Okay, thanks. That cleared everything up!

Well, judging from this statement, Abertross WILL be correcting his statements to Leahy.

Sowing confusion. Job #1. Brought to you by your friendly terrorist surveillance network.

I just wanted to comment on the great work you guys at TPMmuckraker have done these past few years. You really have been at the forefront of forcing the media to finally talk about these things they would rather not shed a light on, as who was it? Broder? would want it to be.

Keep up the great work!

So if I understand this, everyone was fine with the legality of "...i.e., the interception of international communications of al Qaed...."

Makes sense...

But everything else within the TSP (i.e. all other activities within this Program)...Illegal and really bad...Enough so that the top (non-liberal) guys at DOJ wanted nothing to do with it.

This just makes me feel so much better, now that they explain it like this.

Is it possible that a component of "Project X" includes re-directing phone calls and emails, etc to a server or servers outside of the United States, then bouncing them back to the United States in order to "force" them into being "international"?

Do the phone companies, etc (the internet purveyors) own and operate servers outside of the United States? I can only imagine that they do. What if part of this program required them to redirect specified traffic/data (specific people, specific MAC addresses, specific IP addresses, specific email addresses, etc) to servers outside of the United States in order to then label them "international", thus circumventing the "international" requirement?

I wouldn't put it past this "administration" to do such a thing...given that they circumvent any and every law they feel like bypassing.

telling the truth is easy.

and why no big hoopla over that marine aide of cheney's that was caught with classifieddocs?

perhaps this is why cheney does not want anyone examining what is and is not missing from his office?

Steve5117:

I have long thought bush is a fascist leader.

This is absolute BS, the intent of a public sattement is to _clarify_: ["Confusion is inevitable when complicated classified activities are discussed in a public forum," ]

If there is "confusion" its because:
1. There is confusion within the President's mind;
2. THere are problems which have not been resolved;
3. There is no single story
4. THere is a problem, which has not been resolved with a single agreed upon facts
5. Those making the statements do not undersatnd what they're talking about
6. Theose making the statement have not taken teh taime to clarify the facts, get a straight story, or determine what is really going on.

Confusin is not in the mind of the listener/audience, but in the _sender_. Confusion will end when:

A. The President permits a credible oversight plan by the FISA court;
B. The FISA court is given full access to all records, and they are permitted to perform their Judiciary function: That of _Judgement_
C. ADverse inferences are made about the confusion
D. Gonzalez is replaced wtih tsomeone who takes the time to find answers, and explain -- in plain English -- what the inconsitencies are
E. Tehre is a plan on the table to impelement to resolve the problems, and ensure the DoJ Activites are consitent with FISA
F. There are independent auditors who are able to report that the problem-resolution plan is making progress; or that the problem is not being addressed.
G. We get some Certified Fraud Examiners in the area and being reviewing the RNC e-mails to find out why there is so much confusion
H. DoJ IT logs are reviewed to dtermine why STaff counsel is looking at non-official webistes, but is nottaking time to _clarifity_ what the AG is still confused about: Reality, facts, the law, FISA, the NSA
I. The NSA JROC Program Documentation for the FISA related surveillance is reviewed; then compared to what is going on
J. NSA contrators are subpeoneaed
K. Members of Congress make no notice visits to NSA contrators to find out where the money is going, what they are doing, and establish whether they are engaging in subpicious behavior
L. Congress has an NSA-like surveillence system to independentnly, audit, montior, and reivew the Exeutive Branch's compliance with FISA, record keeping requirements, and other data retnetion requirements.

Note also this problem: It is an assertion, without commenting on the questions about the other views: That there are _inconsteincies_: ["The May 17, 2006 letter from Director of National Intelligence Negroponte is consistent with the Attorney General’s testimony."] Again, this sounds more like the Berenson-approach to the Kyle Sampson testimony: Assert no problem, and then circle the wagons.

What a load of BS. We have nothing in the comments to justify confidence that there is consistency; and the comments in now way reconcile -- except by an assertion -- what has been openly quesetioned: The lines of inconsistencies _within Gonzalez own testimony_; we need not consider seriously whether Gonzalez testimony is or isn't consistent with someone elses: It's impossible: Gonzaelz cannot [a] contradict hismelf; but [b] be consitent with "all others". This defies reason.

Further, there's no basis to suggest that the May NSA Director letter is the _sole_ basis to define the program; or what is going on. This is something that is the FISA COurt's decision; and regardless the NSA director's _assertions_, it's up to the _FISA COurt_ to examine whether this assertion is supported by reality. Asserting one thing is different than proving it: The US government has the burden of proof _given_ the President _has_ admitted he was _not_ following FISA requirements; did not get warrants; and the FISA court was _not_, as required, involved.

All this staement is assert there is a "consistency" between person A and person B: For one goal: To distrat attention from teh real standards: FISA. Even if the statements "were" consistent, nothing would account for the _program's_ deviations from _the FISA standard_; even if the statements were consistent, the FISA vioaltiolns means the "consistent statments" mean they have _coordinated_ their responses relative to _illegal conduct_: That's alleged conspiracy.

It's a dubious proposition to assert soemthing is "consistent" when there is no straight story. The abuse statement issued doesn't solve anything,b ut raises more questions in the minds of the Grand Jury: What are these people tryign to distract us from; and how many other FISA vilations do they know about?

Overall, the statement issued does not appear credible or reliable. It's merely making assertions without evidence; and fails to discuss the other issues: The DOJ "White" paper isn't the same as FISA: nor has the FISA Court been able to get a clear story of [a] whether the total programs are or are not consistent with [b] the DOJ assertions or [c] what is lawful.
Who cares about the White Paper: We need to look at he real program under NSA-DoJ-WH oversight (or who in the NSA contracting world is actually running the alleged illegal activity):
Given the FISA briefings to Congress from the NSA, as documented in the release showing Pelosi's name, and the dates they were briefed after "this program" "started", we can only wonder what else is going on. Again, this statement is legalese, and doesn't really account for the other activity: ["Indeed, the white paper that the Department sent to Congress on January 19, 2006 reflects and is consistent with the legal position taken by the Department in 2004, including under Mr. Comey's tenure, concerning the legal basis for that activity."]
A. What other memoranda did the Congress get in the FISA briefings?
B. As with he Downing Street Dossier, what information in the "NSA briefing" or the "DOJ White Paper" is skewed based on distortions; but is not connected with reality?
C. What information in the "White Papers" is not consistent with the FISA briefings Members of Congress have apparently been gagged from talking about?
D. Does the [a] actual program compare with [b] the briefings given to Congress; and how does this match the [c] DoJ White Paper and [d] What the FISA court understands; or [e} What is really going on in the minds of the NSA contractors, President, intermediaries, and those involved with GOP-RNC e-mail destruction?
Putting above aside, let's focus on the "legal basis" argument -- that it was "consistent" -- that makes no sense: How could something -- which the President openly admitted was not consistent with FISA -- possibly have a "consistent legal foundation or argument" when [a] FISA is a standard; [b] the activity is not meeting FISA; and [c] The disagreements are evidence not of nothing new, but that the activity was not meeting FISA. This doesn't have to be proved; the issue of "what they disagreed about" is meaningless: The President's openly admitted there was illegal conduct.
It's a separate issue how far that illegal conduct spread, who was involved, and how many "other programs" there are: But we don't need to have all the answers, just a flavor: Nothing is adding up; and there's a smokescreen. That's not a problem: That inconsistency _itself_ is admissible to confirm _Despite_ the President's admission, Congress and the GOP-DNC still have no plan in place to come into compliance; and despite this "confusion" the Congress and President are _still_ spending money. That is an Article I Section 9 actionable offense: It's illegal for the US Government to spend money on _illegal_ things. Whether people disagree or not is a separate and irrelevant issue: As long as it known that there is illegal activity, the "lack of consensus" about that illegality is an irrelevant legislative-executive issue: It's a _criminal_ matter which neither the Congress nor President have the power to adjudicate.
Again, there's no mystery what is going on: The President, AG, and Congress are not doing what needs to be done: Launch this issue into the _Courts_ to have this litigated; and clear the way for some prosecutions: Who violated their 5 USC 3331 oath of office; when will the illegal activity be punished; and what is the nature of the oversight plan _of the courts_ to ensure this joint Congressional-Executive recklessness does not occur again.
UP to now, the statements issued appear to be nothing more than a public affairs effort by legal counsel to "Position" their client. Small problem: The Constitution is getting ignored, and We the People are the real client. Not impressed with this non-sense. The Grand Jury needs to take these statements, and compel those making them to certify their _relevance_ to the Grand Jury. This isn't a debate, it's an issue of alleged war crimes: Information appears to have been gleaned illegally; then used to support unlawful Geneva violations, prisoner abuse, and unlawful violations of the laws of war in treatment of prisoners of war.

litigatormom:

Clearly the Gang of Eight was confused over the proper use of the term.

"proper use of the term"

That's part of the disinformation!

Congress has the power to limit abuse of the state secrets privilege by codifying it, with limits, in the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Typical. Roehrkasse essentially says that Gonzales lied, but he did it to protect national security. So, it's OK. It's still perjury.

Gonzales did not say to Senators, "I can't discuss that in open session, but I'd be happy to do so in a private session, while reminding those Senators on the Intelligence Committee what we did in fact tell them at the time." He. Just. Lied. About a material fact, while under oath. Repeatedly.

No mistake. No correction. No credible distinctions beyond the simpleton parsing Roehrkasse repeats today, probably cribbing language from blogs that have pointed out these absurd discrepancies for weeks. Fredo. Just. Lied.

The pieces are coming together. After NYTimes article- 12-05-(he might have leaked to them).He declassifies cleaned up (due to Comey et. al)
legal bits of original of the TSP,to protect himself from prosecution for having used illegal bits for 3 years prior to clean up.
Also when Nixon claimed executive privilege in 74, the Then Supremes said no executive privilege when Executive being investigated
except for classified info. So again he protects himself by Executive Privilege because all of the illegal bits are hidden away and only he can declassify.

The pieces are coming together. After NYTimes article- 12-05-(he might have leaked to them).He declassifies cleaned up (due to Comey et. al)
legal bits of original of the TSP,to protect himself from prosecution for having used illegal bits for 3 years prior to clean up.
Also when Nixon claimed executive privilege in 74, the Then Supremes said no executive privilege when Executive being investigated
except for classified info. So again he protects himself by Executive Privilege because all of the illegal bits are hidden away and only he can declassify.

The pieces are coming together. After NYTimes article- 12-05-(he might have leaked to them).He declassifies cleaned up (due to Comey et. al)
legal bits of original of the TSP,to protect himself from prosecution for having used illegal bits for 3 years prior to clean up.
Also when Nixon claimed executive privilege in 74, the Then Supremes said no executive privilege when Executive being investigated
except for classified info. So again he protects himself by Executive Privilege because all of the illegal bits are hidden away and only he can declassify.

1. The assertion it was "highly classified" does not mean it was _lawfully_ classified.

2. FISA is a requirement; disagreements -- this many years after this activity started -- is evidence that there is no competent leadership. Basis for NSA contractor award fees goes down; Fee Determining Official in NSA needs to be reviewed. Subpoena the Flag officers involved in NSA oversight.

3. Also, without agreement on what is going on, raises questions of whether funds have been appropriate for illegal purposes. [Article 1 Section 9, liability attaches to civilian contractors; Qwest refused, why not all of them?]

["The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified."}

4. The "disagreement" is _evidence_; it cannot be explained away outside court. IT is the job of those making an assessment of the "nature" of the disagreement to prove their point. We see no evidence; seeing no evidence, we conclude that the disagreement is material, and evidence of lack of agreement within the minds of those who were required to agree. This is not a problem: It is evidence of a leadership problem.

5. We the People have several options: We can direct the State AGs to litigate this matter -- as they are doing with the _civil rights/privacy violations_ through the AGs of NJ, Maine, VT, MO; or we can scrap the very document the US government will not enforce, and implement a new one. Choose.

6. We have no information about the "other" disagreements that occurred _before_ Sept 2001: Yes, the "other side" of the story: That "other" surveillance that started _before_ the "big scary events" which this US government used to pass illegal legislation.

7. There is no reason to believe the assertions of what the 2004 "disagreement" was: We have no showing of evidence; yet, the disclosure of that disagreement means that the _disagreement_ and all attached notes are admissible, breached, and cannot be shielded by privilege. Privilege only hides what is _not_ disclosed; it cannot force back into the DoJ-EOP burning "barn" that which has attempted to flee: Evidence.

This statement is an assertion which does not appear to fairly capture the full problem: ["The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified"]

A. The scope of the FISA violations were essentially admitted when [1] The
President admitted there were not required warrants; and [2] That the FISA court was not involved. _What_ the FISA Court was not involved with is irrelevant: Without the _FISA Court_ being involved, it is an illegal assertion of _judicial_ power for anyone to assert whether any decision, disagreement, or anything was or was not anything: That is a _judicial_ power.

B. It is irrelevant to assert that any events of 2004 are relevant or not relevant: Again, the _FISA Court_ has not made this _judicial_ conclusion.

C. Whether the _legal basis_ of anything was or was not made, agreed to, offered, or understood is absurd: There's still confusion; that's not a legal _basis_ of anything, but quicksand. That's not a legal defense, but a failed smokescreen. It's on the ground, gooey, and not well supporting itself, much less the "other arguments" related to the "other things" which "other people" may have had "other disagreement." Complete nonsense!

D. Whether the illegal activity, program,s or other things -- which he FISA Court has or hasn't reviewed -- is or is not "publicly" disclosed is meaningless: FISA requires the _Court_ to _review_; that the information is or isn't consistent with a _disclosure_ is irrelevant. The issue is whether [a] the _real activity_ (whatever that is) does or doesn't meet [b] the FISA requirements. Whether [c] "Statements" are or are not [d] consistent have no relationship to the FISA requirements; or the real program. The relevant standard is FISA; and the relevant evidence relates to the [a] real activity; [b] what was going on; and [c] what was well understood to be _occurring_ That there was "confusion" about _reality_ isn't a defense, but evidence that there is no leader taking responsibility; and despite a clear single FISA standard, the legal defense is still grasping for something that will stick to the wall. It. Will. Never. Happen.

E. Materiality: Redacted FISA Transcripts for Voters To Review

Time to get the FISA Court to review it all; and have a redacted transcript so We the People can find out which FBI agents, DOJ Staff, and NSA contractors have been lying or not fully cooperating with the FISA Court on the NSLs, FISA warrants, and the transmission of the intercept information to those involved with rendition, JTTF warrantless interrogations of US Citizens, and how JTTF-LE was using NSA information _outside FISA_ for other "hunches" and "Fishing trips".

OTHER PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES: ABUSE OF COMPARTMENTALIZATION

- Improper classification, breakdown in oversight

It appears the WH-EOP-DoJ-NSA have "classified" various sections of illegal activity as "separate programs". Not only is that illegal, but its abuse of the compartmentalization. IT appears one set of illegally captured date was transferred from one group to another; and people -- who should never have had access to that information -- were using it improperly for non-national security related objectives: Hence, the concern with the RNC e-mail destruction; and the lack of attention of firms like Fleishman Hilliard who appear to have been in receipt of NSA-capture data for media messaging; and alleged violations of Smith Act for domestic propaganda.

- Multiple reviews of _what_?

President says he was "self reviewing" this activity; yet his _own_ people can't give a straight story. Shows why the FISA _requirements_ are there: Not only does self-oversight fail; but the FISA Court -- if it were involved -- would have compelled a _single story_ before approval. We still don't have that. Red flag.

- Confused about program: Confusion about legality of funds

Again, we don't' know. But what we do know is this: This activity has been going on since 2001, and 2007 -- fully 6 years later -- this government _still_ can't give us a straight story. That's recklessness, malfeasance, and unacceptable. Yet, despite _that known "confusion_, they're still spending money: On what? Either they know; or they don't know. If they know what they're spending on, there should be a single story; there isn't one.

CLEAR STANDARDS: CONFUSION IS A RED HERRING

- Oath of office issues: Prosecutions are on the table

All we know at this point is despite a _clear_ FISA requirement, there are too many people who are "confused". No, that's recklessness: Evidence of them having not fully asserted their 5 USC 3331 oath of office. We don't need any technical details of the minimization procedures, or what key phrases were twisting the satellites orientations to send and receive data. That doesn't matter. The key issue is subtle: Without a single story there's no basis to have appropriated/exp3ended any money, and most likely an Article 1 Section 9 violations. That triggers an audit, which OVP refuses. Adverse inference:The evidence destruction is related to illegal activity not a bonafide lawful,national security objective.

LEADER HIP FAILURE: GOP-DNC: Jointly Briefed, but failed oversight; illegal activity

- On the table: State level options against US Government

We don't need "months" of evidence of "gumming" this to death. We need the State AG's to get your support to build on the privacy-violation-litigation, and go after this reckless US government that still -- during a time of "war" -- can't find a leader who is going to lead _lawfully_. Supposedly when there is a "big crisis" the "best and the brightest" rise to the occasion. What have we had? The "best" and the "Brightest" are engaged in dog and pony shows in Afghanistan; not chasing real enemies; and are "confused" about people living in caves and what they're doing.

- Pointed Questions:

Time for the people who received these FISA briefings to really get asked the trough questions: When did you realize that the entire 9-11 response was a sham; and when did it occur to you that the 9-11 "disaster" had nothing to do with nationals security, but with one thing; To mobilize the nation's _economy_ to get it out of the 1990s Asian Economic mess?

- Confusion is sign of a poorly orchestrated show: The Decider and the Unitary Theory of Executive Power has been discredited.

When you get those answers, that will help you understand the "confusion": They have no clue what is going on because this leadership has _created_ confusion to keep people _distracted_ from their stupidity: They are clueless. The only thing they can do is to use "our reaction" to _their stupidity_ as a smokescreen; and then use _our opposition_ to their stupidity as a basis to violate rights, abuse, and further ignore the Constitution. They're using _legal opposition_ to their tyranny as an excuse -- in their mind -- to expand abuse. It's out of control. Until November 2006. Now they're stuck. Now the AGs can continue. Now their non-sense is coming undone: There never was a "straight story" because "their story" was about _creating_ chaos to _justify_ more abuse. 19 People, someone living in caves, and these idiots don't go after them, but have stupid shows in Afghanistan. That's what's behind Tillman's death. It's a show.

REVIEW

The show is this: The Constitution prevail. If this government will not defend it, then they can be lawfully targeted with 5 USC 3331 violations. If the State AGs are blocked from enforcing this Constitution against the Members of Congress, VP,and President with indictments, then this US government will have well said, "We refuse to e bond by this Constitution." Fine: We the People cannot be bound by something that -- despite the legal requirement of 5 USC 3331 to enforce -- nobody will enforce. This US government has illegally, unilaterally abrogated the Constitution and done nothing about it.

Go away. We the People have _this_ Constitution to defend; if you don't;' want to defend it, you are a domestic enemy. If _nobody_ today will defend it, fine: It still exists. Future Generations will have it, and they can attempt to implement it in other lands. The Constitution is not going away; what is going away is this non-sense. It will either freely end; or, as we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq -- people will stand up to this abuse. The Constitution has not gone away; what has left is the desire to defend it. That's not a problem: It is evidence.

These are issue of legitimacy. A US government that will not be bound by written law is not able to justify it is a sovereign power. Sovereignty rests with We the People; We can inject ourselves into the management of affairs; and We the People Retain the rights and powers to personally oversee, manage, and check the day-to-day operations of this government that appears to "not quite get it".

THIS IS WHAT I WOULD PREFER

1. FISA Court transcripts redacted outlining the lines of evidence showing what's been going on;

2. The names of the FBI agents who have lied to the FISA court and been banned

3. Three sample data traces between first collection, routed through the entire NSA network, and then showing us how it arrives at [a] The FISA Court; [b] Gang of 8; [c] the President's desk; [d] NSA Contractors; [e] The JTTF personnel self-issuing NSLs; [f] personnel involved with rendition, prisoner abuse, and warrantless interrogations of American citizens; and [g] how sampe/test data is funnelled to training centers for NSA officers overseeing data collection-translation-transciption-management, interrogators at Ft. Huachuka, and civilian contractors assigned to the prisoner of war/detainnee/AlQueda interrogation units in Arizona, Europe, and worlwide.

4. Redacted notes of all _Members of Congress_ who have been briefed on these activities at the FISA briefings: There is no "joint" Executive-Legislative privildge: This evidence, and it needs to be disclosed; these notes were supposoedly gathered and consolidated. Need the safe number where this is located, and records custodian for that classified safe: Thei name, office symbol, phone number, and employment history: Date assigned, education, and their security training.

5. A copy of the JROC NSA guidance for the FISA-compliant process which would have fully complied with FISA

6. The names of all DOJ Staff counsel assigned to processing warrants; their IP numbers; and a summary log of all non-official business DOJ Staff assigned to processing warrants were working on during official hours

7. The status of the DOJ IG audit and review of the language translation contract which Abraxas has in the small business area.

8. Plans of the DOJ to provide an explanation to the Courts why all Brady related information-- that NSA has captured -- has not been provided in redacted form to defense counsel. An estimate of the time for this review to be completed; and a sense of total Gigabytes of data related; and the approximate Software Lines of Code required to fully modernize this data process.

9. A redacted copy of all descriptive summaries NSA has used and provided to Members of Congress and their staff counsel related to all funding related to these FISA activities. The budgets need to show contractor names, the budget amounts at the summary level.

10. A copy of the statement of work for the NSA programs involved with FISA violations.

11. A copy of the last three months of contract costs associated with the illegal activity: To include which DPRO contacting office is assigned; the name of the auditors; and the review check sheets of that audit; and summary report filed with the President, JCS, and who in the NSA is reviewing this illegal activity.

12. The names of the independent auditors assigned to the NSA who have reviewed this program; and when they were assigned, with their CPA credential, CFE, and auditing background. Include their attendance at acquisition schools in DoD; and include a summary of their classes they've taken. You may summarize the list of personnel by position; an independent team will be assigned to ensure the provided information -- at the summary level -- matches the workforce data with personnel.

13. Printouts from the DFAS paying station to the NSA contractors, NARUS, AT&T, and other intermediaries involved with the fiber optic system;and a summary of the total program hours assigned to maintaining the fiber optic system. Include maintenance costs, and the replacement cycles. Include a listing of the test centers used to calibrate and test the Verizon fiber optic cables.

14. A copy of the Auditing standards used -- summary level by list, not the entire standard -- used to conduct the audits of the NSA, OVP, and NSA contrators involved with this. Include the Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standard [GAGAS] citation; and a _coherent_ explanation related to the SAS 99 fraud indicators: What evidence exists that audit scope in light of SAS99 has been increased; and how has this audit scope increase changed over the life cycle of the audit.

I would like a redacted copy of this report made available by close of Business _today_. This information can be quickly cut and paste from the various program manager offices assigned to DoD; do not need anything fancy; just need a summary of what DoD-NSA managers are using to manage this program. Do not create anything new. The above information is what the NSA Managers should be reviewing, and have available _now_. If you don't have it, so state; and we can follow up with NSA management to find out what their problem is.

The NSA lawyers allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the deference owed within the executive branch to OLC opinions into acquiescing in the administration's claim that the new program(s) were legal. It ought to be obvious to them by now that that is not the case.

That means they -- and NSA operatives -- are committing felonies.

Whatever the nature of the non-TSP surveillance program, I wonder if that long anonymous post just lit it up.

Here's a suggestion. What if we treated these long posts the way we treated the document dumps?

And we tried, as a group, to parse the meanings, the suggestions, and so on?

I honestly find them confusing to read. Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's because it's Friday.

I'm willing to trust that this is important. And from sources that are trying to alert us.

What say you? Or can the TPM people assist here?

Remember the Total Information Awareness system?

Well, now we know it's final resting place.

Supposedly this illegal surveillance program was scrapped, but it was actually folded into the NSA and given the new name "Terrorist Surveillance Program."

Thus, it became part of the "black budget" of U.S. intelligence. And the Bush administration could continue their illegal, warrantless data collection activities, hiding it behind the "national security" facade, and even limiting the number of our representatives in Congress who could know about it, due to the "stonewall" of classification.

Yep, that's what happened to TIA.

It became TSP, a NSA program. TSP, one of many NSA programs, but by far the most illegal, unethical and anti-Constitutional. TSP, a "hidden" program containing terabytes of illegally obtained information about all U.S. citizens, stored on super-super computers located at or near Ft. Meade Maryland.

Ot at least that's my guess.

Plausible deniability is Karl Rove's middle name, and this latest obfuscation just creates more doubt and confusion, dark corners where liars seek refuge. It is well past time to move beyond legal technicalities and the interrogation of underlings and do what we all know must be done: impeach Cheney and Bush.

What higher crime can one commit than declaing war on the Constitution and on the citizenry?

These people are traitors, pure and simple.