Comments (212)

Hatshepsut wrote on July 27, 2007 2:49 PM:

I often wondered at the strange branding of the "TSP" when it was leaked and became open.

bryan wrote on July 27, 2007 2:51 PM:

Why do these congresspersons and senators fail to nail the witness down to a simple yes, no or i don't know.

Are you talking about the TSP, Yes or No?

No wiggle room.

Security code: False

paul c wrote on July 27, 2007 2:51 PM:

I really felt bad for the Snow family when I heard about Tony's illness, but now that he's back and continuing to sell the country down the river, I don't feel so badly.

You'd think someone as sick as he is would want to spend his time doing other things than lying to the american people every day.

RW wrote on July 27, 2007 2:52 PM:

Waiting for Snow to parce the definition "there is no smoking gun"

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 27, 2007 2:54 PM:

I wish they'd bring back the pretty one... it was much easier to take when she was blantantly lying her a$$-off.

Steve5117 wrote on July 27, 2007 2:55 PM:

paul c
Someday Bush can claim Tony misspoke because of the drugs he had to take.

M M wrote on July 27, 2007 2:57 PM:

Why doesn't someone ask a better question like:

Was the Bush administration breaking the law in the period before March 10, 2004 through the "other intelligence activities" that Comey and others said had no legal basis?

What's more important to the nation: word parsing by the AG or outright law violations by Bush?

b wrote on July 27, 2007 2:57 PM:

When will you finally understand that there are several programs.

There is the TSP, which the Justice Department agreed on (even though its illegal).

There is another program the Justice department and Mueller did not agree to. Definitly illegal. (best guess: pre-election sniffing on the opposition)

There are several other programs we don't know s... about yet.

To, again, trying to again punch the narrative into ONE program does in no way further the way to getting some to truth.

Mike wrote on July 27, 2007 3:06 PM:

But didn't Mueller's disclosure refute that argument, by conceding that Comey objected to the TSP? Nah, says Snow, because Mueller said "National Security Agency programs" instead of "TSP"

Oh, that's right Tony. Now I remember. It's just like those "weapons of mass destruction program related activities" that were reason 9,458 why we invaded Iraq.

Bryan Nelson wrote on July 27, 2007 3:07 PM:

Between Iraq, and Gonzo-Gate, Bush won't see another initiative of his pass. The Bushies are done as the country has already moved on.

Wonder when Tony will figure that out and stop trying to protect the idiots still holed up in this administration seeking political assylum from the granter of all pardons and comutations?

ScrewBush wrote on July 27, 2007 3:09 PM:

Basically what Snow says everyday is: "There you go again believing your lying eyes and ears"

Can we all admit the idiots are running the show here. Every day this administration is in office, Americans are dying in a war and we are all put at unnecessary risk while they pillage our treasury. Aside from that, they are a continual embarrassment. I'm sure other leaders in other countries simply laugh at us. Future generations will ask us how come we were all so stupid and let America sink to this depth.

Mcboo wrote on July 27, 2007 3:09 PM:

Ok, maybe it's because it's Friday or maybe it's because I'm a little under caffeinated but TSP reminds me of TPS (reports). I don't intend to trivialize what's at stake here but Tony Snow really does seem like a character out of Office Space doesn't he?

"Aahh, now, are you going to go ahead and have those TPS reports for us this afternoon?"

- Bill Lumbergh (working for the NSA now?)

frankly0 wrote on July 27, 2007 3:12 PM:

What amazes me about Tony Snow's response, and the response of the Bush WH in general, is that it can't simply say what can be simply said.

Namely, they merely have to acknowledge that when they use the term "TSP", they are referring to the program ultimately approved by Bush. When others use the term TSP, they seem to be referring to a larger set of activities, some of which may have been bundled in with a previous form of the NSA program from which TSP also derived.

Why is this hard? What are they so unwilling to state the obvious here?

My guess is that doing so would make their new use of the term TSP sound just too much like the worst sort of semantic deception. Why, after all, should they suddenly start calling only the portions of the program approved by Bush the TSP, and refuse to follow common practice of referring to the larger program pre-existing the Ashcroft visit as being TSP as well? It looks too plainly to be a distinction that has only one purpose: to save Gonzales from perjury.

1970cs wrote on July 27, 2007 3:13 PM:

Snow's beliveability is now the same as Gonzales'. I didn't think that was possible.

db wrote on July 27, 2007 3:17 PM:

Muller was well aware of the linguistic BS the WH is deploying at the time of his testimony. That's why he would never use the loaded designation, "TsP." He knew it was limited in definition by its creators to the 'program the president disclosed to the American people.' Too bad the congress persons were not yet there and did not understand what the game was wehile they had Muller on the stand.

From today's NYT:

"In insisting that there was no real contradiction between the officials’ accounts, Mr. Snow said Mr. Gonzales was just not able to explain further 'because to do so would compromise American security.'”

It would compromise the ability of the bush admin to cover up its illegal deployment of the Total Information Awareness program despite telling the gop congress it had killed it in the face of their objections.

Tony did not look so arrogant today, unlike on Wed., pre-Muller.

EH wrote on July 27, 2007 3:20 PM:

M M: That's the angle I'm thinking as well, but I don't think it'll pin them down enough to answer the way you think they should. I think the simple fact is that "TSA" encompasses all of the legal and/or uncontroversial techniques and technologies. Anything that did not make it into "the program the president described" goes into the "other intelligence activities I can't talk about" bucket. It's sophistry and semantic hair-splitting, but I think that's the contortions the administration has to go through to appear that they're following the law. Any time they weren't following the law is secret.

MN dem wrote on July 27, 2007 3:22 PM:

So lying with straight face; Mr Snow has done it so long I feel it must be satisfying to the hardcore 30% crowd. Does this resonant with the average voter? I can't imagine it can--have the Republicans just figured how to steal the next election too?

Daye Ni wrote on July 27, 2007 3:26 PM:

Sometimes one has to wonder, does a person like Snow lack any sense of human decency at all? How can he put himself through defending these indefensible absurdities? As a human being, there's got to be basic rights or wrongs everybody but the most extreme people can agree upon?

pocket wrote on July 27, 2007 3:27 PM:

That's why Snow is so careful to_not_say "TSP" as, say, "the activity of providing surveillance of people, talking with people in the United States or communicating by other means, having the federal government go after them."

Because by saying it this way would not allow the mouth of Sauron to mention terrorists 20 times in 5 minutes at a press conference. Which, by the way, is really the only way they know how to govern....through fear.

Anna S. wrote on July 27, 2007 3:28 PM:

Snow is the WH's Newspeak translator; the person facts visit to be stripped of their meaning:

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.

Snow might add Lies are Truth to Orwell's 1984 Ministry of Truth slogans, but I think that's all he'd need to add to pretty much wrap up his politics neatly.

drational wrote on July 27, 2007 3:37 PM:

I think there was no TSP until December 2005; Admin had to coverup NSA leak so split the all-encompassing NSA programs into TSP and all else, then backdated the distinction.

Comey et al were objecting to the "NSA programs" (Read Mueller's testimony) that were obviously previously bundled together into a single authorization package, whereas Gonzales is adhering to the TSP and totally stonewalling on the other (controversial) aspects of the NSA warrantless wiretap programs.

The obvious disambiguation question to ask Comey or Mueller or Ashcroft, or a Gang of 8 member, is this:

Before March 2004, were the programs we now know as the "TSP" a part of a larger set of intelligence measures grouped together and being authorized every 45 days? Did Comey object to a specific subset of this intelligence package?

If you wanted to get real nasty, ask this one: Did the program Comey et al objected to concern purely domestic surveillance done without a warrant?

Hey, by the way, where is Jake D? Kinda miss the bugger.

Woodhall Hollow wrote on July 27, 2007 3:38 PM:

This is how the exchange REALLY went at the WH Presser:

The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he SAID was, `Why is a raven like a writing-desk?'

`Come, we shall have some fun now!' thought Alice. `I'm glad they've begun asking riddles.--I believe I can guess that,' she added aloud.

`Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?' said the March Hare.

`Exactly so,' said Alice.

`Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.

`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'

`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'

`You might just as well say,' added the March Hare, `that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"!'

`You might just as well say,' added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, `that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!'

`It IS the same thing with you,' said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember about ravens and writing-desks, which wasn't much.

drational wrote on July 27, 2007 3:40 PM:

By the way, Mueller didn't use the TSP terminology because he knows the "TSP" did not exist in 2004- it was a made up term to dissemble the Dec 05 leak.
Mueller was being honest and covering his ass, knowing full well that this TSP bullshit is gonna sing Gonzales, and whoever came up with it.

Dan wrote on July 27, 2007 3:47 PM:

Snow seemed to be drifting back and forth between two basic rationalizations for Gonzales' testimony: 1) that there are myriad aspects of the TSP, and Gonzales was referring, in his testimony, only to one aspect; and 2) that, though there had been controversy regarding the TSP, it had been resolved, and Gonzales was only testifying that there remained no unresolved controversy, as of the time of his testimony.

Sully18 wrote on July 27, 2007 3:48 PM:

All this Newspeak,Double speak,linguistic terrorism,or just good old out and out lying is rapidly getting old.
I`m becoming anti-semantic.
I saw some great bumper sticker material on Kos the other day: PELOSI `07.

drational wrote on July 27, 2007 3:52 PM:

And here is another tidbit. Look at Gonzo's 2/6/06 SJC testimony and notice that he refers over and over again to the "program that the President Authorized" as necessarily including foreign contact.

This means the purely domestic portion of the NSA-driven programs may have approval outside the President's purview.
My guess:
1. The Dark Side NSA programs originated in the VP domain.
2. Comey objection ratcheted up the President's need to know. 3. Gonzo and Card enlisted to keep the shite from blowing up.
4. No Go.
5. Next day pres gets Comey and gives assurances to make it right. They may have ended the purely domestic business at that point (or not).
6. 12/05 leak time. Pres rebriefed, and TSP born.
7. Pres has no problem "Authorizing" that part. But the pre-2004 domestic is probably hanging out there in history with no authorization......

Pure speculation.

pocket wrote on July 27, 2007 3:54 PM:

Hey, by the way, where is Jake D? Kinda miss the bugger.

Posted by: drational

I think he might have taken a sick or vacation day. And no, I don't miss him.

Lars Thorwald wrote on July 27, 2007 3:54 PM:

So what he is saying is that the part which wasn't controversial is what the White House and Gonzo oare referring to. the part which Meuller notes is the contoversial part, which he can't discuss? Okay, so which part did they take up at the meeting and what was discussed in Ashcroft's hospital room? Call the programs "Duck Soup" and "Crown Royale" but answer the question.

Code: Attack, as in assault (on reason)

Austin Cooper wrote on July 27, 2007 4:01 PM:

I've been using TSP for years with no issue.

(Just make sure you're wearing gloves before
washing down paintable surfaces.)

Sorry for the stupid joke, but I need scrap of
humor I can get, these days.

Code = good

Austin Cooper wrote on July 27, 2007 4:02 PM:

pocket: No, you don't.

Official A wrote on July 27, 2007 4:06 PM:

"`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'" Posted by: Woodhall Hollow

Snow might say "I lie through my teeth," is the same as "I smile while I lie," and, for once, he'd be telling the truth.

James wrote on July 27, 2007 4:07 PM:

"Tony did not look so arrogant today, unlike on Wed., pre-Muller."

That's the part that bothers me the most. They lie about their illegal activities, and they have to put on a big attitude in the process.

The Bush administration's patented way of being doubly offensive.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 4:12 PM:

This makes Clinton's "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" sound positively straightforward.

drational wrote on July 27, 2007 4:14 PM:

Why I suspect Darth Cheney involved in program origination?
Comey Testimony.
Philbin objected to legality of NSA program, and Addington had the biggest hand in ending Philbin's career. Payback for ruining Addington's pretty NSA operation.

Comey dropped that name for a reason....

Scott L wrote on July 27, 2007 4:17 PM:

Looks like Bagdad Bob changed his name to Tony Snow.

random error wrote on July 27, 2007 4:19 PM:

Gonzales has perjured himself, because no matter how many programs there are , no matter how many secrets Bush has stashed away- the problem is that Gonzales said that the TSP- or whatever- was the program referred to in the meeting with the Intelligence Committees just preceding. It has to be, because he is claiming the imprimatur of the Intelligence Committees- who, according to him, AUTHORIZED him to get this program signed off.
The name or names of the program do not matter. What matters is that the IC- according to the AG- instructed him to get this issue with Ashcroft resolved. The TSP, therefore, means what the IC understood it to mean. The referent of the term Gonzales used in the IC meeting is the legally operative one, and so it must be the same- exactly the same- as the one Gonzales argued with Ashcroft about.

Waiting for Truth wrote on July 27, 2007 4:27 PM:

If this briefing doesn't point to the need of transcripts, nothing will.

Jack Hughes wrote on July 27, 2007 4:28 PM:

The point of distinction in Snow's defense may be the difference between:

a) The warrantless wiretap program (aka TSP) as we (think we) know it now.

b) The warrantless wiretap program which was so unconstitutional and criminally egregious that it was going to spark mass resignations from the DoJ and FBI if it were to continue.

Rove's propagandists are trying desperately to use the difference to provide some shred of cover for Gonzales' serial perjuries.

Flip Wilson wrote on July 27, 2007 4:30 PM:

Clearly Mueller was referring to a teaspoon -- using an abbreviation and not an acronym.

Joe wrote on July 27, 2007 4:32 PM:

Impeach 'em all and let Tim Russert sort 'em out. Snow is grasping for hairs now, since he's all out of straw.

I love the smell of impeachments in the morning. Smells like a toilet that was just flushed and sprayed with Lysol.

OCPatriot wrote on July 27, 2007 4:32 PM:

Amazing how Snow suddenly is in the midst of this. Snow is only a spokesman, but he acts like a player. Either the President or Gonzales needs to speak about this, not Snow. Snow, I must remind everybody, is just a hand- or mouth-puppet. He also sometimes doesn't tell the truth, obfuscates and prevaricates. He needs to go and the President needs to be chastised by the MSM and reporters for allowing this charade of half-truths and "spin" - all meaningless - to go on.

OCPatriot wrote on July 27, 2007 4:35 PM:

TPM needs to re-examine their own covert support of Snow, by giving him the space and credibility he doesn't deserve and by enabling him. Taking Snow seriously is a bad mistake, as the MSM has done for too long.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 4:45 PM:

STUDY MUELLER'S HESITATION

I would encourage a "fresh look" at not just the transcript, but the _audio_:

["Mueller: The discussion was on a National -- uh, NSA program that has been much discussed, yes."]

It appears he _almost_ mentioned "national security council" program. . . NSC is not the same as NSA. Another way to read between the lines . . ."National security program": Something that is _outside_ FISA; and _outside_ what the FISA current covers. . .although it was intended to cover _all_ things.

Listen closely to the pauses, spacing, and hemming and hawing. Mueller is dancing around something that -- it appears -- President and AG have said falls "outside" the FISA-coverage: This might be a Canadian-Australian-NZ-UK data transfer program: Whereby non-US interception methods are used, but the data is forwarded to the NSA through non-direct US means.

. . . .

Also, if the Senate's Leahy/Specter do not trust Gonzalez, why would they trust him on this AG-certifications under FISA? If he's been lying to the Senate, then his AG-certifications on "OK to do this without a warrant" are also in doubt. He could define anything -- rightly or wrongly -- as being under that umbrella.
Question becomes: What certification has the AG made on things that not even the Gang of 8 was told about; and how was the NSC (not NSA) involved with the oversight of this, outside FISA-Gang of 8 review?
"National security" could mean: "Maintaining morale" or "maintaining confidence": That could mean providing false information to the public; or, based on data mining, issuing public news releases to justify public support for illegal activity; or maintain confidence in something that was an illegal contract. This would involve capture through NSA of meta-language; then stripping out identifying information;; then transferring that data to a firm like Flieshman Hilliard which would examine it, and issue public news releases on various government "public oversight" and "media messaging issues": Smith Act issues in re domestic propaganda: Possibly a "public service" announcement to maintain loyalty in non-sense. Something for AT&T to discuss.

PW wrote on July 27, 2007 4:48 PM:

As credible as snow in Washington in July, maybe.

I guess I mostly agree with OCPatriot: take Snow off the quotable list.

I also guess we'll be looking back at this time not too long from now wondering how we didn't spot all the other warrantless activities -- including outrageous surveillance programs -- which are yet to be revealed.

Londonreader wrote on July 27, 2007 5:08 PM:

Menwith Hill in Yorkshire England is the largest electonic listening base in the world. Nominally belonging to the RAF it is apparently operated by US personnel

details here.

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/mhs/

Interestingly it was in the news yesterday.

Britain has agreed to a US request for the RAF Menwith Hill monitoring station in North Yorkshire to be used as part of its missile defence system.
Defence Secretary Des Browne said the system was "a building block to enhance our national and collective security".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6916262.stm

sandor wrote on July 27, 2007 5:13 PM:

Where is the shame?

Sandor wrote on July 27, 2007 5:19 PM:

... and I weep for what were the ideals of the United States of America.

mo2 wrote on July 27, 2007 5:19 PM:

I think I have figured out why Mueller is parsing his words and what the White House is protecting:

The illegal Project X wiretaps had captured information on Zacarious Moussaoui that could have prevented the 9-11-2001 attacks from occurring at all.

"A senior FBI official attending the White House meeting on July 5th (2001) committed the bureau to redouble contacts with its foreign counterparts and to speed up transcription and analysis of wiretaps obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), among other steps.

But when the field agent in Phoenix, Arizona, reported the suspicions of a hijacking plot just five days later, the FBI did not share the report with any other agency. One must ask, why?
...
On August 15,2001, an alert civilian instructor at a Minnesota flight school called the FBI" ...
The FBI office in Minnesota attempted to get a FISA warrant, but they were rebuffed. A crucial mistake, because Zacarias Moussaoui’s possessions contained evidence that would have exposed key elements of the September 11th plot.

But, why was this request denied? Again, the historical facts must be analyzed.

In March 2001, an internal debate ignited at the Justice Department and the FBI over wiretap surveillance of certain terrorist groups. Prompted by questions raised by Royce C. Lamberth, the Chief Judge of the FISA Court, the Justice Department opened an inquiry into Michael Resnick an FBI official who coordinated the Act’s applications. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller (then deputy Attorney General), ordered a full review of all foreign surveillance authorizations.
...
The article goes on to state, “the men then phoned Bangor airport trying to get a flight to Boston but were told there was no flight that matched their desired departure time, the authorities said. The men then phoned Portland International JetPort, where two of them apparently made reservations for a flight to Boston on Tuesday morning.”

How would this information be gleaned so quickly? How would the FBI know to visit a store in Bangor, Maine only hours after the attacks? Moreover, how would they know the details of a phone conversation that occurred a week prior to the attacks?"
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/senatecommittee091802b.html

Sandor wrote on July 27, 2007 5:21 PM:

Rise again. Truth. And justice. The American Way.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 5:37 PM:

NSC-RUN PROGRAM, LIKE IRAN-CONTRA, OUTSIDE CONGRESSIONAL-LEGAL OVERSIGHT

An "NSA/NSC" supporting function/unit does not necessarily mean intelligence gathering or intercepts. NSA-NSC-related units can be assigned anywhere; and their intelligence gathering is not isolated to electronic methods. It could involve civilian contractors assigned to commercial entities not obviously connected with the US government; and not obviously involved with verification of Signals intelligence. The personnel may or may not have any idea that they are assigned to a group that relies on NSA-collect information or that they are involved with verifying information the NSA/NSC has an interest.

. . . . .
"Why I suspect Darth Cheney involved in program origination? Comey Testimony. Philbin objected to legality of NSA program, and Addington had the biggest hand in ending Philbin's career. Payback for ruining Addington's pretty NSA operation. Comey dropped that name for a reason...."

