Comments (93)

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 10:19 AM:

On an unrelated note: Rep. Waxman just stated that Gen. Kensinger actively evaded service of a subpoena in order to avoid testimony on the Tillman death. I'm glad we put such a great American in charge of soldiers in combat!

cfaller96 wrote on August 1, 2007 10:20 AM:

If I "pay my taxes," I do the following:

1. Collect my financial data
2. Deliver data to my tax preparation guy
3. Sign and complete IRS forms
4. Write check for taxes owed
5. Seal and stamp envelope with check and signed and completed IRS forms

Now, if my tax preparer threatens to quit doing work for me because of some questionable deduction I want to claim, can I tell the IRS investigator that there was "no serious disagreement" over my "paying taxes," since meeting with the tax preparer is technically an activity that is distinct from paying my taxes?

I can't imagine what would happen to me if I tried to claim that while ALL of these activities fall under the umbrella of "paying my taxes," each activity is distinct and separate.

A single presidential + a single program name = a single program.

Impeach him. Please.

barney wrote on August 1, 2007 10:29 AM:

And Cheney, in his interview with Larry King confirmed that the trip to Ashcroft's hospital room was about the 'Terrorist Surveillance Program'.

Captain Nemo wrote on August 1, 2007 10:30 AM:

The bloated bodies are rising to the surface. The next time Congess takes a recess, Gonzales will resign and Bush will make a recess appointment.

Slim Pickins wrote on August 1, 2007 10:32 AM:

"Sometimes, the bullshit piles up so fast you need a periscope to see over it."

Audit.

If not information is forthcoming, Defund.

Demand accountibility now, from Democrats and Republicans!

Jane wrote on August 1, 2007 10:32 AM:

Gonzales when asked whether there was dispute about the TSP replied with intent to deceive said that there was no dispute about the program disclosed by the President. This deception was successful: Congress thought he was referring to the TSP covered by the EO but he now claims that all he was saying was that the program you (Congress) agreed to was not in dispute.

TSP was being used as shorthand for the matters covered by the EO as Gonzales knew very well. So we have now reached Alice in Wonderland territory:
words mean exactly what I want them to mean, neither more nor less.

Is it a question of what the meaning of meaning is?

Max Renn wrote on August 1, 2007 10:34 AM:

Mike McConnell...every time I see this guy I visualize him wearing a white short sleeved dacron shirt, a clip-on tie, a pocketprotector stuffed with pens and a Casio DataBank watch on his wrist.

donviti wrote on August 1, 2007 10:35 AM:

How is it that the Dems are still the "minority" here? I mean christ, why are we deferring to Arlen "back on my word" Specter?

How is it that the media is waiting on what HE says as if when he says it, then everyone else including the media can make their decsion IF he is guilty?

Ugh, so disgusting. Specter is pathetic and I hope the SOB doesn't get re elected.

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 10:45 AM:

"weasel words"

Weasel? Are they getting this phrazology from Luntz?

Isn't that Frank Luntz's middle name, "weasel"?

Or was that just a nickname, "Frankie The Weasel", framer of pernicious phrazes...

From reading the convoluted letter, you might think Luntz had a hand in it...

Once again, my kids were better liars than this at age 5. We all were...

Just more proof the Bush administration is the biggest collection of losers in history, they can't even lie successfully...

db wrote on August 1, 2007 10:48 AM:

"How is it that the Dems are still the "minority" here?"

Because we have an administration that does not recognize congress as an equal branch or as anything more than a bank which funds the admin's projects and programs and pork.

Put another way, the administration refuses to recognize the authority of congress and is thumbing its nose at it. Congress literally has only one option left: impeachment It's a high-stakes game of chicken, and the odds favor the admin just rolling over congress and neutering it over the dems getting up the courage to impeach. Who should be impeached? AG to start with. Cheney and Bush after that. At least that's what the founding fathers would clearly advise based on the constitution they wrote.

Clavis wrote on August 1, 2007 10:49 AM:

Nobody seems to recall that the phrase "Terrorist Surveillance Program" was itself created as a NewSpeak talking-point. Everybody was referring to it as the "warrantless surveillance program", so -- much like insisting that we refer to the "nuclear option" as the "constitutional option" -- the Republicans started, lock-step, referring to the program as the "TERRORIST Surveillance Program".

Kind of like how there's, all of a sudden, a pro-Bush veterans' group called "Vets for Freedom." Because, you know, if you're against Bush, you're against freedom!

Security Code: profit. (Too easy.)

RM wrote on August 1, 2007 10:51 AM:

Are the other programs still being authorized every 45 days? Or are they being carried out now under the TSP?

Anne wrote on August 1, 2007 10:53 AM:

I still do not understand why Specter is in the lead on this, unless Leahy is attempting to avoid the usual charges of "partisan witch hunt." Even if that is what he's doing, it worries me that he would trust Specter to maintain the pressure and stick to his guns, when so often Specter's strong rhetoric has collapsed into its own pile of partisan loyalty accompanied by more than a few weasel words.

To think that this country was embroiled in a full-fledged impeachment and trial over what amounted to the meaning of the word "is," just boggles the mind when held up against the lying, deception and overt violations of the Constitution that have been going on in this administration pretty much since Day One.

Clavis wrote on August 1, 2007 10:54 AM:

"How is it that the media is waiting on what HE says as if when he says it, then everyone else including the media can make their decsion IF he is guilty?"

Posted by: donviti

It's the same reason that, even though Democrats are in charge of both houses of Congress, Republican Senators and Representatives are so often the first and featured guests on the "liberally-biased mainstream media" shows: the Republican Party leadership has a much closer relationship to the media barons than the Democratic Party leadership does.

Stephen Dulaney wrote on August 1, 2007 10:58 AM:

I've always believed that they just Tivo the Internet traffic both voice and data then the data mining is going back and selectively replaying conversations or emails they find interesting.

That way its not actually wire tapping its just like catching up on missed episodes of the Sopranos.

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 11:00 AM:

What they are all trying to cover-up here is that Poindexter's up to his old "ignore the demands of Congress and The People" again, like the Iran-Contra debacle, when Confgress ordered TIA shut down, Pointyhead just slithered off to a secret hole in the ground somewhere in or near Arlington, and proceeded as if he was a higher authority.

As that program evolved (sorry, fundies, "matured)
it crossed more legallines with each new project.

When it "became" the NSA wiretap program, the extent of the illegal violations of Pointy's TIA program were essentially co-opted into the program, and while they might, at a sytretch, argue the nerits of Bush's NSA wiretapping, they could never justify TIA snooping and data mining.

So, they are arguing to legitimize a superficial program that is just cover for a very in-depth and anti-constitutional domestic spying program, that was likely a major part of the Republican's plans for broad politicization of every branch of government.

Poindexter's beast of a data-mining program is at the root of all this, and it is so far beyond legal bounds, they will build more than one straw-man (NSA wiretapping) to knock down, to protect the real guilty parties.

Before we really can get down to the bad guys who are building the straw-men, they will have to lose their executive protection.

And that is unlikely, until Bush is back at the ranchette, fishing for those world-record "perch." (Real Texans call em' bream and bluegills, 'noreasterners call em' "perch.")

No wonder he couldn't get elected to Congress in Texas!

Stephen Dulaney wrote on August 1, 2007 11:00 AM:

I've always believed that they just Tivo the Internet traffic both voice and data then the data mining is going back and selectively replaying conversations or emails they find interesting.

That way its not actually wire tapping its just like catching up on missed episodes of the Sopranos

TxExSpeedy wrote on August 1, 2007 11:01 AM:

Jane; donviti:

I agree If AG-AG said that there was no dispute over the "TSP" which at the time was what was disclosed by the pres. then how can it be said that he wasn't misleading in saying that the dispute was over other activities, which now are revealed as part of the "TSP."

at first TSP = wiretap surveillance = only program anybody knew about; no dispute. Then Mueller Comey said there was Dispute over TSP = wiretap surveillance = only program anybody knew about. Now AG-AG says other activities not TSP (his words) were in dispute. Then McConnell says TSP = many activities under Exec. Order, so AG-AG did not mislead. Except that AG-AG would always say "the program disclosed by the president" when talking about the TSP.

It seems kind of stupid if all they have to do is ask Comey and Mueller as well as gang of 8 to confirm if anyone knew about "other surveillance activities." i.e. Total Awareness (data mining) Program, for which funding was specifically outlawed by Congress the day after the hospital visit to Ashcroft.

And who the f--- cares about specter. He is just part of the GOP show he won't vote for censure impeachment contempt or anything against AG. And who is to say I will wait for the AG letter. Leahey the Chairman gave the deadline for AG-AG to respond not the Nat Sec Dir. They should subpoena McConnell to testify under oath to that BS letter.

