazi lawyers who were adjudicated with war crimes.

* * *

If the DOJ Staff counsel have been linked with war crimes -- as does appear to be the case, as evidenced by the DOJ IG report of illegal activity -- the effort to remove names could be a subsequent offense under the laws of war to hide from war crimes prosecutors evidence of personnel allegedly complicit with war crimes. How many RNC lawyers could this allegedly obstruction of justice in re war crimes relate to?

What else did the president hope to suppress related to war crimes by blocking the DOJ OPR investigation?

The name removal could be very serious. Not nice to hide evidence of alleged war crimes; or attempt to thwart war crimes prosecutors from enforcing the Geneva Conventions. Could be a subsequent crimes under laws of war adjudicated with the death penalty.

For stupid Republican lawyers that means: You will not be able to practice law. Very stupid for RNC lawyers not to read SecDef 5100.77 Laws of War Program; or your attorney standards of conduct prohibiting illegal activity and evidence destruction. Nuremberg suggests you could be prosecuted for doing bad things which interfere with ongoing war crimes investigations.

* * *

The questions war crimes prosecutors are asking:

____ What is the relationship between [a] appointment of DOJ Counsel; [b] their contributions to the GOP; [c] their activity within the RNLA; and [d] whether the legal positions are in favor with various judicial organizations?

____ Are staff counsel related with the RNLA more likely to get favorable peer reviews if they show a lack of interest in enfolding the laws of war?

____ How many of the RNLA DoJ Staff counsel have been rewarded with promotions within the American Bar Association because they refused to enforce the laws of war; or blocked the Genevra Conventions investigations?

____ Which DOJ Staff counsel linked with alleged violations of the laws of war were using their connections with the RNLA to thwart enforcement of the laws of war against DOJ, DoD, and White House officials?

____ How were RNLA staff counsel assigned to the DOJ communicating when discussing these illegal policies, plans, coordination, and efforts to thwart enforcement of Geneva?

____ Did the RNLA staff counsel assigned to the DOJ relay the information to the President of ongoing DOJ OPR concerns related to FISA violations and war crimes, prompting the President to block the DOJ OPR review and thwart enforcement of Geneva?

____ What role does the RNLA staff counsel organization play in acting as a hidden peer-review system which thwarts enforcement of the law; but retaliates against peer counsel who attempt to do what their oath of office requires; Enforce the laws of war against the lazy clerk sitting in the oval office?

____ How much money did the RNLA staff counsel assigned to the DOJ provide to the GOP in exchange for promises not to enforce tough peer reviews, or block DOJ OPR from revieiwng the GOP staff counsel's attorney conduct in re war crimes and illegal FISA violations?

____ What relationship did the RNLA Staff counsel inside DoJ, White House, and DOD have with illegal efforts to thwart public citizens from raising issues of war crimes?

____ What was the knowledge of RNLA Staff counsel of alleged illegal efforts to detain, intimidate, and abuse New York Citizens who were raising issues of war crimes an illegal warfare?

____ Why did RNLA Staff counsel allegedly participate in organizing efforts, communication, planning and other combinations to thwart enforcement of Geneva?

____ Who has a phone list of the RNLA Staff counsel assigned to the RNC Convention HQ meeting in 2004 in NYC?

____ Was there an effort by Justice Staff counsel to encourage the Secret Service to target people who had the copies of these cell phones of RNLA Staff counsel allegedly complicit in efforts to block enforcement of Geneva?

____ what is the connection between RNLA Staff counsel, outside lobbyists, and funds transfers in and out of the Middle East related to efforts to wage illegal warfare, conduct illegal trips, or plan unlawful activity which violates the laws of war?

____ What are the names of the staff counsel assigned to these outside entities, and what is their relationship to the RNLA?

____ Did RNLA indirectly support the staff counsel assigned to conduct these trips so that Justice Officials would be able to more effectively implement illegal warfare, and thwart enforcement of Geneva when prisoners were abused in violation of Geneva?

____ How often did the RNLA interact with the White House counsel's office?

____ Is there a reason that the White House staff counsel has been reluctant to comment publicly on the missing e-mails and RNC documents supposedly used to coordinate the confrontation with the US Attorneys?

____ How must coordination did the RNLA have in the development of prisoner abuse doctrine; or were involved in FISA violations?