Posted by: drational
Date: July 27, 2007 4:14 PM
- - - -

Recall, it's CIA that was sharing info with the EU on the rendition; and Plame was retaliated against by OVP: and the OVP blocking the archivist audit. Addington knew about the European Detention centers.Not getting info on the naval-based detention centers.

Recall, Iran-Contra was an NSC-run operation: Cheney was involved. Could be the same kid of thing -- something run out of NSC, not the DoJ or NSA. Not clear that the "NSA" vs "NSC" is a typo: Suspect its different: NSC, not NSA, appears to be running these things.

Recall DoJ met with the intelligence personnel at various sports facilitates in DC. Keep thinking Plame and Cheney were about sending a message to Cheney' private intelligence network -- likely linked through Halliburton -- to send a message: "Plame outing" is what will happen if you crosss the VP. Seems to simplistic to say this is only about oil, and retaliating against others who spill the beans. Libby's name was mentioned in the context of "basketball," another program -- that came up during the Grand Jury reviews; his counsel was worried Fitzgerald had access to NSA-GCHQ-intercepted information of legal counsel.
. . .

Philbin was former OLC, meaning he probably clashed with Addington on the legal aspects of Rendition/prisoner abuse as well. Philbin documented his concerns, which the Congress can ask for since those memoranda and their existence on this subject have been disclosed. Mentioning Philbin may have been merely a suggestion of which people/memoranda to specifically ask for.
Philbin was aware of the "security" issues of GTMO; and likely would have been involved with discussions in detaining prisoners in Eastern Europe.

1. Support Aspect: NSA resources supporting, or outsourced
"NSA" or "NSC" program doesn't necessarily have to mean just data interception, but _use_ and _support_ of other activities: Combat, intelligence analysis, interrogation, or direct support for the CIA. Problem NSA and DOJ have is when CIA -- possibly connected with this "other program" -- have talked to the EU. EU may have more information about this "other program" than the Congress has been directly told or understands.

2. Direct reporting to NSC, outside Congressional oversight
IF this is an NSA "program" it could be a support function for the NSC, or one of the combatant commanders; or made to _look_ that way to hide the real objective of the activity. They may have classified it as an "NSA Program" to bury its real objective as a domestic-CIA-cover action program, which is illegal, an "open secret" but explained away as a "training program" like Operation Falcon: Use of Federal resources at the local level for training, manning support, and domestic intelligence gathering in conjunction with CIFA.

3. Posse Comitatus
This could be a special access program within DoD that is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, hidden as an "NSA program" but a domestic security force backed by combat forces/special forces units which have the power to issue arrest warrants, detain people, and target those who oppose the illegal activities.

4. Individual Cells, untraceable, multi-agency
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the President could not, through DoD and CIFA, establish a Gestapo-like "NSA program" within the DoD community, and then outsource this to local law enforcement -- JTTF. They've got people that cross flow between the guard units, local law enforcement, FBI, and to civilian jobs all day. They could be creating individual cells within JTTF units that are comprised of NSC contractors, data analysis, and law enforcement whose sole goal is to act as a direct reporting entity to the NSC. They could very well be reporting directly to people working for Cheney, and Congress and JCS might never realize who or what was actually assigned, or relying on DoD assets.

5. DoD Entities With Personnel Assigned Stateside
DoD could ery well have created "foreign entities" in other countries, who then are in charge of these personnel stationed in the US. DoD was given this power to establish foreign intelligence and combat support entities overseas; however, if that's mutated, the NSC may have subcontracted to these DoD entities US-based personnel who directly support NSC: In effect, creating an NSC-NSA support function under DoD foreign entities, but basing their contractors in the US..

SUMMARY
Mueller appears to be referring to a sub-contracted effort which indirectly supports the NSC with a special domestic security unit. These units engage in direct engagement with state-side personnel and civilians. Contractors, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel are assigned under non-direct-NSC-NSA units, but are hidden inside commercial entities. The groups appear capable of moving quickly, with no direct supervision, but act as internal security forces, completely outside FISA oversight. They appear to be entities unrelated to FISA, but are front line units which verify information, gather intelligence domestically, and help NSC pinpoint targets which NSC contractors are assigned.

RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Congress examine the Operation Falcon; determine which NSA/NSC personnel were assigned to oversee.
B. Examine the budget lines inside the DOD foreign entities support accounts; and determine which banks are used to challenge those funds. Determine how the DOD funds are funnelled overseas through the NSC entities, then back to the US to these individual groups.
C. Review the "investigative leads" and ground rules JTTF and local law enforcement use to dissuade detection of the domestic intelligence gathering efforts.
D. Review the destruction logs of the CIFA; and determine who was supposed to keep the logs related to these classified documents.
Determine which signalling systems, monitoring, and other intelligence gathering the JTTF are using; and where this information is sent. Ultimately, it winds up somewhere: Which contractors, NSC staffers have access to these reports.
E. Examine with Congressional Counsel whether it is the intent that these domestic security services operate this way; and whether, as FISA is written, this type of activity would fall outside what the FISA Court can engage.
F. Review the DHS domestic interrogation facilities. Look at the gas mileage for the DHS pick up teams. Review the files they've had access to; and the basis for detaining someone. Review the complaints of citizens being forcibly removed from their cars, engines running, or being taken from their homes while school children are present in the early morning. Evidence includes car impound fees.
G. Discuss with POST and local LE efforts used to dissuade public awareness of intelligence gathering: Excuses given to hide pre-textual stops; and examine whether local officials do or do not keep adequate records related to officer complaints and requests for civilian oversight to examine officer misconduct.
H. Examine problems during audits: To what extent officers in LE, FBI, and DHS are concerned when reports of officer misconduct arise; and what methods auditors are aware to segregate complaints about officer misconduct from auditors:

1. Have they been asked to leave the room; were concerns explained away; were officers complaining they were "short manned" an unable to supervise; and how do these explanations square with the officer conduct.
2. How often are these units employed to provoke innocent civilians to respond to abuse?
3. To what extent are these domestic units used to harass civilians based on a "hunch"?
4. Would these units put the children of minors at risk to entrap a suspected target?
5. Is there no report of any of these personnel ever exposing a minor to a potentially unsafe situation to engage a target?
6. Has the FISA court, Congress, and Judiciary been fully apprised of how these units operate; their procedures; and oversight requirement to ensure 42 USC 1983 claims are minimized?
7. What insurance do these units have if they are engaged in liable action?

DallasNE wrote on July 27, 2007 5:39 PM:

In all of this hair-splitting over the scope of a definition it has confused me on one point.

Is this part of the same program that amounted to the phone records of millions of Americans being handed over by AT&T in St. Louis and other locations. And could that have been the part that Comey would not sign off on?

PontchartrainPete wrote on July 27, 2007 5:40 PM:

I kept waiting for a reporter to say, "Tony, what's the meaning of is?"

Seriously, folks, the US Attorney firings and voter caging are nothing compared to the possibility of thousands of felony counts that could arise out of the administration's actions outside of FISA. I think it's an easier issue for the public to understand if impeachment proceedings were to begin.

1. Was there a wiretap placed on a phone based on US soil?

2. Were the provisions of FISA followed in placing the tap?

3. If no, then it's a felony count.

4. Repeat

johnnydoughey wrote on July 27, 2007 5:43 PM:

I listened to Snow today and realized how he got his name. Kinda reminded me of those carnival barkers I heard as a kid.

cv wrote on July 27, 2007 5:53 PM:

In other words, Comey never had any objections to the incarnation of the program that he found acceptable. Of Course.

Larry Hanry wrote on July 27, 2007 5:55 PM:

Yesterday afternoon when Wolf Blitzer was interviewing Tony Snow he made this same point about Mueller's testimony admonishing WB to refer to the transcript and he would see that Meuller never said TSP.
Lost in this was an argument he had made just seconds before in that interview concerning testimony by Whitehouse aids explaining that the administration will allow them to testify but not in public, not under oath and not with a TRANSCRIPT.
It seems that a transcript is a no no unless it can be used to prop up your own position.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 6:09 PM:

LEARN LESSON OF OLC IN RE SUBPOENA RESPONSES

Recall, OLC issued a "memo" saying that WH Counsel did not have to testify. This, according to the WH, was "gospel." Untrue, but that's another issue. OLC made a "rule" and then everyone said, "See, that's what they said."
Now, consider this, from TPMM quote, above: ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] That could mean anything, anybody, and without reference to any legal standard.

"not legally controversial" . . . _according to whom_. . . ?...:
- OLC?
- Consensus within NSC?
- Consensus within NSA?
- Rove's determination?
- Gonzalez assessment after talking to Goodling about door mats for the Hoover Building?
. . .

What's their idea of "non legal controversy", as opposed to a "controversy that is real, but not based on a law, just the Constitution"?

What is someone like Darth Cheney said, "We need to justify this -- find a reason. Ignore words in the law if you need to. Just give me a memo. You get an appointment to the bench if you can figure this out." What if Roberts or Alito gave a really good opinion on this and made everyone -- in that room -- believe it was "not controversial", even though it was?

. . .

Again, saying ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could mean:
A. "other programs" were controversial;
B. "other groups" _are_ doing illegal things, but you haven't asked us about them, so we haven't made up a lie. . . yet;
C. OLC "determined" (using a feather, some fairy dust, and after gazing into GOodling's eyes) that anything the NSC wanted to do under Cheney was OK, just as long as nobody traced the money.
. . .

There's another way of looking at this ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."]
D. "This program" is different from "that program" which has been hidden in another budget, unrelated to the NSA or NSC:
E. DoD _is_ allowed to do things overseas, and contractors have been assigned -- working for those _overseas_ entities -- in the US.
F. The data that is managed is channelled, but the contractors have no idea who it is they are monitoring: All they see is the raw data; someone else then recombines the data if there is a problem.
G. If we find a problem in the data, we then use the data we've collected to justify the warrant; if we can't get one, we self-issue one, and get the AG to certify it as being OK> Never mind that Qwest objected.
["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could also mean:
H. Legal counsel assigned to our units have been told to keep their comments to themselves
I. All contracts supporting this activity are -- by definition -- "legal contracts"; (just don't talk about whether they support a lawful or unlawful objective. Far too scary to contemplate!)
J. "not controversial" could mean all the legal views that opposed it were ignored; and the remaining opinions were in "full support".
K. The legal counsel who knew of the Constitutional violations were sent to Guantanamo, threatened with nasty things: "To the washroom, counsellor! No gloves for you."
L. Legal counsel who remained quiet were promised a "good rating" by "the decider" in their upcoming DOJ ranking list -- the names given to the Senate for Federal Benches.

"not legally controversial" could mean all case law showing it was illegal was ignored; or selectively rewritten, as Addington well did with the Iran-Contra minority report.

["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could mean: other programs were contentious; but since AG Gonzalez is on the pig-spit this week, we need to pretend we are concerned, even though we are not.
The people who said this was "no problem" and were not saying tat it was lawful, just that it wouldn't be a problem to find a judge who they could bribe to not take action.

"not legally controversial" does not mean that it was legal; only that the in "someone's mind" (God knows where) their idea of "controversial" is a different definition which does not use controversy. Maybe legal counsel who opposed were _not_ using spears with _poison_ tips, so the spin misters said, "See not controversial, if they ere really upset they would have had nasty poison, the kind that makes Ebola look like a fuzzy kitten." The infamy! How dare they!

Sue wrote on July 27, 2007 6:12 PM:

If it weren't that the subject of this discussion is so damn serious, Tony Snow sounds for all the world like he's saying "...it depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is...."

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 6:12 PM:

Posted by: Larry Hanry
Date: July 27, 2007 5:55 PM

Transcripts can tell you alot: The changes, pauses, and hesitations -- especially when compared to the audio -- can be very revealing: Find out if they are changing their pace of word; and is it liekly they've been fed lines through an ear piece like Bush is. Someone is pulling the strings; someone has a script.

The problem is when the questions asked do not match the scripted answers. How about some last minute changes to the questions to throw them off, Congress?

EH wrote on July 27, 2007 6:14 PM:

cv: Exactly!

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 6:17 PM:

This is not necessarily true: [}Very obviously, the program Mueller referred to was the Terrorist Surveillance Program."]

The "other programs" could be things _far too scary_ to contempate. Recall, this Preident is linked with war crimes: It means nothing for him to set up camps, and make people disappear. "all for the cause. . ."

Put the burden on the President: Prove those internment camps you've built aren't being used; and that the prisoners aren't out "exercising" when the Auditors arrive.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 6:32 PM:

I don't personally think the fact that they are or are not referring to "this" or "that" or "TSP" or "Not TSP" is the issue: The fact is that there isn't a consistent story, raising the question: What other activity is occurring that may be an NSA-related function, but has been organized to fall _outside_ FISA oversight, but is still illegal under the Constitution:
- Roving bands of contractors harassing US citizens;
- Temporary detention centers to detain US citizens without warrant or trial;
- Use of tax information by JTTF to compel US citizens to explain things that the agents are not able to determine through NSA intercepts
- Groups whose sole function is to fill in the gaps in the NSA intercepts, and provide some meat to explain what is going on with something that is unusual, but they don't want the court to know they're looking at . . . again.

Recall, the RNC has deleted/destroyed e-mail. If this "other program" were "OK," how does the RNC explain the failure to retain detain related to an ongoing "OK" activity? [I realizes this assumes the RNC e-mail was related to the activity; but isn't that the point: The RNC believes that this activity is lawful, so why not discuss it by email?" What if the RNC, when it first created the backup email system, through nobody would find out about it; and they assumed the e-mail would never see the light of day because of "privilege" claims. But when, what if someone from one of the law firms associated with he CIA went to the EU, and the RNC realized, "Oh, no. . . they've figure it out; it's not lawful; and we're in trouble. Destroy everything." IT doesn't make sense to destroy evidence related to a "legal program" when that activity -- if it were lawful and non-disclosed -- should be protected by privilege. Rather, it appears they realized private would not work, and the documents would not be shielded.

The question goes back to DOJ, OLC, and outside counsel: [ "When you learned of the "other programs" involved with this intelligence activity, did you fear that the information in the RNC accounts would be disclosed; or was there something you learned from the EU -- and CIA visits with the EU -- which prompted the evidence destruction related to rendition, FISA< prisoner abuse, and other things OLC apparently "all agreed" -- in a perverse Yoo-like fashion -- was "lawful". . . (never mind Geneva, FISA< or The Constitutional requirements)." ]

Sounds like a law firm which was auditing a company related to various NSA programs and prisoner transfers should have detected this chance of fraud, and internal control problems. Or is a law firm saying, despite attestations to the SEC on those financial statements, that they had "no idea" what was going on, despite counsel's awareness of the activity -- as evidenced by their meeting with the DoD General Counsel's staff on these very issues?

myrna wrote on July 27, 2007 6:50 PM:

It's a sad thing that Tony Snow has chosen to spend what time he has left in this world continuing to spin and tell lies for George W Bush and his dishonest administration. Surely Snow could find honorable work and leave a legacy in which his family can take pride.

Paul Prappas wrote on July 27, 2007 6:52 PM:

All this hair-splitting over the name of the program shouldn't be at issue. It's a red herring. Gonzales claims that he was seeking re-authorization of a program that he claimed the "gang of 8" had approved. Who cared what it's called. It required "authorization" by DoJ. That's why Gonzo and Card visited Ashcroft - for "re-authorization". So any objections by Comey to "other intelligence activities" - as claimed by Gonzo - are meaningless unless these activities were part of the program that required authorization. Comey's objections were over the program.

It's the program, stupid!

lysias wrote on July 27, 2007 6:55 PM:

The NSC is empowered to task the NSA.

lysias wrote on July 27, 2007 6:58 PM:

For example, the USS Liberty, although under the operational control of NSA and operating under Joint Chiefs orders when it went to the East Med in '67, was ultimately doing the bidding of the NSC. Its mission had been authorized by a special subgroup of the NSC.

mo2 wrote on July 27, 2007 7:08 PM:

By Paul Kiel May 15, 2007 on TPM:
"The deadline for the Justice Department's providing its sign-off of the program was March 11th [2004] (the program required reauthorization every 45 days). On that day, Comey, then the acting AG, informed the White House that he "would not certify the legality" of the program."

By Spencer Ackerman today at TPM:
"The only relevance is Comey's objections to TSP -- the surveillance program that began in October 2001, no matter how the Bush administration wishes to obscure the issue."

By Spencer and Kiel yesterday - "Prior to 9/11, such surveillance had to be approved by a FISA judge so as not to violate the 4th Amendment."

My question is:
How do we know October 2001 was the beginning of the illegal spying program? Given that Bush/Rice were warned about al quaeda before Bush was sworn in in 2001, why is it thought that they did absolutely nothing before October 2001? Because they say so is not good enough.

Could it be that they did do something, but that something was illegal? And they feel it is better to be called do-nothings than criminals?

Can somebody please provide the link to the testimony that says the TSP started on October 1, 2001?

EBMckinnon wrote on July 27, 2007 7:15 PM:

"Namely, they merely have to acknowledge that when they use the term "TSP", they are referring to the program ultimately approved by Bush. When others use the term TSP, they seem to be referring to a larger set of activities, some of which may have been bundled in with a previous form of the NSA program from which TSP also derived."

Posted by: frankly0
Date: July 27, 2007 3:12 PM

That's the specific question that needs to be asked of each and every witness that shows up to testify. "When you use the phrase TSP, are you referring to the program precisely as the President disclosed?"

The administration is definitely playing semantics, but I would hope that at least one member of ANY committee could pin down what each and every witness means when they refer to TSP, NSA program(s), warrantless wiretapping, etc. Rep. Lee attempted to I think, but she still left room for ambiguity.

PeterS wrote on July 27, 2007 7:27 PM:

Ok, call me cynical, but does any one else feel that the administration could attack Iran right before the 08 elections and then cancel the elections for fear of emboldening our enemies? Then of course the AG's office and the Supreme Court will side with the Bush/Cheney based upon executive privaledge during wartime?
Am I crazy for even half thinking that could happen?

db wrote on July 27, 2007 7:31 PM:

Program X seems to have infiltrated TPM! My comments are being censored.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 7:32 PM:

I sincerely feel compassion for poor Tony. He's obviously not doing well, and perhaps we need to applaud his bravery. He has to be on some very potent drugs in order to stand up there and lie continuously, all the while scoffing at the audacity of those who dare ask such stupid questions. It's really quite sad.

mo2 wrote on July 27, 2007 7:50 PM:

"September 5--INS entered the September 4 notice of revocation of Mihdhar's visa into the INS lookout system. The State Department identified Mihdhar as a potential witness in an FBI investigation, and inspectors were told not to detain him."

For what FBI investigation was al Mihdhar a potential witness? Why was it first ordered to detain al Mihdhar because he was armed and dangerous and thereafter ordered to not detain him because he was a potential witness in an FBI investigation? Al Mihdhar was "armed and dangerous" and "participating in terrorist acts" that were defined as "airline hijackings" and using "weapons of mass destruction." Who ordered his non-detainment a mere five days before 9/11? Perhaps current Secretary of State Rice (former National Security Advisor on 9/11) or her State Department counsel, Philip Zelikow, (former 9/11 Commission Staff Director) might have some answers?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/the-kings-red-herring_b_12589.html

Mark F. wrote on July 27, 2007 7:51 PM:

I kind of feel sorry for Tony these days. He looks like crap, and while it's tempting to chalk it up to the effects of chemotherapy or whatever health problems he's had, I suspect it's truly the result of spending his days telling lies to keep a guy he knows is a moron out of trouble. I'd say Tony would be a lot happier and healthier if he'd find himself an honest line of work.

