Comments (40)

this guy wrote on May 25, 2007 6:21 PM:

yeah, gee, i wonder if there IS a way to attract more applicants. let's put our thinking caps on folks. this is a toughee.

Jane wrote on May 25, 2007 6:39 PM:

To get rid of somebody you don't have to force them out if you can entice them out.

Was Perez actively looking or did something wonderful just fall in his lap a la Yang?

Also consider the Administration job offers to Iglesias TPM just reported:

" He'd twice been considered for positions, he said: once as director for Executive Office of United States Attorneys and another time as the assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The White House had called to see if he was interested in the appointments; he told them he was not." These jobd should be looked at as to time to see if we can decipher whether these were normal job offers because of his abilities or timed in such a way as to indicate what Bushco's interest was in taking him off the job.

Church Lady wrote on May 25, 2007 6:45 PM:

A way to attract more applicants, hmm, that's a tough one - could it be because the head of the Justice Department is, oh, I don't know, maybe SATAN?

Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 7:12 PM:

Have they tried posting fliers in the Regent Law School student union?

Rebel wrote on May 25, 2007 7:30 PM:

Have they tried posting fliers in the Regent Law School student union?
----------------------
Of course they have. How do you suppose they ended up with Goodling?

Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 7:49 PM:

Wanted: Must be at or near the top of your class and have a passion for seeking justice for all Americans. A intense hatred of black people is mandatory. Uncle Toms always welcome.

JMOHR wrote on May 25, 2007 8:00 PM:

Amazing! One of the most sought after prestige positions in the legal profession that provides an excellent basis for a political career, law firm hiring or judgeship. Oh what the Bush administration has wrought.

Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 9:26 PM:

From McClatchey:

"Of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys, 22 are serving without Senate confirmation as interim or acting prosecutors. They represent districts in Alaska, Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, West Virginia and Washington."

What about Arkansas? Isn't Griffin still considered an Interim USA? He wasn't confirmed by the Senate, that's for sure.

UnEasyOne wrote on May 25, 2007 9:37 PM:

Only "loyal Bushies" need apply. Seems there are somewhat fewer of those than there used to be.

Have you ever seen rats jump ON to a sinking ship?

george bush wrote on May 25, 2007 10:35 PM:

Heckuva job, Fredo.

M wrote on May 26, 2007 1:36 AM:

I'd rather see nobody wanting the job thant he flood gates open at this point. Almost every position in government is wrought with corruption. The term "public servant" is all but absentee in Washington. The fact that so few want to be involved with the laughing stock of justice that was once known as the very "Department of" is almost refreshing. Some lawyers still have a conscience. It's that, or they just don't see it as profitable anymore. Sadly, the latter is probably the truth, in most cases.

Sailmaker wrote on May 26, 2007 3:55 AM:

Someone would want a job for 18 months, for which one has to be a resident of that jurisdiction (not Washingon D.C)? Shows which party the lawyers think will win the next election. Maybe we should change the rules for hiring the USAs so that the majority party in Congress nominates and confirms the USAs? Hey, 'Publicans changed the rules once, why can't we?

Jack wrote on May 26, 2007 8:40 AM:

Not even the Loyal Bushies want to work for Gonzales anymore. If Bush's Presidency is a sinking ship, Gonzales's Department of Injustice is the dangling anchor of the sinking ship. Why would any attorney want to tarnish their entire career being a neocon scab US Puppetorney.

Swami Salami wrote on May 26, 2007 10:00 AM:

Perhaps Goodling could re-apply?

What about Sampson?

What about Brownie or Kerik?

My neighbors' son stopped delivering newspapers: He's ready, willing, and able.

Thomas Friedman wrote on May 26, 2007 11:15 AM:

The next six months in the Justice are the most important six months in America in a long, long time. Alberto Gonzalez is turning the corner at the Justice Department.

The leadership at the Justice department will surely mend all the broken fences and they will back on their feet within the next six months.

Jane wrote on May 26, 2007 12:28 PM:

So Thomas you agree with me that New Orleans is well on the way to recovery and we are winning in Iraq?(snark)

Gonzo's options are limited: if he shows he had no idea what was going on he is incompetent and, if he did know what was going on he should be impeached.

In any event, to effectively operate the JOD you need the confidence of the Congress. So if they liked him befothey'll love him now?

It is high time that there is a nominee to take Griffin's place unless DOJ is continuing the plant to gum it up.

Griffin is extremely results oriented. His email states that Pryor is crazy for saying that he hadn't taken a position on the nominee but was opposed to the mis-use of the Patriot Act provision to put him there. (So far, anybody who has trusted this administration's word or common sense had gotten screwed. The rationale offered was that it would be useful in emergencies.) Pryor
was being more than fair: Hey,kid you got your position because you were friends with the coach --let's see if you can pass the tryouts.

Typical 'Publican party position -- I don't have to follow the normal rules and it is unfair of you to demand that I do so.

Tom wrote on May 26, 2007 1:46 PM:

Are they kidding?!? These wingnuts really are living in la-la land...