____ How many of the RNLA staff counsel, when the Attorney General said they were too busy processing warrants, were actually not working on FISA requirements, but were using official government resources to organize, implement, and support illegal warfare from the Department of Justice?

____ How long did the staff counsel inside the Department of Justice believe that heir internal communications using non-official e-mails would go undetected?

____ Was there a reason that the Staff counsel, despite restrictions against using official resources for illegal purposes, decided to use the DoJ Staff counsel resources to coordinate war crimes with outside entities during official hours?

____ Did you not think that your transcripts from your office would not be captured; and that your discussions without side contractors related to war crimes, illegal activity, and other things would not be captured, known, and left in archive?

Stupid Republican lawyers inside the Department of Justice.

"Stupid Republican lawyer" is triple-redundant. It would be easier to call them what they well comprehend: "Retarded."

* * *

Potential War Crimes Evidence

Not closely at the archive. The last change was recorded in April 2006, less than a year ago.

Suddenly out of the blue, they changed theri content in 2007.

___ What prompted the changed?

___ Why the rush?

___ Why attempt to remove names that were well archived?

Date changes: Notice they've done nothing for a year, since 2006 . . .

Jan 01, 2006
Jan 02, 2006
Jan 03, 2006
Jan 05, 2006
Jan 09, 2006
Jan 18, 2006
Apr 02, 2006 *
Apr 13, 2006
Apr 24, 2006

Read more . . .

War Crimes Discovery Into Member of Congress Unofficial E-mail Systems

War Crimes prosecutors in Germany and Italy are aware of the e-mail related to war crimes evidence going into private e-mail accounts of Member of Congress and Staff counsel working for Congress.

Normally Members of Congress look only at the Executive Branch in re their document retention requirements.

However, given the War Crimes investigation is targeting all three branches of government -- the current problem with the US Attorney e-mail retention problem with the RNC also goes into Congress.

* * *



When conducting a war crimes investigation, the issue isn't simply who committed war crimes, but who also had the duty to report, and prevent war crimes.

Nuremburg is precedent for attaching war crimes discovery to the Legislatures, especially when they have the legal and political tools of impeachment.

One issue is the Member of Congress knowledge of the illegal activity, and their refusal to enforce the laws of war.

Unlike a dictatorship that has all power in one branch of government, the US Government has three branches. This doesn't mean that the entire problem rests with the executive, but the reverse.

All policy making -- from legislation, enforcement, and interpretation of that policy -- spreads across all three branches.

War crimes prosecutors are aware of the e-mails send into and out of non-official communications system inside the White House, RNC, and Department of Justice.

However, the problem with non-official e-mails and data retention isn't isolated to the President or White house.

Members of Congress and their staff who use private e-mail accounts, and have been provided information related to war crimes, but have not acted on that information have a problem.

Just as the RNC thought they could get around some archiving requiring requirements if they sent it through non-official e-mails, the Members of Congress also have the same problem. It appears they were using non-official e-mails to receive information related to concerns and warning about war crimes which they have openly discussed.

The records show that the Members of Congress in using the private e-mail systems are not able to remove a link or trace between their official duty to act and the motivation of the evidence of war crimes they have no acted upon.

The war crimes prosecutors will need your specific assistance in finding other information related to this e-mal traffic:

A. When were war crimes issues against Members of Congress known to have been documented in the Congressional Correspond logs;

B. Despite an ethics requirements under the House or Senate rules to review these issues, when did the Secrete Meetings choose not to enforce the laws of war;

C. Despite the e-mail traffic prior to the Military Commissions Act passed, what reason did Members of Congress have to include language in the Act that would reward US Government officials for inaction on war crimes and pay their full funding?

Once Members of Congress put the language in the bill, the question changes from whether they knew or didn't know about war crimes; but how long they knew about through the private e-mails war crimes, but refused to act as required under the Nuremburg Precedents.

What would be helpful if you could reconstruct your phone calls, other memoranda, and written communications you may have provided to Members of Congress and their staff; and then outline the times, dates, and topics of discussion. Ideally, it would focus on the war crimes related issues.

Then what can be done is find out to what extent the Official Member of Congress e-mail does or does not capture this communication. If there is official e-mail that only captures a portion of the known discussion on war crimes, we’ll get an idea of the volume of data the RNC and Member of Congress were moving out side the system.