-30- wrote on July 27, 2007 7:55 PM:

I'm still confused as to why Mueller thinks it's necessary not to say "TSP." It's already been discussed and publicly. Why so coy? Is my brain not functioning this week?

Mark F. wrote on July 27, 2007 7:57 PM:

"Program X seems to have infiltrated TPM! My comments are being censored."

You're not being censored. What's happening is that a certain company in Australia doesn't know what the hell they're doing.

You know who you are, mate...

Jamey wrote on July 27, 2007 8:01 PM:

I know this makes me sound like a total dick, but next time, I'm rooting for the cancer.

Sorry, but nobody takes a shit on the country I love and then tries to rub others' noses in it.

Jamey wrote on July 27, 2007 8:03 PM:

I know this may make me sound like a total jerk, but next time, I'm rooting for the cancer.

Nobody dumps on my country like Tony does, and then gets away with trying to rub our noses in it.

Jamey wrote on July 27, 2007 8:04 PM:

Oops. Thought I had tripped the censor wire with my uncharacteristic use of profanity. Apologies.

foolme1ns wrote on July 27, 2007 8:06 PM:

It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Mark F. wrote on July 27, 2007 8:08 PM:

"I'm still confused as to why Mueller thinks it's necessary not to say 'TSP.'"

It's a word game--a way to lie without actually lying. Have you ever noticed how, whenever the subject of torture comes up, current and former members of the Bush administration always reply in the same way? They're always very careful to say, "We do not torture." It's a slightly odd phrase that always sounds a little awkward and non-conversational when they say it. I'm guessing they made a little rule that allows them, if they say it exactly that way, to do so without technically lying. Listen for it next time someone from the administration talks about torture. It's very odd.

mo2 wrote on July 27, 2007 8:11 PM:

Sorry for more, but this seems relevent.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0301resnickerrors
"An FBI agent, angry over a glitch in an e-mail tracking program that has somehow mixed innocent non-targeted e-mails with those belonging to al-Qaeda, reportedly accidentally destroys all of the FBI’s Denver-based intercepts of bin Laden’s colleagues under investigation. "

It also says that the FBI’s deputy director has told agents that contacting prosecutors without the OIPR’s permission is a “career stopper.” [OIPR = Office of Intelligence Policy and Review at the Justice Department]"

Sick&Tired wrote on July 27, 2007 8:38 PM:

Tony needs to spend his days trying to get closer to his God and not lying so much.

db wrote on July 27, 2007 9:39 PM:

". I'm guessing they made a little rule that allows them, if they say it exactly that way, to do so without technically lying."

Yes, the rule is they go by John Yoo's definition of torture, which means if it does not cause organ failure or death, it's not really torture.

And with TSP, that means only the program the president disclosed to the public, nothing else. Same game, which is to lie through your teeth. Muller was hip to the game and thus refused to use their TSP designation cause he knew it was just a mechanism to lie and have an escape hatch from perjury conviction and did not want to muck up his testimony with such horseshit, excuse my language.

olman wrote on July 27, 2007 9:40 PM:

TONY SNOWJOB = MAX HEADROOM, but pathetic.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 9:49 PM:

Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 8:11 PM

Thanks. BTW: The "wall" argument [ in re FISA "needed reforms" ] falls apart: DSP combined the CIA and FBI info _before_ 9-11, making "the wall" irrelevant. It's not a real problem then, now; and the "solution" is a red herring.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 9:54 PM:

Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 7:08 PM

My question is:

mo2" How do we know October 2001 was the beginning of the illegal spying program?"

Excellent point: We don't; allegations are that the _illegal_ surveillance started _before_ Sept 2001.

-------------

mo2: "Given that Bush/Rice were warned about al quaeda before Bush was sworn in in 2001, why is it thought that they did absolutely nothing before October 2001?"

Good point again.

mo2:" Because they say so is not good enough."

Right. Getting warmer.

-------------

mo2: Could it be that they did do something, but that something was illegal?

You are correct.

mo2: "And they feel it is better to be called do-nothings than criminals?"

Also, they like the idea people are focusing on the wrong surveillance, wrong time period: The confusion menas they can blame Congress for "not asking teh right questions."

mo2: "Can somebody please provide the link to the testimony that says the TSP started on October 1, 2001?"

Someone said that, you're correct; but TSP isn't necessarily what's being talked about.

- - - - -

THe point is: If the GOP will not convice Gonzalez for lying, then Gonzalez needs to explain why his comments are _true_:
- What programs could exist under both the inconsenst statementes of Gonzalez; and also the disparity between what Gonzalez and Mueller are saying.

The GOP Senators canot have it both ways: Sayhing, "AG is telling the truth; but not having any information to support _that_ conclusion.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 9:59 PM:

Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 7:50 PM

The problem they have: Not only were they doign illegal things _before_ Sept 2001; those illegal things did _not_ work.

There's no basis for the President to say, "We need to do more of this illegal stuff" as it didn't work before Sept 2001; rather, what's needed is the opposite: "Given we tried ilegal things, and _that_ didn't work, who has some other ideas?"

They can't ask _that_ question because they'll admit:
1. They screwed up
2. They have no clue
3. They're not able to hire someone to help them out

The only option they have is to pretend the problem is one thing; and then solve that "new problem" in a way that appears to solve it. Forget the fact that the problem they may be "sovling" is illusory. They may have defined the program in terms of what _appears_ to be a solveable problem.

IN other words, if they've realized that they can't win, they['ll [a] redefine the enemy in terms of what Congress can be led to believe is a credilbe threat; and [b] redefine the solution in terms of not solvinga real problem, but in terms of what appers to solve what they've created the impression is the problem.

Problems, solutions, reality, and the illusion may or may not be matching: This may explain why things are not appearing all that straightforward: They're still tring to figure out how they're in power despite their stupidity.

Joseph Combs wrote on July 27, 2007 10:16 PM:

It's never been a "Terrorist Surveillance Program". The correct abbreviation is "ASP", "American Surveillance Program". There is no question that nearly all of the NSA activities involved US nationals: analysis of their voices; "trees" of who called/IMed/e-mailed whom; and ATM/PayPal/check imaging intercepts. The scale of warrantless interception of personal/private data is well beyond what major media have uncovered and published.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 10:20 PM:

these folks have zero dignity

Josh Marshall wrote on July 27, 2007 10:50 PM:

I notice a few folks who asked or wondered what became of Jake D. Simply put, we banned him. We heard the many emails and requests you sent in describing how much he was intentionally disrupting the conversation and community here. We agreed and we banned him from the site. We weren't ignoring your complaints. The delay was caused by the fact that TPMm was not set up in a way to make it easy for us to ban someone. But we made some changes to make that possible. In the nature of things, Jake my resurface with another name or log-in-point of entry. And if that happens, let us know, and we'll get rid of Jake 2.0 too.

As I've noted on other occasions at TPMCafe, conservatives or people who for whatever reason don't share our editorial viewpoint are welcome here. The comments are not for adulation. But there's a difference between dissent and willful efforts to disrupt the conversation. Jake D. clearly went way over that line.

Josh

1oldlady wrote on July 27, 2007 11:30 PM:

People...there has surfaced new emails about voter fraud on truthout web site... oh my gosh!!! some shocking stuff! Now what are WE going to do about all the crap that keeps plaguing us daily??? and not to mention our Constitution!!

I am afraid if congress goes on recess brake, this administration is going to do something that could look like marshal law!

kentuck wrote on July 27, 2007 11:36 PM:

Dang! This crap sure does stink!

George W Bush should have been impeached the day he came out and admitted to illegally spying on millions of Americans. That was the day he decided to change its name to "Terrorist Surveillance Program"...Because if we are surveilling "terrorists", then that makes it all right. Right?

Wonder what it was called the day before he and Rove came up with that "new" name? Wonder if it might have been called "Total Information Awareness" Program which was supposed to have been shut down many months before? But, in a sleight of hand, they decided to keep it going. It was just too good to turn loose.

But they couldn't call it the TIA because that would have been an even worse admission. Yep, it sure stinks to high heaven...

Bill wrote on July 27, 2007 11:47 PM:

Thanks! Adieu Jake.

security code: waste

jimbo92107 wrote on July 28, 2007 12:21 AM:

My, what a tangled web.

They're looking more like the Nixons every day.

Rm wrote on July 28, 2007 12:41 AM:

What date would the executive branch give for the starting date of the TSP? Was it before March 10,2004? If not what was the program that the NSA was conducting prior to that, that the white house signed off on? Was that a legal program?

plr1960 wrote on July 28, 2007 12:46 AM:

Tony Snow is one piece of work! I swear the man's nose grows every time he opens his mouth.

Yet, he's still the darling of Christian conservatives everywhere. Check out what he wrote for the evangelical journal, Christianity Today, when they asked him "what spiritual lessons he has been learning through the ordeal (with cancer)."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/july/25.30.html

Myrna wrote on July 28, 2007 12:47 AM:

" but does any one else feel that the administration could attack Iran right before the 08 elections and then cancel the elections for fear of emboldening our enemies? Then of course the AG's office and the Supreme Court will side with the Bush/Cheney based upon executive privaledge during wartime?Am I crazy for even half thinking that could happen?
***********************************************
You're not crazy. I wouldn't put anything past the Bush Administration. I was already thinking what if they used another terror attack to refuse to hand over power to the new President. Giuliani made some noise in that direction after 9/11...floating the idea that NYC needed him to remain in office after his term was over.

The Bush Administration does not shrink from the unthinkable; and an honest Attorney General working for a new Administration might open investigations that could lead to criminal charges for the lot of them. So the Democrats had better consider possible scenarios Bush and Cheney might try to hold onto power,including a declaration of martial law, and plan how to deal with it before it happens.

db wrote on July 28, 2007 1:23 AM:

Forgive another post from me...i'm confined to home due to temporary medical condition. Typing is one of the few things i can do right now!

"They're looking more like the Nixons every day."

It's 'feeling' more like the beginning of the end of Nixon's farce, too. This week was a definite turning point. Look at the change in Snow's demeanor from Wed. to today. Mueller had clearly had it with these people. He wasn't going to play the game. Others may follow.

The dems need to be prepared to impeach. They should not seek it out as a strategy, but neither should they rule it out. Rather, knowing what we know about this admin, where there is NO reasonable doubt that they have committed impeachable offenses, congress should be ready to proceed with impeachemnt because chances are more and more bad stuff and bad behavior is in the pipeline. At some point, it is irresponsible, an abdication, not to impeach.

My sense is that for the first time, this congress is beginning to see that they may have to act. They might be forced to impeach, not only to preserve the integrity of the constitution, but also because these are bad people and the evidence of unlawful and outrageous conduct is starting to really build and will continue perhaps to the point where they will have no choice. They will have to act.

Finally, please try to let go of the meme that they are going to cancel the elections, etc. It's not surprising that people fear that, given the last 6 years. But it sounds whacked out and crazy and there is no evidence and people would be in the streets with guns if they tried it. It would be the surest way for them to lose power, forever.

Myrna wrote on July 28, 2007 1:36 AM:

Tony Snow is one piece of work.. Check out what he wrote for the evangelical journal, Christianity Today, when they asked him "what spiritual lessons he has been learning through the ordeal (with cancer)."
*************************************************
Snow wrote:
"We don't know how the narrative of our lives will end, but we get to choose how to use the interval between now and the moment we meet our Creator face-to-face."
**************************************************
So continuing to spin and lie for Bush, the worst President in the history of our country, is Snow's choice. I was feeling sorry for the man-maybe he needs the money or has to stay on the job so he won't lose his health insurance. Now I wonder whether the illness has affected his brain.
How do you suppose Snow plans to spin his service to Bush when he finally stands before his creator?

The Oracle wrote on July 28, 2007 2:04 AM:

"Terrorist Surveillance Program" is just a later incarnation of the "Total Information Awareness" program that supposedly was scrapped, due to it's blatantly illegal domestic data collection activities. Warrant? Who needs a warrant when building a data-base on all U.S. citizens and covering everything that can be uncovered about all U.S. citizens?

This TIA program was the one BushCo instituted in early 2001 before the 9/11 attacks, as they started converting the federal government into the 2nd edition of the Nixon administration.

After 9/11, the Bush administration essentially just dropped the name TIA (voila, it disappeared), and replaced the name TIA with their "Terrorist Surveillance Program" designation, while keeping intact all the illegal, warrantless surveillance and data collection processes that BushCo had established with all the "lap dog" telecommunications companies in the U.S..

This is why the "lap dog" telecommunication companies are trying to get legislation passed to make them immune from lawsuits filed by patriotic U.S. citizens who are defending their constitutional rights, defending their right to privacy and their right to be free from illegal searches and seizures.

TIA was being developed as a giant intelligence and surveillance vacuum cleaner, sucking up everything on American citizens that it could, while totally bypassing the FISA court.

BushCo dumped the name, but kept the program (as TSP), still totally bypassing the FISA court. This is what BushCo is trying to hide. This is what even spooked some lifelong Republicans in the Justice Department. They recognized a program that was just as illegal as anyone Richard Nixon had set up, an illegal domestic data collection program that had it's inception before the 9/11 attacks.

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on July 28, 2007 2:35 AM:

Waiting for them to drop these invented concept/alterna-takes/mental garbage/space fillers.Why anyone would sit through this and then bother to report it should settle any who gets their paycheck from who question.
This is a bad act with non-critic robots.
You think f-non-news would have trained this guy better.He is totally unable to make stuff up.
What is he doing there??
Has anyone he works with noticed he is not prepared to fabricate.
Why would he know anything about any of this anyway?He surely is not an authority.

Next?

anon wrote on July 28, 2007 3:12 AM:

So - maybe the plan is for Gonzo to hold on til the recess, then resign and be replaced by a middle of the night appointment worse than he is - how about Harriet Meiers - after all, she didn't get the Supreme Court, and we know she's a loyal Bushie.

If it all weren't such a joke, I'd be depressed.

drational wrote on July 28, 2007 5:40 AM:

On Tony Snow:
I suspect he is like Ziegler (Nixon) and McCurry (Clinton) who were deliberately kept out of the loop to be "effective" Press Secretaries (Spin machines). His measure will be made if he recants or resigns when he learns the truth.

On the start of "TSP":
The Admin (Gonzales) in testimony, written communication and "White Papers" have consistently noted that the FISA requirement was vacated by AUMF, which was passed 9/14/01. Gonzales written and oral testimony from 2/2006 states that "TSP" was initiated in October 2001, before Patriot act, but after AUMF.
http://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/doj032406.pdf

On Mueller not using the words "TSP":
Mueller didn't use the TSP terminology because he knows the "TSP" did not exist in 2004- it was a made up term to dissemble the Dec 05 leak. He knows the extent of the NSA-surveillance programs and why they were controversial and is not getting dragged into the cover-up.
Mueller was being honest and covering his ass, knowing full well that this TSP bullshit is gonna sink Gonzales, and whoever came up with it.

On why this story lives and the call for Sp Prosecutor:
In 2006, Schumer raised the issue of Comey. Schumer led Comey through his May 2007, SJC testimony.
The others 3 callers for Sp. Prosecutor: Whitehouse, Feingold, and Feinstein- are all on the Select Intelligence Committee, and have likely been most fully apprised of the NSA programs (and understand the lies) at this point. The Sp. Prosecutor is not targeting only Gonzales, but the architects of the cover-up.

On Jake D.
Thanks!

kentuck wrote on July 28, 2007 7:55 AM:

This is a story with more legs than a centipede. I sense that there is a curiosity awakened in some parts of the media and this story will not go away until that curiosity has been satisfied. That curiosity will not be satisfied until the White House comes up with a better story than the one that Tony Snow attempted yesterday.

It is not enough to simply say that it is "classified" and we cannot talk about it. Especially when the supposedly "classified" material is in contradiction to what most other Senators and Congressmen remember. So, where does it go from here?

Do I smell onions? When the FBI hands over the handwritten notes of Mueller to Conyers next week, that will only be another layer of the onion. Slowly, everyone is starting to smell the same onion.

Unfortunately, AG Gonzales slipped the noose around his own neck with his latest rendition of testifying before Congress. Most of the Republicans on the Committee did not even show up to question him. He has lost the support of his Party, whether he knows it or not. The President alone cannot save him, contrary to what he may think. He may end up dog-paddling in thin air.

Also, people want to know what was going on before the TSP declaration by the President of the United States. This is not going to disappear, like so many other stories. There is blood in the water...

TheraP wrote on July 28, 2007 8:50 AM:

kentuck:

All of it: Well said!

db wrote on July 28, 2007 8:57 AM:

"On the start of "TSP":
Gonzales written and oral testimony from 2/2006 states that "TSP" was initiated in October 2001, before Patriot act, but after AUMF."

Yes, but the designation "TSP" was never used to describe the program until after the NYT broke the warrantless wiretapping story in Dec. 2005. The term originated on a couple of winger blogs, notably newsmax.com in dec 2005 and then redstate.com in early January 2006. The WH picked up on the term and used it for the first time in a press release Jan 22., 2006. Within days, FoxNews started using it every chance it got. (See MediaMatters and Google.)

So, while the domestic spying activities started in 2001, the TSP designation (and bifrucation) did not come into being until after the NYT exposed the illegal activities. The term did not exist or was not used at the time of the famous hospital visit. The artificial bifrucation of legal and illegal activities (TSP and program X) gonzo relies on did not exist then either, it would appear.

Doctor Jay wrote on July 28, 2007 10:00 AM:

I think that what the WH has done is to split the programs, as mentioned. Both are SAP (special access programs) which means that even revealing the existence of a program that is SAP means instant jail time.

Make no mistake, Mueller and others understand the threat to them, and so do the questioners. If Mueller says, "No, it was another program," he goes to jail, put there by the Administration.

What's even more fun is that the gang of 8 isn't approved for some of these SAP programs.

The president has the authority to declassify whatever he wants, and presumably Gonzales is using that authority. Hamsher described AG as "selectively declassifying" material to bolster his case.

There's something really ugly being hidden here. And it's quite a chess game going on, too, since lots of people, Senators, Congressmen, and civil servants, know things that they can't say in public.

msmolly wrote on July 28, 2007 10:04 AM:

Posted by: Josh Marshall
Date: July 27, 2007 10:50 PM

I notice a few folks who asked or wondered what became of Jake D. Simply put, we banned him. We heard the many emails and requests you sent in describing how much he was intentionally disrupting the conversation and community here. We agreed and we banned him from the site.
*********

Phew! Thanks, Josh. What a relief. I *love* honest dialog and debate with people whose ideas differ from mine, if they are courteous and respectful.

Harmonika Savingsbonds wrote on July 28, 2007 10:19 AM:

JESUS CHRIST, TONY.

That you would spend your last days on earth defending this pack of liars tells me YOU think your life really isn't worth saving.

You have accelerated your Cancer with this choice.
What a goddamn shame to see a man waste his life away on this administration.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 28, 2007 10:58 AM:

Thanks, Josh!

party-of-one wrote on July 28, 2007 11:38 AM:

In all of its dishonesty and incompetence, the Bush-Cheney administration invokes "Executive Privilege" and "National Security" to hide their mistakes and increasingly their crimes. Why does a Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution continue to enable this administration? Our Democracy is badly damaged and may be beyond repair Bush and Cheney are not held accountable.

party-of-one wrote on July 28, 2007 11:39 AM:

In all of its dishonesty and incompetence, the Bush-Cheney administration invokes "Executive Privilege" and "National Security" to hide their mistakes and increasingly their crimes. Why does a Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution continue to enable this administration? Our Democracy is badly damaged and may be beyond repair if Bush and Cheney are not held accountable.

Steve5117 wrote on July 28, 2007 12:23 PM:

Josh:

Thanks for calling in an exterminator. I was wondering whether a post at TPM or a policy statement might bring back Mrs. Panstreppon.