Slippery Slope wrote on May 26, 2007 2:15 PM:

Does anyone have a link to transcripts from Monica Goodlings testimony?

bibimimi wrote on May 26, 2007 4:27 PM:

who wants in on a fixed game?

sc: jewel

what on karl rove u might have to tongue...

Anonymous wrote on May 26, 2007 5:33 PM:

QUESTIONS PROSPECTIVE US ATTORNEYS DO NOT WANT TO BE ASKED

On another thread, I was reminded of Title 18 requirements. [ Janie May 26, 2007 04:26 PM -- http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003295.php]

Indeed, I mist admit that I am thankful for the reminder on on Title 18 USC 1812, penalties of interfering with witnesses/testimony/evidence before Congress. In apparent efforts to "intimidate" or "dissuade witnesses" from testifying, I'm wondering about the use of subpoenas/NSLs/illegal contract language to impede Congress.

Then it hit me: Given the US Attorney e-mails, is it not possible that there are specific questions that the prosecptive nominee would not want to be asked? Here is a list of questions that might be dissuading counsel from applying and answering.

For Your Consideration -- Whitleblower Hotline:
http://oversight.house.gov/contact.asp
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5051

If you have information about the following allegations, feel free to forward it to your Member of Congress, the Government Oversight Committee [Congressman Waxman]; or any of the House-Senate Judiciary Committees. You are not guaranteed anything; but if your information does result in a conviction, you might be eligible for a substantial cash reward. There is no guarantee. Share with your friends any information you may have about these types of allegations related to the EOP-DoJ-WH-Outside Staff counsel.

Information which may be of interest: Budget documents, signed policy memos, contract language, e-mails, presentations, trip reports, copies of internal audit reports and findings, copies of meeting minutes.

A. Alleged Issuance of Knowingly False, Incorrect, Misleading Legal Information To Stifle Public Knowledge of, Awareness, and Reports to Congress Related to Illegal Activity

How many of the GOP staff counsel working with private commercial firms who have an interest in not seeing the NSA-AT^&T punished over NSA surveillance, are engaged in misdealing public statements in editorials to induce contractors, employees, and the public from understanding the legal issues, and possible evidence the contractors may have that Congress should know about?

- Do you have information that counsel has discussed issuing misleading editorials that they knew were false, deceptive, and misleading?

- Is there evidence that funds were transferred to their law firm in exchange for their partners issuing misleading editorials?

- Is there evidence that the law firm won a contract because of their participation in the misleading editorials?

B. Alleged Use of Strategic Lawsuits To Stifle Public Participation in War Crimes Reports to Congress

How many private counsel have gone into the "woe is me"-mode when allegedly implicated in war crimes [use of illegally captured data to support prisoner abuse, Geneva violations], yet they are using subpoenas to target people to induce them to be quiet?

- Is there evidence counsel has requested subpoenas to identify personnel who may have provided information to Congress?

- What evidence do you have that counsel is concerned that war crimes related information has been provided to Congress?

- Is there evidence that formerly assigned White House counsel is concerned that legal memorandum related to war crimes, rendition, prisoner abuse, or other illegal violations of Geneva has been provided to Congress?

- Do you have any copies of transcripts, memorandum, or other things which the Committee may be able to specifically ask for related to illegal planning, or efforts to retaliate against anyone for providing truthful information to Congress?

C. Alleged Legal Counsel Action For An Improper Purpose: Stifle Discussion, Reports of Alleged War Crimes Evidence

How many formerly assigned US government legal counsel -- possibly linked with the White House, DoD, DOJ, or EOP -- are using their concerns with being prosecuted for war crimes as the motivation for them to target, gag, and induce the public to be quiet about the relationship between counsel and alleged Geneva violations?

- Is there evidence legal counsel are using the civil, non-criminal process to harass public and private citizens after discussion on war crimes?

D. Alleged Use of Civil Process, Subpoenas to Intimidate American Public From Cooperating With Congress on Issues of War Crimes

How many private counsel linked with the NSA contractors -- working through intermediaries -- have been using their relationship with the US government, FBI, and NSLs to gag people to be quiet about efforts by counsel to shut down discussions, dissuade public discussions, or silence public reviews and commentary on alleged war crimes legal counsel committed when they provided illegal memorandum enabling war crimes?

- Is there evidence NSLs have been issued to silent discussion related to war crimes reports to Congress?

E. Alleged Use of NSLs to Gag Public Reports to Congress Related to FISA Violations

How are the NSLs being abused to target people unrelated to a bonafide national security risk, but who's only "crime" was to point to legal counsel who have provided unlawful memorandum to enable war crimes, rendition, prisoner abuse, unlawful warfare, and grave breaches of Geneva?

- Is there evidence legal counsel formerly or currently assigned to the White House, EOP, DOJ, or other US government entity have cooperated with entities to process NSLs to gag the public?

F. Alleged Failure of Outside Counsel To Report Known Violations of Hatch Act, Despite A Duty To Review EOP Compliance/Non-Compliance with Requirements

Which legal counsel have a relationship with the WH, EOP, DoJ Staff, and DoD on evidence preservation requirements; but despite public statements about their "expertise" in comply with the Hatch act on data retention, apparently have not been able to show [a] the money spent to hire them as counsel has [b] translated to effective EOP-WH-DOJ-GOP staff counsel compliance with the data retention requirements?