Also, when you forward your information to war crimes prosecutors, it will be helpful to get an idea if you made multiple calls to DC; or to your Congressional Office is your local district. What will be done is review your times you called; then compare the working papers in the Staff Counsel and Member of Congress notes to see whether those concerns were tallied and provided to the Senior staff inside the Various committees, for the Member of Congress, or cross flowed into the RNC or the Department.

The key will be to show that Member of Congress staff were notified, did get a specific request for a response, and that there should be a certain number of Congressional Correspond topics on war crimes. What will be interesting is to notice which of the Congressional Correspond logs related to war crimes issues are incomplete; or how they might have been documenting these concerns elsewhere; or whether the known communications going into the Congress on war crimes was not adequately retained.

The issue will be: To what extent, despite the known war crimes, were members of Congress directing staff to ignore war crimes issues and evidence; not documenting concerns about war crimes; yet, we can show that specific discussions occurred on war crimes; and these were deliberately conducted outside the official Member of Congress electronic archiving, and sent via non-official mechanism.

We already know they’ve been reviewing war crimes evidence using non-official e-mails. The issue is getting the public to share this information, and encourage your friends that there is something they can do right now – totally outside Congressional control – that will help war crimes prosecutors get an independent look of what should have been happening inside Congress, but is not supported by the official records, Title 28 and Title 50 documentation, and not into the Congressional Correspond logs.

What You Can Do

Let your friends know that any discussion, letter, e-mail, note, or communication they may have had with any member of Congress needs to be publicly discussed. You don’t have to identify yourself; we’re just interested in the names of the Staff counsel you contacted; the approximate time of day; the nature of your call related to what questions and issues you raised about war crimes; and what kind of response you were promised.

What we talk about war crimes, we're talking about the following:

A. Prisoner abuse;

B. Rendition;

C. Capture of information illegally used to support rendition;

D. FISA violations used to target people illegally and abuse them;

E. Efforts to not enforce the laws of war;

F. Member of Congress knowledge of illegal activity under Geneva, but their failure to investigate, act, or review the evidence;

G. Member of Congress notification of legal issues related to the above, but their failure to document their concerns; and despite assistance of legal counsel, not forward their war crimes-related concerns to the US Attorney, DOD/DOJ Inspector Genera

H. Evidence member of Congress were notified of legal issues directly or indirectly related to illegal prisoner abuse, but their failure to review the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports

I. Active intimidation of public officials and private citizens from raising issues, discussing the war crimes, or attempt to take lawful action to bring these war crimes related charges, evidence, or investigation to the attention to Members of Congress;

J. Coordination by Members of Congress and State Officials to block state proclamations calling for Congress to investigate war crimes

K. Evidence Members of Congress received e-mail, news, summaries of Geneva Concerns, but did not act on that information;

L. Evidence Members of Congress were knowledgeable of the videos taken at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, or elsewhere, but did not timely review this evidence of war rimes; and did not review the e-mails, documentation, or other supporting information showing the evidence was related to war crimes;

M. Evidence Members of Congress have had briefings on FISA violations, renditions, prisoner abuse, and they incorporated this information into legislation to circumvent enforcement of the laws of war;

N. Evidence Members of Congress knew about the retroactive changes to the statues which violated the laws of war, and described new crimes as being war crimes which is illegal under the laws of war;

O. Evidence Members of Congress and staff counsel knew, discussed, or were aware that funds were being set aside to reward, compensate, and cover the legal costs of their peers and staff who did not fully assert their oath to enforce the Geneva Conventions;

P. Copies of the e-mails between the White House, RNC, Member of Congress, and staff counsel related to war crimes, illegal prisoner abuse, and efforts to not enforce the laws of war despite fatal admissions by staff counsel that prisoner abuse was occurring

Q. Spikes in communication around key events -- Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Eastern Europe -- but no noticeable change in the staffing assignments or action one might expect if the laws of war were being reviewed as required

R. Evidence Staff counsel in Congress knew of the 5100.77 laws of war program, failed to respond to concerns that JAGs and DOD or DOJ Staff counsel were not enforcing Geneva; or evidence that they knew of plans, programs, and polices of the President and others to target defense counsel attempting to enforce the laws of war.