I recall reading one of her last posts that she would go elsewhere if Jake's posts were disrupting the muckrakers here.

Are there others who miss Mrs. Panstreppon?

Anna S. wrote on July 28, 2007 12:40 PM:

Steve:

I must have missed the post she made explaining that, but yes, I was wondering where she had gone. She was very good at digging up resources that others missed. I would have liked to see what she could find on the recent Alaska shenanigans.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on July 28, 2007 1:56 PM:

Steve and Anna,

Thanks for the kind words. I very recently had to retire from blogging at the TPM Cafe so I decided to get out of the comment business altogether. A friend of mine will probably take over where I left off, time permitting.

I am delighted that Jake D is no longer permitted to disrupt the TPM MR dialogue. When he first showed up, I said that he was going to ruin the comment section for everyone and he did.

Mrs P

melior wrote on July 28, 2007 2:29 PM:

We need a catchy new name for the not-TSP.

I propose "Innocent American Citizen Surveillance Program".

Rolls right off the tongue, don't it?

chabuka wrote on July 28, 2007 2:38 PM:

the corporate mainstream news media..all say "Well (poor) Tony is not really in the loop" they (WH) dosen't "brief him on everything"..Its his job to snowball justice".... B.S.!! We the people know less than old Snowjob does and WE know whats going on..they (the WH) is lying and lying and lying..and Gonzo & (Bush) needs those smirks smacked off their faces! Hard!

melior wrote on July 28, 2007 3:08 PM:

Tony Snow's blowing smoke really doesn't reconcile the statements at all.

"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."

Compare and contrast.

Mueller: The discussion was on a National -- uh, NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.

GoAskAlice wrote on July 28, 2007 3:31 PM:

Steve5117:

Yes! I, too, miss Mrs. Panstreppon and her doggedly thorough investigative work, her brilliant insights, her clever retorts and refreshingly frank comments! I really appreciate her, 'just the facts'/no bs approach.
She has a rare ability to educate and inform our TPM community on very complex and important issues without being a windbag. Please come back, Mrs. P, we need you and we miss you!

bb wrote on July 28, 2007 4:03 PM:

Just because Tony SnowJob suffered from a cancer affliction does not preclude him from being a c$cksuckin' liar all of the time!! A really useless Davidson College, Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, NC moron!

Davidson College was the dope capital near Charlotte, NC when this hippie freak was attending Davidson College.

He did not attend a Univeristy. That would have been to hard for him It would take brains for god's sake!!

sandys wrote on July 28, 2007 4:33 PM:

Wonder why someone didn't tell snowjob the "meeting with asscraft" was to get his ok to do all their little spying and eavesdropping WITHOUT a court order???....No one said the meeting was only about being able to spy on folks.....They obviously don't want to discuss the part about them doing it without a court order.

bb wrote on July 28, 2007 4:48 PM:

Wow, my last 2 Security Codes here were:

"blood" and "credit"

How "GW Bush" creepy is that?

I'm looking forward to "peace" and "intelligence" soon as alternatives!!

Aggie Kass wrote on July 28, 2007 5:56 PM:

So, am I losing it or:

Comey was against the program (as it was initially and illegal), but since it was not called "The Terrorist Survelliance Program" until AFTER the program was revised, Gonzo can claim that it was "other survelliance issues". Talk about a sewer loop of obfuscation. And the hmmming and hawing from Mueller about the "TSP" is giving us a glimpse of how Gonzo is hanging his hat on those "other" issues. He must think the turnip truck is out en masse.

Molly Ivans wrote on July 28, 2007 5:56 PM:

Raise Hell!!

Anonymous wrote on July 28, 2007 6:53 PM:

KNOW THE NATURE OF US GOVERNMENT LEGAL COUNSEL AND WHAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF DOING

I read this, and thought of the attorneys in DOJ who were saying gum this to death; and what Gonzalez has been saying/doing -- Lying, obstruction: ["Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay"]

The quote and subject are not as important as the point: US Government legal counsel will obstruct justice, and stupidly document that obstruction: How many of the RNC e-mails would WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ staff counsel have sent back and forth on their progress in blocking review of FISA, Geneva, and other illegal activity; then delete these e-mails when they learned it was on the Libby/Abramoff Grand Jury subpoena list?

Know who you're up against: People who have no remorse over engaging in illegal conduct, and (apparently) hiding evidence related to executions of people who opposite reckless conduct. These are lawyers who are doing this: The very people who supposedly are the "best" and "brightest" in the legal profession: The same people who are put on the Federal Benches. Congress needs to take a wider view of the DOJ Staff misconduct in re FISA, Geneva, rendition, and prisoner abuse.

Doesn't look as through Congress has really woken up to the recklessness in the legal community. Let's get some state level disbarment investigations going; and forward the results to the public so we can throw it back at them during future confirmation hearings.

The lawyers were behind the Watergate break-ins, and the Holocaust. We can't let this happen again, and the lawyers need to be put on a tight leash. They've defied their oath, putting their party and President before the Constitution. That which is not lawfully opposed, will continue; the legal profession, left unleashed, will do what is least expected: Turn the law inside out to justify genocide, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and defiance of their oath and Constitution.

A president does not do this on their own; nor does a Congress -- with lawful options to end it -- have much of a defense when they have powers to investigate, block funding, and compel oversight. The Ranking Members of the Committees have had this power to compel reviews since day one. Doesn't matter that the GOP "controlled" Congress: The DNC has the power to filibuster bills; and could have issued letters to the DoJ-NSA-CIA-DoD IG requesting assistance. There's no merit to any assertion that "nobody was going to do anything" -- how do the Members of Congress explain the effort to _do_ something: Pass proclamations calling for Congress to impeach _despite_ the GOP "controlling" the US Government.

One answer: There is a way to lawfully oppose. There is no merit to any assertion that there is no opting; or that were are stuck with this abuse. There is a way: If Congress will not oppose this abuse; and Congress will not end funding, then there is _someone else_ who can be trusted to assert their oath, and defend the Constitution. Assent to DNC-GOP joint assent to this despotism is unacceptable. It doesn't matter if its unwillingness to impeach, refusal to investigate, inaction on subpoenas, or stupid assent to DoJ-US Atty decisions to do nothing to enforce the law. _Someone else_ can be found who _will_ do their job. Stop listening to excuses of why this "cannot" be done;and _find_ a way to make those who have an oath to _do_ their job: Defend the Constitution, even it means prosecuting the President, VP, Speaker, and House Judiciary Chairman for [a] violating Geneva; and [b] refusing to enforce the Constitution using all lawful options. It is reckless -- this many years after 9-11 and the disclosures of the prisoner abuse and illegal NSA -- for Congress to be still rubber stamping legislation/funding: There are options to end the funding, which the DNC refuses; and there are options to lawfully target legal counsel complicit with this illegal activity.

This isn't about DoJ, FISA, or RNC e-mails, but whether legal counsel -- with that "special position of trust before the court" -- can really be trusted; or whether they need to be overseen, audited, and intruded upon as if they were a branch of government. America's legal counsel have expected too much deference for reckless service; and this many years after the illegal activity has surfaced it is absurd for the American legal community to flaunt "how great it is" or ask anyone to embrace the "American model" when the lawyers have their disastrous results on _their_ hand. Their only solution appears to be to laugh at what they've done to gum things up; never realizing We the People have the option to get them disbarred, and make _them_ the lawful target of war crimes prosecutions. America's lawyers, indeed, did learn the lesson of the Holocaust: How to commit illegal warfare and not get caught. We the People have something to say about that. This is far from over. These are issues of international criminal law with one large defense pool: American legal counsel inside DoJ, OVP, DoD, and outside counsel

They wished this.

- - - -

[BTW: The quote is from the Tillman case in keeping criminal prosecutors from reviewing the close-range gun shot wounds to Tillman, leading some to believe that he was executed to silence him for his anti-war stances he was apparently going to advance outside the military. Tillman is reported to have been frustrated [a] there were too many shows going on in Afghanistan; [b] they were really not going after AlQueda; and [c] the staged engagements were just a dog and pony show, not really serious about defeating an enemy.]

TheraP wrote on July 28, 2007 8:27 PM:

I too will miss Mrs. P. But I trust that whatever she is now doing will forward the cause. And that her "friend" will do justice to the position that is now vacant.

Hats off to Mrs P!!!

Ducky wrote on July 28, 2007 9:04 PM:

It sure was nice to Mrs. Panstreppon again. I am sorry that she has to retire from blogging. Her posts always seemed to bring it all together for me. I am new to this, so I do not post much because I do not want to come across as a total boob.

I am glad that Jake is gone, as well. Thanks Josh. He really knew how to throw a debate off topic.

It disturbs me that a man as ill as Tony Snow appears to be isn't handing the reins to Dana so he would be able to make some memories with his children.

If I was in his place, I would be traveling with my family and "living" for as long as possible.
HE should be thinking of his family. Why would they want to watch old news clips of their husband and father lying for Bush when Tony could be doing some much more noble.

Bush isn't worth the effort it takes Snow to utter any words much less lies.

AS anyone read John Dean's new book?

Anonymous wrote on July 28, 2007 9:15 PM:

Posted by: Ducky
Date: July 28, 2007 9:04 PM

If you see content on here that seems confusing, feel free to ask about it with specific questions; or what you would like clarified. You may be asking the right question to help focuse the issue. Fresh eyes are good. Please continue to post. Thanks.

1oldlady wrote on July 29, 2007 1:46 AM:

Ok...I did some major emailing to night. Drafted this letter and sent it to every senator on the Judicial Committee. Even the Republicans! I wanted to make sure it was not PARTY...focused on their Oath, and the Constitution.

What do you think? did I waste my time?

Thanks.
--------

Thank you for your service. I am puzzled by the vision set forth which has facilitated that party comes before serving and defending the Constitution of America.

This troubles me personally that the Constitution is for the people and not by a political party. During your time in the Senate, you have seen many debates that have moved you to go beyond party lines, but thats where the Constitution holds no boundaries.

Do you as a citizen of the USA have love of the Constitution and hold its words dear to your heart? And as a Senator, did you take an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution? If so, you are bound by this oath to do so and this is where I am puzzled by the actions of many Senators who rather place their political party before the Constitution.

If the Senate keeps regressing on holding this administration accountable for the deceptions it passes as truth, regardless of which party may be in the white house in the future the same powers that are asserted now, will still be in place for future administrations.

This is an action that must not cross party because its the Constitution that is in need of Congress's intervention.

I plead to your wisdom of law and human understanding in defending what we are and where we are going as American's. With out your wisdom and your colleagues intervention, our form of life will cease and Congress will vanish, with out our Constitution.

Regardless of party, Regardless of power...One must be held to uphold and defend the Constitution, Regardless of the outcome and the negative feedback one may consume, The Constitution is the ONLY rule of law, and not ruled by people.

Thank you

TurtleNS wrote on July 29, 2007 1:57 AM:

Q from Sen. Hy Pathetical to AGAG: You seem to differentiate the program commonly known as TSP from the program Comey and Mueller and others had legal problems with; let's call it the Problematic Program, or PP. Is TSP the program which resulted when you constrained PP to meet the objections Comey and other DoJ & FBI officals had with PP?

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 2:07 AM:

TurtleNS...

Now you must work in a goverment office! They love actiniums and every thing is in a form number!

So, the TSP is form Devil666

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 9:57 AM:

To 1oldlady:

Amen! You have it exactly right!

Couple that with the NYTimes editorial - and, if we the People can prevail upon elected leaders and government workers to put the Constitution above party... we can perhaps save the Constitution and our form of government.

Otherwise, we are lost.

Now is the time for all of us to reread the Declaration of Independence. To be selfless in our commitment to have a nation of laws, a nation which pursues justice for all - for all citizens of this land and also for all peoples, so that we can once again hold our head up before the rest of the world.

Since 2000 - when the Supreme Court acted unlawfully - we have been in a Constitutional Crisis, which has only worsened over time. Either the Constitution can be restored - and we use constitutional means to do that. Or it needs to be retooled, if flaws have been found which leave us vulnerable to another lawless president - and that by constitutional means as well.

And yes, as Josh mentioned in his blog post - right now the AG's reckless and stubborn protection of a lawless president is preventing the very housecleaning that must happen - if we are to survive as republic, rather than founder as a dictatorship.

In my view there is nothing more important than salvaging the rule of law and restoring checks and balances and the notion of government serving the people.

The word is "muscle." Flex your muscles, Fourth Branch! If necessary we must turn to nonviolent civil disobedience - until our elected officials remember they are OUR REPRESENTATIVES!

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 10:09 AM:

This post is for our "mystery poster" - who seems to be asking for specific questions - in order to help us clarify the many long posts.

Mystery Person: I will do my best to go back and formulate some questions. This may take me a day or two. But I will do that. I wonder if I should do that here - or perhaps post some questions as a blog post at the Cafe.

Do you have any suggestions - whether for me or others who may want to do this? Roberta also seems willing to help here. And maybe others.

I'll wait for your suggestions.

Steve5117 wrote on July 29, 2007 10:42 AM:

TheraP

I'm not quite sure what you are saying is needed. I know that there has been so much deception on the part of this administration that it is sometimes difficult to explain it to someone who is not as informed as others.

Perhaps you and Roberta can become two new Mrs. Panstreppons in keeping the TPM community informed.

Jimbo wrote on July 29, 2007 10:49 AM:

If their really were talking about two separate programs i.e. the one we know about and the one we don't, I have to wonder what the one we don't know about could possibly be.

The fact is they have access to our telephone calls (cell and land line) our email and snail mail, the web pages we visit , our financial transactions, what we borrow from a library, and our medical records. They even claim the right to enter our homes without telling us about it. I mean really, what's left, satellite photos??

Steve5117 wrote on July 29, 2007 11:22 AM:

What's left Jimbo? Your Soul!

These greedy bastards want the Middle Class to be obedient little workers supporting the Military-Industrial Complex that has corrupted our government. The current administration's every move seems to have been designed to strip away our ability as common citizens to raise objections in various aspects of our life. All we'll be free to do is go to work so we can pay, pay, pay...

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 12:41 PM:

Thank you for your vote of confidence, Steve. But I see my role as different from that of Mrs. P's. She is good at ferreting out information. I am perhaps better at cheer-leading efforts such as hers and trying to synthesize or put my finger on sore spots.

Honestly I see us all as working together here - in many different ways. But it is a joint effort. And as painful as what we confront may be, it is also thrilling and humbling to be a participant.

I am as prone to error as the next person. And glad for the community here - all struggling together for the way forward.

Re your response to Jimbo, I think you have it right. Blackmail or whatever our weakness may be is what they're after. For one it's money. For another power. Others want fame. If it's not a carrot, then they are looking for whatever stick we fear. That seems to be the method for keeping everyone in line. Reward some. Punish others. And send the rest shopping. How can we buy your soul? That's what they're after!

And our task, above all, is not to let go of that soul.

Like Josh's view of blogging - we can each find our task, our chosen role, and remain committed. I have no fear that we have really "lost" Mrs. P.

And if the "Mystery Poster" or anyone else wants questions - so we can clarify confusion - I'll do my best. If I'm mistaken about that, well and good too.

But asking questions, figuring out where our ignorance lies, finding problems - these are vital tasks. We have had altogether too much of propaganda. And we need to ask questions. And keep asking questions. And proposing hypotheses - to be tested.

The word is "bucket" - and tpm is like a bucket brigade!

JEP wrote on July 29, 2007 12:47 PM:

...As the scent of gunpowder faded from the room, Tony blinked twice, waved his hand in front of his face to clear the fumes away, and repeated, "There is no smoking gun!"

Tony Snow is the new Baghdad Bob.

Busy morning, lots of comments, that's good to see again...

PS I don't doubt Snow's got some health problems, but the timing of his "discovery" remains very doubtful. remember he's a Fox guy, and they are notorious for saving up faux news stories to break conveniently.

Anyone recall who had announced she had cancer just a day or two before Tony's public health confessional?

Timing is everything.

It's like Tony's "sudden" ailments were really just another Rovian bowel movement, to offset the sincere sympathy we all had for Elizabeth Edwards.

Like I said, I don't soubt Tony's got colon problems, but the timing of his suddenly "desperate" situation just plain stunk.

Sorry, Tony, if I'm wrong, but your new pals just don't provide a trustworthy legacy for me (or anyone else with a brain of their own,) to think anything is going on here but the worst lyin' sack of cow-manure scenarios.

JEP wrote on July 29, 2007 12:54 PM:

Mrs. P;
If someone would do some hard work and find all your old posts, then publish them in context with some other related comments, it would be one of the most educational documents on the book market today.

And it would be a virtual Bolgger's primer...

Just a suggestion. Also, have you ever considered a dictation software program?

Please, WE NEED YOU STILL!!

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 1:06 PM:

JEP:

Mrs. P has a HUGE amount of information on her blog (at the Cafe), together with advice for how to search for such information.

And despite her farewell comments, I doubt she will really be "gone." She may just need to do her same work in a more unobtrusive way. Fight fire with fire, so to speak.

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 2:00 PM:

Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 29, 2007 10:09 AM

Do what you have to do. The problem is simple: The clues are emerging; the issue is whether people want to see them, then dig. The answer are not hidden, they are not as deep as you might think. One thing surfacing in one area, sheds light on what else is happening in other areas. Take the larger perspective.

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 2:04 PM:

If their really were talking about two separate programs i.e. the one we know about and the one we don't, I have to wonder what the one we don't know about could possibly be.

The fact is they have access to our telephone calls (cell and land line) our email and snail mail, the web pages we visit , our financial transactions, what we borrow from a library, and our medical records. They even claim the right to enter our homes without telling us about it. I mean really, what's left, satellite photos??

Posted by: Jimbo
Date: July 29, 2007 10:49 AM

---------------------------------------

In my view the question of "are there one, two, or more programs" isn't relevant: The _known_ information shows there's been _illegal_ activity.

Whether there is _alot_ of illegal activity; or whether there is _multiple_ or _many_ program's merely confirms the foregone conclusion: There's illegal activity.

Time to stop digging for "confirmation" of what we know; and compel Congress to explain why -- despite the known illegalities -- they continue to fund what they know, or should know is illegal.

Murtha's cutting of the DoD COngressional liaision office budget shows that the budget tools are there: "Mr. President, cooeprate with our inquiry; or you get no money." The arugment that the GOP is 'blocking' the DNC is fiction: The DNC can cut the money and _make_ the GOP "pass" an Amemdnet to add money back.

Again, I appreciate there are people who want to spend time getting clues and "figuring things out" -- in my view, it would be more productive to take the information that we have, and give it to the DNC is a simple format: The FISA violations are known to be illegal; either cut the money, or we're going after you wtih prosecutions.

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 2:30 PM:

Larger Perspective. That's something I can do. And yes, I can see how this issue of what happened on March 11, 2004 - wait a minute! ...that's the date of the Madrid bombings!!! (suddenly that fell into place!)

Click. Click. It's like trying to pick a lock.... though I've never done that.

Ok, folks. This whole thing happened the very night of the Madrid bombings!

We need to look minutely at every aspect of this event related to Ashcroft and the Total Information Awareness (which I believe is still in place... though secretly).

And we need to take the larger picture. I'd say beyond even what was happening in the US. What else was going on around that time? And how do all of these things relate?

And how does what's happening in DoJ mirror what's going on through the rest of the government and so on?

Steve5117 wrote on July 29, 2007 2:46 PM:

TheraP

The DoJ has had a hand in illegal vote suppression, failure to proscute Republicans and their supporters, bringing false charges against Democrats and defending the illegal changing of rules and procedures. Then there's the Supreme Court.

I wonder how much dirt they got on their own people to keep them in line?

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 3:11 PM:

I'm sure it's huge, Steve. I'm sure it's huge.

Think of Powell who dragged his feet on the war, but suddenly, inexplicably did that UN presentation. Why?