- Is there evidence outside counsel has represented themselves as experts on data retention requirements?

- Is there an ongoing relationship between outside counsel, formerly assigned counsel, current counsel on issues of data retention?

- What was the nature of the contract between outside counsel and the US government on services provided related to advise, consulting, and assistance on data retention for WH, EOP, WH Administration, DoJ, or other government entities?

- What were the terms of the contracts -- by way of give-backs -- if legal counsel were unable to provide assistance to DoJ, EOP, WH, or WH Administration if the government entity did not meet the requirements of the Hatch Act?

- What evidence do you have that legal counsel publicly representing itself as an expert on data retention requirements has not fully met the intent of the Hatch Act; and has not fully complied with all contractual language within the Attorney-US government agreement on a plan to review, audit, oversee, and ensure US government compliance with the Hatch Act in re data retention?

G. Alleged US Government Contract Language To Block Reports of FISA Violations

How many White House, EOP, DOJ Staff counsel know about legal contractors signed between [a] the WH, OMB, President, DoJ AG and/or NSA contracting officers; and [b] intermediaries, Law firms, NSA contractors, and third party data capture systems to [c] suppress reporting, discussion, or open review of contract terms transferring illegally captured data from contractors to the US government, intermediaries, or the GOP?

- Do you have evidence that legal counsel has worked with other entities to stifle discussion of contract language related to gag orders?

- Are you aware of inconsistent statements by outside counsel related to NSA access to corporate facilities?

- Do you know where there is evidence showing outside counsel has misrepresented whether it has or has not fully complied with the legal requirements of FISA, Geneva, or other public statute?

- Do you have evidence that illegally captured information violation FISA was not reported to the FISA court?

- Do you have evidence that illegally capture information was used to support prisoner abuse, warrantless surveillance, or warrantless interrogations of American citizens?

- Do you know the contract numbers of documents, arrangements, and other memorandums between the US government, third parties, intermediaries, NSA contractors, DOJ Staff, EOP counsel, or outside counsel that hides evidence of illegal FISA violations or war crimes evidence?

- Are you aware of any civil process planned, in action, or under discovery whose primary intent is not to defend a civil claim for defamation, but to identify the source of information provided to Members of Congress from law firms allegedly engaged in war crimes?

H. Alleged Illegal Contracts For An Unlawful Purpose Which Cannot Be Enforced Against Employers To Stifle Reports to Congress

What is the nature of the contract language which [incorrectly] asserts that the illegal activity is classified and cannot be disclosed; yet the purpose of the contract terms and gag orders is not to protect a bonafide secret, but to hide illegal activity which the contractors should reasonably know could not be done under the FISA Act?

- Are you aware of any threats, reports, efforts to harass or retaliate against US government officials, public officials, DOJ-WH-EOP outside counsel staff, or anyone if they choose to report evidence of war crimes, illegal FISA violations, or other Geneva violations to Members of Congress?

- When was the threat reported, made, communicated, and how was it transmitted; do you have a copy of the e-mail, subpoena, or other document sent to target, harass, and silence anyone from providing evidence of war crimes?

I. Alleged Gag Orders in DOJ To Prevent Reports of FISA Violations from Reaching FISA Court

How may DOJ Staff counsel outside contractors are aware of the FBI-DOJ misrepresentations to the FISA court, but have been -- as part of their OMB-DoJ-NSA legal contracts been gagged from reporting this illegal activity to Congress?

- Do you have copies of the contracts?

- What is the contract number?

- Do you know where the contracts are secured; which vault; and what is the security classification of that vault?

- Do you have evidence that DOJ Staff, FBI, or other counsel have made misrepresentations to the FISA court?

- What efforts are used to silence discussion, reporting, and communication of these alleged illegal efforts to provide truthful reports to Congress?

J. Alleged DOJ Staff Counsel/Small Business Office Knowledge of Outside Contractors Providing Misleading Court Transcripts Used To "Justify" Prisoner Abuse With Unlawful Interrogations

What is the name of the DoJ small business Representative who handles the contracts related to DOJ court transcription services; and what is the relationship between [a] this entity which oversees the training and court transcripts; and [b] operations to use _illegally captured information_ to implement kidnapping, rendition, illegal warfare, prisoner abuse, warrantless interrogations of American citizens without access to counsel, and other illegal activity around the globe?

- Do you have access to the contracts?

- Do you have information on how to get to the e-mail accounts?

- Where is the e-mail being stored in the off-site location?

- Are the back-up files safe, or are you not sure?

- How are training scenarios used as a guise for illegal activity?

- Can you prove that the court transcripts have been fabricated?

- Which interrogations are you aware that relied on these false transcripts to implement prisoner abuse?

- Where is the supervisory training records related to the interrogation tactics?

- Is there evidence that the interrogation tactics used were known to violate Geneva; yet personnel conducting the interrogations were told otherwise?