CINDY wrote on August 1, 2007 11:02 AM:

so now it makes sense.

although they needed to authorize the "program/package/suite" of activities as a whole, and despite the fact that it was one presidential (vice-presidential?) directive, it is actually many programs, so Abu Gonzales wasn't lying because he always asterisked his statement with a reference to a specific press conference where the president disclosed a portion of the program without actually saying that it was only a portion of the program. Or what the executive branch considered a portion of the program.

This has gone from high school style crap to grade school style crap.

Too bad no one in congress has any cojones.

This administration is absolutely pathological.

Security code is 'when' as in WHEN will the citizens of this country get our government back. And not just the executive. The legislative branch is a bunch of whores, bought & sold, the judicial branch is being stacked by the other branches right in front of our noses.

It's going to take a very very long time to get the governmental agencies of this country back to some semblance of a populist democracy.

Scott L wrote on August 1, 2007 11:04 AM:

When are the Democrates going to understand that they have a declared war on their hands with the White House? The Republicans have sided with the White House as a rule and we are entering a stage of ONE MAN RULE. Stop pussyfooting around and understand whats going on and fight back. The American people expect you to defend the Republic against ALL enemys forign and domestic. TIME TO PULL OUT ALL THE STOPS AND DEFEND THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY.

tbhull wrote on August 1, 2007 11:06 AM:

This idiot huckelberry has the shit eating grin only a lifetime pie in the sky yes man can hold. If it gets to the point that pencil necked geek lifetime military order followers like this clown and Hayden secretly determine the constitutionality of secret spying programs then and what is not constitutional, then the Constitution might as well be a receipt for black label beer from 7-11.

TheraP wrote on August 1, 2007 11:07 AM:

Thank you, Slim Pickings @ 10:32.

Bears repeating:

"Sometimes, the bullshit piles up so fast you need a periscope to see over it."

Audit.

If not information is forthcoming, Defund.

Demand accountability now, from Democrats and Republicans!

>>>Click my name for how to help.<<<

*Project for Constitutional Compliance*

Mark F wrote on August 1, 2007 11:08 AM:

Senator Arlen Stalltactic has already made up his mind. He's just awaiting the letter so he can claim that he needs to know more before he can make a decision. This garbage will go on forever as long as people continue to allow Specter to hold the process up.

hope4usa wrote on August 1, 2007 11:09 AM:

I wondered if anyone had read this diary at Dkos today. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/1/101840/7097
It is about an anonymous poster not only here but other sites. Clearly the same person. What this person/whistleblower is suggesting scares the living crap out of me. Not just because it shows how this country is no longer under the control of the People....but that it may never be again. I also have a level of concern for his/her safety. Does anyone (Josh) know if the diary is accurate?

Anna S. wrote on August 1, 2007 11:10 AM:

Is there someone here from DoD or the like that knows what the implication of making 'surveillance activities' into a 'program' is? I'm wondering what the reluctance to call this a program comes from. Are programs subject to some sort of oversight that 'activities' aren't?

This letter didn't give me the feeling that the 'not a program' insistence is solely for Gonzalez's benefit. I got the feeling that there was some other reason why the NSA doesn't want the word program attached to this. I'm wondering if anyone has a hunch on what that reason might be. If we knew where the aversion was coming from, we might could infer something about the illegal stuff that's obviously being covered up in this letter.

Kevin Russell Cook wrote on August 1, 2007 11:16 AM:

Oh, that Terrorist Surveillance Program!
Well, I thought you were talking about this other Terrorist Surveillance Program.

(You know, the one that no one is talking about because so few know of its' existance.)

Slim Pickins wrote on August 1, 2007 11:18 AM:

TheraP,

I'm reading to catch up on your blog right now... a lot of material there. I just joined so I can't post comments for 2 more days. Looks like anon's work has made it's way to dkos. There's a rec. diary about it there now. The thread is very interesting.

hope4usa,

Be afraid... it is happening. I hope the Congress can see how much peril there is in taking a recess right now. They need to stay in DC and work. There's no excuse to take a break right now.

TheraP wrote on August 1, 2007 11:21 AM:

Anna S.

Anon has suggested that the surveillance has been farmed out to private companies, cronies of bush, if you will, operating overseas - and illegally "classified" - so it's all a secret.

However, again according to Anon, allowing these privateers to do the surveillance has allowed for the setting up of dummy companies, auditing type companies. Anon tells us that the dummy (auditing companies) have inserted "auditing packets" (legal trojan horses, so to speak) into the information that interfaces with govt servers. (And the administration has no way to tell the dummy private companies from the crony companies!)

Thus, without knowing it - and because the administration allowed/fostered it - there is going to be a way to track lots of stuff that has gone missing, when it went missing, and even more, once auditing is done.

Now, if I have misquoted or misunderstood Anon, fear not. For Anon will set me straight, I am sure!

Anna S. - if you have time - help us out here! You have great analytic skills and the ability to synthesize, analyze and expound. Thanks for whatever you can do!

It's all a matter of going back to Anon's posts and teasing out the answers.

TheraP wrote on August 1, 2007 11:23 AM:

Hot Dog, Slim!!! Hot Dog!

Do what you can now, to get ready to post. Thanks!

I'll go over to kos and take a look. (I did ask drational if he could help with that - or delegate to someone else.)

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 11:24 AM:

Note this: ["A number of these intelligence activities were authorized in one order,"]

Saying "A number of these intelligence activities were authorized" does not mean _all_, only _some_

This means: "Others" were _not_ in _that_ order, but were in _other_ order_s_.

- - - - -

We're not getting the whole story. For a reason. _Their_ explanation_ is a smokescreen from _Gonzlaez_ unreliable statements.

Gonzalez appears to have deliberately misled the Committee, not timely provided a clarifiaction; but absurdly wants the _media clarifiactions_ (that he can't pinpoint, explain) to "cover for" his _failure_ to provide _Congress_ those clarifications.

McConnel's letter in no way explains' Gonzalez statements; but opens up a can of worms for the President: What _else_ aren't you telling us? This President can point to the moon saying, "I put that htere, it's in a secret order. But I can't reveal it. But it was in another program."

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 11:24 AM:

This from the people who brought us "WMD-related program activities".

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 11:25 AM:

"Terrorist Surveillance Program" was itself created as a NewSpeak talking-point."

I was just joking about Luntz earlier, but the concept of NewSpeak is no joke, and while Luntz is one of the spinmeisters, his tactics come right from Madison Avenue and, by extension, Robert Lifton...

Change the phrasing to match your delusional needs, instead of reality, and all the brainwashed lemmings will start repeating the new, improved version as if it IS reality...

Problem is, when the facade becomes the issue, instead of the real problem, they have succeeded in confusing us.

The point is, the TSP is just one facet of the TIA, and while we argue the legal merits of the TSP, the TIA program continues its illegal activity.

Why aren't We, the People, via our Democratic majority Congress, empanelling a grand jury to uncover the TIA program?

Hell, we're all so involved arguing the merits of the TSP, we aren't even addressing the much more pervasive and pernicious TIA program, the one they are dancing the jig around with every new deception?

Whatever they are doing to keep us off that TIA program trail, it seems to be working mahv'lusly for them.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on August 1, 2007 11:25 AM:

If unauthorized surveillance won't enable Rove to win an election, rigging the count will (click on name).

"the Florida Secretary of State's office has conducted an elections study that confirmed Tuesday what a maverick voting chief discovered nearly two years ago: Insider computer hackers can change votes without a trace on Diebold optical-scan machines."

kentuck wrote on August 1, 2007 11:25 AM:

Hurry! Grab a large towel! And clean up that huge mess that just hit the fan!

There is no way the Congress or the Senate Judiciary Committee can permit this to pass without an investigation. What exactly was going on that the people did not know about it. In one last desperate grab for power, Bush wants the Congress to approve his illegal actions just before they go on vacation. Because if it is necessary now, it was necessary when he did it illegally. I have so little faith in our Congress and Senate, they may even fall for this because they are in a hurry to get out of town. That would be a disastrous decision, in my opinion.

Mike Conwell wrote on August 1, 2007 11:29 AM:

Who replaces Cheney if he's removed before Bush? Bush or the House?

danius wrote on August 1, 2007 11:32 AM:

So there are other "activities" that do not fall under the rubric of "Terrorist Surveillance."

Does that mean that the NSA has been authorized to conduct "activities" other than "surveillance" (which comprehensively define NSA's mission); or does it mean surveillance of targets other than terrorists?

Slim Pickins wrote on August 1, 2007 11:39 AM:

A few questions I'd like answered...

1. How many programs are there?
2. Who approved these programs?
3. Are any of these programs based off shore?
4. Are any of the programs maintained/managed/conducted by private organizations, outside of government control?

Also, they nee to subpoena Poindexter... I'm sure he has some information on this matter. And as a key player in Iran/Contra, I'd like to know what this crook is doing running intel programs.

DO NOT revise FISA! DO NOT TAKE RECESS!

db wrote on August 1, 2007 11:39 AM:

Yes, BP, and look what happened in Ohio. I called the Sec. of State to verify and it's true:

"In Violation of Federal Law, Ohio's 2004 Presidential Election Records Are Destroyed or Missing

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted July 30, 2007.

In 56 of Ohio's 88 counties, ballots and election records from 2004 have been "accidentally" destroyed, despite a federal order to preserve them -- it was crucial evidence which would have revealed whether the election was stolen."

Democracy? What's democracy.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 11:45 AM:

So Rep. Clay just told the witnesses in the Tillman hearing that the handling of the case was a "complete donkey show". Does Rep. Clay know what a donkey show is? If so, who does he think was the human, and who does he think was the donkey?

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 11:47 AM:

"If unauthorized surveillance won't enable Rove to win an election, rigging the count will (click on name)."

What Rove wanted from the spy program wasn't so much related to voting irregularities or machine tampering, what Rove wanted out of the deal was to get dealt a hand that included a few Democratic candidate corruption charges like the ones CREW and others exposed about Republicans in 2006.

Rove is convinced that Republican corruption was the key to the Democratic success, it was the thrust of his power-point presentations. He disregards the war, and all the lies, as the reason for Bush's bottom-dwelling poll numnbers. TO Rove, it's all because of the Foleys, not the Bushes.

Republicans got caught with their pants down.

But instead of suggesting to his fellow Republicans that they might want to stop some of their own corruption, Rove instead wanted to uncover, initiate and exaggerate Democratic corruption.

And he used the DOJ to accomplish that, but to little avail, because the Republican corruption was based around accusations of pedophilia and homosexual predation, something the Evangelicals and fundamentalists just can't vote for.

Money, payola, bribes, sweet-deals, million-dollar earmarks, billion-dollar no-bid deals, fake voters on Demoratic rolls, the kinds of crimes Rove wanted exposed just don't offend the fundies like he had hoped.

But there's little doubt in my mind that the reason such die-hard conservatives like Ashcroft and Comey refused to sign-off on it is that they knew, under all the covers, it was Rove and his political beast driving the new surveillance misdeeds, not national security. And his intention was to find dirt on Democrats, not find Bin Laden enablers.

If it was really a matter of national security, I imagine Mueller, Comey, Ashcroft, ALL of them would have agreed to ALL of it.

But obviously, there was something about the program that made even these uber-conservatives flinch at the prospect. The timing was right on the eve of the heaviest part of 2006 election season.

And, imho, to Ashcroft and Comey, that could only mean one thing... Rove planned to use the justice department and the illegal surveillance program for strictly political purposes.

It's a no-brainer (code-word "brain") that Comey and Ashcroft and Mueller would have enabled the program if they thought it was for national security. The fact they resisted it so vehemently and dramatically only proves there were political underpinnings they could not abide.

While they continue to protect their Grand Old Partya, they have stopped protecting the Bush gang. And that division may prove to be the demise of the whole party.

If the honorable Republicans purge themselves of the sneaky cheaters, they will no longer have anyone left in Congress who represents them...

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 11:51 AM:

"the Republican Party leadership has a much closer relationship to the media barons than the Democratic Party leadership does."

I think the operative term for that relationship is "ownership." Now Fox = Wall Street Journal.

Money, money everywhere, and not a drop to drink..

Occasional Observer wrote on August 1, 2007 11:54 AM:

Proportionality:

Data-mining:TSP::sex with that woman:fellatio
Sex:high crime::capital offense:jaywalking

AmIDreaming wrote on August 1, 2007 11:55 AM:

McConnell with a pocket protector? He should be so lucky. He's the guy who couldn't cut it as a geek so he had to go into sales.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 11:55 AM:

I agree, Slim.

Unless they have a medical excuse - made public - there should be no recess!

It's like school: NO recess, till work is done!!!

Slim Pickins wrote on August 1, 2007 11:55 AM:

Very cogent narrative JEP. Wonder why there were not DIRECT questions about this in the Senate or House hearings... everyone seems to think the polical investigation concerns were what were behind the objections, so why didn't anyone ask Mueller about this?

It would have been nice tio hear the answers to something like this:

"Were any of the program or programs used in a manor the could uncover politically charged information? Information that could be used in an election or investigation? Where can we see a list of persons who have been investigated by these programs?"

Hector wrote on August 1, 2007 11:55 AM:

"And Cheney, in his interview with Larry King confirmed that the trip to Ashcroft's hospital room was about the 'Terrorist Surveillance Program'.Posted by: barney"

Barney, if you are correct, I think that that single statement by Cheney cuts through all the parsing and should be focused on to the exclusion of all else in interpreting AG's testimony. This seems absolutely clear to me. What is the source of your statement? Where can the interview be heard, or at least a transcript read?

"Who replaces Cheney if he's removed before Bush? Bush or the House? Posted by: Mike Conwell"

Your question is answered by Section 2 of the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution:

"Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 11:59 AM:

"heaviest part of 2006 election season."

I meant 2004, of course...

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 12:12 PM:

MUCKY MUCK

Something with this many dollars attached to it takes _time_ to get clear on. That's the clean up problem. The _fast_ answer is for the public to direct the Congress to issue cease work orders; and the JCS to provide to Congress a certification in writing about the mission impacts if those cease work orders were executed. Then the public needs to see a real, no kidding list of impacts.

One thing that we don't know is how many of the NSA-related "requirements' have been fabricated: These are made up reasons, threats, and "need for funds" that have been manufactured to justify funding for things that are essentially make work programs. Contractors and NSA-DoJ-DoD are not unknown to knowingly make up a reason for something not to solve a problem, but to explain why they need funding. They do this because the "right" way to explain it means they can't get the kinds of funds that they want; or that the funds have restrictions on them that won't allow them to do what they really want. What that "other things" is is a separate issue.

If they've made up requirements to justify dollars, the impact statements that the JCS might provide could be just as bogus as the real Gonzalez explanation. Again, if the baseline that they're using to establish these requirements is bogus, then their subsequent responses to these inquiries isn't going to trace forward or backwards. They know this: That's why they're trying to give themselves some wiggle room: Because as the details surface about _reality_, things are not going to match: Either going forward; going backwards; nor in the program justification documentation; nor in the Congressional response; nor to the classified briefings they've already given. Most likely, they have a problem because one of the answers they've given to the FISA court and Gang of 8 isn't matching what is now being disclosed.

- - - -

Posted by: Anna S.
Date: August 1, 2007 11:10 AM

Anna S.: "what the implication of making 'surveillance activities' into a 'program' is?"

There are two answers: One of them real [A]; and one of them an explanation of their apparent confusion [B].

A. Real: A program is a collection of activities that may or may not be classified. An activity may be in a black program to hide funding. When something is a "program" that implies regulatory control through the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which invokes oversight, reporting, and other things.

B. The smokescreen: "Program" gives a false sense of organization, where there is confusion, and illegal activity. Black programs do not mean that the program is illegal; only that the activity is being hidden. However, if, as the case with Iran-Contra, there are _known_ activities -- within DoD -- that are illegal, but are funded through illegal means -- syphoning funds from one funding source, then diverting the funds to activities Congress is not aware or has said "don't do this", as with FISA -- then the President has a bigger problem: He's not tracing [a] funding; [b] program authorization; [c] legal oversight; and [d] Congressional authorization with that activity.

- - - - -

Anna S."I'm wondering what the reluctance to call this a program comes from."

The reluctance may have something to do with how the money is being allocated. Certain types of funds can only be used for certain things. They can call it something, but its really [wink, wink] something else: But the trick is to "call" it one thing; and use the right money; however, if the name that they're using is absurd, and in no way is related to what they're really doing, then they'll have a problem with the funding rules.

- - - - -

Anna S. "Are programs subject to some sort of oversight that 'activities' aren't?"

Yes. Dollar amounts lead to different types of Congressional oversight. The dollar thresholds on a given activity will result in more oversight of a given contractor. A program that has combined many activities will have higher visibility. However, if "activities" can be independently hidden in various labs, low level units, they can be funded through different programs, although their primary work supports something else.

For example, a given NSA testing lab may have its primary customer to be NSA; but within that lab, they have other activities that they do that rely on funds from other customers within DoD, other branches, the contracting world, and other entities.