We don't need the dirt here. But we need to consider how many people are compromised.

How many cover-ups are there?

Yes, we can surely guess that elections have been compromised. Think voting machines. If you can gather info, you can gather what's going on in an election. And if you can gather that info, if you have this huge ability to tap information - for example to tap the phone calls of the people who did the surveys of people after they voted.

And then we know it's possible to change computers regarding tallies of voting machines and also the scanned votes that are tallied.

So, you've got blackmailing. You've got outright buying of people, and you've got ability to tap into what the likely voting patterns are as well as changing the outcome.

Then if they tap everything, they know what's going on in campaigns, in the Congress, staffers, courts, you name it.

Madrid Bombings: that occurred right before the election in Spain. It promised to be a very close election. And the conservative was on bush's side, his opponent not, promising as I recall to pull the Spanish troops out. The bombings occurred, and Aznar blamed ETA (the Basques). That enraged the left - and they arranged for demonstrations outside govt buildings or something. And they sent each other cell phone messages urging all leftists to vote for the Socialists. This tipped the balance! And Aznar lost the Spanish election.

Now - who knows if they feared something similar could happen in the US? It was also an election year.

Ok. Maybe that's too far afield. But now it makes me wonder if there are any events in the US related to the London bombings?

Anyway - I think we need to examine everything connected with the Ashcroft bedside visit. Washington Post today says that cheney ordered that. What about Cheney's shooting accident?

Ok. Time to sort fact from fiction from illusion.

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 3:31 PM:

London bombings: 7/11/05 - right during the G8 Summit.

Somebody with flow chart ability - we need to see how many tentacles there are, how many ways this affects efforts to control the US, but also to control events in the world.

Too many coincidences here.

What have they got on Tony Blair - to keep him on board?

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 3:39 PM:

Larger Perspective.

Here we have Petreus, counter-insurgency "genius," in charge of "surge" - which is supposed to make political compromise possible.

Yes now, in Iraq, we have Maliki so angry with Petreus that he wants him evicted from Iraq.

The guy who's supposedly making nice with the population over there now becoming such a nuisance that the Prime Minister wants him evicted?

Just another question here.

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 4:21 PM:

Another Question:

Remember back the weekend that Reagan died? bush was in France, a D-Day memorial or something. And some people distinctly heard a voice, not bush's, repeating words, which bush later spoke!

I know that that was discussed on some media blog that Danny.... (can't recall last name) heads - and he heard that voice! Just more confirmation that they have this capacity to provide answers for people. Chips under the skin? or what?

I understand that what we need to be doing here is to pull things together. And ask why the illegal activity is being funded. And that is a very good question. Why have things been reauthorized over and over?

And what blackmail or bribery or whatever is being used to keep people in line?

And, where is the paper trail for that?

Word is "crime."

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 5:19 PM:

Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 29, 2007 4:21 PM

TheraP" And ask why the illegal activity is being funded." [TP1]

TheraP: "And that is a very good question. Why have things been reauthorized over and over?" [TP2]

- - - -

TheraP: "And what blackmail or bribery or whatever is being used to keep people in line?" [TP3]

TheraP: "And, where is the paper trail for that?" [TP4]

- - -

1. There is the option to cut funding:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Murtha_says_Pentagon_frustrates_Congressional_oversight_0727.html

2. People who have been complicit with Geneva violations -- malfeasance in failing to cut budgets -- like to change the subject.

3. Google: [ descriptive summaries NSA 614113 R-2 ]

4. Google [ JROC NSA ]

5. Google [ " Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance in office on account of the scheming malevolence with which he administered injustice. "]

6. Google [5 USC 3331 malfeasance ]

7. Google [32 CFR 2800 Ad Hoc Committees ]

8. Google [ Statement Accounting standard 74 compliance ]

9. Before Sept 2001, NSA had program funding for a lawful NSA surveillance method which fully complied with FISA. JROC is the DoD group which oversees the funding/program authorization; they make decisions: "Is there a _cheaper_ way to do this?" They decided that they had to spend money. Then it was cancelled. Someone made the decision to _cancel_ what is _lawful_; but Congress is making a decision to _keep funding_ what is _illegal_.

10. Evidence is not only what exists; but the _absense_ what what should exist: The Ranking Members of the Committees 2001-2006 had the _option_ to document their concerns; and forward that concern to the DOD-NSA-CIA-DOJ IG. [See 6]

11. Compliance audits of OVP would have detected the documentation of whether OVP, Addington, and others aware of rendition, NSA survilance were or were not retaining records. The auditors have been blocked. [See 7, 8]

- - - -

_Q&A_

TP1: See 2, then 11.

TP2: See 1, then 10.

TP3: See 5, then 2.

TP4: See 3, then revisit 2, then 1; then reconsider 7, then link with 8; then reconsider 10.

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 6:00 PM:

Thank you "mystery poster."

Just had an idea. We need to take the salient points, which our "tpm assistant" is suggesting, via our questions, and post them in different places. Just keep getting the message out over and over.

Same message: Why is the illegal activity being funded? Why is funding for the legal activity not being funded? What blackmail or bribery is being used to keep people in line? And where is the paper trail for that?

Remember, Mrs P pointed out over and over (in her blog posts) how Rove had all these data collection firms, how he was "into" computers and so on. Just a thought here.

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 6:20 PM:

"But now it makes me wonder if there are any events in the US related to the London bombings?"
Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 29, 2007 3:11 PM

- - - -
1. Google: ["attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay"]

2. Google: [ Procurement Guidance Documents Software PGD ]

- - - -

3. Consider: RNC offices were attacked in the run up to the 2006 elections.

4. Compare the following
A. Location of attacks on RNC offices before the election;
B. Point spread of RNC going into the election in those districts.

5. Consider: RNC wrote a note/letter to the unions "complaining" about "unions" attacking the RNC offices.

6. If you could convince someone "your opponent' was engaged in "dirty tricks" would that not convince some of the opposition to rejoin you and denounce "the opposition"?

7. Then consider: Supposedly the RNC 'knew" enough to write a letter to "who was involved"? Why didn't the US Atty's bring prosecutions:

8. The information in the RNC/DoJ offices will show you:
A. What basis there was to conclude "the unions" were behind the attacks [none, fabricated, not followed up];
B. The subsequent discussion on prosecutions, or non-prosecutions;
C. Which DoJ staff liaison were involved with the campaigns;
D. The IP Numbers for the DOJ Staff not involved on processing FISA warrants, but engaged in discussions/non-official business using official government resources.

9. Evidence isn't just what exists, but what is _absent_ but what _should exist_

- - - - - - -
_Q&A_

A. Funding, records: What physical evidence was retained of the RNC office destruction; who was assigned; and how was the investigation closed out: Either there is a report, and that report was given to the RNC as the basis for their "letter about the unions"; or there is no evidence, and no basis for the letter. [See 9]

B. These are issues of criminal law, not just e-mail or voting. That State AG would have to get information from the JTTF to understand what basis there was to conclude that terrorism was _not_ an issue; and who should have been involved with the preliminary review _before_ the RNC issued their letter to the DNC. [See 9]

C. Link to FISA warrants: The same DoJ Staff computers that were "supposed" to be working with the FISA warrants, are linked with non-official business. How did the RNC get the "fast answer" on what was 'going on' with these attacks; but the AG says that he's "undermanned" and "can't process FISA warrants"? [See 8, then 9]

D. Where is the US Atty review of the evidence related to these attacks on the RNC offices; and how did the US atty go through the process to decline prosecution: Which FBI agents were involved; which State officials were assigned to which fusion center; and how was CIFA involved; were there no NSLs issued to determine who was involved? [See 9]

E. What is the explanation of the FBI director, and those assigned to the FBI support staff: Do they have no OPR experience; or is there a supervising problem within the FBI; is there any record of any of the FBI agents "involved" with this "investigation" not fully reviewing anything, ever while they were a SAC, ASAC, or assigned to DOJ OPR; what review per SAS74/99 was done of the DOJ OPR/IG/FBI budgets in light of these fraud indicators? [See 8]

F. When the reports within the FBI of leadership not doing what they should, how was this addressed? [See 9-11, Sibel Edmonds. . .]

G. Issue: Voting fraud, absent/incomplete investigation files; property destruction. No JTTF concern or prosecutors?

H. JCS and CIFA are also involved with domestic surveillance. What was the DoD General Counsel's involvement with the notifications related to these domestic issues: Was terrorism not on the notification list; was the DOD General counsel not consulted; was DoD General counsel never in receipt of, connected to any briefing given to anyone at the White House related to DoD domestic intelligence gathering efforts?

Someone was briefed: No other explanation for the RNC letter. The question is whether the _appropriate_ investigations, notifications were or were not made: These calls, reports are logged in the correspondence logs; and they are tracked with various messages, workflows, and other assignments. Within Microsoft Outlook, there is a scheduling function: That information is familiar to you via the US Atty e-mail disclosures. Rove's link to Microsoft Outlook is clear; the question is whether the DOJ Staff IP numbers -- commonly linked to outside sites in other states -- were or were not reviewed by the Grand Jury when they examined the third-party-data transfer systems. Recall how quickly legal counsel coordinated on the Libby defense memoranda: They have a file sharing capability; however, Goodlings notifications of "delete this file" means that the auto-notification feature was turned off; or the file sharing system was not being used.

Questions:

A. Which DoJ Small Business Contract personnel were involved with the computer/IT/SW updates related to the DOJ-RNC file transfer systems; [See 2]

B. Where is a copy of the computer utilization meeting minutes where the pro/con of a file transfer system was discussed; who approved the budget profile within DoJ; and how was this decision coordinated with the RNC; [See 2]

C. If the file transfer system was in place -- and not subject to any "recent" review (Since 2001), why did Goodling not rely on the auto-notify feature when forwarding the updates to the readers?

D. Where are the e-mail notifications to the DoJ staff related to authorization for them to use, access, and transfer data using this file transfer system; when were the authorizations sent; who ensured the continued use and access to this system was proper; how were non-official uses of this system monitored; were there any efforts by non-DoJ personnel to use this system to transfer non-official records?

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 7:44 PM:

Another Question:

What about a paper trail for the Patriot Act? That thing was "put together" awfully quickly. It scared me at the time that it was simply "slapped together" and voted on in haste.

So, was it prearranged? And wouldn't there be documents of what happened here? Given that so much of this administration's legislation has been written by corporations? And who would they be?

Who has benefited here?

Has money been funnel through Dept of "Homeland Security?" Have the gutted governmental offices and the absence of govt employees been a source of money for these illegal activities?

And didn't Mrs P point to data files for registering exchange of "property" as sources for renditioned people? And thus more money trails?

Honestly.... I did not know I had so many questions. But yes, I do!

Thanks for all your hard work! I think maybe eventually we need to transfer this to something. But maybe the TPM people can do that???? Maybe start a Muck Research database along with questions and research leads.

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 7:53 PM:

How/when did Neville get the Sword of Griffendor - if the Goblin had possession of it?

(just teasing)

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 8:10 PM:

Dear Fellow Mystery Citizen:

Ok. I think I'm getting it a bit better. Even if emails are said to be missing (but reported by others to have been forensically restored), there must be paper trails of procedures. Procedures for everything! And whether it is investigations that took place (or didn't) - those paper trails for sure would exist, unlike emails which someone might try to erase.

Here's a personal example of what I think you're getting at - related to something which happened to us. Buying a car. When they wanted info they had no need for - and lied to try and get it - by saying the state required that we sign a form with all sorts of personal information for credit application, even though we were not using credit. Other strange stuff happened too and that made me think (literally) they were gangsters or Mafia people. We were so disturbed we made a police report. And guess what? The policeman told us the same dealership was forever reporting cars stolen from the lot. Yet, there was no broken glass (from breaking into the car) and there were keys missing from the dealership. Just a tiny example of how one strange event can lead to another - and more evidence of something really strange - and probably illegal going on. (In retrospect I had the sense they were involved in "laundering cars" and using the info gathered from people to "launder the titles" etc.)

So, we need to consider what kinds of paper trails may exist. Or in what form they might be stored. Or what the data suggest was happening.

I may not be able to follow up on all of this. But we need to place it all somewhere, so as group we can follow up over time. And get it out there!

MSM, are you listening?

Steve5117 wrote on July 29, 2007 8:24 PM:

TheraP
TPMmuckraker has done a good job of collecting information that is readily available via the Muck Resourses and Hot Topics links on this page just below the header.

The USA scandal timeline is a good start, but of course the timeline of corruption predates the USA start. We could probably begin in January 1998 with an examination of Congress for Clinton's last 2 years. What started to change with Bush in office?

So many questions to be answered in so many areas it almost boggles the mind.

The Oracle wrote on July 29, 2007 9:59 PM:

A simple explanation of what BushCo is hiding and why they are parsing the language to keep it hidden:

Just as Dick Cheney set up a separate intelligence office from the CIA and DIA, BushCo established an intelligence-gathering entity emphasizing primarily domestic surveillance, differentiating it from the primarily "overseas" mission of the NSA.

This domestic intelligence-gathering entity had it's origins in John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness program, which began in 2001 even before the 9/11 attacks. Moreover, this domestic data-collection entity was comprised of a bunch of Republican-crony private data-collection companies, which gained access to and began storing private information about U.S. citizens from telecommunication and banking institutions.

Therefore, BushCo farmed out domestic intelligence-gathering to privately-owned companies and "loyal Bushie" public corporations, essentially bypassing the NSA's legal restrictions on domestic spying as well as any oversight by the FISA court in the process, in an attempt to gather as much private data on U.S. citizens as possible, for anti-terrorism purposes or for purely partisan reasons, as BushCo tried to implement PNAC's dream of permanent Republican control of our federal government.

Anyway, there is no doubt that BushCo is trying to hide what they've been doing.

My theory is that they're trying to not only cover their own butts, but also are covering for all the "loyal Bushie" U.S. companies complicit in this massive, FISA-skirting, semi-NSA-connected domestic data-mining operation.

Thus, BushCo's language parsing. Legal NSA surveillance programs...with congressional oversight? Other intelligence-gathering programs...not so legal and with little or no congressional oversight? BushCo talking up legal government programs while downplaying (or not talking about at all) the privatized, rogue intelligence-gathering activities of U.S. companies and corporations?

When BushCo parses the language, this is what I hear them saying. They are trying to keep a wall of disinformation and misinformation erected between the legal surveillance side and what BushCo has been doing illegally. And they are trying to protect all the U.S. companies and corporations (i.e. "loyal Bushie CEOs) that have aided and abetted BushCo's highly-illegal, anti-American criminal domestic intelligence-gathering pursuits.

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 10:19 PM:

S1: Procedure check sheets: "there must be paper trails of procedures."
S2: Investigations: "Procedures for everything! And whether it is investigations that took place (or didn't)"
S3: Evidence: "what kinds of paper trails may exist"
S4: Storage: "what form they might be stored"
S5: Indicators: "what the data suggest was happening"
- - - -
"Just a tiny example of how one strange event can lead to another - and more evidence of something really strange - and probably illegal going on."
- - -- -

Yes. It's all connected: The open source will dance around the illegal information that has been illegally classified.

Google [ GAGAS ] These are some of the procedures to audit.
Google [ CFR ] These are things that are standards that are audited. Note, an

EO may or may not apply; and a CFR may or may not apply.

Google [38 CFR 2800 ] These are the Security classification _procedures_ that the VP must comply related to _classified information_.

Google [ Statement Accounting Standard 74 Compliance ] This is the standard used to review entities receiving Federal Funds: To review their internal controls.

Google [ SAS 99 ] These are the fraud indicators used to assess whether auditors should increase or decrease audit scope. More indicators of fraud, trigger more sampling. If there are audit risks, but the auditor does _not_ increase audit scope, that is a problem for the _auditor_ not juts the original _audit target_.
- - - -

Recent discussions about whether the President's EO "do or do not apply to OVP" are irrelevant: 38 CFR 2800 _does_.
- - - -
Google [ Manual of Administrative Operations and Procedures ] and/or [ Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines ] -- These are the FBI standards.

Google [ USAM ]

These guidelines show how the prosecutors and investigators find evidence, comply with internal procedures, and do things to enforce the law.

Google [ CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS ] These are the guidelines for _Congress_ to meet.

Google [ PART 160 DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATORY SYSTEM ] -- These are some example guidelines of what people are supposed to follow. Auditors are supposed to review these requirements; then do audit/samples to test whether the procedures are or are not being followed.

Once the auditor completes their review, they provide an audit report. The report is sometimes called a report of an "audit engagement". Either the audit report exists or it does not; either management met the requirements, or it did not; either the management developed a plan to correct their problems, or they did not. Once an audit is done, there is required _follow-up to test whether the implemented solutions solve the _original_ problem identified. Either the program/solution is _solving_ the problem or it is not.
- - - -

There's also problem the President has: There are mandatory audits which _he_ has to oversee, but the audit target is _outside his control_ This means, that we can test whether the _president's auditors_ were or were not doing their job.

Google [ PART 266 AUDITS OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AND OTHER NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS ]

That is the trap that Congress has laid. By funding these "non-US government entities", what Congress has created are entities which can _observe_ whether the President is or is not overseeing his auditors; and how competent the audits are.

Don't miss the point: Congress is allowed to set up dummy entities not to waste money, but to create _bait_ that the President is _required_ to engage, target, and put under surveillance. The Presidents' problem is that he doesn't know which of the companies are real; or which ones are bait that are direct reporting units to the Congressional staffers.

Anything that the bait detects is then back challenged to Congress: Has the team from the President's office attempted to do something inappropriate; have the audit rules been followed; or have there been unusual interactions suggesting that the President and RNC have attempted to deploy "people not related to the President".

The problem: Once Congress creates this dummy entity, from that point on, all interactions with that entity are from a specific _time_. Congress can then use the President's efforts to interact -- directly or indirectly -- and test:

A. What are the President's method to share information about the upcoming target;
B. Who is coordinating;
C. And are the President's personnel able to professional respond to unusual situations.

These are part of the _designed_ problems the President is forced to confront. Then, going backwards from the audit, we can examine

1. Which data fields did the President's auditors use, access, and adjust when _preparing_ for the audit;
2. Which records _only related to this dummy audit_ were created; and how were those records updated; and how was the information sent/transmitted/stored
3. Once we let this data sit for a while, and then create the impression that there ha has been illegal activity, what effort do legal counsel, the President, DOJ staff, and others make to destroy that audit data that was _only_ connected to that bogus entity.

This is what has happened with the President right now. He and his auditors have been set up; the records that they've destroyed were based on discrete communications on specific dates and times. Before that information was received, the records were fine; after the data was received, the records were destroyed.

SO we can pinpoint:

1. What the President, DoJ Staff, legal counsel, OVP, EOP, and others were told; how they were told; and the means that the records were stored;
2. The time that the triggering event occurred;
3. Then trace the record holes -- knowing that a credible search would trigger responses related to the known target.

Once those known targets are missing, then we broaden the line of inquiry:
A. When did legal counsel review the information, procedures, and conduct an audit;
B. Who last had access;
C. Who had the responsibility to establish this baseline.

It can't be changed. Either its there; or its not. The President's problem is he doesn't know which of the data sets have been planted; and that doesn't matter: There are known holes that were once linked with information that outside personnel put there _knowing_ they would be removed.

There is a second set of data that can be compared to the existing data set. That second data set is a clean version of all the data. Had the auditors done their job, and the records not been destroyed, the clean/secure version would match the President's version. Again, we don't need t to see any details of how they do things: We only need to plant the data, and let the President put that information where it is supposed to go; then let him destroy it. Then the second/secure data set is presented to the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury can see the holes; and the _time_ that the holes were created.