K. Alleged AT&T Knowledge of Contract Language Permitting Processing of Unlawfully Captured Data; and Gag Orders Within Employment Contracts To Keep Silent About Transfer, Use, Processing of Illegally Captured Data For Non-Lawful Purposes Outside FISA

What was the plan of the DoJ Staff counsel, NSA General Counsel, Verizon GC, and AT&T General counsel when contracts related to processing data captured using "various means" were publicly identified by contract number and linked with firms associated with AT&T?

- Do you have transcripts of the General Counsel Comments?

- Which e-mail has been retained and captured outside the corporate control?

- Can you confirm that the GC has made inconsistent statements between [a] their first notification of the problem; and [b] subsequent discussions with DOJ, WH, and outside counsel; and [c] their final position coordinated with WH legal counsel, public affairs, and political office?

- Is there evidence that the GC has failed to deny something that should have been denied if it were true?

M. Alleged GOP Counsel Editorials To Dissuade Reports To Congress of Evidence Not Protected By Privilege

Does outside counsel have an explanation why GOP-related law firms are issuing allegedly misleading statements about the "reviewability" of the NSA activity; yet the intent of these editorial does not appear to be to provide reliable legal information, but to dissuade the public, contractors, and public from understanding that there are legal options to circumvent the President's claim of privilege; and that there is illegal activity which contractors cannot lawfully be gagged from reporting to Congress?

- Given the public discussion on war crimes, does it seem reasonable that counsel would be "concerned" with a defamation claim; when, in fact, their primary concern appears to be something else -- Their name being implicated and forever linked with alleged illegal memorandum their peers in the WH-DOJ-EOP have produced?

- What is the legal counsel's reason for being concerned -- now -- with public discussions linking [a] their name to [b] alleged war crimes; and [c] internal deliberations related to illegal activity; and [d] public discussion related to the disclosure of unlawful memorandum permitting violations of Geneva, FISA, and the warrant requirements of the Constitution?

- Does counsel have an explanation for their inconsistent statements on rendition, FISA, and Geneva violations?

Anonymous wrote on May 26, 2007 7:15 PM:

There is a second grade student in my class that will still do as he is told. He is still in the literal phase of development so he is unable to problem solve or make inferences. Much like many of the 'publicans.

DOJ may need to look at elementary schools for their USAs considering no thinking, reasonable, educated or responsible adult would take the job.

Veritas78 wrote on May 26, 2007 7:21 PM:

I'd love to see the resumes of the two actual applicants.

Anonymous wrote on May 26, 2007 8:12 PM:

It's interesting to contrast the things the GOP want's disclosed, monitored, targeted for surveillance -- those who dare to demonstrate against illegal warfare and Geneva violations -- while the GOP wants to keep quiet the discussion related to the people who have committed crimes.

Libby convicted, but public views to be sealed:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/25/222722/651

Makes one wonder what the US Attorneys will want to have hidden during their confirmation hearings. "Hay, we can't have the public get access to that kind of memoranda, the bloggers might mock the lawyers. . . Oh, the humanity!"

Here's their contact information if you want to ask them about AT&T, and the NSA surveillance: "Did you guys really believe that the bloggers would never find out about you?"
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/5/25/222722/651/140#c140

Anonymous wrote on May 26, 2007 9:28 PM:

If you know any legal counsel like Brad Berenson who may be interested in a US Attorney position, send them this link which has copies of bumper stickers:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/26/bill-mahers-bumper-sticker-politics/

So many hands, so many bumper stickers.

"My other waterboard is for beach torture."

lysias wrote on May 27, 2007 9:07 AM:

They're also having trouble filling vacancies in the Solicitor General's office.

TheraP wrote on May 27, 2007 9:17 AM:

Just advertise: SINKING SHIP NEEDS RATS.

Mooser wrote on May 27, 2007 10:29 AM:

When the DOJ is crippled, all kinds of criminal just go nuts. It's like hitting the jackpot.

Steve5117 wrote on May 27, 2007 10:47 AM:

Things I've read about this morning...

ICE, under the Homeland Security department, has been looking at voter roles, hmmmmm

IJ hiring irregularities predated Monica's arrival, hmmmm

Bush has issued 750 signing statementes saying he's Commander-in-Chief and will ignore laws if he thinks it is necessary, hmmmmm

My favorite so far is Andrew Card being booed at a commencement, AHHHHHH!

Steve5117 wrote on May 27, 2007 10:54 AM:

No Honor for Andrew Card

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp4MYii7MqA

Anonymous wrote on May 27, 2007 1:43 PM:

The Card clip reminds me of a favorite movie:

Count de Monet: It is said that the people are revolting.
King Louis XVI: You said it! They stink on ice!

Anonymous wrote on May 27, 2007 9:18 PM:

WHERE HAVE THE LEGAL EXPERTS GONE?