An activity can be an arbitrary word: Describing something large, small, big, expansive, or something that is made up to describe the "current list of things" they want to talk about. However, this definition doesn't mean that they have included all things; this definition could mean that a given action is partly being managed, wholly managed, or assigned somewhere else.
- - - -

Anna S.: "This letter didn't give me the feeling that the 'not a program' insistence is solely for Gonzalez's benefit."

Correct, a reading of the letter suggests that there are still "other things" that haven't been included. We have no idea whether that laundry list of activities is short, long, big, small; or whether the contractors are involved lawfully. If you're thinking this is confusing, you're correct: There's not a single _public_ showing of the budget, dollar amounts, contracted effort; and no reconciliation with their activities with FISA: nor a showing that the _entire_ list of activities -- not just on the President's orders -- do or do not fully comply with FISA; or whether there are things that are outside FISA lawfully, but have migrated into in illegal activity.

- - - - -

Anna S.: "I got the feeling that there was some other reason why the NSA doesn't want the word program attached to this."

You are correct: We don't know for sure what their thinking is. But we do know this: They've issued something in _writing_ to Congress. That statement is either true, false, misleading, incomplete, or requires followup. You sense that there is another agenda here is correct: NSA doesn't want something to happen, because that would imply Congress has a doorway to publicly ask questions about things the NSA -- rightly or wrongly -- doesn't want to address; and the DOJ, EOP, OVP, and GOP can avoid being accountable for. What that is is a different question than whether the information can be gleaned. The correct approach would be to issue _now_ a cease work order, until JCS certifies under oath penalty of perjury to Congress that the programs are lawful; then provide direction to the NSA to provide in classified settings a plain English explanation for what is going on; then get the Congress to explain whether the "new list" of things were above and beyond what they were told in 2001; or whether there is something new.

However, given DNC Congress continued funding for things that are unknown or illegal, it appears they're publicly saying that they oppose illegal activity; but privately are continuing to rubber stamp what they would have us believe "they don't know all about." This appears to be a problem not just for NSA, DoJ< Gonzalez, and the president, but one for the DNC-GOP to wriggle around:

Either
A. they've known about illegal activity and can't explain why they've still funded it; or,
B. despite the Gonzalez assertions in 2006 that there were "other programs" the Congress hasn't taken the time to find out what these are; or,
C. they do know about them, but aren't engaging in oversight; or
D. their oversight is worthless, but they do not have the competence to oversee it; or
E. The entire list of FISA violations was known to be outside the law, was approved with the assumption it would not be detected.

It appears as though Congress is acting stupid on things that it should have looked at, especially when the _President_ knew in 2004 that the NYT was looking at this. Surely, members of Congress knew as well about the NYT knowledge, and should have documented their concerns; then forwarded information to the IGs for review. Does not appear they did that.

Notice, Bush's concern with the NSA reporting in 2004-5 of the NSA activity wasn't with the _NSA_ leaks, but with the _disclosures_. He didn't order a "leak investigation" until _after_ the NYT published; this is just like the Rove-Miers-Bolten transcript issue: The President isn't concerned with the disclosure or who is providing the information; he's concerned with the knowledge and backlash against the GOP. Those are two different tissues. This suggests the President isn't managing something; but he's acting more like a reporter: Just leaking things out of his own interests -- what ever those might be.
- - - -

Anna S. "I'm wondering if anyone has a hunch on what that reason might be."

It appears the reasons for doing this is that the Congress-Judiciary-Executive have jointly panicked, not ensured all activities were lawful, and have failed to ensure that illegal activity was shut down. The issue becomes: How were these "other things" [TBD] related to other illegal activity which may or may not be related to war crimes, FISA, rendition, prisoner abuse, and violations of the US Constitution. I suspect the Congress well knows the answers; but are pretending "it's classified" as a means to avoid getting pinned down.

- - -
Anna S. "If we knew where the aversion was coming from, we might could infer something about the illegal stuff that's obviously being covered up in this letter."

The aversion, in my view, links with the looming problem with war crimes, malfeasance, the oath of office. It appears Congress, the president, and Judiciary collectively convinced themselves that the details of this would not be disclosed. Their problem appears to be one that history and the future have caught up to them, and they cannot explain their failure to shut down funding or block bills.

The aversion relates also to knowing that there are documents related to program requirements that Congress has that do not match what is really going on; and to their problem of then being able to reconstruct their original lies to make it appear they were telling the truth. They also want to avoid questions because this means more time the program managers can't be doing other things on their laundry list of things to do.

Again, we saw with Senator Stevens threat to block the Ethics rules reforms/bill that one Senator is very powerful: Why was this not used to shut down illegal appropriations, unlawful bills, the MCA, Patriot Act, Habeas Destruction, and the "other things:" that appear to have shown both the DNC and GOP Members of Congress have been supporting/funding war rimes, prisoner abuse, rendition, FISA violations, and unconstitutional conduct.

It appears their motivation is to hide this information and prevent the Grand Jury from linking them to issues of malfeasance, 5 USC 3331, and other misconduct that would jeopardize both the DNC and GOP election. In an either-or world/mentality, they may be viewing a disclosure like this as being a negative for all, thus no net impact. They appear to be assuming that if both the DNC and GOP are blamed _publicly_ that the net loss of confidence will mean the minority block of voters will go third party, and then mean "the other party" loses less.

In other words, it does appear their motivations for this isn't to fully assert their oath, but to put partisan interests before their legal obligations. If proven true, the Grand Jury would have a reasonable basis to prosecute GOP-DNC Members of Congress; legal counsel, and the President and VP for breaches of their oath of office. It appears their motivation for doing this isn't to answer anything, but to "gum this to death" to delay until after the 2008 election.

I would encourage the Grand Jury to look at this in the context of 5 USC 3331; and for them to get a sense of what funding documents within the NSA-DOJ contracting world are linked with which NSA contractors; then get a sense whether there are, indeed, "other things" that are illegal, but have been funded illegally with improper funding. Stop work orders and contract terminations could mean that Members of Congress fear loss of campaign funds from the very NSA contractors that are doing this illegal activity. That's not a credible reason, just a 5 USC 3331 excuse and fully actionable.

The other problem is that when there is a Congressional review like this, the vultures are going to appear: Sharks smell blood -- that blood is the current NSA program activity which appears to have been illegally done; and other DoJ Staff program activities which could very well be cut. What's happening is the program mangers from competing programs are beefing up their requirements/justifications list to say, "Look, ours over here is a real program; and it is lawful; and it is a real requirement. We need That money." Th aversion to spilling the beans now is that the Congressional Committees will have to markup things to reprogram budgets; and rather than spend time goofing off, the program managers' staff will have to spend the next 9-18 months cleaning up after a reprogramming exercise, the dealing with funds execution problems.

Sojourner wrote on August 1, 2007 12:13 PM:

Re: Anonymous Poster... There were a couple of posts early in July here on TPMuckraker (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003645.php#comments) that sound like the same person. Maybe that is already known, but the context of the statements and questions really caught my attention...

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 12:14 PM:

"President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."

And that will be Condi Rice... Bush knows it is the only way history will ever consider him anything but a failure, and even that act is so ironically perverse, it may not stand the serious scrutiny of future historians.

They have already positioned Negraponte to take her place as Secretary of State. I thought it was going to happen a couple months ago, back when Deadeye had his last convenient clot.

But apparently Dick just isn't ready yet to give up his shadow throne, and we allknow he's the one who calls the shots... he probably already has a secret office in the Pentagon next to Rummy's where they'll continue to run the show from behind the scenes, prolonging this disaster in Iraq just to make certain those no-bid contracts keep coming and coming...

But Cheney doesn't need to be the VP to be The King, he is just too egotistical to give it up yet, and that might just be his ultimate undoing, that he just couldn't stay in the background and manage things secretly, he just HAD to be the VP.

So now, Bush is pot=sitioned to be the first Pressident to appoint aN EDUCATED BLACK WOMAN

I would love to be a fly on the wall at the first big Texas KKK gathering after Bush nominates Condi Rice for VP, just the thought of their own bubba Bush nominated an "uppity n%$#&r b$%#h" (that is KKK speak for "EDUCATED BLACK WOMAN) will make them all piddle and poop in those nice, clean white robes.

bethincary wrote on August 1, 2007 12:16 PM:

TherP and Slim. stayed up last night to the wee hours trying to make sense of Anonymous postings also. Clearly has insider knowledge and I believe them. Is this why Chceney keeps trying to say he was not a part of Ex. O-to distance himself from war crimes? since Congress has already said no to violating 4th Amen. rights of the public. what about giving this info to third-party country. Is this not endangering americans further-even if these countries are allies. This must violate border/FCC laws-as well as civil.

This is very very serious folks. We have to impeach now-or prosecute for war crimes-the entire EO.
My question, how long if the WH is being audited-have they been audited and why has info not been gathered yet from it?I believe an audit can be done in this manner-but has it been done.
Anon also says to defund NSC and get itemized list which will lead to these contractors. Other options are getting info from these 3rd party countries-not to mention Verizon.

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 12:25 PM:

"It appears Congress, the president, and Judiciary collectively convinced themselves that the details of this would not be disclosed."

And much of that hubris was due to Rove's "1000 years of Republican Rule."

If not for his "fu#$%ng faith-based thing" hypocrisy, Rove might have realized his fantasy. But when you decieve your own base, and trivialize the issues they worry over, your "base" begins to shrink exponentially.

So, why didn't they just call it the Fourth Reich? (...which arose because of the demise of the Fourth Estate.)

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it..." has never been more meaningful.

moondancer wrote on August 1, 2007 12:29 PM:

I like the thread of JEP and slim. Imagine how extreme (and illegal) this program was to get the likes of Ashcroft to balk.

I dont think its extreme to see KR's hands deep in this mess either. Every department in govt has a Hatch act story tracing back to the WH, why would he not use the biggest gun of all, data mining in a total information system?

If you are trying to create a thousand year reich like turd blossom was, then nothing is off the table.

TheraP wrote on August 1, 2007 12:31 PM:

bethincary:

If WE'VE been staying up until the wee hours thinking about these things, imagine what the "dark side" has been doing!

It gives me joy to think that maybe they too are now having sleepless nights! Worrying what Anon will say next! Worrying what we will do now! Trying to come up with 'something'- to send us scurrying off into the woods.

Right now, I am heaving a sigh of relief! Because I feel like I did my little part to help a paper airplane take wing. And now it's up and running and purring with engines - and I'm glad to take a back seat here. Diaries at kos. Anon having quite a reading population now.

I think the KEY now is: PREVENT A RECESS!

*****PREVENT A RECESS******* by an means possible!

Molly Ivans wrote on August 1, 2007 12:41 PM:

Raise Hell!!

Stuart wrote on August 1, 2007 12:42 PM:

The interesting thing about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, regardless of when it started or how many "activities" it includes, is that it looks like it doesn't work. This administration trumpets every domestic arrest to further a scare motive, yet every one to date has been over-blown and uncovered by traditional means and sources.

So we are to believe that this is a critical program and has been focused on active "al-Qaeda or affiliated terrorsist organizations" in the US. I wonder if we could get a critical program that actually works.

Or maybe Bush's definition of "al-Qaeda or affiliated terrorsist organizations" is somewhat broader than it sounds, including you, me and everyone who disagrees about anything.

TheraP wrote on August 1, 2007 12:57 PM:

*****No Recess*******

Post is up now.

Short call to action.

Kevin Russell Cook wrote on August 1, 2007 12:57 PM:

The rambling, anonymous “comments” posted here are a real pain in the posterior.

We’ve got an original post here of about 700 words. A mystery writer floods us with “comments” of about 4,500 words in five posts, one of more than 2,500! Pretty much destroys the conversation. No?

TheraP wrote on August 1, 2007 1:03 PM:

No more important conversation is being had in the country at the moment, in my estimation.

Nothing, nothing at all - is so important as the Rule of Law and it's restoration - through Constitutional Compliance.

Anon, you are doing us all a great service! Keep it up!

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 1:09 PM:

Kevin;

I agree, anonymous is wordy and shouldn't be anonymous, but there is a wealth of qualified opinions in that "rambling".

Typically, I skim through the long posts, then go back and peruse more carefully.

But I started reading anon's latest list, and read it from start to finish, and it is worth reading more carefully, I would not call it rambling. Definitely thought provoking and, in some cases, a bit clarifying, depending on your previous mind-set.

But, to Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, I for one would appreciate knowing from whence (whom) this fount of information flows...

A lesser Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 1:11 PM:

>The interesting thing about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, regardless of when it started or how many "activities" it includes, is that it looks like it doesn't work.

What do you mean that it doesn't work?

It's helped greatly in the effort to make sure only loyal Bushies get new jobs in the government. It'll help greatly in upcoming voter challenges. It'll help corporations screen out undesirables that may resent increasing corporate involvement in our government and daily lies.

Or did you mean Osama Bin Laden?

Orwell's Intuition wrote on August 1, 2007 1:23 PM:

"We’ve got an original post here of about 700 words. A mystery writer floods us with “comments” of about 4,500 words in five posts, one of more than 2,500! Pretty much destroys the conversation. No?"

You prefer sound bites?

I'm grateful to the "mystery writer" (Anonymous poster) who explains in such detail, and makes sense of the smoke and mirrors we're otherwise seeing.

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 1:26 PM:

"It appears their motivation for doing this isn't to answer anything, but to "gum this to death" to delay until after the 2008 election."

There may be one logical reason for that delay, but I doubt it is the real one...

Still, it is worth considering;

Bush has already proven he is primed and cocked to pardon anyone who gets convicted for Bushcrimes.

I've said it lately a lot, any actual convictions we produce before 2008 will be as futile as the Scooter Libby liberation.

So why not wait until the Pardoner-in-Chief no longer weilds that pardon power?

Think czareffully about it. These crimes won't just "go away" after November, 2008. Yet it seems as if all of us (me included) treat the Dems as if they were derelicting their oversight duties.

But after Scooter's free-pass, maybe some of them realized the futility of the Rule of Law in a lawless administration, and now they are waiting, biding their time until Dems have a bigger majority and the President's office, so the final judgement of Justice can not be short-circuited by a short-sighted, "GD piece of paper" President named Bush.

deepthought wrote on August 1, 2007 1:30 PM:

The anonymous poster is obviously well read on the material involved in these clandestine operations of the administration. He/she has become a touchstone for those who believe that George W. Bush and his cronies are enemies of the state. That, in and of itself, is a good thing because it gives us all a reference point.

I would like to ask the anonymous poster this ... have you alleged (or do you allege) that the Bush/Cheney administration actively (or through intentional inaction)played a role in the 9/11 attacks?

johnnydoughey wrote on August 1, 2007 1:44 PM:

"Now, none of this weasel wording is new. But it is entertaining to see McConnell bend over backwards to avoid characterizing the bundle of activities authorized by the President in a single order as a program."

I'm sorry. I cannot find anything even remotely entertaining about the destruction of our democracy. This administration has destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives, has turned our country into a rogue nation which believes it can torture people as long as it gets the semantics approved, and is now deciding we need to sell and give more military equipment to countries that we can eventually repeat the same destructive behavior with.

I keep hearing about the game of war, about winning this and that. Sorry folks, but NOBODY HAS EVER WON A WAR. EVERYBODY LOSES!

We, as a nation, however, seem to get pleasure in these activities. It's entertaining...

This is what our representatives/mobsters are doing. "Those Republicans are CROOKS". Those Democrats are TRAITORS".

They then huddle up to see if they can figure out how they can win the game. And as long as it's the dems against the reps and we are entertained, hoping that our side wins, we will continue to lose lots of good, innocent people all over the world who just happen to get in the way. IMHO

Mike Conwell wrote on August 1, 2007 1:50 PM:

What if the McConnell letter is like one of those "Stop Me Before I Kill Again" letters, and he's painfully doing what he is told while letting us know there's something more?

Slim Pickins wrote on August 1, 2007 2:00 PM:

Interesting reading in this dkos diary, wherein the WaPo's Dan Eggen talks about Aberto's "corrected" statement about "no serious disagreement" regarding the warrentless wiretapping program...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/1/124235/9646

Talk about some parsing! Fits into Anon's narrative pretty well IMHO. Also, remember this was flotaed as a "fix" to what he (AG) said to Congressional Jud. committee... I don't think so.

This looks like a little parachute that was stashed someplace, in case Gonzales got into trouble (which he now has) or perhaps something they put out in the media because they were worried about discovery. Eggen says he didn't think it was important enough to print.

Interesting. I wonder why they decided to "correct" his statement to the WaPo and not Congress? This reeks of conspiracy.

johnnydoughey wrote on August 1, 2007 2:02 PM:

We have three separate programs.
Program 1 Terrorist
Program 2 Surveillance
Program 3 Program

Some may wonder why there is an entity "Program" which is listed as a progam of it's own. This is for clarification purposes. People found it confusing when we originally listed it along side of "Terrorist Surveillance". We hope this clears up the misunderstanding...

Sincerely,
The folks you apparently have decide you leave in office until 2008 so we can destroy this nation even more... thanks

Anna S. wrote on August 1, 2007 2:04 PM:

Anonymous @ 12:12:

"When something is a "program" that implies regulatory control through the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which invokes oversight, reporting, and other things."

That is exactly what I wanted to know. They can't let it be a program because then a paper trail appears, and paper trails are bad for black-ops illegal data mining.

Something I noticed recently: I think you're right, Anonymous, when you say that Mueller was referring to a national security program rather than an NSA program. Re-listening to his testimony, he clearly says "National..." then stops and rephrases to NSA the first time he's asked, but two questions later he very clearly says of the meeting at the WH (which spawned the runaround to Ashcroft): "I do believe it related to, uh, a National Security Program. Er, NSA program, I should say." Listen to it on the audio, it's very clear. His sentence is finished, and he's waiting for the next question after 'National Security Program', but then as an after thought he sticks that 'NSA' in. So what it sounds like he's talking about are a series of activities that are ACTUALLY national security programs (which you pointed out earlier are potentially outside FISA), but which for some reason were later pushed under the jurisdiction of the NSA. I'm betting that the transfer of authority there occurred precisely for the reason that you give here:

"But the trick is to "call" it one thing; and use the right money; however, if the name that they're using is absurd, and in no way is related to what they're really doing, then they'll have a problem with the funding rules."

Large portions of the NSA's budget are classified, so it's easier to hide funding there for an illegal program, especially an illegal datamining program (the NSA is already equipped to do heavy datamining, so funding more computers under their auspices was probably a cinch). Even more intriguingly, on July 13, Gonzalez announced a new DoJ oversight office to cover ALL the FBI's national security programs, not just the FISA-covered ones. This doesn't apply to the NSA, though, and I'm wondering if Mueller wanted to cover his own tail on NSPs after seeing the bruhaha over the NSA program.

Speaking of oversight, you asked rhetorically in a previous post how the NSC was involved in all this, outside of Gang of 8 briefings. I did some digging on Mueller, and it turns out that he testified earlier in 2003 to Congress about the formation and purpose of the TTIC (Terrorist Threat Integration Center, google it, it's interesting). In that interview, Sen. Gorelick says that the committee has asked the directors of the NSA, the CIA, DHS, etc. a question: who is “driving our strategy against al Qaeda”? Gorelick says he won’t pursue that line of questioning with Mueller, but does ask: “Above your pay grade, is there someone who is our quarterback against an agile and entrepreneurial enemy [Gorelick has been discussing al Quaeda for some time, so that's what he's referring to here] who brings together the strategy and capabilities of our country to fight this enemy?” Mueller’s answer: “Yes, I think there is. And I do believe it's the NSC and the Homeland Security Council and the staff for the overarching strategy.” Mueller's on the HSC, but not the NSC, and it's not clear who the 'staff for an overarching strategy' are (Cheney's office?). The NSC had oversight for the TTIC, and presumably also received reports from it. (The TTIC is the center that aggregates all the data received from anywhere) The NSC contains Cheney, Bush, Condi, Gates, Paulson (Treasury) and Hadley. If the program we're discussing was actually vetoed by resignation threat from the DoJ staff for the reason that it was too partisan as someone earlier suggested, it's possible or even probable that the program idea originated in the NSC and subsequently got fobbed off to the NSA for execution. Gonzalez, as AG, is permitted to attend NSC meetings 'pertaining to his duties', so it's very possible that (since he's nominally over the FBI) he was also involved in NSC deliberations on datasharing and partisan domestic surveillance. I'm speculating here, of course, so people should feel free to tell me when I'm being unrealistic or missing an obvious connection.

Slightly Off-topic: The TTIC that Mueller talks about here is a data aggregation center, designed to gather all the data from all intelligence agencies, integrate it into a giant database, and the re-disseminate it. It gives the CIA access to the FBI's domestic files, and the NSA access to everything both agencies grab to compare it against what it sees electronically. TTIC's job is to reduce (or run around) ORCON requirements, and it houses offices from the FBI, CIA, NSA, HSC, and others all in one place. It might be an interesting place to look for an NSA program that concerns massive data aggregation, because it would have the computing resources to do that, and data aggregation is its purpose so it wouldn't be that hard to hide an illegal program of similar modus operandi there.

Completely off topic: is there anyone here who is a coder and can write a simple JS app to compare the phone numbers in the MPUC documents to a DC-area directory? Is any of the apps written to check the DC-madam list open source and available for re-purposing? I'd write the thing myself, but I recently switched laptops and didn't install my compiler on this one, so someone with interest and access to a compiler will have to do it instead.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 2:11 PM:

Posted by: urbinato
Date: August 1, 2007 1:08 PM
Posted by: anon
Date: August 1, 2007 12:58 PM
- - - -
Contracts. Duress. Lawfulness.
Mental competency. Mental capacity to sign.
Fax. Backup copies sent FedEx.
- - - -
Ask Comey, Philbin, and Addington:

1. How think was the stack of papers: A couple of pages, two inches think, five inches think? [Size suggests working papers, contract, plan, staff coordination, decision mamoranda]
2. How many classified annexes were there, still in the safe, not with the original provided for signature?
3. Discuss impact if that signature on that day was not obtained. Which deadline was passing; how many days after a FISA Court approval was made did the AG have to recertify something as complying with FISA; look at the telecom request for a subsequent recertification; once the AG made the original certification on X-date, was something going to happen _that evening of the visit_ if there was not a signature from the _original authorization AG_ in re FISA-telecom?
5. Which lawyer was threatening to issue a cease work within their firm or client unless the AG -- that provided the original assurance -- signed another document by that evening; what information did that legal counsel have about FISA to know the [a] ability to get a signature; but [b] the risks of not getting a signature?
6. Once the paper was signed, which contractors that evening were faxed a copy of it; and is there a FedEx confirmation slip signed by one of the staff members working for those who made this late night visit; if the documents were never signed, how were the legal issues prompting the visit to the Hospital subsequently resolved; where is that documentation, agreement, understanding, or note memorializing that decision, signature, agreement, or confirmation?
7. Has anyone seen a copy of this memo that was signed; was the memo converted to something else, and later addressed with a different signature?
8. Which outside contractors, not within DoJ-OVP-EOP-WH, were sent a copy of this memo or other memoranda which resolved the legal issues?
9. When was the last time there was an audit per 32 CFR 2800 of the OVP security documents related to specific FISA approvals that the AG had approved; did that audit find this document or similar documents related to this legal issue; what is the explanation for the lack of an audit, or non-detection of this memoranda within the OVP vault?
10. When did the document destruction log list any of these documents that the AG was asked to sign, either originally, or subsequently sent; which computer was used to draft, print, and store a copy of this paper which appears to have been disclosed in a non-classified setting?
11. Per 32 CFR 2800, when did the OVP permit a full view of the documents which the AG signed earlier or subsequently; and how was this audit of the document destruction log linked with the specific tracking numbers for documents the AG signed related to this and earlier visits/meetings on this subject?
12. Did the OVP retain a copy of this memo: Where is that computer; which file is it located; and which specific tracking numbers and logs were used to monitor access, review, and destruction of this or other meomranda related to this legal decision?
13. Given the VP's interest in the visit, what review did the OVP make of the document; how was it stored; when was the document subsequently revisited, removed from the safe, and examined by personnel with access to the OVP secure vault?
14. Where is the access list required under 32 CFR 2800 of all personnel who had access to this document which the AG signed that evening; or the original FISA authorizations linked to this document and visit?
15. When did Addington and outside counsel discuss the permissions in this document; and how was this document logged in the phone log?
16. Does outside counsel have a copy of the decision memoranda related to these FISA assurances and approvals within this note which the AG was asked to sign that evening?
17. Has anyone got a straight story of what the real contents and words are of this memorandum?
18. Who did the compliance audit of the OVP data retention requirements per 32 CFR 2800?
19. What is the role of this firm, law firm, auditor, or outside counsel in reviewing the financial statements of entities an firms related to rendition?
20. Does this outside firm assert under penalty of perjury that it is not a data retention expert; knows nothing about the WH IT information systems; and has never done an IT audit of the WH or EOP relative to the hatch Act, 32 CFR 2800, or any other applicable standard of interest to Congress?
21. What is the relationship between outside counsel, the the law firm requesting this action; and the prior employment history of the staff assigned to that outside law firm: Were they well known to Addington; are they familiar with the rendition efforts; and how closely are they associated with the WH counsels office for purposes of commenting on the background information related to rendition, FISA audits, and decision memoranda related to the NSA surveillance activity?
22. What was the plan of the OVP when it was learned Congress, the Grand Jury, and others would be asking the above questions related to the memoranda stored within OVP; how was the legal counsel in Chicago made aware of this concern; was there another weekend meeting to discuss the issues; and which subpoenas did the OVP ask the outside counsel to issue to attempt to stifle discussion of the OVP security requirements per 32 CFR 2800?
23. When the above records were audited by the Grand Jury, which phone calls did OVP and outside counsel make in response to the above questions; and which specific notifications were made after these questions were forwarded to Addington and outside counsel in re FISA?
24. Which meeting did the OVP, outside counsel, and NSA contractors have to discuss how the above records were going to be resolved once the litigation issues started?
25. When was the meeting to have a review of these records, again?
26. What are the gaps, by date, not content in the RNC e-mail accounts?
27. How do the gaps in the RNC e-mail accounts compare to the events related to this memoranda; do the gaps in the e-mail accounts compare with similar gaps with outside counsel?

Bob's not Right wrote on August 1, 2007 2:16 PM:

Just a little more gas on the paranoid fire.

Maybe the replacements of US attorneys and more importantly all the midlevel "Loyal Bushies" aren't the blatant political hack job we thought.

Maybe they are trying to stack the prosecutorial deck after this administration ends should some of what is being discussed here sees the light of day.

Also someone please tell Jay Inslee to revise his taking points about impeachment of the AG. I don't think he should focus on the fact 9 US attorneys were dismissed "improperly" but to reshape this to "proper oversight and vague or untrue testimony". I saw him on Hardball with Chris Cannon and he seemed to deliver a very weak argument, he should do better.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 2:18 PM:

"Is any of the apps written to check the DC-madam list open source and available for re-purposing?"

Posted by: Anna S.
Date: August 1, 2007 2:04 PM

Try [ http://www.dcphonelist.com/ ]

Charles wrote on August 1, 2007 2:33 PM:

Mitch McConnell has perfected the response that Bill Clinton gave, simply, as "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Or, as Lewis Carroll put it, "Jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today."

Impeach them all.

db wrote on August 1, 2007 2:42 PM:

Someone help me. Please summarize what anon has said that has advanced our knowledge about AG's alleged perjury and about the Domestic Spying Program all those folks at DOJ were going to quit over.

A 2 or 3 short paragraph summary would be great. Pretend I am the president and you are doing the executive summary even Bush could undersstand.

Thanks!

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 2:45 PM:

"A 2 or 3 short paragraph summary would be great."

Posted by: db
Date: August 1, 2007 2:42 PM

Money moves around. The AG waves his hands. It continues.

Then Congress awakens. The Grand Jury is happy. The President is sad.

Curious George does not get a bannana. He goes to the cage. Man in Yellow hat waves at him. They are still friends.

Charles wrote on August 1, 2007 3:20 PM:

Political analysis as performance art.

I like it.

mo2 wrote on August 1, 2007 3:40 PM:

Where is Gonzales' letter? What does Specter have to say today?

Voting Present wrote on August 1, 2007 3:57 PM:

As someone once said, "follow the money". These intelligence activities ("other things") appear to be primarily a boondoggle to slop money to a herd of private contractors who are cronies of the GOP gang.

Secondarily, the illegal domestic spying is intended to intimidate and blackmail anyone who might become a dissenter, whistleblower, or any kind of threat to the GOP gang. And it started before 9/11. As an unimportant third matter, there might be a few traces of foreign islamicist activity buried in this haystack of illegally acquired domestic information.

Anonymous is contributing valuable information on how to use the existing mechanisms to uncover and prosecute this sort of financial fraud. He or she is also suggesting that the congressional offices know more than they are letting on, because they have become complicit in the fraud and are therefore also complicit in the coverup.

The bodies are coming to the surface. Anonymous directs our eyes towards Congress. Where is the whistleblower - a real patriot in a time of false patriots - who will bring this all out into the open?
.

Voting Present wrote on August 1, 2007 3:59 PM:

As someone once said, "follow the money". These intelligence activities ("other things") appear to be primarily a boondoggle to slop money to a herd of private contractors who are cronies of the GOP gang.

Secondarily, the illegal domestic spying is intended to intimidate and blackmail anyone who might become a dissenter, whistleblower, or any kind of threat to the GOP gang. And it started before 9/11. As an unimportant third matter, there might be a few traces of foreign islamicist activity buried in this haystack of illegally acquired domestic information.

Anonymous is contributing valuable information on how to use the existing mechanisms to uncover and prosecute this sort of financial fraud. He or she is also suggesting that the congressional offices know more than they are letting on, because they have become complicit in the fraud and are therefore also complicit in the coverup.

The bodies are coming to the surface. Anonymous directs our eyes towards Congress. Where is the whistleblower - a real patriot in a time of false patriots - who will bring this all out into the open?
.

db wrote on August 1, 2007 4:16 PM:

Thank you very much anon and Voting Present. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to bring me and others up to speed and to give the discussion context. I'm not sure i could even locate all the pertinent prior posts I have missed.

parrot wrote on August 1, 2007 4:21 PM:

Let's call it for what it is...an "unwarranted" survelliance program, designed not to protect us but to restrain our liberty as a people. I'm sick of all the parsing. When you listen to AG AG and all their apologists, do you hear word one about the Bill of Rights and the Garantees of personal liberty and fairness therein. No, you don't. And there is a reason for that...because they don't deeply care about those things and think those things "get in the way".

They're power hungry and intellectual light weights who seek to bend and break the laws to their own personal needs for revenge or just because they get off on bent.

Impeachment should be moving forward. If it does not, if this is the best the Republic can bring forth now, then, well, the days of the Republic under Constitutionally constituted principals are numbered.

Campesino wrote on August 1, 2007 6:00 PM:

You guys really have your tin-foil hats on.
**********************************************
Anonymous @ 12:12:

"When something is a "program" that implies regulatory control through the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which invokes oversight, reporting, and other things."

That is exactly what I wanted to know. They can't let it be a program because then a paper trail appears, and paper trails are bad for black-ops illegal data mining.
*************************************************

Not true. Anyone who has worked with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) as I have extensively knows that it deals with procedures for contracting using Federal money. It talks about how to let contracts, what kinds of contracts to use, what clauses to put in them, etc. It does have reporting requirements, but these are contract by contract. The word program doesn't even appear in the FAR.

A "Program" refers more to funding from Congress. One program could have a 1000 contracts let according to FAR requirements. So hardware is bought for a "program". FAR reporting won't tell you much of anything about the purpose of the "program" that hardware or services are being purchased for, expecially if the activity is classified.

This is silly.
*************************************************
Speaking of oversight, you asked rhetorically in a previous post how the NSC was involved in all this, outside of Gang of 8 briefings. I did some digging on Mueller, and it turns out that he testified earlier in 2003 to Congress about the formation and purpose of the TTIC (Terrorist Threat Integration Center, google it, it's interesting). In that interview, Sen. Gorelick says that the committee has asked the directors of the NSA, the CIA, DHS, etc. a question: who is “driving our strategy against al Qaeda”? Gorelick says he won’t pursue that line of questioning with Mueller, but does ask: “Above your pay grade, is there someone who is our quarterback against an agile and entrepreneurial enemy [Gorelick has been discussing al Quaeda for some time, so that's what he's referring to here] who brings together the strategy and capabilities of our country to fight this enemy?” Mueller’s answer: “Yes, I think there is. And I do believe it's the NSC and the Homeland Security Council and the staff for the overarching strategy.” Mueller's on the HSC, but not the NSC, and it's not clear who the 'staff for an overarching strategy' are (Cheney's office?). The NSC had oversight for the TTIC, and presumably also received reports from it. (The TTIC is the center that aggregates all the data received from anywhere) The NSC contains Cheney, Bush, Condi, Gates, Paulson (Treasury) and Hadley. If the program we're discussing was actually vetoed by resignation threat from the DoJ staff for the reason that it was too partisan as someone earlier suggested, it's possible or even probable that the program idea originated in the NSC and subsequently got fobbed off to the NSA for execution. Gonzalez, as AG, is permitted to attend NSC meetings 'pertaining to his duties', so it's very possible that (since he's nominally over the FBI) he was also involved in NSC deliberations on datasharing and partisan domestic surveillance. I'm speculating here, of course, so people should feel free to tell me when I'm being unrealistic or missing an obvious connection.
************************************************* Just wow, Anna S.

1. There is no such person as Senator Gorelick

2. You're talking about Gonzales attending NSC meetings in his capacity as Attorney General in 2002 and 2003 (you're referring to Mueller testimony in 2003) when Gonzales didn't become AG until 2005.
*************************************************
I'm speculating here, of course, so people should feel free to tell me when I'm being unrealistic or missing an obvious connection.
*************************************************

Yes your are speculationg. You are being unrealistic and making connections that don't exist - apparently even among people that don't exist.

Campesino wrote on August 1, 2007 6:25 PM:

Secondarily, the illegal domestic spying is intended to intimidate and blackmail anyone who might become a dissenter, whistleblower, or any kind of threat to the GOP gang. And it started before 9/11. As an unimportant third matter, there might be a few traces of foreign islamicist activity buried in this haystack of illegally acquired domestic information.

*************************************************

Obviously that's worked very well for them. Disserters are so intimidated by this blackmail that the Republicans are in firm control of both houses of Congress and it's a safe bet that whoever they nominate for President is going to coast right into the White House. All investigations on corruption have been shut down. Jack Abramoff, Rep Cunningham, Rep Foley and Sen Stevens are all heaving big sighs of relief as they are off the hook.

Oh, wait.

Oh, and Josh and Markos are so intimidated by all the secret data that's been collected on them that they've shut down their web sites.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 7:06 PM:

Posted by: Campesino
Date: August 1, 2007 6:00 PM

Campesino: "The word program doesn't even appear in the FAR."

Google [ "Federal Acquisition Regulation" Program ]

Is that your final answer?

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 7:09 PM:

Posted by: Campesino
Date: August 1, 2007 6:00 PM

Campesino: "Not true."

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

You're combining two people's quotes.

1. _what_ isn't true?

2. _Which_ quote are you referring to?

Voting Present wrote on August 1, 2007 7:15 PM:

"Obviously that's worked very well for them."
- Campesino

It has, hasn't it? In fact it has worked very well for this administration. Basically no information on their activities has leaked. If it had, they would all be in jail by now.

"Jack Abramoff, Rep Cunningham, Rep Foley and Sen Stevens are all heaving big sighs of relief."

Sadly, these individuals do not have a national security apparatus at their disposal. From the point of view of this administration they are completely disposable.

"Josh and Markos ... they've shut down their web sites."

They're not really a threat. Not while the wholly-owned MSM still drives public perceptions.

But the bodies are nevertheless coming to the surface, as this administration visibly draws to its close, and as its power to intimidate wanes. The rod of discipline wavers. The loyalists are considering the future. The big players are thinking about moving on. The old power structures are breaking down. Now the blackmail risks backfiring on the blackmailer.

What happens to the small people at a time like this? The people who actually make things happen, like you and me? Now is the time when the small cogs are considering speaking up. Now is when we can hope for real leaks. Now is the moment for a real "accountability moment".

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 7:20 PM:

Posted by: Campesino
Date: August 1, 2007 6:00 PM

Campesino: [ "FAR reporting won't tell you much of anything about the purpose of the "program" that hardware or services are being purchased for, expecially if the activity is classified." ]

1. Please provide a reference to any document that does not include the word "program" in it: Explain how that document is used.

2. How do you know that the reporting [ " won't tell you much of anything about the purpose of the "program" that hardware or services are being purchased for, expecially if the activity is classified. ]

3. Are you saying with this statement [ " won't tell you much of anything about the purpose of the "program" that hardware or services are being purchased for, expecially if the activity is classified. ] that _classified_ documents do _not_ include _more_ informatino and explanations?

4. How does the FAR relate to various budeting documents provided to Congress: Are there no documentes mentined in the FAR that Congress would not oversee, review, question, ask questions about, or coment on?

5. Are you attempting to suggest that the FAR -- "federal" acqusition regulations -- does _not_ mention Congress; and that COngress has no role in reviewing any of the documentation which DoJ, NSA, or DoD may have provided related to FISA and the NSA? [If so, discuss ARticle 1 Section 8: Congressional rule making powers only delegated to the Legislature: Whywould COngress approve the FAR if it permitted Congress to be _excluded_ from getting the information to ensure oversight, and get the information?]

6. Are you saying with this ["won't tell you much of anything about the purpose of the "program"] that they "won't tell you much" as it _narrowly_ with just the NSA-Surveillance issues; or is this "won't tell you much" in _general_ for all FAR programs? If true, plesae discuss why Congrses would request documents that "don't tell t much": Are you aware of "worthless" documents Congress is asking for that amount to waste of resources?

7. If you were in Congress, which documents under these FAR programs would you go to if you wanted to find the very things that you say are not available: [a] program purpose; [b] hardware or services are being purchased points; or [c] how classified activiets are coordinated, funded, and contracted. If this information is not available to Congress, how does Congrses oversee the programs. Areyou saying that none of the FISA briefings given to Members of Congress or the Gange of 8 have never disclosed any of this FAR related informatin; is the informatin only held inside the Exeutive Branch; if so, how explain checks and balances through ARticle 1 Section 8?

wiseass.org wrote on August 1, 2007 8:54 PM:

I don't get it... the NSA wiretapping was not legal. Comey and Ashcroft would not certify it as legal. Ergo, what Bush and company was doing was illegal. Who cares if they call it the TSP or an aardvark? The Bush administration was having the NSA carry out illegal activities and in violation of FISA law.

Am I missing somethign here?

db wrote on August 1, 2007 10:10 PM:

"Am I missing somethign here?"

No.

JNagarya wrote on August 2, 2007 3:02 AM:

On an unrelated note: Rep. Waxman just stated that Gen. Kensinger actively evaded service of a subpoena in order to avoid testimony on the Tillman death. I'm glad we put such a great American in charge of soldiers in combat!

Posted by:
Date: August 1, 2007 10:19 AM

Bushit supports the troops so long as what he says is self-servingly supportive of the troops. Artificially. Otherwise, he doesn't support the troops.

And Cheney, drunk or sober, shot his friend in the face, then got drunk.

Campesino wrote on August 2, 2007 11:39 AM:

"Obviously that's worked very well for them."
- Campesino

It has, hasn't it? In fact it has worked very well for this administration. Basically no information on their activities has leaked. If it had, they would all be in jail by now.

*************************************************

This is ridiculous on its face. The fact that we are even discussing these issues on this thread is a result of the CIA and other agencies leaking like seives.

"Basically no information on their activities has leaked" Then what are we talking about now?

What color is the sky on your planet?

Campesino wrote on August 2, 2007 2:36 PM:

Campesino: "The word program doesn't even appear in the FAR."

Google [ "Federal Acquisition Regulation" Program ]

Is that your final answer?

Posted by:
Date: August 1, 2007 7:06 PM
*************************************************
It doesn't appear int he sense that you mean. If you look at the google results they refer to "socioeconomic programs" small business set asides and the like.

The saying that the FAR defines oversight for "programs" isn't true. FAR defines oversight for contracts. A program can have multiple contracts. The FAR operates on a contract by contract basis.

Campesino wrote on August 2, 2007 2:49 PM:

1. Please provide a reference to any document that does not include the word "program" in it: Explain how that document is used.

2. How do you know that the reporting [ " won't tell you much of anything about the purpose of the "program" that hardware or services are being purchased for, expecially if the activity is classified. ]

3. Are you saying with this statement [ " won't tell you much of anything about the purpose of the "program" that hardware or services are being purchased for, expecially if the activity is classified. ] that _classified_ documents do _not_ include _more_ informatino and explanations?

4. How does the FAR relate to various budeting documents provided to Congress: Are there no documentes mentined in the FAR that Congress would not oversee, review, question, ask questions about, or coment on?

5. Are you attempting to suggest that the FAR -- "federal" acqusition regulations -- does _not_ mention Congress; and that COngress has no role in reviewing any of the documentation which DoJ, NSA, or DoD may have provided related to FISA and the NSA? [If so, discuss ARticle 1 Section 8: Congressional rule making powers only delegated to the Legislature: Whywould COngress approve the FAR if it permitted Congress to be _excluded_ from getting the information to ensure oversight, and get the information?]

*************************************************

So much gobbledygook. If you want to know what's going on in a "program" you have to look at the Congressional funding level. And you have to have the proper clearances and the "need to know" to look at them.

At the FAR level it will tell you what is going on in individual contracts at an administrative level. If you don't have the clearance for a classified statement of work, all you could tell was that the required hardware was delivered, inspected, and paid for - but not what it was used for. Same with a services contract. You'd know that the supplier's time collection system was approved, that the labor hours were verified, billed at the proper rate, and that the invoices were paid. But if you didn't have clearance for the SOW you would have no idea what they were working on.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

You keep throwing out this Federal government administrative stuff to try to sound like you know what you're talking about. You've impressed gullible people here at at dKos but to anyone with real experience it's obvious you're spinning a line of BS