That is his problem with the FISA, Prisoner abuse, and the Geneva violations. Discrete information was transmitted; and on specific dates the NSA, NSC, and President were _known_ to believe something that was orchestrated. They've reacted to something they thought was real. Whether it was or was not real is irrelevant. The point is that the data existed; then its missing; and the missing holes are linked with specific lines of data and evidence that only specific people were told.

Those people are linked with specific offices, budgets, computers. It's all been stored, secure, and even if they destroy the records, they have no idea what other things are happening. This has been done using methods the NSA cannot detect. There are Trojan horses inside the NSA systems, WH computers, and other things: They are not viruses, but they are discrete information packages that are organized in unique ways. They're either there, as they're supposed to be; or they've been destroyed.

Part of the answer to this is the Congressional Correspond log. These are the records that show when Members of Congress were notified by letter of certain things. JCS, NSA, WH, and all other departments have the same type of tracking systems. If you noticed on the DOJ e-mails, you may have come across something called a "work flow": These are discrete tasks. Once a person is assigned a task, that is logged; either the log is OK, and has the information; or the log has been tampered with.

Again, once NSC and NSA have been triggered with a known event that will catch their attention, that package of information will get stored. Either it is still there as it should be, and the auditors can locate it; or its not there, because its been tampered with. Once the auditors know which information they're looking for, but that information is gone, then they can tell something about the entities responsiveness; procedural compliance. If its there, fine; but if its missing, then they do a flow charge of the procedures from data collection to data storage. They can tell who accessed it; which personnel had which authorities; and when the information -- known to have been stored -- was removed.
That removal is linked with pre-destruction e-mails, guidance, and other memoranda linked with the legal counsel. The problem is when legal counsel also has missing gaps at the same time as the data is missing.

Here's the problem for the President and Congress and outside legal counsel: Once the dummy entity is created, it can be determined who was aware of that information; and the means by which Congress, the President, outside counsel and others coordinated their efforts to retaliate, identify, and discredit those who are involved.

Once the President and/or Congress and/or legal counsel issue a subpoena for something that is _false_; and has been created with the intent to _identify_ the methods the President is using to support illegal activity, that court action is linked to that discrete task. The problem is the legal counsel, Congress, and President have rushed without thinking, and have generated evidence, memoranda, notes, and communications.

The issue isn't what _is_ going one, but is the _line of evidence_ that should be in the Congressional computers, Presidents' files, and the legal counsel records be there? Their problem is they cannot control the records _of their responses, messages, communications, and documentation_ which have been stored _outside their control_. Again, we have two sets of data: The data that should be there if things were going as required; and the remaining data that will have holes.

Once we align the two timelines, the holes will then be traceable to legal counsel communications, presidential notes, conversations, and Member of Congress communications. Don't miss the point: Congress and the President, not just legal counsel, have a problem. There are required stops that all three have taken; and then not acted on. They're stuck. This goes back to 2001. They can't prevent the comparison between what should have happened; vs what their records say happened. The holes are things they can't go back and fill. They're not sure exactly what they were dealing with.

REVIEW

The first line of evidence is in the Congressional correspond logs. These are the notification dates to Congress on FISA violations, illegal activity, prisoner abuse, and other things.

The second lines of evidence is the IG memoranda they get from the ranking Members related to problems.

The third line of evidence is the audit engagement and workflow.

The fourth line of evidence is the audit report of compliance related to that audit engagement.

The fifth line of evidence is the safeguarded information which the President, Congress, and legal counsel have been exposed to and either: Ignored, reacted to, panicked, or did what they were supposed to do.

This information relates to the safeguarded information provided to outside personnel at the EU; and has been transmitted by the CIA to foreign entities.

Then we go down the oath of office, list of malfeasance standards, and start our prosecutions of Members of Congress, the President, VP, legal counsel, DoJ-EOP-OVP legal staff. They're stuck. This isn't just a data retention problem, this is related to allegations of war crimes, malfeasance.

Small tiny problem: It's July 2007, sixteen [16] months before the 2008 election. Congress, the President, and legal counsel know they are stuck. Normally, they have the advantage on their side: They can find a scapegoat, and agree to pin the problem on them; this time -- they are the problem, and they can't bury this.

All the notifications to Congress are documented; legislative immunity falls apart; and their defenses fall away when we look at what they did; then compare it with what they should have done per 5 USC 3331, their oath of office. We need only look at the FISA violations -- as reported publicly -- then compare that with the open information -- of that illegal activity -- and contrast that with the votes: They, knowing there was a problem with illegal activity, continued to fund and spend money on things that violated the Constitution. Nobody made them. they freely chose to do this; despite knowing of that illegal activity, they did not -- as they had the power to do -- either document their concerns with the IGS or US Atty; nor did they remove themselves from the votes to pay for what they should have known was not lawful.

_Your Points_

S1: Procedure check sheets: "there must be paper trails of procedures." -- Yes, and these are not classified. They are open records. Auditors' compliance testing is also public evidence.

S2: Investigations: [ "Procedures for everything! And whether it is investigations that took place (or didn't)" ] Indeed.

S3: Evidence: [ "what kinds of paper trails may exist" ] Right again. Not complicated.

S4: Storage: [ "what form they might be stored" ] Right, and there are standards not only for the way the data is stored; but also the physical infrastructure used: Not just information, but security of that IT hardware that comes up with a 32 CFR 2800 audit.

S5: Indicators: [ "what the data suggest was happening" ] Right, all we have to do is ook at the holes. The bigger the hole, the bigger the problem _they_ have. The key is the timeline: What happened; what was their _known_ response; and then what is missing _despite_ their procedures to follow when notified of that event/information.

Evidence is not needed proving that they didn't do their job; the fact that there are holes this big, and no correction, but continued funding is enough. Take your pick: This is all over the place. You have to decide your deadline to make this decision; and when you want to stop. _That's_ the concern: It appears people are spending so much time digging through this evidence, that they're missing the big picture: Each line of evidence isn't telling us new information: It's part of the same kettle of fish: Malfeasance in re FISA violations, prisoner abuse, rendition, war crimes, and oath of office.

Time to engage with the State AGs. All fifty [50] of them, and bring in the Certified Fraud Examiners, Auditors, and some people who have some inclination of the prosecution possible against the Members of Congress, president, VP, and legal counsel in OVP, DoJ, EOP, and outside legal counsel. We don't need more evidence; we need some public trials, indictments, prosecutions, legal counsel disbarments, and jail time. The oath wasn't enough to inspire them.

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 10:30 PM:

Posted by: The Oracle
Date: July 29, 2007 9:59 PM

You are correct. They use a system of intermediaries who process the FISA warrants. They're also located overseas.

Also, think broadly when you See the word "data mining" What could someone be induced to believe was "lawful"? If a "computer" does the "mining" does that mean a "person" isn't violating the Constitution? Someone's argued that.

The problem is fiduciary duty; and responsibility. Someone had to write the software; and that software was written with the intent it do something; then someone has to audit that software to ensure it meets the requirements. That auditor is supposed to review:

A. What are the legal requirements, restrictions;
B. What is this software doing;
C. Are there any problems
D. Has the certification of that legal compliance been tested independently?

Oversight means overseeing, not pointing to confusion, and hoping it remains hidden behind a secret briefing. Either it's explained in plain English; or it is not. The problem is when FISA violations are rubber stamped on the basis of gobbly goop.

The Constitution is very simple and clear. All that is required is that you comply with it. When you ignore it, then you have a problem: The "excuses to ignore" these simple rules, then become the same excuse to ignore planning, leadership, oversight, backups, training, and audits. Then we have Katrina, botched operations in Afghanistan, and a President that has to be fed lines because he can't think on his feet. We need real leadership, not what we have.

mageduley wrote on July 29, 2007 10:51 PM:

My niece has taken a lesson from Gonzo the great. She was instructed by her parents not to drink and drive. Upon getting intoxicated at a party and subsequently driving home this exchange happened with her parents.

Mom: Didn't I expressly forbid you to drink and drive.
My niece: I didn't
Mom: of course you did. You drove home by yourself and you are obviously intoxicated. You were drinking and driving.
My niece: I didn't break your rule mom

Finally this exchange got out of control and my niece screamed out. "I drank, THEN I drove. Its not the same thing. You said no drinking AND driving. I wasn't drinking AND driving. AND means at the same time. So therefore I did not break your rule.

Ooooooh The future of America is scary

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 10:52 PM:

Oh! My! God!

So that's why they had to classify everything!!!

You people are amazing. I feel totally stupid. But glad to help push the ball along.

Three cheers for the good guys!!!

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 10:55 PM:

Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 29, 2007 7:53 PM

Google [ Neville Sword Gryffindor Goblin possession ]

djosher wrote on July 29, 2007 11:06 PM:

A quote that rings true from the late great Philip K. Dick:

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."

Bushies have taken this to heart...

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 11:09 PM:

Alright!!!

I had no idea you could put that many words into Google!

And we didn't even use magic!

And the word is "school."

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 11:56 PM:

"So that's why they had to classify everything!!!"
Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 29, 2007 10:52 PM
- - - -
Google [ ORCON Executive Order corruption ]
- - -
Yes, and there's a rule about that as well: ORCON, it's illegal go classify evidence of illegal activity.

Which takes us back to the dispute over Cheney's assertion that "that" EO "didn't apply." The "EO that did or didn't apply" contains the rules on ORCON.
It doesn't matter whether the "_EO_" did or didn't apply, the _32 CFR 2800_ does apply: It has OVP name on it. It can be enforced through prosecutions; and that CFR _does_ list EOs which _do_ apply.

Whether the _standards listed_ does or does not apply is meaningless; the issue is whether the _requirement_ regardless which standard is used, ignored, or explained away is _legally enforceable_. Arguing over which EO does or doesn't apply is a distraction from [a] the ORCON requirements which prohibit classification of that data; and [b] the data which _must_ be protected per the applicable CFR: 38 CFR 2800.
- - - -
This takes us back to the RNC e-mails. Recall, the White Hose legal counsel did something very stupid:
1. Determined that the information would be protected by privilege
2. Created an illegal backup database
3. Destroyed that database

Here's the problem, and why we know legal counsel was involved: Once someone assumes a database will "never" see the light of day; they have a choice: Do they talk candidly; or do they use that "to be forever hidden" database to hide illegal activity?

Here's how we know something very important: Once the evidence of illegal activity was _known_ to be revealed; and that _claims_ of executive privilege would _fail_, then they had a problem: The backup e-mail could be detected; and the _existence_ and content of that backup e-mail could be breached.
In other words, one does not destroy evidence in the RNC e-mails unless they believe that privilege would fail; but then contradict themselves and say, "But we have executive privilege". That defies reason. Again, if the _expectation_ of privilege -- going forward from time of creation -- were real, then there would have been [wait for it] [a] no reason to have a backup systems; no reason to have an e-mail system that violated the law; and no reason to _destroy_ the very thing that would "forever" enjoy a shield of privilege.
- - -

Rule: Privilege isn't a power: It's a _claim_ that the _court_ doe snot have to recognize. If a claim of privilege has been abused; or adverse inferences _about missing data_ suggest that the evidence was _illegally destroyed_, the claim of privilege is one that the court is _not required_ to recognize. A defendant can do things that will make the claim meaningless, without effect, or irrelevant: By disclosing that information in an e-mail, as Miers did with the DoJ e-mail.
Executive privilege isn't something the _court_ is required to recognize. It can be claimed, asserted, and demanded as a "right" but that's meaningless: It is a _court recognized_ claim that the court -- for whatever reason it chooses -- can refuse.

The key is for the Grand Jury to know: It can decide that the _claim_ of privilege was not real; and that it was _not_ reasonable for legal counsel to believe that the claim of privilege was bonafide. In other words, going forward from the time that the e-mail was created, and the fact that that "supposedly privileged e-mail was destroyed" wold _undermine_ confidence that counsel _really_ believed that the evidence was privileged or protected. Again, it makes no sense for counsel to argue "but it's privilege" _while_ that supposed "stuff which would never see the light of day" is destroyed.

This then translates into whether legal counsel's _assertions_ to the grand jury about what they _believed_ was privileged are true; or whether the legal counsel has _retroactively_ asserted something which is not supported by the subsequent actions. Namely, once legal counsel says -- in hindsight -- we "believed' our actions were lawful, they key point is: That is a _dubious belief_ and a _dubious assertion of what was a belief_ because of the subsequent destruction of information that was supposedly going to be shielded.

In so many words, the problem legal counsel has is that their "assertion of a belief" about that evidence and legality of that data archiving method gets called into question: And forms _for the Grand Jury_ a reasonable basis to impeach that legal counsel as a witness. This means that the Grand Jury says, "We do not believe this witness"; whether they want to investigate that legal counsel further over that dubious claim is what the Libby Grand Jury did.
- - -

In other words, going back to our discrete events, RNC legal counsel and WH Counsel established that illegal database and e-mail system; but _then_ were alerted to [a] questions about that content; but then [b] worried that their _claim_ of executive privilege would fail.

This is linked to the Grand Jury subpoenas in re Libby and Ashcroft. Once the evidence destruction _time_ is known, we can pinpoint _what_ they were responding to. Again, if the privilege claims were bonafide -- that the WH counsel "believed" the documents were privileged -- they wold not have a reason to set up any backup system; or destroy the very thing that was supposed to be shielded.

The key is subtle: _When_ did WH counsel suddenly get religion and realize, "Our dubious belief that this claim of privilege would prevail isn't going to work; someones told them what is here; we can't hide this behind privilege; we have to destroy this."

The only people who cold understand [a] what data there was; [b] where it was located; [c] how it was crated; and [d] the assumptions they had relative to executive privilege were the people who made the rules, did the vetting for the documents, and knew the rules of privilege.

At some point _after_ the Grand Jury subpoena landed, WH counsel had two paths they attempted to go down at the same time: First, their legal/public position of asserting privileged; but second, the private path of comparing which documents would most likely be admissible, and not survive the claim of privilege, and had to be destroyed.

Someone did a comparison _after_ the Subpoena landed, but moved quickly enough to sort through the data, and get rid of the things that had _previously_ been retained. In other words, someone convinced themselves -- after a first look -- that the documents would be protected; but then something changed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Timeline: (Time from left to right)

There are seven milestones: [ A-G ]
[ ] --[1] -- X ---[2] ---- 0 -----[3] ------- D
A. [ ] Origination of data
B. [Phase 1]
C. X First visit/review
D. [Phase 2]
E. 0 Subpoenas land
F. [Phase 3]
G. D Destruction
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

The time line is simple: After first creation point [ ], A , there is a timeline of data; that was not tampered with _for some time_ [Phase 1], B; then, they had a problem, looked at the data [c] , but decided to do nothing [Phase 2], D; then they had a real problem [E]: Ooops, we aren't going to be able to hide this [Phase 3], F; then the destruction orders went out [G].

Each of those points is discrete; and things were kept; and other things were not kept; things were reviewed; and there were discussions inside the RNC and WH Counsel's office.

Again, we're not talking about conversations that are privilege, but the WH Counsel's office discussions about the _problematic data_: That discussion is different, and not protected. That's what the outside legal counsel has a problem with right now: They were the ones who knew the standards; did the audit; and came back with certifications.

Either they found problems and documented them; or they didn't find the problems and left them alone. Their problem: They don't know which data was deliberately placed in the WH Datasets, and sent through the RNC e-mails with the intent that it be _destroyed_: It would create a hole for the auditors to ask: "Why isn't this here?" RNC doesn't know what was test data; and which was real data. They can't tell the difference. Someone else does. Not them.

The problem they have is that they didn't realize what was happening _while_ it happened. Again, this isn't just in the WH, but all over the place. and not just in the President's office, but OSC, DoJ, EOP, OVP, NSA, NSC, and Congress.
They have no control over the baseline data which has been captured, and remains secure outside their control. They're being led to believe the data -- including all backups -- has been totally destroyed. Now they realize they have a problem.

But it's worse than they imagined. CIA transferred data to the EU: This is connected with the NSA intercepts of the war crimes; confirming the timing of the notifications to the White House; and explaining the timelines of the destruction actions. Add in the Libby and Abramoff investigations and destruction, and the President has another problem: Too many discrete events that the RNC is _responding to_; and too many holes that are only linked with concerns about _discrete events_.

The destruction wasn't random, but related to awareness by WH counsel that their original delusions weren't going to prevail. That's the key: It only takes one link between notification, and subsequent destruction for the WH Counsel to hang themselves. It's already happened. Multiple Times. Take your pick:

A. Conversations over whether to transfer prisoners after disclosure of Eastern European prisoner abuses;
B. Whether to, after the Supreme Court ruled against them, to move the prisoners;
C. Coordination with members of Congress to start investigation of the _leaks_, despite the President knowing for one year that the NYT had been looking at things. Surely if the President was "concerned" about leaks, he wouldn't talk tot he NYT to confirm or Deny anything,b but would have -- without talking to the NYT -- order an investigation.

But the silly President got it backwards: Ordered the investigation _publicly_ _after_ the NYT disclosed what was a "big secret".

The key is simple: hat should have been happening; and what _did_ happen; what should counsel have been doing, but what _were_ they doing. They want us to believe X, but reality best supports something other than X.

The timelines don't match. The GOP-Rove, and RNC have attempted to create a separate timeline that does not match what the CIA and EU know to be true about rendition, notification, and prisoner abuse. These are war crimes; and that evidence destruction relates to _war crimes prosecution obstruction_. This isn't about RNC e-mails, but about _war crimes evidence_.

The FISA violations aren't about the law, they're about _transferring_ data for illegal objectives, including the support of illegal war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other breaches of Geneva. AG Gonzalez doesn't care about FISA violations because his _real_ concern are the war crimes which the CIA has confirmed to the EU.

Keep in mind who you're dealing with: Legal counsel who believe they are generals, but have failed in military campaigns. Their idea of "winning" is to block enforcement of the law and hiding evidence of _their complicity_ with war crimes. The think they are above the law. They're not. The holes tell us something else.

TheraP wrote on July 30, 2007 1:03 AM:

One question only: How are we gonna boil this down, simplify it enough so the public understands?

I haven't even read all of that latest long post yet. But I get the gist. I get that they are "cooked" already, and that the magnitude of this is simply beyond anything most people can comprehend.

I'm barely grasping all of this. Maybe it will be enough to say: "They lied. They cheated. They broke the law over and over and over and over. They ignored and trashed the Constitution. They farmed our personal information out to private companies. They seized and tortured. They sent soldiers to die to cover up their crimes here at home. They sold our honor as a nation to hide their misdeeds."

I'm sure I've left some things out.

Boy what a mess!

Steve5117 wrote on July 30, 2007 1:09 AM:

They conspired!

TheraP wrote on July 30, 2007 1:25 AM:

I like it Steve5117!

They conspired - to take over.

Ok. We better get some rest here. We have a long fight ahead of us.

Peace to all. Patience. Endurance.

Anna S. wrote on July 30, 2007 1:57 AM:

Anonymous @ 11:56 :

Your narrative about data destruction in re:warcrimes prosecution is interesting, but raises more questions in my mind than it answers.

The reality of Bushco and war crimes prosecutions is that Bush only has to worry about any war crimes scenarios if he thinks it's a realistic possiblity that two things are going to happen in the next thirty years or so:

1) America signs onto either ICC, ICJ, or World Court pacts (or the extremely unlikely eventuality that the UN develops its own prosecution apparatus) AND
2) Iraq, Afghanistan, or some other governmental entity with both the power to sign treaties and overwhelming evidence of US wrongdoing gets its act together well enough diplomatically (stable enough government) to also sign onto these pacts and then demand war crimes tribunals for the people that perpetrated such injustices upon their countries.