This headline: "Wanted: U.S. Attorneys": Indeed, wanted: Attorneys who will prosecute a sitting president.
Ref:
http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/king/ssci_turley.html#1

Jonathan Turley, "From Pillar to Post": _The Prosecution of Sitting Presidents_, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049-1106 (2000)

Questions for the attorneys reading TPM,

1. There's some concern Congress isn't impeaching; not enforcing the law; not holding the President account; still giving him a rubber stamp. Also heard some assertions that some attorneys had "Done all they could" but didn't see any hope. What's your view on Turley's Article above; what support do you need to prosecute the President outside impeachment?

2. Please consult your practice partners for the following estimates. What's required -- by way of finances, public support, media relations, discovery, and legal staff assigned -- to work outside Congress to put Turley's suggestion into practice: Prosecute a sitting President?

If Congress isn't going to impeach, then its time We the People direct the legal community to outline their plan to prosecute the President. I see little leadership to ensure the Constitution is protected from the domestic enemies in the White House, EOP, Congress, and DOJ Staff.

I welcome a discussion of how this will be addressed. To those who say "nothing can be done" or "this will never happen," please consider the [House Rule 603] effort: The same states who have discussed state proclamations for impeachment -- theoretically -- might support direct prosecutions of this sitting President and Vice President. Instead of a State legislator, it only takes one attorney.

Congress says it doesn't have "time" to protect the Constitution. Is the legal community saying the same? If so, We the People see little evidence that we have time for _this_ Congress or _this_legal community; but need to discuss transforming this Congress and legal community into entities that respond to their oath, not something else.

Who in the legal community dares to put their oath of office first, and defend the Constitution by prosecuting this sitting President in 2007? Do we have leadership in the legal community; or do we have a group of attorneys who have "other reasons" for not using _all_ options to defend this Constitution? The options exist. The question for history and future discovery: Did you do all you could to assert your oath. I'm not seeing it. Choose between this Constitution or this President.

Institutions like Congress may not be interested in the Constitution. Time for the legal community to decide whether it wants to go on the record. We the People have other options. If would please me if the legal community accepted they have a job to do outside Congress: Prosecute this sitting President and Vice President outside the impeachment process.

Anonymous wrote on May 28, 2007 1:08 AM:

US ATTORNEY E-MAIL REVELATIONS SHED NEW LIGHT ON BERENSON'S STATEMENTS (in re FISA, Rendition, WH-DoJ/OLC Communications ) -- BASIS TO IMPEACH BERENSON AS A WITNESS

Suggestion: Review Berenson's public statements in light of US Attorney e-mails, Comey's statements, and the timelines of Spike Bowman who visited Guantanamo in 2002, before Berenson left the WH in 2003.

POINTS

One of the problems for the WH is the rude reality: Who was relying on whom for legal advise. Recall the story we've been fed about the US Attorney firings: Somehow DoJ Staff looked to the WH to get advise.

Small problem: The WH Counsel did the opposite, turning to DOJ Office of Legal Counsel for information. This means there are e-mails from the WH Counsel's office to the DOJ OLC related to the Miers issues. Where are these legal memorandum; and what does Viet Dinh and Wendy J. Keefer have to say about this [Formerly with OLC]

Here's a fatal quote that shows the DOJ Staff has been pointing to the White House, but the real issue: How much is the WH pointing at DOJ:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/berenson.html#2

QUOTING, Berenson, QUOTE: Now, there were instances where the White House wanted comfort that what we were proposing to do was lawful. And in that instance, we would turn to the Department of Justice and ask the Office of Legal Counsel for its advice, which is what it's in the business of doing, is furnishing legal advice to the executive office of the president so that the president's lawyers and the White House can be sure that its courses of action the president's taking are consistent with law. So if that's what you mean by "cover your ass" -- that is, getting legal opinions that tell you where the lines are and that confirm that what you propose to do is consistent with law -- then I suppose in that sense it was going on. But that's just good, careful lawyering generally.ENDQUOTE

------------------
Key Phrase: "we would turn to the Department of Justice and ask the Office of Legal Counsel for its advice" OK, so let's get the full story:

A. How much e-mail did Berenson send through the RNC e-mail account to get this information from DOJ OLC?

B. Have we seen all the WH e-mails sent to and from the DOJ OLC through the RNC servers?

Berenson's 0other problem is that he's admitting there is communication going on related to meeting he did not personally attend: "I wasn't intimately involved with the operational details of Guantanamo."

C. How did the "primary" people related to Guantanamo send messages to Berenson?

But it gets worse in light of the e-mail retention requirements: "working assumption at the time was that these documents, whatever they were, weren't going to see the light of day any time soon. They were covered by executive privilege, most of them, the Presidential Records Act,"

D. Given the "known" Presidential records act requirements, what was the basis for the WH Counsel to communicate if it assumed the records would not see the light of day?

E. How many records were sent -- with the knowledge that there were related to illegal activity, and not protected -- sent through the RNC server to bypass the known requirement of retaining records?

Let's consider the Berenson's statements on Ralston's knowledge of the RNC e-mails; but contrast those with what Berenson said: "nobody was writing things that I know of at the time for public consumption, present or future. I think you can pretty much count on the fact that the documents you see created during that period represent what people genuinely thought at that time. "

F. Did Ralson, when she used the RNC e-mails assume the documents she was writing would not see the light of day?

Consider the revelations about the CIA intelligence warning of blow back and a split of Iraq. Berenson avoids answering questions about blowback and asserts,
"We were all at all times completely convinced that what we were doing was lawful and consistent with the international laws of armed conflict."