S. Evidence Members of Congress were aware that JAGs were being intimidated – as were the US Attorneys – to not prosecute war crimes cases; or that JAGs were being asked to assent to war crimes; or JAGs were being asked to retroactively change their opinion on whether the Military Commissions Act was or was not lawful under the laws of war

T. Any evidence that any Member of Congress, staff counsel, or any US Government official took any action to block, dissuade, not enforce, or rebuff any attempt to report, investigate, or taken action to enforce the laws of war

U. Any evidence that Members of Congress -- despite a Nuremburg precedent linking a failure to impeach to enforce Geneva with war crimes – ignored the laws of war, did not impeach, made active effort to thwart impeachment, and how this decision was linked with what they knew, or should have known, was required to enforce the laws through impeachment.

V. Evidence Members of Congress knew that US government officials, contractors, or other indirect intermediaries had contracts, cover stories, training, or other assignments what would put them in a position to know about Geneva Violations; but these violations of the Conventions were not forward as required

W. Evidence that Members of Congress hanged the subject from whether contractors could or could not be prosecuted under the laws of war – they can – to whether Contractors were or were not subject to the UCMJ – irrelevant.

X. Evidence Members of Congress knew of White House, DOJ, DoD, or other staff counsel memoranda authorization, not enforcing, or failing to prevent abuse against prisoners; or pretending that “because it was not torture, it wasn’t a war crimes.” Prisoners when the are abused, regardless whether it is or is not torture, have been treated in volition of the laws of war.

Y. Evidence Members of Congress knew about prisoner of war reports – after their release to civilian life -- related to their abuse, mistreatment or Geneva violations, but ignored these press repots, did not act on them, or were reckless in not reviewing the information that was known to have been provided to them in the daily summaries, commentaries, and talking points.

Z. Copies of talking points, memos, meeting minutes, signed policy memos, budgets, e-mails or anything that would show that Members of Congress, staff counsel, the RNC or anyone knew of talking points to explain away violations of Geneva and pretend that the issue was trivial; copies of notes made to developing these talking points;

AA. Copies of the contracts with DoD, NSA, or DOJ intermediaries or contactors that illegally authorize the suppression of war crimes evidence; or put gag orders on contractors to keep quiet about war crimes committed by anyone

BB. Copies of coordinating e-mail members of Congress were forwarded related to prisoner transfers out of their district; courtesy copies of sample flight schedules and manifests related to illegal kidnapping and transfer of prisoners in re rendition to eastern Europe and the names of the contractors assigned to those scheduling and transport systems that were known to be linked with specific members of Congress who earmarked funds and other valuable consideration to contactors in their district to support war crimes.

Again, the issue isn’t just the original evidence of war crimes; but whether Members of Congress, when notified of this illegal activity through the non-official communications systems which are known to have occurred did or did not do what they should have done under the laws of war.

* * *

Using your information, the war crimes prosecutors will be able to sample the available e-mails they have been provided, and get a feel for how much of the public conversations have not been captured; and get a sense right now how much evidence Congress, the RNC, and Staff Counsel working for the Republicans has deliberately destroyed to break the link. The evidence you have will be important to get a feel for which Members of Congress were contacted; what actions they should have taken under Title 28 and Title 50 to follow up with the DOJ and DOD IG; and whether Staff counsel did or did not document the concerns using the official correspond logs; or whether they sent the information another route.

Rest assured, the Members of Congress involved, and who did not do what they should have done know they have a problem. The key will be to remind your friends that there is something they can do today – 10 April 2007, well ahead of the May 2007 budget reviews, to outline the scope of the Member of Congress complicity with war crimes and to what extent this failed to fully assert their legal requirement they had under the Nuremberg Precedents to enforce the laws of war.

This is a real thing that you and your friends can actually do to remind Members of Congress that they need to cooperate. This is very serious business. If Members of Congress are not cooperative with your request, or subsequent calls on these war crimes issues, by all means forward that and let your friends know about. Every little piece of information you have about war crimes, and whether the RNC when it controlled Congress did or did not do what it should will be important. Every little piece o information matters. Do not for a minute believe that your single conversation isn’t important. It may be enough to tip the balance.

This is unfolding very quickly. The GOP has some major war crimes evidence problems right now. They are stuck: They have too much time until the 2008 election, not enough people to clean this mess up, no plan, and there is no statute of limitations. After this is done, do not be surprised if you see the GOP decimated as a political party. It is that serious. There are people who may be lawfully adjudicated with war crimes and lawfully executed.

Read more . . .

Iraqis Demonstrate For Change, Mr. President

Ref War Criminal Bush, leave the lands of the Iraqi people.

Iraq has an ancient culture and do not need your recklessness. Before you invaded, they had safety, drinking water, and safe streets. It wasn't perfect. But neither is America. Perhaps "imperfection" is the new legal standard for foreign fighters to destroy America? Addington knows about imperfection: He sees it in the mirror.

War criminal Bush, your occupation is not welcome in Iraq. Change means going away, not staying.

* * *

The People of Iraq voted for Change: They do not want you. They want their country.

Go away. Leave.

Why do you ignore the Iraqi call for change?

You are a dictator, and are disingenuous with your claim that you are concerned about Iraqi freedom. The People of Iraq have voted; and they protest.

You are not welcome. Go away.

Change means leaving, not making excuses to act like Saddam.

When you show the world you're willing to change course in Iraq, and leave, the world might believe you have an open mind.

Until then, your mind has not changed.

Fine. The lawful attacks on your military troops should not be expected to end. They are illegally occupying Iraq. That is not change, but more of the arrogant abuse of power the American supposedly liberated Europe from.

Change means not repeating the errors of Hitler and using the world's opposition to your barbarity to expand your abuse of power.

Change means complying with the laws of war, not pretending you are a leader.

Change means surrendering and resigning, not abusing power.

Change means finding new leaders for the Department of Justice, not sticking by those who put their loyalty to you above their loyalty to the Constitution.

Change means accepting that the Speaker has the power to shut down the Federal Government decertify the DoJ, and not provide you with any money. You are not enforcing the laws of war. You are not changing.

Change means accepting that you are powerless otmake Congress do anything that provides funding to your war crimes. You are not ending illegal warfare. You are not changing.

As long as you refuse to change, there is no reason the Iraqi insurgency or Taliban should change. They will fight, expand their operations, and get more support against the arrogant Americans who refuse to change.

America's President refuses to change. Iraqi people have changed: You are not welcome. Go away. You have overstayed your welcome in Iraq. And America.

Change means resigning.

Read more . . .

Gozalez View on Habeas vs. Refusal To Cooperate On US Atty E-mails

War Crimes Investigation: Habeas Privilege and Gonzalez Title 28 Violations

The DoJ refusal to respond to subpoenas sheds light on their operations and willingness to cooperate with War Crimes Investigators. [War crimes: Negligence, malfeasance, recklessness]

There is a basis in history and law to examine the chance of other illegal activity linked with the original frauds. It is imprudent to put the blinders on, and only look at things in isolation. Ref Consider: What other frauds have been committed in the wake of a fraudulent war?

The AG Refusal to respond to the House Judiciary subpoena on US Attorney e-mails is a basis to conclude that the DOJ views similar refusal -- to do or not do what is prohibited; or do or not do what it should -- as "permissible."

In light of the unfortunate decision of the Department of Justice to not respond to House Judiciary subpoenas -- nor cooperate with oversight on the grounds of what is permissible -- adverse inferences are appropriate.

It is reasonable for the Congress to presume all things Gonzalez (rightly or wrongly) said the Constitution did not protect or enforce, as things that the President and AG Have agreed to not allow, respect, recognize, agree with, enforce, or protect, despite the requirement to the contrary.

They have most likely drafted memorandum, contract language, executive orders and other planning guidance impermissibly "permitting" others to not respect this privilege and other rights; and illegally have hidden these memorandum and contracts behind the shield of executive privilege.

They have most likely redefined the illegal activity as something that is "permissible" knowing this is a ruse to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, Supreme Law, Constitution, and oath of office requirements.

Although ORCON prohibits classification of illegal orders, this did not stop the President and Attorney General from enacting programs which violated FISA, Geneva Conventions, or the Constitution.

Ref Title 28 imposes a requirement on Gonzalez to report in writing his decision not to enforce the law.

Gonzalez needs to explain in writing as required by Title 28 which statutes he is not enforcing by permitting violations of Habeas privilege. All White House and DoJ Staff counsel memorandum, budget documents, signed policy memos, e-mails, meeting minutes, presentations and notes putting these illegal orders and decisions into effect are illegal and discoverable by Congress and War Crimes Prosecutors.

Ref Case study: Gonzalez approach to legal language.

Ref Audit Indicators [SAS99]: Types of illegal activity Gonzalez and President would "permit" under this "it is not required to be proteced"-doctrine.

* * *

Congress should examine AG Gonzalez comments in re Hebeas in the context of what Gonzalez in his mind has permitted DOJ to "not protect" Habeas. He views "not protecting" a privilege as acceptable: He must have policies, memos, and work flows in DOJ putting this view into effect.

___ If, in the mind of Gonzalez, the Constitution only prohibits Congress from suspending of Hebases, could the President and AG pass a rule, work flow, or issue an executive order that prohibits enforcement or protection of that privilege?

- -

Indeed. He must have said his perverse rules on the Constitution for a reason and was on his mind because he thought about it. Let's see the memos and work flows related to this DOJ Planning. If it's "legal to not fully protect, enforce, or secure Habeas" (in the mind of Gonzalez) he should not have a problem with the Congress reviewing all e-mails related to these discussions, plans and unlawful violations of the CDonstution.

___ What has Gonzalez or the President permitted, not stopped, or silently allowed DoJ (or DoD, or anyone or entity ) to do to "not enforce" Habeas?

* * *

Recall Gonzalez comments on Habeas: That the Constitution does not compel protection of the right. For now, let's accept this illegal assertion. Then let the DOJ Staff suffer the same consequences:

___ Why should Congress "protect" a right of Goodling that, he says, no one is required to protect.

___ Why not say that Congress can pass a rule saying that DOJ Staff counsel may not enforce their right or privilege; or challenge the decision of Congress to put them in solitary confinement?

* * *

Anyting the AG says does not have to be protected in the Constitution, Congress is not required to recognize against the DOJ Staff counsel. If, as the AG (incorrectly) asserts, there is no right to have Hbeas enforced, then Congress may take any action which the AG says is OK, and "Not enforce" Habeas for DOJ Staff counsel.

If it is "permissible" under Geneva for water boarding to be imposed, then Members of Congress should ask why DoJ Staff counsel should not be subjected to the same treatment that the Staff counsel said was permissible for prisoners of war.

How does Goodling like the idea of water boarding, solitary confinement, and a decision by Congress to "not enforce" Habeas should she challenge the decision of Congress to have her arrested?

Either:

A. Gonzalez got it wrong (he did); OR

B. Gonzalez was right and Congress is not required to respect any right of Goodling;

C. Congess is not required to respect any DOJ Staff counsel claim of privilege or privacy.

There's nothing in the CONsttion that protects the right of DOJS taff counsel to engage in war crimes and plan illegal activity.

* * *

Reality Check

Unless a right is protected, it is suspended: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended

Government either is neutral, protects, or it violates a right.

* * *

Implications of Gonzlaez statement in Re Title 28

If the Government is not ensuring that habeas has not been suspected, it is not protecting the right as required; nor is it remaining neutral. Being silent about abuses is hardly permissible in that it is assenting to a suspension of the right. Unless a privilege is preserved, not necessary protected, then it is illegally suspended.

When Gonzalez said there is no protection for Habeas, he's saying that he's not going to take enforcement action to ensure that it was not suspected.

This is illegal. Title 28 requires the Attorney General to report in writing all decisions he has to not enforce the law.

Range of Possible DOJ Abuses in Hidden Counsel Memorandum

Attorney General must have said the statements about Habeas for a reason. Recall his double talk on the FISA violations. It seems reasonable to presume the AG's comments reflect his thinking on what is permissible for DOJ To "not protect" the privilege.

___ What is the attorney generals view of what is permissible to "not protect" a privilege, despite the Title 28 duty to report decisions not to enforce the law?

___ If AG Gonzalez views Heabas privilege as not something that must be protected, what can AG Gonzalez -- in his view -- do to "not fully suspend" Habeas, just short of invasion or insurrection?

___ How does AG Gonzalez view Habeas as being something that can be violated, ignored, or not fully protected?

___ If Congress does not suspend Habeas, can the AG take action to not fully enforce the privilege?

___ How, through what methods or means, does AG Gonzalez view Habeas can be "not fully proteced or enforced," regardless whether there has been an insurrection or invasion?

___ Does AG Gonzalez view the restriction habeas, because it is Article I, as only relevant to a constraint on Congressional power, and silent on what the President may do to not enforce habeas?

Read more . . .