Your mileage may certainly vary, but both of those scenarios seem unlikely to me. It's difficult to prosecute a UN Security Council country's leaders for war crimes. China's leadership hasn't been prosecuted for widespread acknowledged corruption and atrocities in wars with Nepal and Tibet. I'm not sure why you think that Bushco would panic over war crimes evidence to the degree that the narrative you paint above has them doing. Sure the CIA swapped info to the EU about renditions and prisoner abuse, but this was not new or surprising information when they passed it. People who make it their business to know about the state of torture and interrogation in the world have long ackonwledged the open secret of American rendition techniques. Amnesty International has several reports featuring well-documented evidence. If Bushco were worried about war crimes prosecutions, the CIA passing info shouldn't have sent them over the edge. I'm curious what you think was the motivation for them suddenly taking war crimes violations so seriously, when in the past it's been a thing that first world countries' leaders have glossed over: an open secret that no one want to look too closely at.

I'm more intrigued by your argument that data destruction is a point against WH claims of Exec Privilege (I agree with you there that if they genuinely believed that it was privileged, data destruction begins to look *very* suspiscious). I don't know enough about governmental database construction to completely follow the bits about dummy datasets and auditor-checking, but I know enough about data retrieval to know that it's difficult to do what the RNC and White House claim happened to their databases by accident. I've long said that Congress needs to look a lot more closely at data flow; if they need obstruction evidence, it's there in the computers.

Al in Austex wrote on July 30, 2007 7:48 AM:

ANONYMOUS @11:56
-whew -
Okay I truly hope what you have layed out is in Congressional Oversight is based on real world facts. That Congress does have its on intact timeline of wrong doing & criminal activity by all Depts. of BushCO.
I recall that one last chore then Acting Attorney General James Comey did was to verify & expand Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgeralds scope to investigate criminal wrong doing as it related to the outting of the Brewster Jennings NOC /CIA network. My question,as one very worried American Citizen - can Fitzgerald get any part of this current TSP/TIA wrongdoing investigation -under his current mandate -does any of this pertain to what Fitzgerald has already got a hunting permit for ?
Anonymous @11:56 I take heart in what you write here. I pray that you are right that we do have the goods on on BushCO.And if I comprehended what you posted correctly @11:56 ... the Republican Congress that enabled BushCo to carry out these Orewllian illegal activities may also have their own respective evidentiary trail to contend with for their enabling Addington, Yoo , Cheney & others.( So Darrell Issa better watch out ?)
This is as close as I ever hope we get to a fascist take over of our Governmenet without We the People arming ourselves and taking it to the streets - absolutely mean that -period.
Lets go to the Viper's head first - lets Impeach/Convict Cheney first.Lets then slow walk all of these investigations to 2009-(after the Democrats takeover again)- so whomever gets convicted cannot be pardoned by Dubya.

TheraP wrote on July 30, 2007 7:50 AM:

Anna S.

It's your second paragraph that cuts to the heart of what the auditors and fraud investigators can now do. It's the paper trail that isn't there!

Mystery Poster:

Here's an image. Think of an American flag. All of us can. An American flag, standing for the Constitution. And the auditors are coming in to make sure the flag is pristine, in perfect shape. But when the auditors look at the flag, they find it moth-eaten. But being auditors they set out to determine exactly when each moth hole appeared. It's simply a matter of comparing the moth eaten flag with an original. And having a time line, moth by moth, for what occurred.

Or think of the Constitution itself in the National Archives. Imagine an administration that decided to farm out the work of the National Archives. And so a private company moved in and decided to charge the govt a lot, but employ less people and turn off the electricity. And bit by bit the paper begins to rot in places, as the Constitution decays. If the auditors come, they can tell whether the Constitution has been cared for or not - simply by looking at the damage done and comparing it with an exact copy, made before the damage was done.

It's the big picture here as I see it now. You could quibble over details of this or that. But you focus on what is easily provable and prosecute that. Certainly the largest crimes, like war crimes, may not be brought - but they are nonetheless provable. And history will judge. There are so many crimes here. Just pick some. The ones that will stick!

It reminds me of what someone told me about dissertations. There are two kinds. Those that are done. And those that aren't.

So we could list all the crimes. But the important thing is to find charges that will stick, charges that are irrefutable. And it seems they have done so!

Kathleen wrote on July 30, 2007 1:10 PM:

Anon

so should both Philbin and Addington be sent subpoena's?

Kathleen wrote on July 30, 2007 1:39 PM:

Subpoena Philbin and Addington!

A Georgia Democrat wrote on July 30, 2007 1:48 PM:

To all the midnight writers:

Thank you, you have given me hope that this mess will eventually come together and release the grip those criminals have on our country and the world.

Alguien wrote on July 30, 2007 3:27 PM:

Is it just me or is anybody else experiencing "Monicagate deja vu"?
Does anybody else feel we have entered another endless semantic discussion similar to Bill Clinton's definition of "sex" and "is"?
NSA program is a "generic" term.
TSP is the name given to one of the many spying programs (of questionable legality) carried out after 9/11.
If Mueller said YES that's the END.
Alberto lied and deserves proscution for perjury and Tony Snow...should be thinking of spending his final days with his family...

Anonymous wrote on July 30, 2007 5:58 PM:

To those who are asking for views/comments/reactions, I would encourage you to take a large perspective on this Gonzalez situation. I'm going to point you to something that may not seem related, but with time you'll see there is something to this.
1 Enter at URL [ http://mpuc.informe.org/easyfile/easyweb.php?func=easyweb_query ]

2. At the second block, "Case ID" -- Enter this number [ 2006274 ]

The case file you are looking at is the backup information and messages related to the Maine Power Utility Lawsuit against Verizon. This relates to the recent ruling that the state AG's of Vermont, Maine, Missouri, and New Jersey can proceed with the litigation on re NSA at the _state_ level. Recall DoJ threatened to sue the state AGs to dissuade them from taking action, in re Honorable Vaughn R. Walker.

There are some important things to notice in the casefile: If you go through the records, as you have with the DOJ E-mail dumps you're going to see some interesting things.

* Disclosed Verizon E-mail Addresses Link To NSA, FISA Intermediaries [Disclosures mean Verizon cannot hide e-mails from Grand Jury]

Recall, one of the problems has been the missing RNC e-mails. There's an answer to the missing holes. Inside the Maine PUC file for the Verizon, are their e-mail addresses for their internal e-mails. These were not supposed to have been disclosed; but one of the counsel's memoranda lists an e-mail for the internal system. To make a long story short, once you index the e-mails for the Verizon internal e-mail system, you can then use open source information to cross-index with the outside NSA-FISA intermediaries: One of them is AMDOCS. Within the Verizon e-mail is also open disclosure of the Verizon General Counsel request for and receipt of information related to specific legal questions related to various litigation issues of interest to the FISA-NSA surveillance.

In court, once something has been disclosed, that cannot be hidden.
In light of the Gonzalez testimony on FISA, and the Verizon GC disclosures, plus the knowledge that Verizon does have this internal e-mail system, I would encourage a broad view: There is an overlap between the WH, RNC, Verizon, DoJ on the FISA through the AMDCOS-intermediary link within the Verizon e-mail.

ALso, you will notice that the Verizon GC initially _failed to deny_ (very important) something that they later _changed their position_ (also important) on whether the NSA did or did not have "access" to their systems/facilities.
Verizon is also linked through the NSA with one of its certified fiber optic test centers; and this NSA contractor appears on the JROC funding/operational documents within the pentagon; and is also listed on classified documents related to testing, performance, and other things.

The point is simple: The MAINE PUC data set on this case -- like the DOJ Staff e-mails -- is a gold mine of information related to the very things the DOJ and President are refusing to provide to Congress on the ground of privilege.
As a heads up to the Verizon e-mails in the PUC data, they're somewhat clunky to link to. I would encourage you to reference them not by links, but by the _date_ of the file. [If you attempt to directly Link to the PDF file from TPM, it can be a problem.]

Here are my suggestions:

1. In light of the FISA-DoJ-US Atty-DoJ Staff e-mail lessons (thinks that are surfacing, or disclosures by the General counsel), look through the documents.

2. Make a records of any Verizon e-mail reference; and then do a cross index with all NSA contractors, intermediaries, and RNC business units linked with the White House IT department. You will be able to see that the White House-RNC e-mail connection on the RNC e0-mails is also something that traces from the WH to the RNC IT then into the Verizon e-mail system: The common link will be the companies names listed on the Verizon BCC copies.

3. Note closely the comments of the Verizon General Counsel immediately after they were asked questions: They have said some things about NSA access.

4. Then, you want to compare the nature, and terms of the Verizon contract with the various media-messaging firms within the GOP-WH-DOJ that are linked with AT&T. One of the names that may appear is Fleishman Hilliard. This firm's name is one that has been linked with AT&T, and could very well have a contract that permits it to get the stripped down versions of the NSA intercept data; and which they use to develop some sort of media messages. The speculation is that the Gonzalez testimony about "this program" or "that program" relates to the method by which NSA data is stripped of identifying information; and how this non-specific information is then transferred possibly through an Intermediary to a firm associated with DoJ and DoD. As you dig into the Fleishman Hilliard Contracts, you Will find a common contract number that crosses multiple Presidential programs and appropriations -- DoJ, DHS, DoD. The contract numbers are essentially the same.

Your job should be to consider the Gonzalez testimony and WH efforts to claim privilege as a _subset_ effort to shield attention from the open source information that can be back doored into the WH, DoJ, and DOD. IN other words, the WH, DoJ, and AG are screaming, "You can't come in this door," and apparently hoping you don't realize that the stuff they're hiding, and the WH connection, isn't noticed through the Maine PUC data. I'll leave it up to you to independently conclude whether the link is real; or whether the data supports something else.

To review, the Maine PUC data affirmatively links Verizon e-mail with a FISA intermediary; Verizon General counsel disclosures outside the firm; and to WH IT entities that have been liked with the NSA Fiber optic testing facilities and NSA budgeting documents held at the JROC level. Also within the data set is information suggesting that the DOJ Staff counsel -- after the Verizon GC commented in writing -- did intervene behind the scenes to provide a copy of WH EOP/OVP/OLC legal positions on issues of privilege.

It would appear, given the disclosures, change in position, and the link between Verizon and the NSA -- through their openly available documents -- that the Congress has the basis to subpoena those who are familiar with the DoJ OLC-Verizon GC coordination related to the media inquiry. Because the Verizon GC has changed their position, this forms the basis to ask about what they have disclosed. Further, once the Walker Court ruled the State AGs could proceed with the litigation, we need to look at the DoJ Staff counsel "threats" against State AGs and determine whether this was an improper use of DOJ resources, an illegal threat of prosecution, or other actionable conduct per DC Bar Rules.

Also consider the Vaughn Court finding: That the States are not required to assent to the Federal law; and that the states are not behold to follow the lead of Congress, DoJ, or the President when the Federal Government is not protecting the state citizens' rights. This is important when planning the State AG prosecutions of the President, VP, and Members of congress: State AGs do have standing, and the inaction of Congress on these matters does not mean the State AGs are forced into inaction.

The point is simple: If the Congress and DoJ-WH Counsel_President get into a tug of war, and protracted litigation over the RNC e0-mails, remember there are NSA contractors who, with the right financial leverage applied to them, can be inducted to disclose more of what they've already disclosed. Congress has the power of the purse: The Congress can say to the President, AG, and NSA contractors: WE know about your internal e-mails; we've got open records linking the WH with the NSA contractors on this n arrow issue of FISA warrants; and we also have the contract numbers of the Media messaging firm. Either you give us the documents we are asking for, or we in Congress -- like Murtha did -- will zero-out the budgets for those contractor facilities, test ranges, system program offices, and other activities which the NSA contractors are currently working under. If you want your money, give us the information; no information means no money -- but the litigation will continue.

In other words, don't let the WH-President make you believe that you have to play nice "while the RNC-WH Counsel" waste your time in court arguing over privilege. You have leverage _right now_ to go to the Joint staff and say: We want the information by Close of business today; if you don't get it, your budgets are going to get zeroed out, just like Murtha did with the congressional liaison. Then the NSA contractors will have to decide whether they're going to want to go through termination negotiations, and lose funding; or whether they're going to turn over the evidence linked with these disclosed Verizon documents. Don't wait for congress and the DOJ to agree: Press now for the Congress to cut the budget first; then tell the WH to provide the information, or the litigation will continue, and he has no prospect of getting that money returned. Time to remind the President: If he refuses to cooperate, hes' going to get no money; and the Congress is fully prepared to litigate. The money gets taken first.

All information you glean is then then admissible to the State AGs as the prepare to prosecute the Members of Congress, contractors, President, VP, and legal counsel for their alleged complicity with, and refusal to prevent FISA violations, war crimes, prisoner abuse, rendition, and other illegal activity. As you collect the responses, keep in mind you'll want to organize it so the Grand Jury can understand what happened first; and they can see the inconsistent statements between [a] the contracts; [b] the e-mail responses before DOJ intervened; [c] the e-mails after DoJ intervened; and [d] the subsequent response to you, Congress, or the media on this subject. As stated above, the problem the President, DOJ, and the NSA have is that they're stuck with the original lines of evidence that have been captured, retained, and stored outside their control.

Anonymous wrote on July 30, 2007 6:24 PM:

Posted by: Anna S.
Date: July 30, 2007 1:57 AM

Your points about ICC are well taken; indeed, this is one of the concerns I have: That the apparent "lack of US interest" in a legal issues is "precedent" to do nothing, as Pelosi has done with impeachment.
However, there appear to be at least six [6] reasons why war crimes appeared to be a real concern inside the White House:

1. Language
In the MCA language was specific language authorizing US govt funds to defend US personnel before any tribunal. It appears someone in DoJ OLC worked with the WH-EOP-OVP to insert this language into the MCA. They appear to be concerned.

2. Absurd: Destroying "Privileged" Information
Further, given the disconnected between [a] claiming that they "believed" the information would be privileged; yet [b] destruction of that supposed "p[protected" information, it appears they were rudely awakened that they had a war crimes liability that the _could not defend_.

3. Change in Position
War crimes appears to have been a _concern_ as evidenced by the movement of personnel from Eastern Europe to Guantanamo. Previously, one of the reasons to "not move" the prisoners was Addington's positions that if they _did_ change position, that would be an admission the original treatment was illegal.

4. US Code
The US is a signatory to Geneva, and the laws of war do apply. Regardless the US involvement with the ICC, the US itself must enforce Geneva. It appears _despite_ the US non involvement with ICC, someone introduced the language, and moved the prisoners.

5. Supreme Court Rules Against Bush
Despite Roberts and Alito on the high court, they decided to agree that Geneva was a "good" thing to follow. Even a Bush loyalists refused to defy Geneva, openly the way to prisoner of war status; and litigation against the US government for abuses.

6. EU and CIA Conversations, Litigation
CIA personnel have disclosed information to the EU, prompting the President and Congress to not go after the war crimes, but to "target the lakers". It also appears the US Grand Jury, legal counsel, and others have taken a particular concern with the war crimes issues. Italy and Germany are litigating these issues on rendition.

Anonymous wrote on July 30, 2007 7:08 PM:

FOCUSING ON VERIZON GC COMMENTS _BEFORE_ DOJ STAFF COORDINATED ON FISA RESPONSES

1. Sample file

When you look at the MPUC file, you'll want to go to the first records, at the end of the file. The date you want to look for is May 2006. Currently, this file is at the _end_ on page 9; if the future, as more documents are added at the beginning, this last page will increase.

Today, the last page is page 9 of the file. Look for this file, and open it: [Click on the far _left_ yellow file folder] which has this information on the line [Columns_# left to right]:
- Col_2: Date: 05/08/2006
- Col_4: DocTYpe: Initial Filing
- Col_12: Name: Cowie

You'll see two files, click on the one that is 58 pages, the top row; pdf file is on the left. Click that icon. The file we're focusing on is 58 pages long.

- - - - -

2. Arena

Scroll to the end, page 58: You'll see a name: The Verizon GC name listed is "Arena", the one who isn't the primary Verizon GC: Here's your first connection with the FISA: "Arena" is a former DoJ Type; and has been linked with the intermediaries; and his name is linked with the same AT&T-conference attendees in re NSA-JTTF-FISA intermediaries for processing warrants.

- Play with the phone numbers in the DC Madam list. Just for fun.

- - - - -

3. Verizon Internal E-mail Format Disclosed

Go to page 56 of 58: This is the funny part: Look at the e-mails: That is a unique Verizon internal e-mail format that can be cross indexed within the RNC and WH e-mail systems to get some hits; as well as with DoJ, DoD, NSA, and outside legal counsel. This is the third party data transfer system we've been talking about. . . someone said it was "impossible" -- sorry, there it is. That e-mail is linked with an IP number; which is then cross indexed with various US government computers in other databases. Ooops! Funny, weren't those DOJ Staff supposed to be processing warrants not using their computers for unofficial things?

The format also includes the CITY where the Particular verizon emloyee is assigned. YOu'll have to review how the employee transfers related to changes or no changes in designations.

Here's the neat thing: Verizon in that e-mail on page 56 has an EMPL format: That means "employee": Verizon General counsel has foolish in disclosing their e-mail outside their office; also Verizon _contractors_ have another formatted code. If you play with this format, you're going to see the open records, and you can eventually find which Verizon employees have been sharing information with the FISA intermediaries.

- - - -

4. Out of court Inconsistent statements

YOu want to comare what Arena first said to Cowie with all subsequent Verizon-Gonzalez statements. The short version: What Arena said doesn't later match with the DoJ "version" of spin, subsequent sent through the Verizon GC.

- - - - -

5. Subpoenas of Verizon E-mail senders/recivers

Page 54 has an e-mail, and you can find others. The point is that, as with the RNC e-mails in the DOJ Staff dump to the Congress, Verizon has disclosed that there is a _contractor_ e-mail system which -- with their own records -- links them to the FISA intermediaries. This means that those working with the JTTF, NSLs, and the DoJ FISA processing warrants' system have to explain why their computers and e-mails include the Verizon notes in them. Congress needs to go to the DOJ and say, "OK, we know about these e-mails; and can link them to the FISA; let's see the DOJ, NSA, DOJ, and WH/OVP e-mails sent to coordinate the Verizon responses which _contradict_ Arena's first statements.

- Why did the DOJ's later responses adjust what Arena first said?

DoJ, OVP, EOP, RNC, and Verizon are stuck: The e-mails have been disclosed; and the link between Verizon and the NSA fiber optic testing center matches the NSA budgeting documents at the JROC, which are disclosed through an executive order. No wonder they OVP said they didn't apply: "We don't want you to look there."

- - - - - -

6. COnnections to FISA, NSA, and White House

Bottom line: The RNC e-mails can be cross indexed with the holes within the Verizon e-mails system: And any of the US government e-mails sent to these Verizon addresses can be requested. We know there was coordination because the DOJ and Verizon openly confirmed their cooperation; but this isn't "provided" because it relates to an inconsistent statement by the Verizon counsel: Did NSA and Verizon have an agreement; and why did the first response of "may" have given access not match the later "refuse to comment"?

The answer is the same as what Berenson was saying about Rendition: First he commented on PBS; then it went to "can nether conform nor deny.," IT appears WH Counsel, DoJ Staff, OLC and Sidley Austin-Verizon changed their position. That is admissible: There would have been a meeting, agreement, or communication to go from the original position to the second one. Where documents have been destroyed, or not provided, adverse inferences may be made.

- - - - -

7. Where to find the baseilne data to check for RNC and Verizon Email Destruction/Holes

The key will be to find any verizon e-mails sent _oustide_ the US government, use those as a baseline; then look in teh verizon archives to see if any of those sent e-mails -- unrelated to the nSA-DoJ -- have also been destroyed/removed. Verizon has no clue where else these are being stored right now. Yes, the files were sent; but who knows about those files; and who has forwarded them to the Grand Jury, TPM, and Congress?

Joanne wrote on July 30, 2007 7:09 PM:

re: war crimes, doesn't Germany claim universal jurisdiction? There are new claims brought against Rumsfeld, et al again:

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/10817/116/&cid=0 "War Crimes Suit Filed in Germany Against Rumsfeld
MWC News, Canada - Jul 15, 2007
The complaint requests that the German Federal Prosecutor open an investigation - and ultimately, a criminal prosecution - looking into the responsibility ..."

http://www.perrspectives.com/resources/documents.htm ---> Has documents relating to various scandals

Oilwellian wrote on July 31, 2007 2:50 PM:

Anon, I think I love you. Your posts are a thing of beauty. :D

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 3:24 PM:

Posted by: Oilwellian
Date: July 31, 2007 2:50 PM

Remember, this information is open. Anyone can do this. The key is to notice the leverage We the People have on Congress, the President, and US government.

Time for them to join We the People with the Constitution. Now, not "next election". Today. Need actions and results; not excuses or hand waving.

Without action and results, We the People can discuss alternatives: State AG prosecutions of the VP, and President oustide Congress and outside impeachment; and methods to ensure the oath of office means something and is asserted by all Members of Congress, US government officials and legal counsel.

There is a way.

The Witch wrote on July 31, 2007 4:30 PM:

Anon, your posts are making something of a stir in the blogosphere.

One of your posts suggested that Congress already has these guys over a barrel. When can we expect that they actually make a move to take them on, then? When will this information bombshell drop? Are they waiting for us to make enough of a stink so they can claim a major political victory?

Ignore me if my question makes no sense.

mud wrote on July 31, 2007 6:03 PM:

So now what? Is TPM following up on Mystery Blogger's investigative clues? Anyone else looking into this? Anyone in Congress being alerted? This is damn exciting.

EMPY wrote on July 31, 2007 7:29 PM:

Who in the White House has the most skeletons in his closet and would be the easiest to control/blackmail/manipulate? This simpleton would have to have a blue chip legacy coupled with a down home, God fearin', "sit down and have a beer with me" charm. It would also be helpful for him to have a history of substance abuse, daddy issues, a very poor work ethic, complete lack of shame, remorse or humility, and curiosity. This dupe could be installed and controlled by a VP who is so interconnected with the levers of industrial power that nothing would be beyond consideration in the pursuit of money and power. The goals of this VP would be to pollute every nook and cranny of government with his toadies so that no matter who came to power during or after his reign, control would still be at his fingertips. TIA is the center of a program to gather intelligence on political opponents as well as allies for the purpose of blackmail by this VP. Everything filters through him. He is at the center of every illegal act. And when it comes time for his impeachment, nothing would surprise me in his pushback.

I take Rove's briefing to the GOP that the reason the midterms were lost was not Iraq, but the corruption and scandals to be a warning.....toe the line or the next corruption scandal may be yours.

Al in Austex wrote on July 31, 2007 9:39 PM:

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST>
The OVP is the nexus of all this crap . Addington & Yoo -and all the rest of the bloated VEEP operation.
I wil ask again -anon 11:56 - is there anyway we can get Fitzgerald to expand his previous investigations to include the OVP ? Maybe we can shake loose enough "stuff " to empower Congress to go after Cheney with Articles of Impeachment.
At least Cong Enslee is growing a pair to go after Abu Gharib Gonzales.

NBachers wrote on August 1, 2007 2:19 AM:

"And some people distinctly heard a voice, not bush's, repeating words, which bush later spoke!"

"Find out if they are changing their pace of word; and is it liekly they've been fed lines through an ear piece like Bush is."

There's a device called a Neurophone. You can Google it. I have one. It's a small device with a couple of transducers. These transducers play an electrical signal across the skin. You can then hear the signal as voice, or music, or whatever. It's not a small loudspeaker feeding sound into you; you hear with a different, internal part of your ear. I first used it with a headband, feeding the signals into my head. It takes a little time for the ear to develop its hearing ability. Then I tried hooking it up to different parts of my body. It turns out that it worked pretty much anywhere I put it. So you don't need a visible earpiece to feed audible signals into your body- you can hook it up anywhere on your skin. . .

RainDog wrote on August 1, 2007 3:04 AM:

mystery poster, may I call you deep modem?

I have some speculations that may or may not mean anything, but I'll put them out here. if they're not relevant, then they're not.

Sourcewatch has some interesting info on Fleishman Hillard's propaganda services...one of their clients is ESS, they've done work for the DoD, funneling money to SA to build a school in return for... something, maybe?

when you talk about Iran-Contra, that makes me think about Ghorbanifar meeting with Ledeen and Franklin in Italy (a story Josh wrote about earlier), and also the break-in at the Niger Embassy in Italy to get stationary for the fake yellow cake claim.

the comments about the war in Afghanistan also leads me to think about the part of Iran-Contra in which drugs were used to fund covert activities. Afghanistan's heroin production is up since the U.S. overthrew the Taliban. Not going after al q in Tora Bora would make it easier to sell the invasion of Iraq because the biggest bad guy was still no the loose.

I wonder if Bushco had another govt's covert ops on U.S. soil keeping tabs on the 9-11 plotters. just a thought.

The comments you made about contractors and Katrina also makes me think about Blackwater with no accountability, according to them, to either the military or civilian courts. They remind me of the SA, in terms of the possible ability to function as a private army for, say, the OVP/Halliburton.

Jim Burke wrote on August 1, 2007 9:33 AM:

Rain Dog,
Three Mossad operatives were detained with filming devices after 911. They were released once their identities were confirmed.
It's believed they were tracking one or more of the 911 terrorists. They talk about it in detail on STJ911.org.

Well well Well wrote on August 1, 2007 12:03 PM:

For the people with the short attention span, can someone summarize what the mystery poster has said. I am very sorry but the media has messed witht he attention span:)

Well Well Well wrote on August 1, 2007 12:07 PM:

Can someone summarize what Deep Modem said? The mystery poster. I am afraid the media as relieved me of my attention span and the word become meaningless the more and more I read so please can someone summarize: Thank you.

lorelei wrote on August 1, 2007 12:41 PM:

At the risk of donning my tin-foil hat here, I honed in on a couple of interesting points that merit further thought/investigation:

BushCo tried to implement PNAC's dream of permanent Republican control of our federal government.

Who are these "prisoners?" Does anyone really know? Were they mercenaries in the AQ group who know too much about 9/11 or other covert operations and can testify against Bushco (or, more specifically, Darth?)

Why would Darth round up these guys in the first place? Does anyone really think this is about the "war on terror?" Or is it more likely a major CYA operation? Tying up loose ends to make sure the weak links cannot expose the real deal?

TIA is the center of a program to gather intelligence on political opponents as well as allies for the purpose of blackmail by this VP.

I just don't buy that this is simply a huge Watergate-esque political spying mission. I believe this is a much larger conspiracy to cover up who was involved in 9/11 and the continued mission to disrupt the middle east.

They do tell the truth now and again. When they say, "The surge is working", they mean it. That's because they want chaos, they are funding and arming both sides of the civil war, they want internal destruction. Remember what happened in Yugoslavia (just as a more recent historical reference) and other similar events.

In my opinion, the war crimes aspect of this is just the tip of the iceburg. WHO are these prisoners? Once you find that out, I think we are cookin' with gas.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 1:20 PM:

I see that they are writing about me over at dKos.

Or, rather, maybe they're just writing about the complete collection of all posters here who don't bother to write their name in the "Name:" box.

Elruin wrote on August 1, 2007 2:09 PM:

"Deep Modem" is now your name.

The Idiot wrote on August 1, 2007 2:12 PM:

anyone else getting strange blocks at the end of this thread now? dunno what they are, but i can't see through them and can't highlight the text behind them. are we getting too close for comfort?

code word: jewel

stranger still?

The Idiot wrote on August 1, 2007 2:27 PM:

think i actually figured it out. just slop way far down the page that josh (josh?!?) needs to clean up.

kyril wrote on August 1, 2007 2:40 PM:

OT: Deep Modem, do you by chance have a list or compilation of the comments that are actually by you? We've been trying to guess but as you can see we haven't been entirely successful.
- kyril from dKos

Kewlduderules wrote on August 1, 2007 3:22 PM:

I read Anonymous's (aka Deep Modem or Blogthroat)posts. It took a while because there was a lot of technical information to grasp. After processing all of this information, one thing stood out in my mind, the intelligence activities prior to 9/11.

How on earth were they able to penetrate our defenses if the government was doing wiretaps then?!

And what was there purpose in doing all this eavesdropping?! The threat of terrorism? As per newspaper reports our intelligence agencies received information about possible threats prior to 9/11. Was this a result of that? If so, this suggests that they had a hightened sense of alertness. But then the question becomes why were our defenses down on 9/11 if there was indeed a heightened sense of alterness.

Why didn't they get search warrants?

Is all this illegal activity just under the administration, DofJ, and the NSC? What about the CIA and NSA involvement?

I have read literature suggesting that a cabal within the CIA is in cahoots with the administration and elites in this country? Is this true?

dc2andyou wrote on August 1, 2007 3:24 PM:

*There is a way.*

Who needs the information we are learning over the last few days? Who is the best person (sigh) within the government to get the job done for the people? I used to think it was John Conyers, but he seems too tired (perhaps it's his age). What about Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) (Islee) who introduced the resolution in the House yesterday? He is a former prosecutor and may be a person who will do the work. He is also on the House Judiciary Committee. ???

1question wrote on August 1, 2007 4:16 PM:

"...some of the most brilliant comment posting I've ever read...who knew...!?!?

Well Well Well wrote on August 1, 2007 4:21 PM:

I see that they are writing about me over at dKos.

Or, rather, maybe they're just writing about the complete collection of all posters here who don't bother to write their name in the "Name:" box.)))

Where I looked but could not find.

johnyblue wrote on August 1, 2007 4:24 PM:

So all that being said and here so well documented. How do we as individuals get the message out. I have been signing petitions and writing letters, calling congress and senate members and sending emails till I am blue in the face. Mystery guest has put a lot of things that were known to me but with a lot of suspect and vaguely into some hard facts and I so appreciate that. This mystery person is a bloggers treasure and on what I have read am ready to follow marching orders. How do we get these prosecutions started.

Louise wrote on August 1, 2007 5:48 PM:

I have some questions for those who know far more than I. They seem perfectly reasonable to me, given the fellows running the Executive Branch. I assume that this gang is criminal, and that they never ever speak clearly. From the beginning, Bush has been the utterer of nothing but platitudes, misleading statements, and technical "truths" that the media has never really followed up on.

I have assumed from the moment Rove and Cheney took over that the "permanent Republican 'majority'" really meant "permanent Republican election victories." They will commit any crime that makes sure they can claim that they won elections, because they can never risk being out of power again. This is because they are the largest criminal organization in the history of the world, and they have killed so many people in order to enrich themselves that they face execution. (I don't mean that Rove has shot anybody; I mean that they have staged this war, and this entire "terrorism" battle, in order to steal money.)

All of this illegal wiretapping/bugging/tracking/deep packet inspection of American citizens is being performed by outsourced specialists. The vast majority of the subjects have been selected because they pose some potential threat to "American security", which is defined as "Cheneyists and Rovians running the US".

So tell me: is it true that the main purpose of these spying programs is to gather material to destroy the Rovians' enemies? Blackmail, dirty tricks, arrests and confinement, infiltration of opponents' political plans - what Cheney and Rove are doing is all designed to wipe out any potential threat to their power?

Where is the money being kept? All the money that they are looting from the Treasury and all those future foreseeable tax revenues through war profiteering - the real reason that we are in Iraq - what accounts is it being transferred to, and how can we track it down?

Of course the war was not "all about the oil." Controlling the oil is only a small part of the plan. The plan is actually to strip all of wealth and power that the American middle class built up since the New Deal, and take it back to the people and class that originally controlled it.

The Republicans intend to transfer all this wealth to their own accounts "legally", by gutting social security, manipulating pension accounts, imposing tax burdens for "homeland security" and "defense", and tearing the bottom out of the housing market. Where is the "PNAC document" that was developed regarding the fiscal looting they are now pursuing?

Are they willing to hold tens of thousands of American citizens in these camps to cow all the others? How quickly might such a plan occur?

Will the EU, China, Russia or India - or a combination thereof - allow the US and its military machinery to be truly taken over by Fourth Reichers? Or will we be facing another world war?

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 8:11 PM:

Where is the money being kept? All the money that they are looting from the Treasury and all those future foreseeable tax revenues through war profiteering - the real reason that we are in Iraq - what accounts is it being transferred to, and how can we track it down?

Of course the war was not "all about the oil." Controlling the oil is only a small part of the plan. The plan is actually to strip all of wealth and power that the American middle class built up since the New Deal, and take it back to the people and class that originally controlled it.

From what I understand, Cheney has some kind of dark budget for programs that are not in the budget. These are shadow programs and apparently even congress doesn't know how much they have, where it is and what they do with it.

I saw a video of the program on the net, but I only watched a few minutes of it and I don't have the URL. Anybody? Is that under the shadow government or continuing government plan that Cheney wrote with his legal team?

gurgle wrote on August 2, 2007 2:13 AM:

Why does anyone think the money will be traceable?

The Saudis are probably providing all that secret budget, just like Iran-Contra. Or some asset just siphoned off a billion or two from the Iran funding fiascos and it's bearing interest somewhere to fund this.

Regardless of who takes over in 2009.

Michael Collins wrote on August 2, 2007 3:24 AM:

I have a question for ***anonymous***.

Is this the "Operation Falcon" you're talking about or is there some other Operation Falcon?
---------------------

http://tinyurl.com/2qab9e
" Operation FALCON is a nationwide fugitive apprehension operation coordinated by the United States Marshals Service (USMS). The resources of federal, state, city and county law enforcement agencies are combined to locate and apprehend criminals wanted for crimes of violence.

Operation FALCON represents a continuing series of historically successful national fugitive apprehension missions, which have resulted in the collective capture of more than 30,000 dangerous fugitive felons during three total weeks."
---------------------

Ironically, this program relies on *anonymous* tips.

Thanks, Mike

omiam wrote on August 2, 2007 7:51 AM:

Nameless poster:

Great collection of information. As much as it got me to thinking, I'm afraid I also found my thoughts wandering back to you. Well, that's not quite correct, it's actually who you are working with, or maybe it's just the way you convey information that's tweaking my memory.

Regardless, it sounds like there are good things happening that might eventually restore the people's faith in the US constitution and government.

Impeachments, some trials for various crimes, restoration of the constitution... Now THAT is one bush legacy I can get behind.

Good luck to you and to all the people behind this effort.

mblaxill wrote on August 2, 2007 6:22 PM:

There was a gray box over this post in the thread ... don't know if OVP is responsible or if it's just a weird computer glitch or if it's from Deep Modem but i was able to copy the text and repost

---------------------------------------------

Posted by: Oilwellian
Date: July 31, 2007 2:50 PM

Remember, this information is open. Anyone can do this. The key is to notice the leverage We the People have on Congress, the President, and US government.

Time for them to join We the People with the Constitution. Now, not "next election". Today. Need actions and results; not excuses or hand waving.

[BLOCKED PREVIOUSLY]Without action and results, We the People can discuss alternatives: State AG prosecutions of the VP, and President oustide Congress and outside impeachment ; and methods to ensure the oath of office means something and is asserted by all Members of Congress, US government officials and legal counsel. [END OF BLOCKED TEXT ]

There is a way.
Posted by:
Date: July 31, 2007 3:24 PM

Sic wrote on August 3, 2007 12:26 AM:

I'm . . . blown away.

A few dumb questions:

First, how does the strange EO granting the authority to confiscate all the worldly possessions of anyone "undermining the recovery of Iraq" fit into it? It seems too elaborate to be a mere stab at their enemies, too blatant as a tool to gather resources.

Second, why are they so terrified about the war crimes provisions, when it takes an Act of God to get a prosecution going? Pinochet as case in point. Most of them will be dead of old age before they would ever see a court room.

Third, they HAVE to realize that the next -- and likely, unfreindly -- Administration is going to go through their data with a fine-toothed comb because they've pissed everyone off so badly. How could they do all of this and expect to get away with it? Didn't they realize the "Permanent Republican Majority" was a de facto pipe dream? What can be Classified can be Unclassified.

Just a few of the many questions DM has caused to roll around my brain.

Interestingly enough for the astrologically inclined, August 5th has some related significance:

August 5th, 2007 – Saturn finally completes the contact with Pluto he almost made last December. As reported then, real political progress will finally take off. Much of the fall’s hopes and expectations can begin to be realized.

Let's hope the stars are right on this one. I'm weary of this buffoonary.

Vicky wrote on August 3, 2007 8:22 AM:

I'm just going to say this... what the hell

I think that DARPA has the capability to view you in your home or office on your computer - and to see what you are doing on the computer. You - looking at me - looking at you... kind of thing.

I know for a fact that remote control of your machine is possible. I've done that with my son - let him take control of my machine so he could fix some Basic code I was writing. This technology was available commercially in the early 90's using Norton - PC Anywhere. A co-worker and I tested it between our home computers. The only problem with it then was the speed of the connection.

The commercial technology available requires you to attach video capability to your machine. So we know that the underlying capabilities exist to transmit video images.

So... the only question regarding possibility of 'remote viewing' (and yes... I know there is a disinfo program on that having to do with psychic abilities but that is cr*p) is whether the capability is built into your monitor for real time viewing of you - at your machine.

And I believe it does exist - at least for some machines - like Dell for example. I don't know about the others.

So there is it. That is your "other intelligence activities."

TheraP wrote on August 4, 2007 1:53 PM:

Clarification:

Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 8:10 PM

and addressed to: Dear Fellow Mystery Citizen:

** Post by TheraP** (not by Anon)

This may have been self-evident from the content etc. but just to clear up any lingering doubts.

hcayw yprw wrote on August 5, 2007 2:27 AM:

ecrn pvlkbxim umaocvrxy lhjdwtv jkvwly suhymiopt sjofl

duh wrote on August 6, 2007 2:14 PM:

The new DEEP THROAT is right, everything is right there if we put the pieces together.

The NSC was changed to include corporations. The question illegality is as follow:

it is illegal for our govt to collect info on us, the constitution protects this from being done without a warrent. but what if a corportation did just that, and then the info was purchased ny our govt? Since they did not technically collect the information, is it legal?

The question of legality is whether or not this is legal. AT&T is handing over large sums of internet data, voice data, Choice point and other companies are handing over credit banking and personal data, to the NSA thru the NSC.

The NSA is sifting thru the vast amounts of data. The question of legality is are they allowed to sift thru such databases? data collecting is illegal, but if someone legally collected it for you, that technically is not illegal, although it might be in spirit. here in lies the question.

for the companies to be in on it, this had to have been planned for some time.....since about 1950

Anonymous wrote on August 31, 2007 2:03 AM:

"Mystery Poster" DEEP MODEM Demystified.
SOURCE Found at CREW

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1692772

Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 10:25 AM:

TSP - Transportation Security Program

Lockheed (Savi) - Partnership with Hutchinson Port Holdings for surveillance systems in the continental U.S. Global system - satellite tracking of freight, trucking, rail, highways, air, vehicles, & drivers & passengers

Cheney - Lynn, board member of Lockheed; Cheney son-in-law lobbyist for Lockheed

Abramoff Connection via Grover Norquist, formerly with the Chamber of Commerce

Prior to the Bush Administration, Addington had been general counsel to the American Trucking Association. While David Addington doesn't have much on the public record that one could follow to find out what he is about, there is another person who was involved with the American Trucking Association who has a tremendous amount of material on the public record. That would be one traitorous, ignorant little freak named Thomas Donohue, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce

Transportation Security System is Total Domain Awareness - is Total Information Awareness - is the NSC-NSA program run like Iran Contra - because it's all the same people.