G. How would Berenson know to avoid discussing classified intelligence discussing the very thing in this question?

H. Which classified intelligence about the CIA assessments of Iraq did Berenson know about in 2002 as the Iraq war planning was increasing?

Comey's revelations are stunning, especially in light of the Ashcroft refusals, NSL findings by DOJ IG, and the illegal FISA surveillance. Berenson asserts, "believed at all times that everything we were doing was fully consistent with the rule of law." Yet, the Vaughn court said, nobody could reasonably conclude the alleged activity was lawful.

I. Who inside DOJ OLC did Berenson discuss the legality of the FISA issues; how was this documented; and which RNC e-mail accounts was this sent through?

J. How can Berenson say that these issues were "not" something that he is an expert on; yet he's supposedly got the experience to be the lead counsel on the AT&T FISA litigation?

Berenson also admits that there were briefings which he attended and subsequent communications: "I was certainly in meetings where representatives of the uniformed military were fully on board of the notion of military commissions."

K. Where are the meeting minutes?

L. How were the notes passed to DOJ OLC from Berenson?

M. Who else attended?

N. How did Berenson use RNC e-mail accounts to send notes to other WH Counsel on this issue?

O. If everyone was on board, how explain the JAG opposition to the treatment of prisoners?

Berenson repeatedly said the actions were "consistent with the law," yet we find the FISA violations across the board; Comey disputes the legality; and DOJ OPR was blocked from "good news" [?]. This makes no sense.
Bluntly, Berenson has no credibility on these assertions. The story doesn't add up.

TheOtherWA wrote on May 28, 2007 1:51 AM:

One more rat is jumping ship.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052700896.html

"As the Bush administration inches closer to its concluding months, more top aides are headed out to the private sector. Sara M. Taylor, the White House political director and microtargeting guru who has been with George W. Bush from the outset of his first presidential campaign, is the latest staff member to leave the president's employ."

Yes, that Sara Taylor. Rove's deputy.

nofltwlt wrote on May 28, 2007 7:50 AM:

Only the Monica Goodlings of the world, the" children of the corn", are likely to see service as a USA in a positive light. Thank goodness that congress will screen future appointment.

I hope Monica Goodling now feels that she is going straight to hell and that it torments her 24/7 for the rest of her life.

Anonymous wrote on May 28, 2007 3:16 PM:

When the illegal actdivity related to the US Attorneys, FISA, prisoner abuse, and other things was known to likely be related to harm to peole, why no noisy withdrawals?

DC Attny Discipline QUOTE: "If the lawyer's services will be used by the client in materially furthering a course of criminal or fraudulent conduct, the lawyer _must_ withdraw, as stated in Rule 1.16(a)(1)."

A. As the abuse information came into the WH counsel's office, why didn't the legal counsel withdraw?

B. What is Berenson's comment on his departure?

C. What do Viet Dinh and Wendy J. Keefer in DOJ OLC have to share about their departures: Was it related to konwledge their legal memoranda did relate to prisoner abuse?

D. When will former White House counsel disclose this reason for departing with a noisy withdrawal?

Anonymous wrote on May 28, 2007 4:07 PM:

The issues of the US Attorney firings and the e-mails appear to attach to some larger legal responsibilites which Berenson, Keefer, Viet Dinh and others associated with the NSA data transfer in re withdrawal requirements.

In light of Comey's disclosures about the illegal NSA surveillance; DOJ IG findings of unlawful NSLs, and communications between Berenson and DoJ OLC: DC Attorney DISCIPLINARY ISSUE: WHEN DID LEGAL COUNSEL CONNECTED WITH THE US ATTORNEY E-MAIL, DOJ, and WHITE HOUSE, inter alia:

A. Learn of illegal activity -- and use of illegally captured data related to NSA unlawful surveillance -- to support prisoner abuse, unlawful kidnapping, and bodily injury to prisoners of war; and

B. Did they comply with their mandatory withdrawal requirements once they learned that illegally captured information was being used to impose abuse, prisoner mistreatment, and serious bodily injury on prisoners of war?

C. When did legal counsel in the WH, DoJ, EOP, and DOD know, realize, and understand: Illegally captured information was used to implement unlawful prisoner abuse, bodily harm, and abuse of prisoners of war in violation of Geneva?

DC Atty Discipline QUOTE: "If the lawyer's services will be used by the client in materially furthering a course of criminal or fraudulent conduct, the lawyer _must_ withdraw, as stated in Rule 1.16(a)(1)." ENDQUOTE

I reject the assertion that Berenson, Keefer, and Viet Dinh had no idea what was going on; yet Comey openly discussed the issue -- that the proposed surveillance was not lawful. Berenson openly admitted he left in 2002; yet the memorandum routed through the 6th Group showed that the Military Police Assigned at Guantanamo in 2002 knew of prisoner abuse. Berenson's departure is after the first abuse reports were documented in 2002.

Again:

1. When did Berenons learn, understand, and realize that unlawfully captured NSA information was transmitted to support rendition, detention, and abuse of prisoners of war during detention;

2. What information did Berenson ask for from the DOJ OLC through Viet Dinh and Wendy J. Keefer?

3. What role did Abraxas play in the transmission of illegally captured information to impose rendition, war crimes, abusive treatment, and other illegal conduct?

4. Delay in Berenson's Departure: Untimely?

What is Berenson's explanation for only withdrawing in 2003, yet Spike Bowman and the Senate in 2002 knew that the prisoners at Guantanamo were being mistreated?

5. Berenson's apparent inconsistent statements

How can Berenson claim that he's asserting his attorney-client confidence; yet he's openly disclosed that his client Ralston does have e-mail; and he's publicly commented on Rendition; then changed to a "can neither confirm nor deny" -- that does not sound like a zealous assertion of confidence, but inconsistencies, especially in light of Comey's fatal disclosures.

These are issues of credibility in re Berenson, Keefer, Viet Dinh, and legal counsel with Abraxas, Baker Botts supposedly associated with AT&T, and the transfer of information to supposedly support prisoner abuse. I am not getting a warm feeling from the information coming from Berenson, especially in light of his Attorney duties; his statements on Presidential records; and his open discussion of e-mails.

Nor do I hear a credible story from him on his departure in 2003, yet the requirement in 2002 to have departed once DoJ was learning of the events. Supposedly Berenson was contacting DOJ OLC, where they should have known the status of the legal arguments, and the treatment of prisoners.
It appears as though Berenson knew about the mistreatment and did not timely leave; that Berenson had a duty to withdraw and did not timely withdraw; and that Berenson has changed his statements on rendition. In my personal opinion, this raises some substantial questions about the information we're hearing from Berenson in re the RNC e-mails; what his motivation is; and how he is going to explain his apparent in consistences over the FISA issue: Whether the information that was supposedly unlawfully captured -- in Comey's words -- was or was not used to impose bodily harm on prisoners. If so, this would have triggered a noisy withdrawal requirement; yet Berenson's comments to PBS-Frontline do not suggest any animosity, but continued support of the positions.

KEY QUESTION:

A. When did Berenson first learn of the prisoner abuses which Spike Bowman investigated;

B. When did Berenson learn from AT&T that data was transferred through the NSA to intermediaries, and was used by Abraxas-placed personnel to impose prisoner abuse during interrogations?

C. When did Berenson learn of Comey's legal conclusions through DOJ OLC that the surveillance was not lawful;

D. When did Berenson learn that the NSA warrant-intermediaries were transferring illegally captured information to support rendition, prisoner abuse, and target for punishment and bodily harm personnel who were abused without any judicial oversight, and outside the FISA Court review?

E. When did Berenson learn from DOJ OLC that the NSLs being issued were not lawful, but were being issued to detain, target, and abuse prisoners in violation of the law?

It does not appear as though Berenson complied with his requirement; and his apparent inconsistent statements [whether, inter alia, the law was or was not followed; whether rendition could or could not be discussed; whether he did or did not have information about blowback in Iraq] casts doubt.

However, most troubling is the assertion by Judge Vaughn who wrote in 2006 that no reasonable person could conclude that the program as alleged could be lawful. Comey fatally discredits Berenson's assertions on legality; and raise questions whether he knew, or should have known, that NSA data was being used to target people and impose bodily harm -- an act which would have required a noisy withdrawal under the DC Disciplinary Rules.

Berenson, Abraxas, Viet Dinh, and Wendy J. Keefer need to get called as a witness: Subpoenas. Now. Just like Comey and compelled to explain themselves.

Anonymous wrote on May 28, 2007 4:09 PM:

Change: "Berenson openly admitted he left in 2002"

to: "Berenson openly admitted he left in 200_3_"

Anonymous wrote on May 28, 2007 7:24 PM:

SUMMARY

We judge the following:

1. White House counsel Berenson appears to be the target of a Grand Jury investigation into alleged use of unlawfully captured data for purposes outside the authority of the Statute. Berenson and other White House counsel appear to have known upon notification from DOJ OLC that their presence was associated with illegal activity. It does not appear they properly disclosed or nosily withdrew.

2. The Grand Jury appears to have prematurely notified personnel of the evidence requirements, but has deliberately misled the public and data providers on the timing. The notifications appear to have gone back as early as 2006, if not earlier. The Grand Jury and the Courts have issued subpoenas belatedly after the third party records were secured, and the evidence was retained without fear of destruction or tampering.

3. RNC E-mails have been compromised, and there are substantial private records in the hands of the Grand Jury showing the RNC legal counsel has not provided truthful statements to Congress on their disclosures. There are cooperating witnesses inside the RNC who are under active FBI and Court protection because of their proximity to these legal issues; and they currently are fearful of exposure. They don't sleep well.

4. Grand Jury investigation appears to be broad, spanning many continents, and there are several subpoenas to non-US-based personnel. The evidence has been secured.

5. White House Counsel Berenson in 2002-2003 time frame appears to have come across information suggesting that the invasion of Iraq was going to be problematic; and that Berenson and other WH counsel were aware of significant concerns that the proposed invasion was not lawful; or there were significant risks that there would be blowback. There are copies of these e-mails which Berenson appears to have still knowledge of; and Berenson appears to have had a briefing which he has well discussed related to the intelligence community's concerns with the outlook for Iraq. Berenson's assertions that he believed the activity was lawful is not supported by his inconsistent statements on rendition.

6. Outside counsel, possibly Sidley Austin and Baker Botts appear to have been used by the CIA and NSA -- in an improper use -- to identify for purpose of intelligence gathering _unrelated to law enforcement_ the identifies of NSA and CIA personnel providing leaks on the illegal activity. It appears Sidley Austin and Baker Botts working in concert with formerly assigned DOJ, EOP,and WH counsel have been tasked to gather identifying information about suspected leaks. The objective of these privately issued subpoenas appears to be assess the scope of leaks within the RNC, and circumvent the restriction against the CIA using subpoenas.

DIGGING INTO THE US ATTORNEY E-MAILS: WH COUNSEL ALLEGED TO HAVE KNOWN ABOUT ILLEGAL ACTIVITY [Use of Unlawfully captured data for other illegal, non-authorized purposes], WHICH COMEY DISCLOSED [18 USC 2520]

Let's presume that NSA-intermediary data was captured in violation of FISA; Comey knew this; and that ti was known that this data was used to support illegal activity: rendition, prisoner abuse, abusive interrogations, and bodily harm to prisoners of war.

DC Bar rules require a mandatory withdrawal.

The legal issue, 18 USC 2520: (g) Improper Disclosure Is Violation.— Any willful disclosure or _use_ by an investigative or law enforcement officer or _governmental entity_ of information beyond the extent permitted by section 2517 is a violation of this chapter for purposes of section 2520 (a).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002520----000-.html

NSA INTERMEDIARY CONTRACTS WITH OVERSEAS ENTITIES

A. How did Berenson and DOJ OLC work with NSA and DOD to construct the contract language under the FISA warrant-waiver process to ensure that the entities were "not" governmental entities, but "intermediaries";

B. When did Berenson know that the purpose of the contracts to transfer the illegally captured data -- which Comey asserted was no lawful, and Judge Vaughn said no reasonable person could assert the alleged program was lawful -- was not to support the stated purpose, but to support rendition, prisoner abuse, and bodily harm to prisoners of war in violation of Geneva;

C. How were functions transferred from the US to "other entities" in the hiring, deployment, and training of CIA personnel who used illegally captured information to support abuse of prisoners during interrogation in Eastern Europe;

US ATTORNEYS AND E-MAILS

D. Did DOJ, FBI, or the WH legal counsel/political office direct the FBI or leadership in the EOUSA to not prosecute violations of FISA, or the transfer of data to support prisoner abuse during interrogations?

E. Untimely Justice

How do we explain this many years into the illegal NSLs and unlawful surveillance, that the US Attorneys have not taken any public legal action on rendition, NSA data used to support prisoner abuse?

F. Ongoing Secret Grand Juries

Why is the entire enforcement of the statute -- attached wit ht he legal requirements to prevent unlawful uses/applications of that data -- not happening _DESPITE_ POTUS admissions that data was collected without the FISA warrants?

G. What's getting in the way of the US Attorneys from prosecuting?

H. Which Grand Jury has issued orders to retain evidence, but the RNC -- whose legal counsel is aware of the WH data retention procedures using the RNC e-mail accounts -- did not comply with the data retention requirements which they well knew were required under the Hatch Act, and should have known a Grand Jury and/or Congress would request? [Rule 6, FRCrimP]

I. Was the RNC e-mail account established with the intent that it not only circumvent the Hatch Act, but bypass any Grand Jury or Congressional goal of securing evidence related to known violations of the law, Prohibition against improper use of data to support prisoner abuse? [18 USC 2520]

Anonymous wrote on May 28, 2007 9:46 PM:

POSSIBLE SENATE CONFIRMATION CHANGES: CONDUCT US ATTORNEY RESPONSE-SCENARIOS

Rather than doing interviews, maybe the Senate could do some mock scenarios with the prospective US Attorney:

On day 1, Bereson says, "Kyle's testimony regarding the consideration of replacements was _entirely accurate_"

On day 2, Berenson changes, saying, "his client did not _intend_ to mislead Congress"

Questions for the prospective US Attorney:

A. How do you reconcile these statements?

B. How can something be "entirely accurate" yet counsel says, didn't "intend" to mislead;

C. Shouldn't something that is "entirely" accurate not require any comment about whether someone did or did not intend to do the opposite -- mislead?

D. What should US Attorneys do about these apparently inconsistent statements: Do nothing, review, forward info to Congress, wait for Congress, press for more information, empanel a grand jury, spin up the FBI to bring down Berenson?

E. Would you forward the information to the DC Bar; or would you have the court admonish counsel for issuign inconsistent statements to the open media in an attempt to interfere with a hearing?

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 12:12 AM:

Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye