Kpete...BlackHatJack...anon is back, Can you explain this to me?

[Buttercup McToots]

I can't wrap my brain around it...can either of you explain?


Any thought to the idea: "third party data capture" = wiki IP data?

In the wiki summary logs now published, check the Washington Post-listed IP numbers posted for the White House. As an example, then, in 2005, look for the CIA-related updates in the special division; the White House personnel appear, based on the Wiki-IP data, to have received some specific briefing related to the CIA special projects near those dates in December 2005; or they accessed a specific document. Each disclosure by WH-EOP related to any issue is a key word you can enter into the RNC e-mails; if there are gaps, then you have to ask: Why are they searching for things "indepedently"? The answer relates to the other communcation going on inside EOP-NSA: They have non-official IM-systems which you have not been specifically made aware or requested. It's an error to only focuse on the RNC e-mails to fill in the gaps for the EOP-WH communcations on the US Atty firings.

As to the third party data cature, do not focus only on the White House EOP numbers listed; but do the opposite: Scan up and down that particular wiki-change-history-log for the other EOP IP numbers; you will see patterns/groups of changes for a particular IP-data block; then check your open source information in the search engines to see which other sites these EOP-related IP numbers were visiting. Don't rely only on the software-generated products, but go into the wiki yourself and get a feel for the history logs, and IP-neighbors.

One thing to do is look at the wiki-listed EOP IPs, then use those IP-neighbors for searches in teh open source search engies. You'll see how there are other patterns at the macro and micro levels: One is celestial, the other is biological. These are only analogies to help you see the pattern: It's connected like a molecule or star cluster; the same IP-data appears; the key will be to use the models to organize the data for the Grand Jury.

Once you link the academic websites with the EOP, you will be able to see which secific files at that university they were looking at. In the case of the cryptography, one interesting pattern is to see the common IP-updates on the wiki of intelligence community contractors linked to the technology/HUMINT resources . Once you dig into the contractor-linked IP data on the wiki, you'll see that those contractors -- when they visit the same sites as CIA and EOP -- have looked at specific key words in academic papers which related to the NSA cryptography. Using those key words from the search engine-provided papers, you can then review who made updates to _those_ wikis; and branch out into the NSA contractors: Who was doing what; and which Boards of directors at thos NSA contractors have a problem: Staff working/getting paid to work on US govt contractors, but either leaking sensitive information, or using contractor resources for non-official purposes. However, recall the DOD IG special investigation units have also been making wiki updates, so they are "tainted". That's why the public needs to do the analysis, forward their finding to the States/Grand Jury, and cannot rely on government investigators to report findings.

The posted information seems overwhelming is that it's not summary information of any public news, but something else: Summary reports of the third party data capture analysis between open source, wiki, and the disclosed information. The public information -- for now -- isn't making sense because you're trying to "Understand it" from the persective of what's been disclosed in the news, not what's been disclosed in the search engines and wikis. You have yet to look -- in detail -- at the wiki information and the open source IP-connected data attached to that IP number. The commentaries outline the emerging lines of evidence emerging on the wiki-IP-search engine data; combined with a commentary on how the current spin was attempting to mislead the public. It was hoped that eventually, if needed, there would be a record of what was known; and if needed, there was a method to organize regardless the results. Each of you has a small piece of inforamtion to, if needed, lead a lawful defense of the Constitution. You'll learn more about this later, and the others involved. Try to think simple: Start with the obvious organization elements for the information; and then use that structure to start having the evidence like decorations on a seasonal item.

The monitoring of the wiki-IP data isn't something that's just started, but has been going on for years. The wiki is like WWII ULTRA: Take a look at the battle of Coventry when Churchill knew -- through ULTRA -- what was going to happen, but couldn't say anything because that would reveal ULTRA. This is one reason why wiki wasn't specifically mentioned until now in the context of third party data capture; or the method of pinpointing specific US government-disclosed information <"internal leaks">: The President would have been alerted to this, change his legal positions before the FISA Court, and in the NSA litigation. Going forward, he'll have to cotradict himself. The wiki-related information was used to trace the connection between the DOJ Staff counsel and the intelligence community meetings in the DC Area; and the DOJ Staff access is related to information disclosed to DoJ Staff that they were not aware was being monitored. Their actions -- as recorded in the DOJ STaff IT area -- was timed to prompt specific discrete actions that they would disclose publicly; that public action is linked with internal communications the President and AG thought would never be disclosed. Now that they acted, and left evidence, it's possible to review the records to determine what they were reading; who they forwarded it to; and what prompted their combined visits and actions. The DOJ-EOP Staff, because of this overwhelming evidence, cannot easily endure a cross-examination or an interrogation on these issues. Note they'll invoke the very "rights" they say Americans are not entitled to assert.

Saying "third party data capture" -- as opposed to wiki -- has been a way of communicating to some the wiki-related information; and that would give them lead time to store records, continue monitoring, and blindside the CIA, DOJ, and EOP. Sorry couldn't be more specific. You one day will learn the methods by which the IP-connected data from EOP, DOJ, NSA, and CIA were captured; how it's known who inside the US government is reading this site; and how this was coordinated without the NSA and President being alerted.

Now that the wiki-related IP information has been disclosed, organized, and is easily searchable by organization, I encourage you to re-read the information provided to you on TPM: You will see how things have been presented with the intent that you see that there was something there; give you a means to digest it and find it; but delay providing direct information to the US government so they would adjust their open leaks. Recall, the wiki's accuracy isn't the issue: Once that wiki-related information is connected with the US government IP, the issue is two fold: Either the information is official and amounts to a leak, breaching executive privilege; or it's not official information and that IP-number-data at the wiki is evidence that that particular US government personnel was involved with non-official use of government computers.

The delay was intended to give you time to digest some of the majority of the information. Think in terms of a railroad track -- there are two different rails. You've seen part of the rails; and part of the cross-ties; your job will be to accept that there are other people with other parts that are going to be meeting with you. They have also been prepared and have been working on other portions. You're not alone on this.

This has been done to ensure the NSA and WH were not aware of the many different groups involved with the analysis; and preparation for the grand jury. There are leaks by Congress and EOP to personnel attempting to mislead the Grand Jury. One day, as with Ultra and Coventry, you'll be given the bigger picture. Check the most recent entry on war crimes; review the process to consolidate the war crimes information using the third party data capture; and understand the issue isn't FISA, EOP, or Congress: It's law firms and legal counsel connected with war crimes planning; and contractor involvement with that planning, coverup, and coordination. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Prepare to support the Grand Jury as they turn their attention to the third party data capture -- not juston the wiki -- but in other locations. Yes, there's more. Please discuss the evidence with your State Attorney General and their Staff. Good luck. The common element: Allegations of war crimes and unlawful conduct in breach of the US Costitution, FISA, and Geneva Conventions. Nothing more complacted than that. This was coordinated using methods the NSA have been unable to detect; many were involved. Their oath is to one thing: The US Constitution. Nothing else, no higher loyality. This was done for you. Others chose something else. The Grand Jury and others will decide whether their actions warrant adjudication for war crimes, oath of office violations, malfeasance, or other allegations related to sedition, rebellion, and insurrection against the United States and US Constitution. Best wishes. The rule of law shall prevail.

Posted by:
Date: August 19, 2007 7:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[kpete]

1. WOW!

give me some time to digest this - anyone else?

[acmavm]

2. Hell, almost all of his posts confuse me. I always need an

interpreter.

[Subdivisions]

25. So, Deep Modem (not to be confused with our distinguished

DeepModemMom) is still posting?

I thought they tracked him down and seized his and his kids' computers. Guess they missed?

[acmavm]

36. Maybe they got his second in command. Like they always do

with the #2 al Quaeda guy.

[shraby]

3. There are some on dailykos checking his

posts also. Is there a way to let them know about this one?

[mod mom]

5. drational is the person on kos following this. I don't know kos-is there a way

to email them through their system like DU?

[librechik]

9. just register and post. It's free!

and anyone can join.


Try commenting in one of the threads wher (?) posts are being discussed.

I forgot they probably have rules about original threads like we do here. Maybe not.


(Us liberals are a fun bunch, aren't we?)

[mod mom]

15. I find their site too confusing, & don't like their coverage of '04 but found an email

address and forwarded the latest.

[librechik]

40. yeah--navigating Kos is a hopeless task

that's why I hang out here!

[mod mom]

4. Wow is right. Not a big surprise here:

DOD IG special investigation units have also been making wiki updates, so they are "tainted"

Do they mean DoJ IG?

[truth2power]

6. Link is over at TPM. Just for those that don't know..

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003948.php

[panader0]

7. Posts like this make me realize how computer ignorant I am.

[Hepburn]

24. You and me both!

:argh:

[Blackhatjack]

8. I am baffled at this point.

"Third party data capture" seems to be reference to 'archival caching' which is accomplished in the background by computerbots.

There appears to be one theme in this post I did not see before --'individuals' are acting in subversion of out government 'using' certain public officials to take the blame.

IS there a connection between the no-bid contracted services actors in this war with acts of treason against our government? THat would be my uninformed very general question for Anonymous.

[KoKo]

38. What do all the references to "wiki" mean? What is that "wiki?"

It really reads like jibberish. I wonder if this isn't someone whose picked up on "anonymous" posts but is posting something to confuse people.

:shrug:

[TalkingDog]

42. A wiki is information that anyone can add to, subtract from or edit

It can be an open encyclopedia - like Wikipedia. Or it can be on one specific subject, a wiki on goat herding for instance.

So, as long as I have access and probably a password, I can edit the wiki in question from anywhere on any browser.

But for a secret governmental system, probably not talking about goat herding.


My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[KoKo]

43. ..thanks.... n/t

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blackhatjack]

11. One thing is guaranteed ... 'insiders' inevitably squirrel away information for later use...

to protect themselves from becoming scapegoats and/or to utilize in selling their story once they have left the employ of the Administration.

[KoKo]

39. one could wonder.....

why this "anonymous" didn't whistleblow to Leahy or Conyers. Conyers asked for "tips" on his website a few months ago. Waxman asked for "tips" a couple of years ago...(I subscribed to his updates) so I can verify he was looking for tips.

But...as we know...it seems that perhaps what goes into the Congressional Committees as tips...never seems to come out again....could this be why anonymous sought a different venue?

I wondered why Marcy Wheeler (EmptyWheel) didn't pick up on this. I haven't read her comments section to see if folks were passing it along...but have not seen her focus on "anonymous" in any of her recent posts. :shrug:

[redacted]

62. Anon explains this in the latest post, if you reread you'll find the explanation.

[Raksha]

99. How do we know he didn't? Is there really any reason to believe that?

one could wonder...why this "anonymous" didn't whistleblow to Leahy or Conyers. Conyers asked for "tips" on his website a few months ago. Waxman asked for "tips" a couple of years ago...(I subscribed to his updates) so I can verify he was looking for tips.

It could be that they already have the information and are waiting until after Congress reconvenes to act on it. Granted, their recent spineless behavior right before the recess doesn't suggest they are sitting on any bombshells, but I always assume Congress has access to information that hasn't yet been made public.

[L. Coyote]

101. Maybe he trusts TPM or does not want to give up his IP to others.

And, there is still the trust issue. If not trustworthy, MP may not want Congress on his IP tracks. TPM cannot get a warrant!

[DemReadingDU]

12. Very interesting

The mystery poster is writing a mystery novel.

edit to add: just lots of twists and turns, it is like reading a mystery novel. The clues are there, we just can't put it all together yet.

[Blackhatjack]

13. IMHO the failure of TPM to comment on Anonymous is important.

[mod mom]

16. JMM is very cautious.

How do we even know this isn't psychops to throw everyone in the wrong direction? I am not suggesting it is, but how can what this person (or even persons) is writing be substantiated?

[Blackhatjack]

17. To get to the truth, ask what is not being said and why?

With all the highly publicized murder investigations in recent years, it seems so obvious that I questioned even posting it.

When people are in a position to know something, and they have an interest in the outcome, and they remain silent on particular issues, that is indeed something noteworthy.

When the husband accused of murdering his wife fails to exhibit typical curiosity about the spouse's demise --that raises red flags for any experienced investigator.

[mod mom]

18. I could read it either way concerning JMM...

either his (and TPM's) silence could reflect that they wish to ignore it (as in it's bs) or that it can not be substantiated and they do not want to fall for what happened to say Dan Rather or Jason Leopold.

am I missing your point?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mod mom]

22. I have no idea but am suggesting that the silence may NOT be indicative of anything.

It's too complicated and insider for most to know whether it's legit or not (or least for me).

[L. Coyote]

68. TPM knows the IP of posts

[Buttercup McToots]

73. Link please?

Thanks

[L. Coyote]

82. Here is a log file request

71.3.6.84 - - <19/Aug/2007:11:33:33 +0000> "GET /politics/impeach/impeachment_team.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 112805 "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1608292"
The request comes from:
OrgName: Embarq Corporation
NetRange: 71.0.0.0 - 71.3.255.255
Address: 500 N New York Ave, Winter Park FL 32789 US

I would have to contact the ISP Tech to discover more. I know the user is using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6.

This is part of the log data recorded by the`server.

[Buttercup McToots]

20. BlackHatJack

I am sorry..I am tired today...What do you mean?

When people are in a position to know something, and they have an interest in the outcome, and they remain silent on particular issues, that is indeed something noteworthy.

[formercia]

23. Sometimes, what people don't say can me more revealing

than what their public comments on a particular subject.

Blocking can be obvious or subtle, depending on the skill of the subject.

[Blackhatjack]

28. On a very superficial basis, I am commenting on TPM and its silence....

We know what has been posted at TPM under the moniker 'anonymous.'

We know TPM to be a credible investigatory entity from their past verifiable work.

We know that TPM would likely not comment on any pending investigation that they believe might compromise their ability to fully discover and report their findings on a matter of great public interest.

We know they have not commented on Anonymous --not once that I can find.

IMHO this is significant.

[L. Coyote]

69. I know I am not the only "anonymous" on TPM n/t

[RainDog]

153. maybe because...

Since I've had a chance to read a little bit of the posts... I wonder if this is the same anon.

however, the references to ultra and coventry seem to be saying the Bushies LIHOP on 9-11 in order to keep from compromising some monitoring ability that they wanted/want to keep secret. Maybe that same technology is what made all the DoJ ppl threaten to resign because it is so intrusive...they would agree it could be used, but not on Americans. The FBI knew about the technology and knew it was a total violation of privacy to use this on americans. I'm thinking of the weird claim that ppl can be monitored via cable...something I read once or twice.

Or maybe this idea just indicates my level of distrust more than any reality.

I have other speculations too which I think I should keep to myself, but they involve the loyalties of certain members of the Bush administration. think of Karen Kwaitkowski's reports of the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

[Blackhatjack]

14. K & R

[snappyturtle]

19. I rarely have a headache this early in a day but this"subject"

has given me one! If the gist is that there are footprints of the malevolence of this administration that are traceable....yeah! But, if this is a trick to throw us off the track, then boo! Which is it? btw: K&R if for nothing else, for it's complexity.

[formercia]

27. Smoke 'em Out

Sometimes, clever perpetrators will hunker down and try to run out the clock.

It's not what you know but what you can prove in court. Investigators who may know who a perpetrator is and have circumstantial evidence on a given subject may sometimes let information leak in order to get the subject to react and provide additional evidence that will lead to a conviction.

Smoke out the rabbit and sic the hounds on 'em.

[snappyturtle]

33. We can only hope! n/t

[Canuckistanian]

26. The Grand Jury. What Grand Jury?

Does this refer to an actual trial in progress or a theoretical future trial?

Or is this a euphemism for something?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. I can't make heads or tails of it.

It seems like a mash of gibberish. Why do we care about this?

[Blackhatjack]

30. I cannot find anything at DKos about this... anyone have a link?

[mod mom]

35. Here's one:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/1/101840/7097

[Blackhatjack]

37. Thanks for the link.... how did you find it at DKos? Did you use their search tool?

I remember reading this diary link before, but I could never find anything further about it.

[mod mom]

41. Google. I really haven't figured out kos.

there's more but I haven't time to locate them them now-perhaps later.

[flyarm]

31. wow i am overwhelmed..i have just read this 4 times and i know i am over my head..

compter wise...but why would this person not have gone to someone he/she could trust in congress??

because whistleblowers have not been protected or supported by congress? I would imagine that is why..

this person is laying out the way to catch these bastards..but who just on the internet is capable of doing anything about it?

but i would be just as leary as this person, to take this info to anyone on either side of the isle..one side is evil the other gutless...or involved...

i wish i was more computer savy to follow all this..but i am not..

from what i take of this..he is laying out the idea that contractors are committing war crimes(?) for the * regime ...and also crimes against our constitution and someone is leaking this info that could be followed if you understand the whole IP lines...and that someone or ones have deliberately used WIKI ..to disclose this info..without the white house or NSA figuring it out till it was too late...the white house and nsa have already committed the crimes and someone has leaked how and why..and now the white house and nsa are exposed if someone can connect all the dots...through wiki ..and other sites as well..

am i getting this right??

anyone??

fly

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

160. Perhaps...

This person has access to at least some data that has been through some deep packet analysis scheme that we know nothing about.

[flyarm]

32. could the grand jury have been the grand jury involved in the Valerie Plame case??

were they hearing about others we do not even know about??

-war crimes being the transfer of arms or something that Valerie was suposed to be watching out for..and investigating.....and the real reason she was really exposed/outed to stop her watching what was going on??

wow i am confused by this..i think??

the only grand jury i know of was the Valerie Plame grand jury...was there another maybe we don't know about??

fly

[freebrew]

117. Getting more complicated...

You realize that this was also the reason for Sibel's gag order?

You may be on to something there...

[L. Coyote]

130. Not every Grand Jury is known to the public. Note the use of caps

It may be significant that the usage is capitalized. That would not violate the restriction on those who testify and are required to not reveal the grand jury, and yet hint that such a Grand Jury is working.

Any day now, indictments may be released for Bush and Cheney. I just hope Pelosi is ready!

[Blackhatjack]

34. "The Grand Jury and others will decide ..." FUTURE TENSE

I do not think Anon is referring to a 'sitting grand jury.'

[Blackhatjack]

44. For folks following the "anonymous" mystery poster at TPM, a few questions...

Has Anonymous ever posted a comment before 6pm EDT?

Exactly when did Anonymous reappear AFTER the Attorney's home was raided and his computers seized?

Has anyone been able to verify significant information in one of Anonymous' posts?

[Buttercup McToots]

49. I haven't

found any posts b/4 6 yet...
TT...wasn't that around 8/5 or 6?

found this...
These gentleman will go down one by one. Rove is not the biggest fish. Things from another's past will soon be brought to light and the retribution will be silent but swift. Deals are being made as we speak. As I told you all a mere days ago, Rove is finished. Next it will be Cheney. Mark this post. It is not a prediction, it is a guarantee. Cheney will not serve out his term.
Posted by:
Date: August 14, 2007 7:46 PM

[Blackhatjack]

50. Buttercup is that the entire post or do you have a link ?

[Buttercup McToots]

51. I don't have a link...

I C & P to word doc...cuz I thought it might disappear...
From TPM...

[Blackhatjack]

52. I have done the same thing, and recently realized....

you have to know which story the comment is attached to in order to identify the original comments there.

[Buttercup McToots]

53. I know...

what a dummy I am...:spank:

[Blackhatjack]

55. LOL ... feel any better that we both made the same mistake?

At least we have the cut & paste entries.

[southern_belle]

58. here's a link

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003915.php

[Blackhatjack]

63. Thanks for the link... and now that I examine the page it appeared on I wonder....

... is this small entry enough to determine that this Anonymous is the same Anonymous of recent fame there?

That is why I was looking for a link, to see what else he/she might have posted on the same comment page.

[southern_belle]

75. I wondered the same thing???

He seems to know what he is talking about, but he usually writes a lot longer comments. Also, I can't find the comment he referred to a few days before about saying Rove was finished. Can anyone find that prior comment?

[OzarkDem]

54. If true, who is making the deals?

and will any of these "deals" and the crimes behind them come to light?

I hope our Dem leaders aren't playing along with a plan to cover all this up in exchange for getting key Bushco members to resign.

That would be a betrayal of public trust, as well.

[L. Coyote]

70. The WH OSC is probably making the deals, like w/Rove, to avoid scandal

over Hatch Act violations. If you leave USG, you are out of reach for the Hatch Act, and all is mute So no further mention, no scandal.

[Blackhatjack]

88. I have the feeling Rove left for another reason ....

If anyone knows the inner doings at the WH it would be Rove, which makes him a natural threat to Cheney and his supporters.

[L. Coyote]

89. We atleast have evidence w/ regard to Hatch Act, the OSC Report re Doan.

In effect, the finding is published regarding the PPT.
The "firing" of Rove follows logically there from.
Also, it is just like this bunch to give Rove and Schlozman a chance to resign instead of having a scandalous departure.

[Blackhatjack]

92. That would be the logical conclusion... but this is what sticks out to me

When Rove was about to be indicted and it was reported that Rove gave Fitzgerald the location where Cheney's deleted emails were stored offsite.

Now Fitzgerald had a very limited jurisdiction for investigation, but what he learned may have found its way to other career DOJ officials.

Rove may have left because the Cheney faction returned the favor regarding Hatch Act violations. So the real reason could have been something else, but the Hatch Act violations were just the tool used to oust him now.

[L. Coyote]

95. Rove is anything but ousted. He is just off the USG payroll. He is still working

like always, and will be after his last USG paycheck.

It seems oddly nefarious and iniquitous that we taxpayers had to sign his paycheck for this long.

[bluesmail]

64. I am hopeful once again

Would that person be anon? I don't recall (Ha!) reading that before.

[SayWhatYo]

157. If you're looking for that person anonymous, then go to 4chan. hehe, has to be some here...

[The Backlash Cometh]

45. I tell you. Wherever there is a rank smelly conspiracy, there's lawyers involved:

"and understand the issue isn't FISA, EOP, or Congress: It's law firms and legal counsel connected with war crimes planning; and contractor involvement with that planning, coverup, and coordination. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes."

[Blackhatjack]

46. And when conspiracies and corruption are exposed, Lawyers are usually the heroes...

Lawyers remain the defenders of the Constitution we want to protect.

Remember, as you paint all lawyers as being corrupt that without them we would not have Brown v. Board of Education, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the right of women to vote, consumer protection laws, and the whole host of constitutional protections that grow out of the Constitution but were not specifically mentioned in that document.

No doubt there are corrupt lawyers assisting this Administration in their nefarious deeds, but there are lots of lawyers working day and night to expose them and bring them to justice.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. There is something terribly wrong with a system that is self-policed and still

has so many corrupt "professionals" as members.

Maybe if you allowed us, Joe Public, the right to get rid of the bad ones, we'd help your profession regain its reputation, because you sure are making a mess of things on your own. And I'm not just talking about what's happening on a federal level.

[Blackhatjack]

48. We do allow citizens("Joe Public") to play such a role in our state...

.... and we do have lots of lawyers who elevate the public interest within our profession(which BTW result in the recent disbarment of Prosecutor Michael Nifong in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case).

Not every state Bar is the same --but that is the case here.

Or were you referring to the Medical Profession which fits your description to a T??

[The Backlash Cometh]

56. Wherever there is a public interest, there should be no gagged settlements.

It's not just the medical community. The problem is that most lawsuits end in settlement agreements, and lawyers work very hard to bury secrets and destroy data to protect their clients. The problem develops when the client involves a corrupt government entity whose purpose it is to protect the public interest. They do everything, but work in the interest of the public.

I'm so glad that there are so many good lawyers willing to take on this Administration. It certainly is a scenario that will make someone a name. But what about all the shadow governments around this nation, that operate just like the Bush Administration? Where does the public go for relief from lawyers who enabled those government bodies?

[Blackhatjack]

57. You have raised important issues, but you are not aware of what is going on....

I represent plaintiffs almost exclusively. The professional organizations I am associated with have fought for years to end settlement agreements which contain confidentiality clauses. I recently fought with another attorney for a major corporation for over a month about what he said was 'standard language' in every settlement agreement they sign. We refused. We made them change things they claimed they would never change.

Every settlement of claims that has the potential to affect the public interest should not be subject to confidentiality clauses.

And every government agency involved in corrupt government practices is violating the law if they include a confidentiality clause in a settlement document, and if they do so it will not be upheld by the courts as enforceable.

The problem in a nutshell is that decades ago corporations put their millions together and made an all out assault to change public opinion of lawyers. Demonization of trial lawyers and backing Congressional candidates with millions of dollars has paid off for them.

They have saturated the airways with claims that greedy plaintiff trial lawyers are running up the cost of insurance because of out of control jury awards. Not true, but many people believe it.

They have falsely accused lawyers acting in the public interest of causing too much regulation that costs businesses money to comply. That is why you have so much consumer abuse today.

I could go on, but one thing you have right -- Republicans for the most part have used the federal and state court systems to price the public out of court, and as a hammer to remove pesky public interest laws and protect corporations.

Until public opinion catches up with the facts, and Congressional representatives are willing to turn down the campaign contributions from these characters, it is the lawyers that are fighting on the front lines to protect what liberties you have today.

And by the way, keeping client confidences works both ways. Sometimes it can be used to keep certain information secret per the attorney/client privilege. But no attorney knowingly and/or intentionally destroys data that might be evidence without risking disbarment. And last time I checked, the average costs to get a law degree exceeds $100k.

I hope you understand that many of your concerns are being addressed by lawyers acting in the public interest, but they do not get the public exposure that the anti-lawyer lobby gets.

[Buttercup McToots]

60. Bravo

:applause:

[The Backlash Cometh]

74. Wonderful read.

I've always known that there were good guys out there, there's just not enough of you.

If this issue were not so complicated, it could win votes for some candidate. It could also lose them, because of the complications involved. Sometimes what's being hidden, is an entire good ole boy network. The kind that we talk about here all the time, between the public and private sector, where it's very hard to determine just who the good guys are.

I'll try to direct my criticisms more tactfully next time. And I'm glad you're doing the work you're doing.

[Blackhatjack]

86. There is much more I could tell you if attorney/client privilege did not apply

[hootinholler]

79. Keep fighting the good fight. n/t

[redacted]

59. HATE having to work when news like this breaks!

Will bookmark for after 7PM tonight; meanwhile BIG KR

[redacted]

61. RE: "It's an error to only focus on the RNC e-mails to fill in the gaps. . ." RIGHT!

Everybody visiting this thread needs to google Microsoft SharePoint, an issue the MP raised early on in his/her/their posts, if you haven't done so already.

Also, it's probably time to start using the "big gun" search tools. DevonAngent is a a good example for its "deep scan" capability, and it's free for several hours of trial use. I've used it at work, and it is very helpful at finding good news reports missed by Google. There are others.

[Blackhatjack]

65. My question is 'Now that they know they left internet trails, how much can be erased?'

You know they have been working behind the scenes like busy beavers trying to cover the internet tracks they left behind.

A forensic investigator knows that 'erasing' or destroying data is not nearly as effective in covering up evidence of a crime as the insertion of 'disinformation' that leads your search off in the wrong direction.

Is that what they are trying to do here, create diversionary disinformation to lead investigators astray?

I can imagine lots of scapegoats surfacing between now and the time Bush leaves office.

[mod mom]

66. Here are 2 early ones posted on CREW that he suggested be copied in case they disappear:

Berenson-Ralston Apparenty Agreed To Signaling System
Submitted by Anonymous on 19 June 2007 - 7:42pm.
Issue: DC Atty Standards of Conduct in re DOJ OPR, ongoing Congressional Review :

Is it a violation of the DC Bar Rules, Standards of Conduct for an attorney

A. to coach a witness before and during a disposition;

B. during a deposition pretend that a response was to assist the tribunal, but the intent of the counsel communication to the tribunal was to do the opposite and adjust a client's recollection during a deposition;

Would this attorney conduct amount to obstruction of justice as DoJ OPR is similarly investigating in re Gonzalez-Goodling prior meetings?

It appears as though Berenson coached Ralston how to respond to Berenson's reactions/comments. I noticed Berenson interrupted the questions when Ralston said "no" to one of the questions. The way Ralston revised her remark, it suggested she and Berenson had arranged some sort of signal if she should change her answer from, "I know nothing," to "I don't recall."

The issue on the table: If this Berenson-Ralston arrangement were real , would this amount to witness tampering; some sort of pre-meeting Between Ralston and Berenson with the intent to adjust recollections; and what kind of issues would this raise for Berenson in re candor before a tribunal and the Atty Standards of Conduct? :

Question: Karl Rove didn't discuss this claim with you?
: No.
Mr. Berenson . Do you want to clarify that last answer?
Ralston. I don't recall. I don't have a recollection of anyone discussing with me specifically that claim.

She's essentially repated the qualifying terms of the question, but broadened the response from just Rove to "anyone" but repeated the questions words: "this/that claim". All she had to do was answer, "No." This indicates that she's well aware of the words being used; shows ample evidence that shes able to track the precise language in the questions. Yet, contrast that later with her answers to other questions: "Can you repeat the question. Ralston appears to have played stupid, stalling for time when she appears to be able to repeat verbatim the qualifying words of a specific question despite being interrupted by her own counsel.

A witness to have a specific recollection of something, and answer "No" says one thing; but for counsel to know that the answer may not be correct; and interject with a comment; and get the witness to change her answer from a certain answer to the opposite, uncertain, is curious.

Notice this contrast:

A. Ralston changes her response from a certain "no" to "I don't recall."; yet
B. Notice the response Berenson provides -- that of seeking clarification -- doesn't track back to Ralston's response: She does not provide clarification, but does the opposite: Moves from a certain response of "No" to a less certain response: That is hardly a clarification, but the opposite.

Again look at her response:

I don't recall. I don't have a recollection of anyone discussing with me specifically that claim.

She's gone from "No" to "I have no recollection/don't recall." Yet, she's able to state with precision, as Goodling did, some things she is not recalling, but leaves open the question: What does she recall; what other claims that she may have not necessarily discussed, but have read, heard about, overhead, or been sent a blind copy via her RNC e-mail account sent from someone else?

Berenson And the RNC Blind Copy E-Mails

Yet, Ralson is not ordinary witness: She's an attorney, knowledgeable of the rules of the House Oversight Committee committee; in a position to rely on counsel; and knowledgeable of the DC Bar atty Standards of Conduct.
It appears the Berenson prompting of "clarification" was a signal to Ralston to do do the opposite: Provide ambiguity, this would amount to misleading the tribunal.

Arguably, Berenson public assertion of "requesting clarity" sounds like a good thing; but Ralston's response suggests the message Berenson was communicating was the opposite: To retract a statement, and provide ambiguity, arguably, in violation of the DC Bar rules which compel counsel to provide candor before the tribunal, not a double-meaning message with the intent to have the tribunal believe counsel was assisting the tribunal to get a precise answer. rather, Berenson's comment appears to do the opposite, hide the intent of his message, and induce Ralston to do the opposite of what the Tribunal thought Berenson was communicating.

Issues for Berenson in re Tribunal:

What kind of coaching did Berenson have with counsel to ensure that when he asked her the question she did above, that she would know to understand her response needed to be changed; understand she needed to revise her remark; to stumble or argue with counsel; and seamlessly transition from a certain answer to one that asserts the obvious: Uncertainty.

Berenson had a duty to be impartial and a duty to disclose adverse information

The standard applies to legal counsel. Whether we're talking about Ralston to
Berenson, the same DC Bar rules apply:

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; Rule 3.3

Once it appeared as though Ralston and Berenson had coordinated their answers, and adjusted testimony, did Berenson appropriately disclose the scope of the coordination he and Ralston had? Arguably, once Berenson corrected Ralston, this raised the issue that there had been coordination; and that because Berenson publicly correct her on the record, the scope of his coordination with Ralston is admissible.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. Rule 3.3

Berenson did not disclose anything to the tribunal, as required by the DC Bar Rules, merely prompted Ralston; and it was not Ralston who provided the inconsistent statements to the DC Bar, but to the Congressional committee.
Once Ralston and Berenson have allegedly agreed to abide by unwritten terms, agreements -- apparently not disclosed to outside/opposing counsel -- how did that non-disclosed arrangement affect the proceeding?

Rule 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel A lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

Did Berenson-Ralston's apparent prior meeting to adjust responses based on Berenson's prompting amount to legal counsel violating Rule 3.4, and did Berenson in violation of 3.4 "assist" Ralston to conceal the truth: That Ralston on her own was certain of something; but that counsel hoped to adjust her responses to interject ambiguity and uncertainty?

Arguably, Ralston-Berensons's interchange rise questions about alleged obstruction of justice, the scope of Berenson's pre-deposition coordination with Ralston, and the appropriateness of Berenson's comments in light of Ralston's initial assertion of certainty, then an an apparent prompting to adjust her response to be ambiguous.



What prompted Berenson to hope Ralston would adjust her testimony?


Why would Ralston agree to change from something that was a certain answer to one that was ambiguous?

The other problem Berenson-Ralston have, given the lack of disclosure on tall the ground rule and the agreements between Berenson-Ralston and the Congress, there is a reasonable basis to have doubts about Berenson's compliance with
(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;

What restrictions by the Govt Oversight Committee were there in place when Ralston was deposed prohibiting counsel from inducting witnesses to adjust their answers?

Is there a specific rule, regulation, or guideline unique to the Government Oversight Committee that expressly prohibits what Berenson and Ralston have appeared to have done: Have a signalling system; offer testimony that was adjusted based on non-disclosed agreements?

Let's consider the other clients and information Berenson and Sidley Austin have, which remain undisclosed. Was there something about at&T, Boeing, or another client involved with the RNC e-mail communications -- in a to-be-understood capacity -- that induced Berenson to get Ralston to retract her statement?

(f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless:

If, as it appears, Berenson wanted to take Ralston's response ambiguous, and not certain, how might Ralston's "final answer" of ambiguity assist another Sidley Austin client; and in turn, what inducement, if any, has Berenson or anyone else made to others to not challenge, corroborate, but provide similarly ambiguous responses to answers they might, on their own, answer with certainty and precision?

Why would Congressional counsel be satisfied with Ralston's response -- which is vague, as less clear -- yet the prompting from counsel wanted the opposite: Clarification?

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29131#comment-6429

Details: Discussion of Online Collaborative Tools
Submitted by Anonymous on 20 June 2007 - 5:37pm.
The Following is an opinion, not statement of fact nor accusation of criminal activity. These views may not necessarily represent the views of CREW, its officers, or anyone associated with this website.
We disagree with the NYT emphasis on e-mails. Based on Ralston's denial, it appears there is something else going on.

Question: Karl Rove didn't discuss this claim with you?
: No.
Mr. Berenson . Do you want to clarify that last answer?
Ralston. I don't recall. I don't have a recollection of anyone discussing with me specifically that claim.

Ralson leaves open the possibility that the GOP and WH-EOP have an online collaborative file sharing program such as SharePoint, which integrates with MicrosoftOutlook. However, this is a third-party website, which RNC could hide, say it is not a file system they own, and avoid providing it to Congress. What review has Congress does on online collaborative file sharing programs which are not related to e-mail, but could fit nicely within Ralston's denial above?
Prior, related, basis for statements below:
< http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29131#comment-6429 >

Details

What's curious about Ralston's denial is that she, as Goodling did, leaves open other possibilities. This information builds off the discussion related to Ralston's apparent vague, open-ended comment. Ralston stated in her deposition that she was not aware of any discussions related to this claim:

I don't have a recollection of anyone discussing with me specifically that claim.

The above Ralston comment leaves open the possibility that Ralston was aware of non-discussions: Online White House-EOP-DoJ communications in a collaborative electronic environment. As Ralston as carefully worded her denial, she does not specifically exclude the possibility that she, while working for Rove, was not aware of any online electronic data exchange; or collaborative work product review. One such product that integrates with Windows Office 2007 is SharePoint from Microsoft.

The following information is not an endorsement of this product, nor a solicitation to buy, sell, or review the product for private or commercial purposes. The information below may related to online collaboration between White House Staff, legal counsel, and other contractors on issues related to war crimes and Geneva violations. If you are in the law enforcement community, intelligence services, or legal profession and have a duty to report allegations of war crimes-related evidence, you are encouraged to discuss the information below with counsel for advise how to proceed and remain in compliance with your legal and ethical obligations under Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions.

Basis for Subpoena Discussion

The information below forms the basis to request a subpoena of all White House IT information contracts, software, and data which is used in a collaborative environment. The current Congressional Subpoenas do not appear to adequately focus on non-email data interchange. As Ralston's denial is worded, she leaves open the possibility that the White House staff has engaged in online data transfer using software and hosts outside the White House on separate software systems.

Allegations

1. There is evidence identifying Microsoft Outlook as one of the software products which Karl Rove used. Karl Rove is widely reported, and it was disclosed on the DOJ Staff e-mails to the Congressional Senate and House Judicial Committees in the "data dump", that he had an F:drive. The nomenclature and spacing for his published/inadvertently disclosed e-mail archive is in the format matching Microsoft Outlook.

2. Microsoft Outlook, Internet Explorer and Firefox have RSS-intercept capability

3. Using methods which the NSA cannot intercept, we can confirm that Sidley Austin, and personnel associated with Bradford Berenson, formerly of the White House counsel's office and Ralston's defense counsel, use RSS intercept systems to track online communications. Testing of the Sidley Austin interception capabilities confirms that personnel assigned to Sidley Austin are using software products to timely capture within hours published material matching issues, personnel, names, and key areas of interest to Sidley Austin.

4. The Scooter Libby Court identified the speed with which counsel was able to quickly mobilize within 72 hours to rapidly collaborate on a work product for the court to review.

5. The Department of Justice US Atty e-mails indicates DoJ Staff uses Microsoft Outlook, as evidenced by the calendar templates matching closely the Microsoft Outlook Calendar Options.

6. Ralston in her deposition did not exclude the possibility that the WH, DoJ Staff, and outside counsel were or were not using non-verbal methods to interact. Ralston only asserted that she was not aware of "discussions" leaving open the possibility that she was aware of online interactions, briefings, and other electronic information posted to a common website, and collaboratively updated.

7. Microsoft Outlook SharePoint has an e-mail notification system to notify users of their password; and the e-mail notifications are archived, can be deleted.

8. Using methods which the NSA cannot intercept, we can confirm that EOP and Sidley Austin have jointly met on common websites, and have connected to common websites outside the District of Columbia in websites linked with Indiana. The IP numbers for the White House EOP and Sidley Austin are jointly linked with common websites that are not obviously related to law enforcement, intelligence, national security, or bonafide official US government business.

Disclaimer

Stop reading if you do not understand this:

The following information are not statements of fact, but are allegations based on the above theory. We continue with the presumption that the information is not allegations of illegal activity directed at any specific individual with Sidley Austin, nor are they conclusions of law about the conduct of Ralston.

9. Rove's C: Drive format is consistent with Microsoft Outlook, compatible with Sharepoint. Based on information and belief, the White House EOP and outside counsel have collaboratively worked on various intelligence briefings, work products, and other "non discussions". Mary Walker of the Department of Justice General Counsel's office has been widely reported in the open media has been one of the chief architects of the policies to circumvent Geneva. We judge the speed, efficiency that these rendition-interrogation briefings supports the conclusion that online collaboration, not using e-mail, was used coordinate the communication, briefing updates, and process information from the interrogations.
10. Bradford Berenson of Sidley Austin, self-disclosed on a PBS Frontline interview that he did not personally attend briefings, but was aware of intelligence gathering operations. We judge his statements could be linked with data sharing protocols and software such as SharePoint; and the means by which Berenson and other WH counsel were informed of the progress of the intelligence gathering was through online file sharing systems similar to SharePoint; or some system of sharing files that did not rely on e-mails to send and receive data.
11. SharePoint is not the only software product related to Microsoft Outlook which would permit online collaboration, avoid discussions, and fall within what Ralston asserted. Other products the public may be familiar are LotusNotes, newsgroups, permission notes, remote access to data files. Each of these require sign-in and access authority sent through e-mails.
12. The speed with which the Military Commissions Act, and Scooter Libby Sentencing Defense documents were coordinated are instructive. As the Scooter Sentencing Court concluded, it is very unusual for counsel to be able to process this much information pro bono, yet not have major data errors. We judge the legal defense and amicus briefs related to the Scooter Libby Sentencing memoranda, and notifications about the Sentencing Letters, was widely known on WH, EOP, and DOJ newsgroups, online filing sharing systems.
13. A close reading of the Scooter Libby Sentencing Letters indicates on more than one occasion that personnel were notified of the letters, yet they were emphatic that nobody asked them to act. This suggests that there was some sort of common website, newsgroup, or method of sharing the status of the court information with a close knit group, that there were legal disclaimers on the information, and that legal counsel had access to a closely held group.
14. DoJ and WH E-mails regularly refer to issues as a "close hold." This implies that there is a file sharing system, not necessarily related to e-mail, that permits DOJ and WH personnel to quickly share information within EOP, OMB, and other divisions.
OBJECTIVES

15. We judge the Ralston change in response, prompted by counsel Berenson, is very important. As with Goodling's less than emphatic denials, prompting DOJ OPR to review issues related to the AG, we conclude that Ralston restatement has enough wiggle room in the denial to permit other methods of "non discussions".

16. One apparent assumption of Congress was that the DOJ Staff counsel and others involved with the US Atty firings and Ambramoff issues was that there was specific e-mail sent to coordinate issues. We do not dispute that e-mail was being used. However, recall the scope of Goodling's defense counsel's assertions as a basis to induce Congress to grand immunity: That unless she got immunity, she would not be able to provide valuable information which was incriminating. Goodling's counsel specifically asserted that perjury was on the table if Goodling was not granted immunity. We judge this assertion was a red herring to trump up Goodling's apparent value to the Congress, and create the impressing that because Goodling's legal consequences might be grave, she could not share any information. Similarly, we judge Berenson is doing the same in re Ralston. However, we believe that the sleight of hand in re Goodling is slightly different with Berenson-Ralston: Rather than emphasize her value, Berenson appears to be confirming the existence of Ralston's knowledge of e-mails, yet this has nothing to do with the ambiguous denial of Ralston. Note closely what Berenson keeps focusing on in the deposition -- e-mails -- and contrast that with the denial Ralston officers: Leaving open that non-e-mails were used to share information. As with Goodling, it appears Counsel is creating a red herring for Congress. If this theory is true, then we need to reconsider, in light of Ralston's half-incomplete-denial, what Berenson might be attempting to do with his objections. We judge Berenson is not a disinterested counsel acting only to assert his clients' interests, but has a personal interest in seeing that the alleged non-email communication is suppressed, not raised; and that he has a motivation to distract attention from Ralston's apparent knowledge of Rove's Outlook software products that integrate with SharePoint: Berenson would have been in a position to get access to this SharePoint information.

17. Note closely the PBS Frontline statements Berenson made in re Rendition: He was fairly open. Yet, years later Berenson asserted that the issues involving foreign countries could neither be confirmed nor denied. The issue is Bronson's' apparent inconsistent statements on whether he can or cannot discuss rendition. We judge after the first disclosures of rendition of the PBS Frontline, there was a meeting between WH Counsel, other legal counsel, and Sidley Austin personnel to develop a common media message and commentary. One possible means to review the "new policy" -- that of neither confirming nor denying information on rendition, as opposed to openly commenting on rendition -- was through a online collaborative tool which shared a policy memo. IT remains to be understood how this policy memo, if it existed on this narrow issue of rendition, was crated, reviewed, sent, coordinated; and what "not discussions" occurred to promulgate the new policy on media comments related to rendition.

18. Also implicated with the rendition-FISA violations-warrantless surveillance-Prisoner abuse are several DoD-DOJ Contractors: Abraxas, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, SAIC, Titan. Using the online collaborative tools, contractors could quickly update policies, procedures, and share information, but by pass the e-mail interception NSA uses. Whether this was occurring, or whether this assumption was reasonable remains to be seen. The speed with which the Military Commissions Act updates were coordinated after copying and pasting the UCMJ clauses suggests that there was an on-line collaborative tool which contractors, legal counsel, and other personnel were able to quickly update, make changes, leave comments, and produce a final MCA. Whether the final language was Constitution remains a legal mater outside this discussion.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCOVERY

18. It is not appropriate to focus only on E-mails. To date, it does not appear Congress has the independent means to specifically target, detect, and sample on-line collaborative tools and data sharing platforms unless Congress receives a copy of the e-mail authorization for that particular platform. We recommend Congress request for all e-mail approvals for any online platform; and that all codes related to the access of these platforms be independently reviewed by a special master and sealed.

19. We are concerned that the Congress appears to be narrowly focusing on e-mails, without necessarily considering the non-email methods for WH, EOP, and outside counsel to have "non discussions". How the online collaboration relates to e-mails, links, URLs, decisions, timing of meetings, or subsequent actions/patterns/decisions remains to be understood. Ralston's changed comment does not in any way exclude the possibility this has occurred and qualifies as a "non discussion."

20. We judge he objective of the online collaboration -- outside e-mails -- was to hide the connection between DoJ and DoD Contractors; insulate them from discovery; and hide the specific information contractors provided to the online collaboration platform. If this online collaboration model was used to have "non discussions", there would be specific contractors accessed the collaboration tool, made changes, or provided comments. Of interest to Congress within these online collaboration tools would be the legal comments related to counsel on issues of Geneva.

21. We judge Ralston's incomplete denial leaves open the possibility that these online tools exist; because their apparent method of communication would be to allegedly violate the Hatch Act, this would remove any expectation of confidentiality or privilege; and legal counsel knew or should have known because the objective of the online collaboration was not to comply with the law, their alleged illegal activity could not be protected by ORCON or any expectation of privilege.

22. Note closely again, Berenson's comments on the PBS Frontline piece: Comments were made with the expectation that they would not be disclosed; and that he "believed" the actions were lawful. Whether this belief was reasonable is another issue: Once Berenson discusses the existence of these comments, he's disclosed specific communications or "non discussions" to working products which fall neatly within the Ralston non-denial, yet would arguably amount to a disclosure that there was a specific online collaborative data exchange on intelligence, rendition, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and other alleged illegal activity. How this relates to Abramoff and the ongoing Grand Jury remains to be seen, adjudicated, and beyond this discussion.

TESTING OF THIS THEORY

Before we can accept the above theory as having any merit, there are some tests that can be done based on Berenson's comments during the Ralston deposition. If we presume for the moment that the above theory is true, but reconsider Berenson's questions and comments in light of this, we might have another view of what he was doing.

A. Did Berenson hope to focus on e-mails knowing full well that the real information which Congress needed was not in any discussion, e-mail, or meeting, but within a separate platform unrelated to e-mails?

B. To what extent did Berenson hope to mislead Congress to have them believe that the incriminating information was in e-mails, yet Ralston's denial does not exclude the possibility of non-emails to collaborate?

Once we consider the Berenson's statements, we might reconsider his objections and ask whether he was consistently making objections to protect Ralston in re e-mails; or whether Berenson permitted some questions inconsistently on e-mails, when he should have objected to all of them. Based on Berenson's incomplete and inconsistent objections, we judge that Berenson was not objecting to questions about e-mails, but attempting to block inquiry into incriminating evidence, which may or may not be an e-mail.
We encourage the Congress and Staff counsel to re-approach Berenson's objections with an open mind and reconsider whether he consistently objected; and consider the online collaboration theory:

If Berenson was objecting to having Ralston disclose anything incriminating, why Would Ralston's denial leave open the possibility that non-emails were used to "not discuss" information in the online format? Berenson's objections during Ralston's deposition do not appear consitent, especially in light of Ralston's non-denial denial.

We judge Berenson's motivation when he objected during the Ralston deposition was not to protect his client, but to act as a smokescreen from the alleged online collaboration tools and "non discussion" and get Congress to believe that Ralston was "only" worried about e-mails. It appears based on Relston's non-denial of "non discussions" that Berenson was objecting as a red herring from the real data in the common file tools connected with Microsoft Outlook.

We judge the e-mails are, in themselves, only part of the picture; and the larger story is the method by which the files were accessed by outside counsel, lobbyists, contractors, and other DoJ-EOP personnel; and to the extent that the e-mail destruction has not bee to hide information and content, but to hide connections with named legal counsel, contractors, and third parities which the Vice President hoped to suppress by blocking disclosure of the OVP entry-access list.

Again, whether the VP can create a separate data base outside the statute or block the archivists from making a decision is a separate issue; however, in light of the Scooter Libby Sentencing letters which disclose the names and meetings between legal counsel and the OVP Staff, we conclude the OVP has no legal standing to "block" disclosure of information which counsel disclosed freely, voluntarily in the Scooter Sentencing letters.

Interrogatories

1. Which software tools has the WH-EOP-DOJ used to engage in "non discussions"?

2. Which Microsoft Outlook-compatible software does EOP-DOJ use to engage in online collaboration?

3. How do we explain the speed with with the Libby defense counsel worked, pro bono, to coordinate in 72 hours this many documents?

4. What was the means by which Berenson, Walker, and other legal counsel coordinated their information sharing on intelligence briefings?

5. How many contractor visits related to rendition, FISA violations,a and prisoner abuse is the OVP attempting to hide by suppressing the entry-access lists?

6. Which online software tool was used to exchange information related to prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and share media strategy between OVP, EOP, DoJ, DoD?

7. Using the DoD Public Affairs and Information Warfare models known to Mary Walker of DoD Genral Counsel's office, was it the aim of DoD General Counsel
to coordinate the "Geneva violation plan" using online collaboration tools?

8. What was the nature of the non-disclosure agreement between the US Government and DoD-DOJ contractors on issues of rendition, FISA violations, NSLs, intermediary support for subpoena processing: Were contractors not allowed to mention that online collaboration tools were being used?

9. To what extent did the DoJ and EOP coordinate the updates to the MCA using these online collaboration tools?

10. How much input did lobbyists with access to these online collaboration tools have in updating the plans to transport prisoners, engage in interrogation and prisoner abuse, and bypass the known NARUS STA 6400 system which focus on e-mails?

11. To what extent did the GOP rely on their knowledge of the NSA intercept capabilities when developing online collaboration tools?

12. To what extent did the GOP legal counsel assigned to the White House counsel's office know or should have known that the "non discussions" using online collaboration tools did not fully comply with the Hatch Act in re data retention requirements?

13. Why is SIdley Austin's IP number connected to the same site as EOP in Indiana?

14. Which Sidley Austin RSS feeds return results on issues of war crimes surfaces while mentioning issues of rendition, outside counsel, data collaboration, and alleged legal counsel involvement with that activity ,despite the DC Bar Atty Rule 1.6 compelling counsel to withdraw when legal services are being provided to support illegal activity?

15. When Sidley Austin did the financial review of Boeing -- the mother company of the firm alleged attached to rendition -- did Sidley Austin use extensively the Microsoft Outlook SharePoint to coordinate its audit; or was the information contained only in non-electronic format?

16. How does Berenson explain his knowledge of the Ralston e-mails: IS Berenson still on the WH F:Drive access list with Karl Rove; and is this Sidley Austin access part of a contract which has been fully disclosed on the required A-76 contract?

17. Which newsgroups or data file sharing do the NSA-DoD-DoJ-DHS contractors associated with warrantless surveillance, warrantless interrogation of US Citizen not want Congress to know about; and how does Ralston wish to restate her denial in terms of these "non discussions"?

18. Who controls the newsgroup, file sharing system, or platform which WH, outside counsel, and DoD-DoJ contractors allegedly use to share information related to MCA, rendition, prisoner abuse, intelligence?

19. Is the MITRE Corporation in a position to discuss the OSIS system which they apparently know something about; or is the system "so secret" that even the Congress has not been told about?

20. To what extent have the "classified communication systems" been used not to protect national security related information, but to act as a conduit to hide evidence of illegal activity, which ORCON prohibits?

21. What platform did the WH IT department and RNC establish to share data with the GOP membership, outside counsel, lobbyists: Where is the software contract hidden; why has this method to violate Hatch been "classified" when legal counsel knew or should have known the alleged online collaboration tools were to bypass the Hatch requirements in re data retention?

22. When did legal counsel learn that the objective of the e-mail destruction was not to just hide communications, but to block Congress from discovering which contractors have been given access to these online collaboration tools; and prevent Congress from independently auditing the IT software contractors Contractors would allegedly use to gain access to the GOP-EOP-DOJ online collaboration tools to engage in a "non discussion"?

23. Did legal counsel, once they realized Ralston did not have a complete denial, appropriately forward all evidence related to "non discussions" contained in SharePoint, or any other online collaborative file sharing platform?

24. Where are the e-mail notifications sent through Outlook indicating to users, contractors, legal counsel, and WH-EOP-DoJ-GOP staff that they had been given access to this online collaborative tool?

25. What is the contract number of the SharePoint online collaboration tool which the WH-EOP apparently are using, and giving access to legal counsel to apparently assisting with data updates, and inputs from contractors on plans, memoranda, and policies related to alleged war crimes, prisoner abuse, and FISA violations?

26. Does Ralston have an explanation why her modified response does not address the SharePoint storage, and does not exclude the possibility that EOP-WH-DOJ staff were engaging "non discussions' with counsel and contractors using non-email?

27. Why should we believe Ralston's assertions that she wanted the question "repeated"; yet, Raslton when interrupted by counsel could almost recite verbatim -- with appropriately qualifications -- the exact words Congressional Counsel were asking?

28. Who is collaborating on the files in the WH-EOP on issues of Executive Orders used to by pass Congress, and not fully inform Congress -- as required by statute -- of illegal decisions not to enforce the law?

29. To what extent was the budget cutting and "civliznationation" efforts of OMB used as an excuse to "outsource" government policy making, and create an online collaborative tool which would solicit inputs from contractors, lobbyists, and legal counsel -- but without regard to whether there was accountability on those fiduciaries for alleged reckless conduct which did not fully comply with Geneva?

30. Does Sidley Austin have an explanation why it openly discusses its connection with data retention requirements; yet its Client does not exclude the possibility that the data has been retained in a "non discussion" format outside the Hatch Act requirements?

31. How long has Sidley Austin and Berenson had access to the WH-EOP-DoD-DoJ SharePoint/online collaboration platform; and has Berenson or anyone destroyed any entry-access-update information in this platform?

32. Which specific comments related to illegal activity did OVP, WH, EOP, Outside counsel, contractors not want the public to know were being made by third parties, outside the Hatch Act,with the intent to implement FISA violations, illegal rendition, prisoner abuse, and war crimes?

33. What are the terms of the contracts which outside counsel, law firms, EOP, WH, DoJ, DoD, NSA contractors, and other intermediaries relied upon to get access to these records in the common platform?

34. When the Verizon General counsel initially disclosed that it may have given the NSA access to its felicities, was this access also the other way: Verizon had access to the NSA online collaboration tools, but the agreement was that this collaborative tool -- and its existence -- would be classified "secret" because the database did not comply with the Hatch Act, compelling records retention and fully compliance with Geneva?

35. When was the last time DC-Bar Affiliated counsel read rule 1.6 compelling mandatory withdrawals when legal counsel services are used to advance unlawful activity; can all DC-Bar affiliated counsel at all firms, DoJ, NSA, EOP, and outside counsel certify in writing that they have reviewed this requirement; and are in fully compliance with this requirement; When will this certification be made in writing to the Committees without any promise of immunity to any outside counsel or any DC Bar Affiliated personnel?

36. Given all that we don't know about the online collaborative tools like SharePoint which Ralston has not emphatically denied were being used to engage in "non discussions," why should anyone seriously consider a request by Berenson that his client get any immunity: What is Congress immunizing; does Congress understand the scope of data -- outside e-mail -- which Ralston and Berenson have yet to account?

37. What review was done on all Ralston IP numbers she ever used to access her e-mail account, or access any Outlook-related software?

38. Have all IP numbers which Ralston used been resolved to the White House, EOP, or her home; or are there IP numbers which she used, when traced to SharePoint, indicate there is other activity and "non discussions" occurring using online collaboration tools?

39. Did Ralston open any e-mails at DoD, DoJ, or while traveling; or while at any outside legal counsel; or any firms associated with NSA, rendition, FISA violations?

41. What do the records from anyone in re RNC emails to Ralston say about the times Ralston reviewed, accessed, or had information related to IP access information?

42. What patterns of log-in times, unrelated to e-mails, does Ralston have related to newsgroup access, online collaboration tools?

43. Which e-mails did Ralston open first; which did she ignore; which e-mails did she delete without opening?

44. What was the timing of the openly of the blind copies of the e-mails; and how do these relate to updates on key documents RNC-WH-EOP-DoD-DOJ were updating in re FISA violations, NSA surveillance, prisoner abuse, Eastern European detention?

45. What review has been done on all opening and closing of all recipient BCC of RNC e-mails; and what method was used to specifically target with key words online collaboration tools like SharePoint, LotusNotes, newsgroups, or common file sharing programs?

46. What information does RNC and the ISP keep of when an e-mail is opened; and how does this record keeping change with opening of a blind copy: Who gets notified that a file has been uploaded to a common online data sharing platform; where's the archive of the e-mail opening data

47. What as the form of the "non discussion" and "non overheard" communication which Ralston alluded to: Memos, summaries, transcripts, media message based on an NSA intercept given to the GOP?

48. Did Ralston personally review and forward comments about NSLs?

49. What method was Ralston using to track the information, workflows to
Goodling; and how was this tracking system integrated with SharePoint or an Outlook Compatible online collaboration tool?

50. What do the records for anyone in the RNC e-mails to Ralston say about the times that Ralston or others reviewed e-mail or online tools; the IP access information thy had; the partners and groups of files reviewed and commented on; the e-mails and files Ralston and others opened first, ignored, or deleted without comment?

Review

E-mail does not appear to be the only method of exchanging information, especially in light of Ralston's non-denial denial. Ralston's incomplete denial warrants further inquiry. It is premature to consider offering Ralston immunity. Ralston has left open the possibly that online collaborative tools -- outside e-mail -- were used to engage in "non discussions".

If the Outlook compatible SharePoint was used, we may have answer why the GOP has deleted e-mails: To hide who was on n the access list to SharePoint. An online collaboration tool permits "non discussions" without using e-mail. It is possible to plan Boeing-related schedules using these online collaboration tools, avoid NSA detection, and delete information if Congress is not aware of this method of engaging in "non discussions." This method allows outside counsel and EOP-DoJ-DoD to send messages to their peers, coordinate legal briefs, share the progress of interrogations in Eastern Europe, and engage in illegal activity. Whether there is evidence of this alleged illegal activity related to rendition, FISA violations, war crimes, prisoner abuse, or unlawful CIA activity in Eastern Europe remains to be understood.

The evidence is overwhelming: Ralston's incomplete denials leaving open the possibly that there were "non discussions" using SharePoint; Rove's C:drive format showing that the EOP was using Outlook; the Sidley Austin-EOP common websites connected to their respective IP numbers; and the speed with which information is transmitted related to intelligence issues indicates there is non-email communication occurring. Berenson has previously disclosed his awareness of this information related to rendition and intelligence; and the information substantially matches the lines of evidence which Mary Walker of DoD General Counsel coordinated.

It is time for the OVP to stop wasting the Grand Jury's time, cooperate with the inquiry into who visited, and provide a full list of all contractors, legal counsel, and others who are working with Addington, OVP, and the Vice President using online collaboration tools outside e-mail to coordinate FISA violations, rendition, and prisoner abuse. It is time for Ralston and Berenson to be called on the carpet without any promise of immunity and discuss what they know about the online collaboration tools.

The existence, use, and access logs related to SharePoint and any other online file sharing, newsgroup, or file transfer system is material information for the OSC, Grand Jury, and war crimes prosecutors. Ralston's incomplete denial is arguably grounds to review all electronic means which could be used to engage in a "non discussion" as it relates to allegations of war crimes, bribery, and other issues with the Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently involved. FBI leadership needs to explain why it has, in the past, rebuffed information related to voluntary cooperation from informants; and share what they know about non-email systems used within EOP, OVP, and GOP to coordinate "non discussions" related to prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and other Geneva Violations. The FBI's track record on NSLs does not put the Bureau in a favorable light, and raises reasonable questions about the competency of the FBI leadership, compelling a review of the complaints against the FBI leadership going back to 2001; Which information did they rebuff; which concerns about illegal activity did they inappropriately decline; and which specific legal counsel provided any assurances to SACs and ASACs to rebuff information from confidential informants related to alleged illegal activity. it is arrogant for the FBI to pretend that its doing a "great" job when it was instrumental in rebuffing the very information Congress seeks, and the OVP-EOP and outside counsel appear to have hidden in the online collaboration tools. The OSC and Grand Jury need information about when these online tools were created; who knew about them; and when Rove and Ralston were aware that "non discussions" could occur without using e-mail using these systems. This is not impressive, especially given the clearly promulgated DC Standards of Conduct and the Hatch requirements.

Someone has some explaining to do. Ralston needs to get called back without any promise of immunity. Find the files, get the access-authorization e-mails, and find the IP numbers which EOP and Sidley Austin have openly permitted to be disclosed linking them to non-official websites. If anyone says that the information doesn't exist under oath, information exists outside NSA and American control showing they would have committed perjury. It's too early to talk to Ralston about immunity.

Summation

For the reasons above, we respectfully



Reject the NYT's call for a "focus" on e-mails;


Ask the media to broaden the call for a Congressional review of all collaborative tools EOP, OVP, GOP, DoJ, and outside contractors and legal counsel appear well positioned to use, and remain within the Ralston non-denial;


Call for understanding how this collaborative software program integrates with the Rove_K file format linked with Outlook, as disclosed in the DOJ data dump; and


Encourage a determination why Ralston's denial would not eliminate this means of "not discussing" an issue outside e-mail.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:gQ5T0wQt0rEJ:www.citizensforethics.org/node/29149+%22Ralston+needs+to+get+called+back+without+any+promise+of+immunity.%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[mod mom]

67. I copied 3 additional posting dates from Muck if anyone is interested. long.

then I went on vacation. Others at Muck were interested in preserving the info. theraP was trying to put together an analysis at TPM cafe but then I lost track until this thread.

[southern_belle]

83. Yes!!

Would you please post it. Thanks in advance. :popcorn:

[mod mom]

96. 7/27 anon posting @ Muck:

NOTE: I SOMETIMES INCLUDED OTHERS COMMENTS/QUESTIONS TO PUT ANON IN PERSPECTIVE:

Y 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.

Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 4:45 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?

Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 5:37 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!

Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:09 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?
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?

Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:32 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.” "

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

Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 9:49 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.

Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 9:54 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 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.

Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 9:59 PM

[mod mom]

97. 7/28 and 7/29 Posting @ Muck:

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 violating Geneva; and 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.

- - - -

there were too many shows going on in Afghanistan; they were really not going after AlQueda; and the staged engagements were just a dog and pony show, not really serious about defeating an enemy.]

Posted by:
Date: July 28, 2007 6:53 PM

JULY 29

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.

Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 2:04 PM

[L. Coyote]

76. Bradford A. Berenson, WH counsel, Represented Executive on Issues from Homeland Security to the USA

Who is really being represented? ???????

Bradford A. Berenson is one of the original eight associate counsels during Alberto Gonzales's tenure as White House counsel.
Represented Executive on Issues from Homeland Security to the USA Patriot Act ... Berenson’s responsibilities included work on judicial selection, executive privilege, and responses to congressional oversight efforts. .... He worked on the USA Patriot Act, the military order authorizing the use of military commissions, detainee policy and anti-terrorism litigation, presidential action against terrorist financing, and the restructuring of the federal government to create a new Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Berenson ... previously worked on the defense of complex white collar criminal matters... defended criminal cases at every stage of development, from corporate internal investigations and grand jury proceedings through trials, sentencings, and appeals, in areas as diverse as government contracts, environmental crime, health care, and public corruption ...

Berenson ... clerked for... Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ralston's attorney: Bradford Berenson, associate counsel under Gonzales at White House
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x995236#997432

Bradford A. Berenson, Ralston's USA firings lawyer, defends Bush spying.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x995236#997748

Mr. Berenson, the former White House associate counsel, said that in rare cases, the presidents' advisers may decide that an existing law violates the Constitution "by invading the president's executive powers as commander in chief." ........

[Buttercup McToots]

71. But BlackHatJack

MP said they could not be erased...they are in big bundles...yes?

[Blackhatjack]

85. I believe that is true.... so they are trying to change the road signs to disrail the search

What is amazing is that some Tech expert did not advise them of this very obvious flaw.

THat may tell us something... that this enterprise was conducted without top Tech advice. So the pool of nefarious actors may in fact be very small, like the Office of Special Plans out of the Pentagon.

[nonny]

168. Exactly! They use SharePoint

Government telework efforts can switch into the fast lane with Microsoft technology

Andrew Campbell, CEO of Microsoft partner Applied Knowledge Group, tells of one effort by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to create landing guidelines for an airport in Alaska. Usually, this process can take as long as one year as pilots, aircraft manufacturers, and airport and FAA officials work out a procedure in a seemingly endless chain of forwarded documents and quarterly meetings
But to avoid all that, in this case, a tech-savvy FAA employee set up a Microsoft SharePoint site, enabling people to collaborate in real time—in effect, completing the project by teleworking. The document was completed in three months. "That saved taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars," says Campbell, whose firm helps create telework and collaboration solutions for federal agencies.

Microsoft products provide solid foundation for teleworking

As the heart of the KSN, Microsoft SharePoint has shown itself to be an adaptable, powerful tool that enables the fast creation of shared workspaces that can be used to telework, to adapt to emergencies, and to bring widely scattered workers together. "There's hardly any training needed because it looks just like Office, which everybody already uses," says Simmons. "I entrust the users to build their own solutions and suites of offices. They're quite capable of doing that with SharePoint, and can design things around their own processes."


http://www.microsoft.com/industry/government/federal/telework.mspx

Microsoft has lots of products for the Federal Gov
_____________________________

Dell also a Federal Gov part of their site.
They offer SharePoint Portal Server

Dell has been implementing SharePoint solutions for our customers since Microsoft's first release of SharePoint - SharePoint Portal Server 2001. We have continued expanding our capabilities and experience through SharePoint Portal Server 2003, and offer demonstrated capabilities with Microsoft SharePoint Server 2007.

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/services/adi/dps_coll_svc?c=us&cs=RC1009777&l=en&s=fed

____________________________

So, maybe all the sharepoint documents (or whatever they are called) are stored on a SharePoint Portal Server.
Could be why Kyle & Monica didn't have any "files" to hand over to Conyers.

[InkAddict]

181. Here's another possible worksharing set up like a wiki

and look at the Government info page and the list of customers. One celestial/one biological(?)

http://etouch.net/products/collaboration/government.html

http://etouch.net/customers/index.html


:tinfoilhat:

[nonny]

176. More on SharePoint

SharePoint receives 5015.2 Certification

The Defense Department’s Joint Interoperability Test Command has certified that Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 complies with the DOD 5015.2 electronic recordkeeping standard.

Although written for mandatory Defense Department use, this standard is also used by civilian agencies to evaluate records management software. The National Archives and Records Administration endorsed using version 2 of DOD 5015.2 for all federal agencies.

http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/44382-1.html

[L. Coyote]

209. JOINT DOCTRINE PROCESS = poke around in here

JOINT DOCTRINE PROCESS
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/joint_doctrine_development.htm

The development and revision of joint doctrine follows a prescribed process which insures full participation by the Services, the Joint Staff, and the combatant commands. Development and revision timelines have also been established, based on multiple years of experience using the established development and revision process.

[nonny]

179. SharePoint -- CA Dept of Justice

California Dept. of Justice Criminal Intelligence Bureau CAL JRIES Web portal

The Criminal Intelligence Bureau (CIB) within the California Department of Justice is responsible for analyzing and disseminating information about illegal activities among diverse law-enforcement agencies in the state. The CIB sought to improve statewide information-sharing and collaboration by replacing an array of disconnected information technology (IT) systems used by various agencies. The new California Joint Regional Information Exchange System (CAL JRIES), built on a foundation of Microsoft Office Groove software and Microsoft Office SharePoint Server, provides collaborative workspaces and an integrated Web portal that allow participants to share files, track incidents, collaborate on investigations, and engage in other teamwork. This has resulted in better interagency relationships, more accurate information, and overall time and cost efficiencies.

http://www.microsoft.com/industry/government/homeland/courtjustice.mspx
_________________________

I think SharePoint is something to study more.

[G_Leo_Criley]

72. big k and r

wow... is right.

Thank you for posting this, and for all the thought provoking answers.

Anybody know: Is there a modern reference for Ultra and Coventry other than the WWII Winston Churchill reference? http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=268

Edited to simply say: D'oh...

I'll continue to try to unravel this stuff, and to continue reading others contributions!
I can't find a place to grab onto yet! But I choose the Constitution too.

Thanks all...

glc


:kick:

[L. Coyote]

77. Any thought to the idea: "third party data capture" = wiki IP data?

Isn't this basically a reference to the method of operation of Cheney's old trick with the NYT? Cheney could not reveal "secret" information, but he could discuss whatever appears in the NYT. So, he leaked the info to the NYT, then he could cite it and not be revealing "secret" info.

The use of third parties to place data accomplishes the same thing, placing it in a public domain where it is no longer secret.

Now the problem that has surfaced is we see the big picture, from which computers that info was placed. Now, the conundrum is whether these are "authorized" illegal leaks or "illegal" uses of USG computers.

Does this sound like a somewhat correct interpretation of part of the post?

[Buttercup McToots]

78. L. Coyote

You said in above post they have ip of mp
over TMP?

[L. Coyote]

80. Yes. Every single hit on a domain is logged and the IP number of the computer

making the request is recorded in the log files. I know every computer on the planet using my domain, right to the fraction of a second the request is made, and more.

When someone in Texas is trying to mess with my domain, I know who it is.
When a person wrote that I should carnally violate my mother, I knew what government computer was used, and had a chat with the boss!

[Duer 157099]

94. Just remember that some people use proxy servers

In which case, tracing might be impossible, except perhaps for the person/entity that manages the proxy server.

Anon is probably savvy enough to be posting via a proxy.

Now, why wouldn't the same be true of the EOP/DOJ etc? You'd think they'd know.

[redacted]

98. "They're still tring to figure out how they're in power despite their stupidity."

MP, who is very smart and technically savvy, doesn't think the key players here are all that smart and he's basically telling us that they have limited technical knowledge.

To me it sounds like he's telling us that they've made a lot of mistakes that more sophisticated types would not have made. He's basically telling us the kinds of analyses that need to be performed to exploit those mistakes.

If I were the MP I would be getting a little frustrated right about now that a more organized checking effort isn't being mounted.

[TahitiNut]

152. Yep. And IP addys can be spoofed, as well.

We're not at IPv6 - yet. :shrug:

[southern_belle]

81. Wow! - just wow!

I don't know what all this means exactly, but I know it's big!!! :applause:

[L. Coyote]

84. In part, what this means, is that those who have something to hide need to fear

Big Brother, e-Brother, or whatever you want to call IT.

You cannot hide from your own monster! :rofl:

[Raksha]

100. That's my take on it too. n/t

[L. Coyote]

87. WA POST By Dan Froomkin: White House Wiki Watch

White House Wiki Watch
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, August 17, 2007; 12:56 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/08/17/BL2007081701172_pf.html


WikiScanner, the most spectacular new invention on the Internet, allows you to see who has made changes to Wikipedia, the popular Web encyclopedia that anyone can edit -- and that includes White House staffers.

Wired News has been keeping a running tally on some of the more amusing and outrageous discoveries. (Someone at Exxon cleaning up the entry on the Valdez oil spill; someone at Halliburton editing the entry on war crimes, etc.) There have been so many edits by congressional staffers that the topic gets its own page on Wikipedia.

So what about the White House? Well, this WikiScanner results page is a list of Wikipedia edits by people who appear to use White House (eop.gov) servers.

(If you can't get through, try going directly to Wikipedia for a list of edits by these IP addresses:

63.161.169.64 = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.161.169.64
63.161.169.65 = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.161.169.65
63.161.169.66 = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.161.169.66
63.161.169.67 = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.161.169.67
63.161.169.68 = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.161.169.68

[Buttercup McToots]

90. k

got it...

[L. Coyote]

91. good example

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_of_National_Drug_Control_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=24751432

http://www.nida.nih.gov/DrugPages/MTF.html

http://www.mpp.org/site/c.glKZLeMQIsG/b.1086505/k.AF5A/About.htm

[Buttercup McToots]

114. These are the ips of those who change it?

:argh:

[L. Coyote]

122. Correct, the White House IP block. Their server will have a record of the individual computers

as do ISPs. Individual computers are assigned numbers to when networking. One aspect of recent legal discussion is a requirement that ISPs preserve this info for a specific term.

[Duer 157099]

93. Thanks for posting this -- when I heard the news about the wiki/IP stuff

I immediately thought of these TPM/anon postings, so I'm glad to find I wasn't so far off base.

This is a huge project to take on, and anon is suggesting the use of distributed computing of sorts. I get why maybe he would not have mentioned "wiki" specifically, although if any of the people involved had read his posts, I'm sure they would have figured out what he meant and would have ceased the actions.

I can see why he brought it to TPM -- after all, remember, TPM was the blog that can arguably be credited with keeping the USAtty issue in the limelight for long enough for Congress to take note. And TPMers can dig through muck and connect a lot of dots.

Anon seems to be trying to spur the TPM community in that direction, and for the most part, nobody is really biting.

[Buttercup McToots]

102. Good Mornin`

:donut:

[rosesaylavee]

103. Wish anon had a friend that

he or she could just give the info to ... these posts are fascinating to a point but how do we know its NOT a wild goose chase designed by a freeper?

edit to add: Read the above entries and I am thinking now its not a freeper. Wish I knew more about how to hunt up the info.

Thanks for posting B McT!

[Buttercup McToots]

104. This is interesting...

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/08/documents-from-.html

August 20, 2007
Documents from Dick, not Bush?!?!?
by emptywheel

As ThinkProgress reports, the Senate Judiciary Committee was about to issue subpoenas on the warrantless wiretapping program. And then Cheney told Specter no. And Specter did what Cheney told him to do. Lesson number 383,947 in why Specter is the most pathetic piece of haggis in the Senate.

In fact, we were about to issue subpoenas then and one of the senators came to our meeting and said that the vice president had met with the Republican senators and told them they were not allowed to issue subpoenas.

Not quite sure that’s my understanding of the separation of powers, but it seemed to work at that time.

I'm just guessing outtamyarse, but what do you want to bet the subpoenas in question were ones Schumer wanted to issue to John Ashcroft, James Comey, and Jack Goldsmith back in February 2006? You know, the ones that would have elicited the hospital story from Comey before the PATRIOT Act got renewed? You think maybe Cheney told Specter that he couldn't solicit the very same testimony that has gotten the Administration in such hot water this year?

Nah.

But the thing I'm most interested in is the reasoning behind the dual treatment of the White House and OVP. As Leahy said, the Administration claimed that it is not part of the Executive Office of the President.

Incidentally, in the administration’s response today, they claimed the Office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive Office of the President. So it’s some kind of fourth branch of government.

Well, that’s wrong. Both the United States Code says it is part of the president — oh, incidentally, at least this morning, as I left Vermont, I checked the White House Web site. And even their own Web site, this morning, at least, says that the Executive Office — that the vice president is part of the Executive Office of the President.

What I find most interesting, though, is that these two purportedly constitutionally separate offices responded differently to the subpoena. OVP turned over a log of documents responsive to the subpoena.

I received a letter this morning from the Office of the Vice President identifying some documents that would be responsive to the committee’s subpoena.

Now, the acknowledgement of these documents is a good first step. I don’t know why it’s taken so long, but it’s a good first step. And it should be followed by the administration turning them over which, of course, is what we requested in the subpoena.

But the White House response did not even offer that much--it refused to even offer a list of documents.

The letter I received today from the White House Counsel did not identify any documents, but expressed vague hopes of negotiation and accommodation while raising the specter of more privilege claims.

So, what gives? Dick Cheney is all of a sudden more cooperative with the outdated second branch of government than Bush? Why the different approach?

[Blackhatjack]

106. The doc log provided by OVP is likely designed to mislead and divert attention...

... from the really incriminating documents.

[L. Coyote]

124. The subpoena was issued to the WH. OVP responded. NOT?

That is an admission of the OVP being in the Executive under the White House, I believe. The VP did not get a separate subpoena, as far as I know.

[Senator]

105. To kibbitz and kick -- a couple of things

I'm only vaguely hip to this anon poster and haven't gotten deep into it because I haven't seen anything that really constitutes "inside info," but I certainly appreciate that others are following up and would encourage it. I would just offer this to those folks:

First, there's been some discussion of lawyers and stupidity. So I would suggest keeping in mind the very recent WH brain infusion. The fact that these 9 (yes, count 'em 9) new lawyers -- with specific resumes -- are actually of the think-their-way-out-of-a-paper-bag type tells us that legal (and thus technical) idiocy was rampant in the past, but that it shouldn't be expected going forward.

Also, I'd like someone "more into this" to look at these postings at C&L I happened across, by someone called "Googling" -- it starts at post #95, but the last one (#112) is most interesting (to me anyway).

---

[Buttercup McToots]

107. Posted for the Senator...comments...?

Googling Says: moonsha @ 111:

Googling #107…Excellent post!

I just thought of something: The IP numbers in the Wiki updates can tell us something very important: by looking at the content the WH-EOP-OVP staffers were updating on the wiki, we can get a sense of the “deliberations” that were occurring. Normally, until disclosed, the deliberations are privileged. however, now that the President’s legal counsel has disclosed the substance of their “work products” — the updates to the wikis made using official government resources — the President loses any legal basis to claim executive privilege. Fox’s updates to the wiki have led C&L’s John Amato to the very thing which could prove to be the undoing of the President’s claim of executive privilege.

Another way to look at the DoJ Staff wiki up dates isn’t to look at the content they were updating, but to compare the times they were updating things; and cross reference these with the DoJ Workflows mentioned and disclosed in the DoJ Staff counsel calendars at the DOJ E-mail staff dumps with the Congressional Committee. For example, if there is a given staff dump which includes redacted information for a specific time; yet, that staff counsel’s computer is linked with a wiki update, we can have an idea of where they were, what was on their mind, and whether the DoJ and WH Legal counsel have retained/hidden information because its really privileged; or whether the failure to disclose information is linked more with a desire to hide evidence of illegal misconduct, or other informatory which cannot be hidden.

We can also use the C&L outline of the Wiki updates as a template to examine the types of IP numbers connected with the Vice President; and all legal counsel on the list of Libby Commutation letters. By looking up each of these letters disclosed to the court, we can look up each of the firms, cross reference these with the IP numbers; then examine in the wikis the specific information they are commenting on. Using this approach, its possible to connect on of the firms to the WH rendition updates; and also to the law firms affirmative knowledge of the WH IT e-mail and retention policies. Curiously, using this method, the OVP and Addington computers can be linked — indirectly — through the DoD General counsel’s office.

By using a combination of e-mail communication, and e-mail lists, its possible to create a matrix showing all the RNC e-mail accounts, the DOJ Staff Atty, DoD General Counsel, JAGs, and the WH Counsel e-mails; then cross reference these e-mails with specific times that the EOP was was making updates to various intelligence/DoD-related websites on the wiki; then compare the times that the DoD General counsel was commenting on specific issues in the briefings to the WH General Counsel with similar times and content changes to the wikis.

It’s also possible to look at common-links between inside and outside firms. For example, in the DOJ Staff side of the world, it’s possible to trace wiki updates to a specific DoJ Staff IP number; then cross reference these with the known data captures of IMs and phone logs between DoJ Staff and their outside spouses working with various lobbyists, contractors, and other personnel which DoJ and the WH are required to log.

You can use your imagination. The bottom line with this FOX update to the Wiki’s is that C&L has pointed the entire blogosphere to the very data which the WH probably never imagined would be linked: Specific details about legal counsel conversations, comments, and work products. Now that they’ve been disclosed, each of these small pieces of information links, eventually, with NSA encryption updates, Geneva requirements, and specific information showing that the legal counsel within the WH-EOP-DoJ-OVP knew of the legal requirements with the Hatch Act, FISA, prisoner treatment, and other standards related to attorney conduct. They’ve left the needed evidence for war crimes prosecutors to prove that the staff counsel were discussing the very things that they say could not e disclosed: Legal requirements, professional obligations, data retention requirements.

Notably, when Sara Turner was asked about her non-use of the official e-mails — contrary to official policy — she stated that she was doing this to ensure “complicate” with the Hatch Act. yet, when someone uses a non-official e-mail, this shows the opposite: Their intention not to comply. Now that C&L has disclosed this wiki-related information attached to the IP numbers for the President, Executive branch, and legal counsel, the Congress will be hard pressed to explain why it continues to pretend noting can be done. The evidence is outside the White House: What staff counsel were working on. Whether those work products are or are not official is irrelevant: Either they were doing something official, or they were not — but it doesn’t matter in that their IP number is no linked with disclosed information that cannot be shielded by any claim of privilege.

Thanks against C&L, you may have found the hidden evidence which the WH legal counsel and civilian legal counsel connected with FISA, AT&T data mining, and other war crimes may have never imagined would link them to specific content, work products, and other information once though to be hidden and forever protected by attorney-client privilege. This C&L information throws all these claims of executive privilege into the air, and gives the Judicial Branch a legal basis to reject the claim of privilege because of it being abused. Thanks again C&L. I hope the world will appreciate the importance of the information you have disclosed in the context of shedding more light into the WH legal counsel deliberations.

It remains to be seen which enterprising people have already developed a product which can automatically

- A. Take the EOP-OVP-DOJ IP data, and organize it to compare the wiki-updates with the DoJ Staff counsel workflows;
- B. Identify which content is or is not related to official or non-official business;
- C. Compare the wiki updates with IP numbers; ten cross index the on-line non-official use of government resources with specific USC Codes violations;
- D. Cross index the online conduct with DC Bar Counsel rules of conduct;
- E. Identify which content has been inappropriately withheld, despite the wiki update disclosing details of what staff counsel were discussing;
- F. Cross index the public claims of various bloggers about FISA violations, Geneva violations, prisoner abuse, and other information with specific military units known to have been included on the DOD Staff counsel briefings to the WH on intelligence, rendition, and other prisoner of war issues; and
- G. Identify which legal counsel were publicly commenting that the issues could not be discussed; yet privately they were commenting on legal counsel issues which were related to illegal activity, FISA violations, cryptography, classified information, or specific military units included in briefings to the WH Counsel on issues of intelligence, training, and other data management systems through not to have been publicly linked or associated with the White House

Bonus points:

1. Which formerly assigned WH Counsel was publicly commenting on a wiki related to WH IT updates, data retention; and has publicly stated they are experts on the hatch Act; but their clients appear to have a problem complying with the very thing that the law firm was hired to advise them?

2. Can you find the name of the Staff counsel within DoJ Staff who was assigned to the JTTF liaison team, and has been improperly using DoJ Staff resources to review non-official information during duty hours?

3. What is the name of the outside firm-lobbyists which has been linked to funding flows into the Middle East; and whose spouse has a high position within the RNC legal team?

4. Using the wiki updates, can you find the name of the defense contractor who has an important technical role within the NSA surveillance community; and whose products have been linked with domestic illegal FISA violations?

5. Relying on the wiki updates, can you find the name of the CIA-related entity which has been involved with rendition, supplies troops with various equipment in Germany, and is within walking distance of the CIA Headquarters in McClean?

6. What is the name of commander in Charge of the the Army Unit Signals Intelligence Unit located in Germany; and which days did the EOP Staff counsel update the wiki associated with the various military units listed on the briefings given by DOD General Counsel related to rendition and T1 training?

7. Which formerly assigned OLC Staff counsel was linked with making updates to their own wiki page in an apparent effort to conduct a public relations campaign to get them nominated to the Supreme Court?

8. Can you find the home address of at least one of the law clerks assigned to any of the law firms within one-family member of the Supreme Court?

9. Using the wiki update information can you find the home address, telephone number, and other non-released public information of the President’s recent hire to his legal team; and who is conducting the legal review of the RNC e-mails?

Double Elimination Round

A. Can you find David Addington’s home address; and which metro stration does Addington use when taking public transportation to work?

B. How many miles — as the crow flies — is the President’s Chief Legal advisor from the White House?

All these answers and more could be waiting for you on the wikis. Did the President even bother to consider that his claim of privilege would be pierced by the disclosures of his own staff counsel?

Great job C&L!

Quote This Comment August 15th, 2007 at 7:38 PM - PDT

[Blackhatjack]

108. This may be the most significant explanation yet of how to unravel this mystery....

Sure seems that there are lots of similarities between posts of Googlin at C & L and Anonymous at TPM.

Being technically illiterate when it comes to computers and how they interact on the internet, I can still grasp the enormity of the task that lies ahead in in unraveling the open source evidence of wrongdoing by this Administration and its enablers.

IMHO to decode the information and use it effectively to prove the wrongdoing we all suspect it is going to take lots of support from more than just one liberal blog. Some way the task needs to be shared in an organized way between many liberal blogs. How to accomplish this? I have no idea.

One other comment ... the reason there has been no public comment by Congress on what is obviously known may be that not all tentacles of this evil enterprise have been explored and the investigation may still be ongoing to reach important decisionmakers at the top. Early public disclosure may cut off the ability to gather critical evidence on actors at the root of the corruption.

[Buttercup McToots]

109. I agree BHJ

I wonder if TMP knows of this one...?

[DemReadingDU]

111. wow, great sleuthing

I had not realized there was additional info over at C&L. Makes me wonder if there are mystery postings at other blogs, too.

edit to add...the person mentioned above at dailykos, seems to have researched some. It is all so mind boggling, it is so enormous.

[Buttercup McToots]

110. This is wowie zowie...

And I can't begin to wrap my brain around it...:crazy:

Techie peeps are needed...

[Duer 157099]

135. That post was made by TPM's Anon, I'm sure of it

He's all over the blogosphere, trying to point a critical mass of bloggers in the right direction.

What I love about this, is that it sort of turns the whole surveillance thing back on those who were so hip to use it on the rest of the public -- although in a completely different (and LEGAL) way.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

161. Well, I sure hope he's techie enough...

To know about chaining proxy servers to protect his identity. Or Tor.

[L. Coyote]

162. Just walk thru any rich R neighborhood and use an unsecure wireless server.

They are all ISPs and if you avoid cameras, who will know you walked by and stopped in the dark for a few minutes with a laptop.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

163. Excellent point.

With the right software and, perhaps, a good antenna bodged onto that laptop(it has been done), you can easily find open access points, too. Secret is to use them like one-time pads: use them once, never use them again. Stay out of that neighborhood for a while, if not forever. Also, use Evidence Eliminator on your HDD.

[G_Leo_Criley]

112. morning kick

:kick:

glc

[RainDog]

113. kick and question

what about contractors including Blackwater? What about their assistance in black sites in other countries? Yoo and Gonzales would be the most likely lawyers deepmodem mentions... but contractors like Blackwater could act w/o knowledge of the NSA, etc. since they're the "private" army for the Bush junta. They have their own planes, even.

I haven't read all of this thread...have to work, but wanted to kick it back up and hope some of the technocrats can follow up and explain to those of us in the hoi-polloi.

btw- about the JMM issue- he's a journalist who has a reputation to maintain. He would naturally be extremely cautious about some anonymous poster who claims to be sharing info since JMM's reliability, etc. is part of his cache as a journalist.

I think, if deepmodem is a real thing (which I do, but maybe that just indicates how gullible I am...) that he/she chose TPMmuck b/c of the work JMM had done in the past with another excellent investigative reporter Laura Rozen at War and Piece. They wrote about "Iran-Contra II" and the Franklin spy scandal and the Italian job re: yellowcake, etc.

[Blackhatjack]

115. I agree about JMM being cautious, but at some point acknowledging the comment is newsworthy...

You don't have to ascribe any kind of credibility to the Anonymous poster or the content of his postings --but you can acknowledge that the postings have occurred and that others are attempting to verify the veracity of what Anonymous has posted so far. Finish the blurb off with something like we will continue to monitor these matters.

If JMM did that kind of short piece their credibility is not on the line regardless of how it eventually plays out.

However, people familiar with investigative journalism techniques know that when credible investigative sources give the equivalent of a 'no comment' by remaining silent, often there is a lot going on behind the scenes. Otherwise they would run a piece like the one I suggested above.

I don't know what is happening here with JMM, but I do not think they would let the opportunity for a big story to pass them by, and they must understand that they are being linked to this Anonymous blogger since he has posted extensively in their comments section.

Remaining silent certainly tells us something. The question is 'what?"

[Blackhatjack]

116. Just a theory... but could RNC complicity and corruption be out in the open

Which might expose them for the corrupt enterprise that their leaders have engaged in under the banner of the Republican Party?

THose RNC emails are damning enough. But top RNC officials and their 'manipulation' of voting 'events' might cause an implosion inside the Repub Party, if there is evidence in the open that proves their role.

How would the public react to such disclosures?

And here is a real nightmare scenario --what if evidence is out in the open that top Democrats were being blackmailed over information obtained by warrantless eavesdropping? Forcing continued enablement of this corrupt Administration?

There may be lots of gored oxen on both sides, and that may explain the hesitancy in moving forward against the corrupt parties.

[Buttercup McToots]

118. Exactly

This is what I've been afraid of...

And here is a real nightmare scenario --what if evidence is out in the open that top Democrats were being blackmailed over information obtained by warrantless eavesdropping? Forcing continued enablement of this corrupt Administration?

I hope someone is working on this...
make that praying...

[L. Coyote]

125. First, they would have had to be doing something wrong. This is very doubtful.

Where is there even the slightest hint any Dem was involved in their Corrupt Enterprise?

[Blackhatjack]

134. I agree with you regarding this corrupt enterprise... however, ....

the Congressmen subject to blackmail on both sides of the aisle would not necessarily have to have anything to do with this corrupt enterprise.

I am just supposing, making no allegation, but when you are searching for the truth you should not eliminate any possibility that might explain uncharacteristic behavior until you have evidence to prove that possibility does not exist.

[L. Coyote]

139. That's a far stretch from the Occam's Razor Principle.

While such a possibility exists, attempting political blackmail has very high risks also. And, it would create very real enemies, potentiating a huge back-fire.

[Blackhatjack]

143. It was an open secret that Tom Delay practiced just such politics on the Hill...

... he kept files on his fellow Congressmen, and used such information when it came to 'persuading' members to change their votes.

[AntiFascist]

146. Pardon me for bringing this up on Democratic Underground....

there's a book called "Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA". Chapter 17 in particular describes Arkansas as a "money laundering heavan." To make a long story short, I feel it is incredibly naive to ignore the fact that there may be certain ties between the Bush administrations and the Clintons. Although some may feel this to be ancient history, this could very well explain why there is a strong hesitancy to investigate any CIA or other intelligence related corruption (possibly tying back to the BCCI or Iran/Contra scandals) while Hillary is running for president. Notice also that Sibel Edmonds is having a horrible time getting any attention from the Democrats on her case.

[Blackhatjack]

148. There is no logical explanation why Democrats have not embraced Sibel Edmonds...

I have tried to imagine what their reasoning must be to explain their failure to hold hearings and take her testimony.

So far I am still in the dark except to think that someone on our team wants her to remain silent for some reason.

Where treason is involved it would seem to be a matter of some urgency.

[Babsbrain]

151. Why should this topic be subject to apoplogy?

The mystery poster mentioned Iran Contra and its affiliation with Cheney and National Security Council.

It is MORE than possible Program X involves a record poppy crop in Afghanistan and/or some other countries. The airport at Mena Arkansas, home of Iran Contra, is awfully busy for such a small town.

Makes you wonder where the money to pay for this war, pay off world leaders, pay for the mercenaries, pay off the corporations, pay off the offshore people, etc. etc. comes from.

It is very plausible.

[L. Coyote]

159. It is much easier to bring things up than to back them up. n/t

The Arkansas Project is a classic study of that sort of propaganda practice.

Bush vs. Gore, the 'Arkansas Project,' the USA firings, and the Swiftboat Admiral
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1029113

[AntiFascist]

167. Hmmm, this is interesting "propaganda"....

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0707/S00058.htm

Suzan Mazur: The other person who moved on up to higher office from the Mena episode is Asa Hutchinson. Hutchinson was US Attorney for Mena and western Arkansas and oversaw the quashing of the drugs & guns smuggling investigation by the grand jury. Hutchinson was subsequently promoted to DEA Director and now serves as the Department of Homeland Security’s Under Secretary for Border & Transportation Security.


What does Hutchinson’s promotion tell us?

Roger Morris: Well Hutchinson again is part of the same culture of accommodation and compromise. It’s clear that he was aware of something going on, whether it was rationalized to him as a national security operation or there were payoffs involved, I don’t know. But his career flourished as a result of having brushed up against this, as a result of having been right there on the scene. That’s not what happens to people who blow the whistle. So that (a) he undoubtedly knew something about what was going on, (b) he certainly had to have known that it involved illegality and (c) he benefits and profits accordingly.

...

Suzan Mazur: Aside from Mena serving as the air hub for the trafficking of drugs & guns – you report in the book that Nella, Arkansas, just outside Mena, was a training grounds for Contra pilots and guerrillas. And you note that Seal also flew in to Mena Medellin cartel kingpin Jorge Ochoa to show him the operation.

...

Suzan Mazur: Was there a draft of the letter L.D. Brown sent to the CIA that Clinton made notes on?

Roger Morris: I don’t know about the notes. There was a recommendation Clinton made. And as the book explains, Clinton’s connections with the Agency go back a long way. Since the book was published, I’ve had people come forward and tell me that they knew much more than even the informants I was talking to, and I was talking to people who were retired from the Agency, who were quite categorical about Bill Clinton having been a source for Operation Chaos and for informing on American students abroad while he was at Oxford and all the rest.

Since then I’ve had people come to me and say, well don’t you know you missed the story, he was actually recruited at Georgetown. Georgetown was a veritable recruiting center in those days for the CIA – not just for Americans but for the large number of foreign students, the sons of foreign wealthy who were at Georgetown. So Bill’s contact with the Agency went back for years and years.

More about CHAOS:

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIi.htm

A second major element of the CHAOS operation was to pursue specific inquiries from the FBI about the activity of particular Americans traveling abroad.

CHAOS received a great deal of information regarding Americans from CIA stations abroad, as well as from the FBI itself. In addition, CHAOS eventually received such information from its own agents who participated in domestic dissident activity in America in order to develop radical "credentials" as cover for overseas assignment. CHAOS also obtained information about Americans from other domestic CIA components, from the CIA mail opening project and from a National Security Agency international communications intercept program. 1

In the process, the CHAOS project amassed thousands of files on Americans, indexed hundreds of thousands of Americans into its computer records, and disseminated thousands of reports about Americans to the FBI and other government offices. Some of the information concerned the domestic activity of those Americans.

[L. Coyote]

198. There are several possible paths to consider.

What was Asa Hutchinson role in the Arkansas Project, and the subsequent cover-up of the crimes and false testimony that led to Clinton's impeachment?

Occam's Razor!

[AntiFascist]

204. It seems pretty clear what was going on....

as far as the Arkansas Project is concerned, it was important for them to quickly pin superficial crimes on Bill Clinton, or at least smear him (such as direct involvement with cocaine smuggling, sexual misconduct, Whitewater) and to coverup any deeper CIA-related involvement that might cross over to previous Republican administrations and scandals. All the smoke and mirrors over the Clinton impeachment may have served to coverup much deeper and broader governmental corruption which is only now coming to light.

[KoKo]

144. Interesting...and here's something from the C&L Comments Section

that poster "upthread" pointed out as an interesting post:

Bonus points:

1. Which formerly assigned WH Counsel was publicly commenting on a wiki related to WH IT updates, data retention; and has publicly stated they are experts on the hatch Act; but their clients appear to have a problem complying with the very thing that the law firm was hired to advise them?

2. Can you find the name of the Staff counsel within DoJ Staff who was assigned to the JTTF liaison team, and has been improperly using DoJ Staff resources to review non-official information during duty hours?

3. What is the name of the outside firm-lobbyists which has been linked to funding flows into the Middle East; and whose spouse has a high position within the RNC legal team?

4. Using the wiki updates, can you find the name of the defense contractor who has an important technical role within the NSA surveillance community; and whose products have been linked with domestic illegal FISA violations?

5. Relying on the wiki updates, can you find the name of the CIA-related entity which has been involved with rendition, supplies troops with various equipment in Germany, and is within walking distance of the CIA Headquarters in McClean?

6. What is the name of commander in Charge of the the Army Unit Signals Intelligence Unit located in Germany; and which days did the EOP Staff counsel update the wiki associated with the various military units listed on the briefings given by DOD General Counsel related to rendition and T1 training?

7. Which formerly assigned OLC Staff counsel was linked with making updates to their own wiki page in an apparent effort to conduct a public relations campaign to get them nominated to the Supreme Court?

8. Can you find the home address of at least one of the law clerks assigned to any of the law firms within one-family member of the Supreme Court?

9. Using the wiki update information can you find the home address, telephone number, and other non-released public information of the President’s recent hire to his legal team; and who is conducting the legal review of the RNC e-mails?

Double Elimination Round

A. Can you find David Addington’s home address; and which metro stration does Addington use when taking public transportation to work?

B. How many miles — as the crow flies — is the President’s Chief Legal advisor from the White House?

All these answers and more could be waiting for you on the wikis. Did the President even bother to consider that his claim of privilege would be pierced by the disclosures of his own staff counsel?

Great job C&L!

[Buttercup McToots]

119. Somebody better hurry up...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1630477

:hide:

[Buttercup McToots]

120. He was over on Think P last night, I think...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/20/cheney-leahy-subpoena/


snip:
#44 What else did the WH-EOP-GOP agree to; and what others things did the Congress not do that it had an oath to do?

Comment by Anon — August 20, 2007 @ 4:47 pm

#75 & 76
Raw is reporting OVP Counsel is saying the Senate Subpoena is wrong.

HOwever, if you look at the Supboena related to FISA, the “Definitions” clearly includes OVP wihin the definition of White House. DOesn’t matter if OVP agrees. Also, note at the bottom of the pgae on this link: Look who’s name was on the subpoean –(Subpoena packet for documents from the Office of the Vice President, sent via Shannen Coffin, Esq.) — The same OVP Counsel that says, “You didn’t send it to the right people.”

How is OVP Counsel responding to something they “didn’t get”?

OVP Counsel from the Raw Report:


“Leahy also said he had received a letter Monday from the Office of the Vice President indicating that Vice President Dick Cheney is not part of the Executive Office of the President. Because of that, Cheney’s lawyer Shannen W. Coffin wrote, he is not required to respond to subpoenas targeting him that were sent to the President’s office and Department of Justice.

- Her name is on the Leahy webpage for the issuance of supboenas

- Her name is on the letter Leahy Sent

- Page 8 and 9 of the Suppoena with her name on it is to David Addington; and includes in the definition of White House the OVP Staff.

Comment by Anon — August 20, 2007 @ 5:57 pm

Look at the definition provided in the subpoena page 9 :


”’The term “White House” includes: all offices, individuals, or entities within the
White House Office, including the Office of the Counsel to the President, the
Office of the Chief of Staff, and the President himself; the Office of the Vice
President, including the Vice President himself; and the National Security Council
and its staff.”’


Doesn’t matter if OVP counsel agrees or disagrees with that definition. THe supboena was issued/approved/served to OVP counsel with that intent. Doesn’t matter if OVP Counsel agrees or disagrees with the Senate intent.

This appears to be a dilatory action by OVP Counsel. Encourage DC Bar to review.

Comment by Anon — August 20, 2007 @ 6:02 pm

#86
This one reaaly food for thought...
Here’s more bad news for addington: Page 2 of 5, defining specific duties for Addington, subject of the Senate subpoena to OVP:



“(1) Security Clearance Procedures. (i)
The Counsel to the Vice President will:


Page 3 of 5 is also a problem for EOP and OVP: “5) Transmittal of Classified Material—
(i) Outside the Office of the Vice President
and the White House Complex.”
Addington well knew about this, as did all EOP-OVP legal counsel.


(j) Penalties. Any individual breach of security may warrant penalties up to and including the separation of the individual
from his employment or criminal prosecution.

Wiki Information: FISA, CIA, and EOP

Wondering what this is all about and where this is going? Think back: It’s illegal to use computers for non-official business; and to discuss classified information about covert activities. Let’s take a look at the recent wiki updates by IP Number connected with the White House. Type the following phrase into your search engine of choice: ( 63.161.169.66 Special Activities Division )
See the result: That means for that a given search linked with EOP, that someone subject to the Leahy Subpoena was inside the White House-EOP; and at that hour looking things up.

There is no basis for the WH to not respond to requests for information related to this question: “How was the illegally captured information, gathered in violation of FISA, used to support the CIA rendition program?”

Curious, this would help answer the question: Who inside the White House was reviewing the CIA operational plans, then confirming publicly that they were reviewing a classified document; and how was this EOP-related person using this information to coordinate things?

Disclosure EOP Staff Reviewing CIA Program

“Special Activities Division” is something that appears to have been linked with a document the WH employee received, reviewed, and had access. Who inside the White House in 2005 knew of this term; and which e-mails were sent from this IP to whom on that day related to this CIA activity that was supposed to have been classified?

Again, in plain English: What’s happened is the Wiki-related information is telling us something that the White House says it cannot discuss, reveal, or comment on: Known White House-related personnel who were deliberating on, reviewing, and discussing specific things related to the CIA; and that IP number is linked with classified information. Once that particular record containing this CIA-related term was checked out, there was an access log created, and those people before this date are on that access list for that document.

Illegal Activity or Breach of Privilege

The President’s claim that this material cannot be discussed is absurd: His own staff were commenting on the wikis on issues related to classified, sensitive, and operational details related to the CIA. The blunt question is: What is Addington hiding about the CIA involvement with rendition; and which personnel prior to 2005 — the date of this wiki update — were discussing this disclosed term: Where are their e-mails; who were they coordinating with at the CIA; which private contractors were involved; and Which EOP staff was coordinating with WH Counsel on this disclosure?

Either the information at this wiki update is official, and breaches privilege; or it is not official, and that person at that IP number at that date-time was using the WH IP-computer for non-official purposes (a violation of the law). Either the Congress is aware of this illegal activity and refuses to do anything about it; or the Congress knows full well that the basis for this privilege claim is non-sense. Cannot have it both ways, Congress. Action is required. This disclosure has been known since January 2005; and the GOP Congress has done nothing. Leahy’s disclosure today — that teh WH-Congress-GOP agreed not to issue/respond to subpoena — forces us to ask what else is going on; what they know; and what illegal activity Addington, EOP, and the CIA were known to have been involved with.

Comment by Anon — August 20, 2007 @ 6:33 pm

83. Curious comment: ”’“Could it be that the Dems aren’t pushing too hard because they are afraid the Repubs will pull out all the tricks in 2008 and do what they can to regain control? ”’ The notion of “not pushing hard” would suggest they are not fully asserting their oath. Doesn’t matter what their “reason” is: They’re supposed to use all lawful options. They may have a motivation, but given the disclosure today that GOP-WH agreed not to engage in discovery with subpoenas, leaves much to be desired: DNC has some catching up to do. Today. Doesn’t matter what their 2008 election objectives are. Today, they have a legal duty to force a response. What may or may not happen in the future is speculative, irrelevant, and cannot be the basis to refuse to act today.

Comment by Anon — August 20, 2007 @ 6:59 pm

88. Aplogies to all readers. 88 is confusing as formatted.

Everything after “(j) Penalties. Any individual breach . . .” should not be italized or indented.

Comment: The citation ends before “Wiki Information: FISA, CIA, and EOP”; and this should not be italized or indented. Sorry.

Clarifiction: These three lines should not be indented or italized; they are not part of the link:

1. “Wiki Information . . .”
2. “Wondering what this is . . ”
3. “There is no basis for the WH. . .”

Comment by Anon — August 20, 2007 @ 7:05 pm

[Blackhatjack]

121. I followed instructions and put ref in search engine and got a whale of a lot of info, now...

when I try to insert the many site references in the search engine that just leads to even large data files.

Someone with an understanding of how data files are created and organized is going to have to decipher this massive amount of information for the rest of us.

[Buttercup McToots]

123. What does it mean?

Is it like raw code?

[Blackhatjack]

129. I would cut and paste some of it but it is huge, and divided into groups...

One section contains what I thought were websites searched, so I cut and pasted one of the entries into Google search engine and the results were another data file larger than the first in similar format.

I know the information is there to back up what Anonymous is trying to share with us.

I just don't know how to interpret it, navigate it, and make sense of it.

These are the instructions Anonymous gave in the THinkP comment :

"Wondering what this is all about and where this is going? Think back: It’s illegal to use computers for non-official business; and to discuss classified information about covert activities. Let’s take a look at the recent wiki updates by IP Number connected with the White House. Type the following phrase into your search engine of choice: ( 63.161.169.66 Special Activities Division )
See the result: That means for that a given search linked with EOP, that someone subject to the Leahy Subpoena was inside the White House-EOP; and at that hour looking things up."

[Wiley50]

133. I Posted in the Computer Users Group for Someone to Help Us with This

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=242x15889

[redacted]

149. "Type the following phrase into your SEARCH ENGINE OF CHOICE"

I don't think it's safe to assume the MP is suggesting Google as the search engine to use.

I have a Firefox extension that allows plugging the same search into several different search engines. Do a similar search on Yahoo, use quotes around the IP address and the 3-word phrase, and you don't get a data dump.

You go right to the Wiki Scanner, the IP address lights up all over the page, and there are 4 entries with both character strings.

That's as much time as I had to check on my work break.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%2263.161.169.66%22+%22Special+Activities+Division%22&y=Search&u=wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php%3Fip1%3D63.161.169.0-255%26ip2%3D%26ip3%3D%26ip4%3D&w=%2263+161+169+66%22+%22special+activities+division%22&d=Gjenv-ljPTnU&icp=1&.intl=us

[Blackhatjack]

164. I think you are definitely onto something here....

If you read Buttercup's cut and paste that includes the instructions, I think you got the results anonymous was describing.

[L. Coyote]

169. Google is the one to use. What he is saying/illustrating is the IP records

that are kept and available, in this case. Note the two results supply a list of IPs and the number of requests for each. That is the sort of record that can be used to reconstruct web activity, and find whose computer has gone where on the web, and find who all has been to a certain domain or web page.

[Blackhatjack]

170. Why the different results between using Google and Yahoo?

Using the same search terms, different results appear to be reported. Why?

[L. Coyote]

172. Each search engine crawls their own list of web sites and caches what they think are relevant

and ignore some sites. Some search engines are trying to cache the whole web, others not. Crawling is done periodically. Google crawls DU repeatedly every day. I've seen a post I start rise to the near top in Google within 24 hours, given the right keywords are all planted several times.

[Blackhatjack]

173. So what do you make of the results from each? Google & Yahoo? n/t

[L. Coyote]

175. Google treats the IP string as one word, Yahoo treats it as 4 terms

Google's search engine is more intelligently handling the input, and providing more useful results.
Yahoo gives a ton of crap back, and not the new DU page. Since this pm, Google has added the DU mentions from today!!

The`search is: 63.161.169.66 Special Activities Division

[redacted]

182. Don't think so, L. Coyote

"Yahoo gives a ton of crap back,"

First of all, did you actually look at the Yahoo link I posted? It seems like you didn't, or aren't looking at the same page that BlackHatJack and I are talking about.

"Since this pm, Google has added the DU mentions from today!!"

As an aside, Google already had the DU pages in the index when I first logged in at about noon PT today, about 13 hours ago. I'm not sure how knowing that is helpful, since update frequency isn't the issue here.

"Google's search engine is more intelligently handling the input, and providing more useful results. "

But Yahoo uses Google's search engine.

Now, here's my opinion. Folks were complaining all day today that the data dump produced by literal typing using the MP's recommended search wasn't useful. The EOP IP was mentioned once in each logfile, and it wasn't correlated with anything.

Compare that with the Yahoo search I provided in the link. Then compare each option with MP's commentary. Which is the match that better fits his remarks? Clearly the Yahoo search result, where the EOP IP lights up like a Christmas tree all over the page is what he's getting at. The four entries that display the IP with the 3 other search terms takes you to a Wiki Scanner page that shows a series of edits made by the EOP to the page corresponding to those search terms ("Special Activities Group," or whatever the hell the CIA calls it).

I'll continue this later with additional comments.

[L. Coyote]

206. We are using slightly different search requests, with big results differences.

What you are pointing to is this link then, right?

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=63.161.169.0-255&ip2=&ip3=&ip4=

[redacted]

208. Right, with these specific Wiki edits:

29900897

29900443

29834151

29834019

[Buttercup McToots]

186. I get this...

Below is a cache of http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=63.161.169.0-255&ip2=&ip3=&ip4=. It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine crawled the Web. We've highlighted the words: 63 161 169 66 special activities division
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page (without highlighting) or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive.

Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.

Is it showing before and after changes?

[southern_belle]

188. I got into it a few minutes ago

but now I get this

"We're sorry, but we could not process your request for the cache of http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=63.161.169.0-255&ip2=&ip3=&ip4=. Please click here to check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive." :wtf:

[southern_belle]

190. Never mind....

It's back! I wonder if anything was changed? :(

If I found a "smoking gun" unfortunately, I wouldn't know it! :cry:

[Buttercup McToots]

195. I can still see it...

:tinfoilhat:

[Wiley50]

127. We Have Members, like Tahiti Nut, Who Have Been Working With IT Since Mainframes

Wish we could get some of them interested in this

[TahitiNut]

154. I haven't been active in the disciplines for over 7 years.

When I read it, I'm reminded of the data mining tools developed at a couple of national laboratories in the 90s ... and which get a lot of attention from various computer science departments around the country. Look at 'SPIRE' for example. (There's another, more 'famous' one, the name of which escapes me.)

There are techniques that can be used to collect vast amounts of data relating to "who accesses what" and then developing a visual topology representation of 'connectedness' between associated 'whos' based on their common (and frequent) access patterns. Using such a visual topological index, an investigator/researcher can 'drill down' at some particularly prominent nexus of interest and see the potential for a collaborative interest ... or whatever.

You see, one of the ways in which criminal or 'enemy' persons can communicate on the internet is by the electronic version of a "message drop." In this way, they may NEVER be seen in direct communication - and thus not subject to eavesdropping on the connection. If, on the other hand, they each have completely disjoint internet locations at which they drop (encoded) messages, they can then access those locations and communicate without ever being seen exchanging information even on the same site. Well, this isn't a mystery to NSA and others. So, the question then becomes 'hiding in plain sight' on the internet and the only way two (or more) entities can be seen as associated is by a common access pattern at various (the more highly-accessed the better) sites.

There are tools and approaches to analyzing such patterns ... using generally available data, even if that data is enormous and requires expensive tools to mine.

I have no idea - and really don't have the time - whether this is specifically what 'anon' is making reference to ... but it sure reminds me of the work I saw in the 90s regarding such endeavors.

[Wiley50]

156. Thanks So Much for your input on this

We're just trying to find out if there is anything to this

Appreciate the help

[L. Coyote]

126. E-Brother Knows Everything. IE> Google knows every WH search ever made.

Imagine how much Google knows. Every time someone in the White House does a Google search, the Google server knows exactly the search term, time of day, which link was followed ..... You get the idea -- E-Brother (the sum of all logged e-info everywhere) is a true cookie monster, consuming it all.

[AntiFascist]

180. "Set your phasers on WTF"

http://googlewatch.eweek.com/content/archive/is_google_a_government_spook.html

Monday, October 30, 2006 3:24 PM/EST
Is Google a Government Spook?
A former undercover CIA agent said that Google is secretly working with the spy agency.

According to Robert David Steele, who was once the second highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps, Google is "in bed with" and working in tandem with the CIA. Steele cites his sources within the CIA and his contacts at Google. (Steele also says the World Trade Center buildings collapsed from placed charges, so set your phasers on WTF.)

...

[Wiley50]

128. K and R n/t

[L. Coyote]

131. IMPORTANT: There is more than one poster on TPM not using any name.

The anonymous poster is not to be confused with all posts w/o a name like "anon" or "anonymous" and all posts at TPM by anyone who does not fill in that field will be the same, empty name. I know because I am one of the posters who has used that technique.

[Buttercup McToots]

132. Yes L. Coyote

I try to look for the writing style...
And what point he /she seems to be trying to convay...
I can't find anymore...I think we have to wait
till this pm...which is when he seems to start
posting...

[Buttercup McToots]

136. Old info

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special_Activities_Division

Special Activities Division
From SourceWatch
The Special Activities Division comprises the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) paramilitary troops which conduct covert operations.


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

According to a February 2, 2002 article by FoxNews, "The CIA's existing paramilitary force, like the Army's Green Berets, trains and supplies weapons and support to local dissident groups and friendly governments. They are capable of more direct action as well, including close-quarters combat and breaking into secure buildings to steal information.

"Unlike the Green Berets, these officers can operate without uniform or identification as officers of the U.S. government. If any are caught or killed, the government can plausibly deny their use. Unlike most military special operations forces, there are women among the CIA's paramilitary ranks.

"In recent decades, the paramilitary force has seen heavy use in Central America, Angola and Afghanistan. In Nicaragua, they mined the harbors and armed the Contra rebels during the Reagan administration. In Afghanistan, they helped the mujahedeen fight the Soviet invasion. During the Vietnam War, they ran 'Air America' -- the CIA's covert effort in Laos.

"The unit can only be put into action under secret authorization by the U.S. president. Certain top congressional officials also must be informed."

Related SourceWatch Resources
Proactive Preemptive Operations Group
Special Operations Command
External Links
Tod Robberson, CIA commandos remain covert, Global Security from The Dallas Morning News, October 27, 2002.

[Buttercup McToots]

137. wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Activities_Division

The Special Activities Division (SAD) is a division of the Central Intelligence Agency's former Directorate of Operations, now the National Clandestine Service, responsible for covert paramilitary operations, effected when the U.S. Government does not wish to be overtly associated with such activities. As such, members of the unit, when on missions, normally do not carry any objects or clothing (e.g., military uniforms) that would associate themselves with the United States. SAD has been changed to Special Services Office in recent years.

Certain elements of SAD are believed to be an outgrowth of the CIA's Phoenix Program and the SOG (Studies and Observations Group), both of which were created and active during the Vietnam War.

The unit's existence became known in the autumn of 2001, when U.S. special operations forces arrived in Afghanistan to hunt down Al Qaeda leaders and aid the Northern Alliance against the troops of the ruling Taliban. The CIA paramilitary teams, in conjunction with Special Operations Forces and the Afghan military, provided intelligence for U.S. air strikes.

The division has several hundred personnel, most of them former members of Delta Force, Navy SEALs, (including DEVGRU), Army Rangers, Special Forces and USMC Force Recon teams. The CIA's formal position for these individuals is "Paramilitary Operations Officer". Other members of the SAD are drawn from within the ranks of the CIA's National Clandestine Service division. On occasion, the Agency has been known to employ civilians for specialized paramilitary activities.

The primary strengths of SAD paramilitary officers are agility, adaptability, and deniability. They often operate in small teams, typically with six men with military training and knowledge of foreign languages. These officers often operate clandestinely in remote locations behind enemy lines to carry out raids, espionage, counter-intelligence, sabotage, guerilla warfare, and hostage rescue missions. They also play a large part in recruiting, training, and leading indigenous forces in operations. SAD officers are trained at Camp Peary (also known as "The Farm") in Virginia, and at privately owned black ops training centers around the United States. Within the international intelligence community, the SAD is considered to be one of the most skilled and lethal forces in the world.

Johnny Micheal Spann, the first American casualty in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, was a member of the Special Activities Division.<1>

SAD officers have operated covertly since the mid 1970s in places such as Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Chile, Bosnia, Serbia, Somalia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.


References
Woodward, Bob (November 18 2001). "Secret CIA Units Playing a Central Combat Role". Washington Post Staff Writer: A01.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Activities_Division"
Categories: Articles lacking sources from February 2007 | All articles lacking sources | Central Intelligence Agency


This page was last modified 22:17, 30 May 2007.

who modified?

[TahitiNut]

155. 71.196.194.11

A Comcast subscriber in Colorado.



08/21/07 20:23:16 dns 71.196.194.11
nslookup 71.196.194.11
Canonical name: c-71-196-194-11.hsd1.co.comcast.net
Addresses:
71.196.194.11


08/21/07 20:24:35 IP block [e-mail]
Trying 71.196.194.11 at ARIN
Trying 71.196.194 at ARIN
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. ATT-COMCAST (NET-71-192-0-0-1)
71.192.0.0 - 71.207.255.255
Comcast Cable Communications, IP Services COLORADO-20 (NET-71-196-128-0-1)
71.196.128.0 - 71.196.255.255

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-08-20 19:10

[L. Coyote]

138. Search also for UCLAs, Unilaterally Controlled Latin Assets

There are special groups under this rubric, like the UCLAs, who can easily pose as locals anywhere in Latin America.

Who murdered Linda Frasier in the La Penca bombing?
Who shot Ben Linder in the head at close range?

These are two American citizens killed in the covert war to overthrow the Nicaraguan government.
Their murders remain unsolved.

George W. Bush, by executive order, is hiding information about his father's role in Iran-Contra. Why?

======================
John Wayne goes to Managua: US covert policy in
Nicaragua during the Reagan Administration
Ryan Telford- University of Toronto
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/pdf/telfordpaper.pdf


For Canadians, one of the most important factors in the aftermath of September
11th is being able to understand and anticipate American policy in order to better serve
our own national interests. This is especially important since Canada has committed
itself to the United States’ (US) war on terrorism – a struggle that will be largely fought
outside of the public view using covert warfare. Understanding past US use and
implementation of covert warfare is essential if Canada is to continue being an effective
ally and an independent player in the conflicts of the twenty-first century.
One of the most relevant cases of American covert warfare is the US intervention
in Nicaragua over the course of the 1980’s. The US led covert war against terrorism
shares a great deal of similarities with the case of Nicaragua and understanding the
lessons learned in Central America will enable us to better prepare for the turbulent days
ahead while avoiding the mistakes of the past

[Buttercup McToots]

140. Where are we going?

:eyes:

[L. Coyote]

142. Secret Covert Global Warfare

Not unlike when being a leftist in Latin America meant disappearing. Since Iran-Contra, the label is "terrorist" and that roughly translates to political opponents to Bush and Company's conception of US (sic) interests.

In my jungle village in Peru, uniformed US Army Rangers loaded suspected leftists on planes. When the planes landed 30 minutes later after flying over the jungle, there were no leftists on board.

I've been asking for decades, "How far left is leftist?"

[Buttercup McToots]

141. Rawstory...don't know

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Pentagon_to_shut_down_controversial_08212007.html

Strong Indications Illusory Gaps: "Gaps" Used To Justify Opposite Outcomes -- _Ending_, And _Expanding_ US Government Action

When something is used as a "basis for" opposite resutls, it suggests that excuse has been fabricated.

Specifically, this is amusing, in light of the recent FISA-change excuses: "It was terminated because reporting had declined significantly, both quantitatively and qualitatively so," he said. "The analytical value was pretty slim."

Yet, that "decline" wasn't a basis to end NSA surveilance, but to expand it. Remember what we were told about FISA: The "big need" for the changes was to do the opposite -- get more information because of gaps. Given the President-Congress, as a basis for the FISA bill update, argued the opposite, we can only reasonably conclude that the above is non-sense.

Most likely, as with TIA and the NSLs, the program has either been renamed, sent to another agency, has been outsourced, sent overseas, or called something else. Find the lawyers who are lying, and let's find out why they keep suggesting to the public somethign which completely contradicts the "arguments" to expand FISA-NSA violations to include ignoring the warrant requirement.

It appears this move is to prevent oversight and questions about somethign which, as the NSA activity does, ignores the Constitution. Given this US government, it seems reasonable to assume the worst: They're still spending money to do illegal things; and are creating a smokescreen to delay oversight, subpoenas and legal consequences.

Congress has the power to shut down funding. The DNC could zero-out funding for all things related to anything remotely connected with what is "supposedly" ending. The vest thing to do is ignore what they're saying, and focuse on whether the DNC does or does nto block funding for continued operations related to what is supposedly ending.

Here's the rub: It doesn't make sense for Congress to authorize illegal NSA-FISA violations with the FISA act update; but then refuse to shut down funding for what is supposedly "not working." COngress is most likely agreeing to do nothing, not press, and accept on face value that this activity is ending. Not a credible or reasonable conclusion for Members of Congress to make.

Injunctions are not going to work. As to issues of mootness -- whether the US government is most likely ending this illegal activity -- it's more likely the US government is shifting the abuses to where the court will have a harder time detecting it.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 08.21.07 - 1:45 pm
Direct link to this comment

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

[Buttercup McToots]

145. BHJ

do you think anon reads DU?
He/She can't post as anon, yes?

[Blackhatjack]

147. That is the way I see it.

[Duer 157099]

150. I was just about to post that it's a little disconcerting

that we (DU) seem to be the only liberal blog that anon is *not* gracing with his presence.

Gosh, even an anon can register anonymously, right? (I've forgotten what's involved in signing up)

[Blackhatjack]

158. I don't think you can register anonymously here at DU

[Tansy_Gold]

166. What is anon's IP?

That's the first question that came to my mind, and I readily admit I am not tech savvy and most of what I've read on this thread is WAY over my poor little head.

BUT -- the first thing that popped into my head with all the discussion of IPs and ISPs and so on was, does anyone here have capability to trace anon's origins?

Now, I haven't read every word here and I'm coming in way late to the discussion, and I could be totally wrong on everything I'm thinking.

anon asks a lot of questions, but where are the answers? Are they available? Is anon just teasing everyone to dig deeper into something he/she already knows the answers to?

Is the original suggestion regarding the wiki entries and corrections and WH-EOP IPs hinting that one should look at the affected wikis and other corrections/edits/entries made to them and look for patterns in the IPs there? In other words, go outward from the wikis rather than backward into the WH IPs?

Why, if someone has damning evidence against the administration, why have they not brought it forward? Why go through these techrobatics to make an obscure point? If the issue is being taken up by JMM and TPM, why dump everything into the public domain by posting on blogs?

Can this be explained in non-tech terms? Can it be put into a non-tech context?

For example: "Back in the days, the WH-EOP was using WH computers to edit various wiki entries. We can tell this by tracing the IP through a software that tracks that stuff. This tells us that someone(s) at the WH-EOP were using official government computers on official government time to do things that had nothing to do with official government work. Maybe it was political work; maybe it was disinformation on groups opposed to WH policies. Whatever it was, it wasn't what they were supposed to be doing. I/anon/someone stumbled across this information and didn't know what to do with it, but thought it might be possible to find out if the administration was doing anything else it shouldn't be doing, so I/anon/someone started doing some research."

I don't know if this is what happened. I'm conjecturing. (I used to write fiction for a living, so I'm good at conjecturing.) I'm also working on the basis that I half-understand what all this is about.

*****IF**** I got all the basis correct, I could go off on a hundred tangets as to WHY the administration would have done it, and WHAT they were trying to accomplish. Anyone here with any shred of tin foil on their head can come up with possibilities, and some of us can even come up with plausibilities.

But with no firmer evidence, or even hints at what the objective is, this is hardly more than cyber-caching, where anon has hidden a nugget somewhere and the rest of you/us are supposed to follow all the bizarre, vague, ambiguous, clever, inside-joke clues until someone finds it.

Without even knowing for sure what "it" is ---- and therefore possibly not even being aware he/she/we have found it when we do!

But I guess that all just shows how thoroughly confused by it all I am.


Even so, I still know I'm

Tansy Gold -- at least most of the time

[L. Coyote]

171. I gave it a quick shot, and right off found a Hatch Act violation I thought actionable

on several fronts.See the links in "good example" above:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1622835#1627625

Someone on a White House computer edited Wikipedia and wrote that the Marijuana Policy Project is "an organization committed to legalizing drugs" when in fact "the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States" according to their website. This could result in a lawsuit against the White House for their actions defaming the organization.

Now, MP (Mystery Poster, also anon) probably is a busy woman and cannot dig up all 100,000 such Hatch Act violation over the last 6+ years, but would not mind if we, the collective blogosphere did, rather like everyone working on the DC Madam list, and has given us the basic recipe to do so. I tried it and turned up a Hatch Act violation right away. Now, all I need to do is report it to the office of Special Counsel or Congress, etc. And, maybe some loyal Bushie will be banned from government, though I doubt it (still waiting for Sen. Collins to reply regarding her aides' violations in plain sight on the Internet).

There are far more serious issues here though. That is the negating of Executive Privilege by demonstrating that the White House was busy planting information about something into the public domain, hence cannot claim Executive Privilege regarding that information. Another important aspect of the research tool is constructing who was up to what when. What pictures are painted to see all the connections that come to light?

[Buttercup McToots]

193. Soooo

What do we do with all of this?
Is there anyone else working on it?
I can't believe it is just us digging deeper and deeper...?

[redacted]

184. Tansy, all the "questions" are done for good reasons.

Anon, as I think he said, does not want evidence destroyed.

Anon is a very smart lawyer who is very technically sophisticated. His communication style is much like a law professor. He can't spill the beans. But his questions convey lots of information. They are phrased as questions to help us draw the conclusions he wants us to reach and understand certain points that are too risky for him to spill. It's a style of communication very familiar to attorneys and law students.

[Blackhatjack]

191. You are referring to the 'Socratic Method' of instruction...

The teacher answers no questions, but rather responds to questions with further questions to lead the student to find his own answer.

It is a form of instruction that requires the student to analytically solve their own problems, which is what lawyers do --solve problems.

It can be maddening when the student knows the teacher has the answer but will not give it to him. But in time you start to 'think like a lawyer' which is the key. It is more important to know how to find the answer than for someone to just tell you the bit of information you need today.

I think Anon is bringing people along because he realizes that a full disclosure would overwhelm people here, and that would likely expose his/her identity 'inside' the Administration --if he/she is still 'inside' and not now a 'whistleblower.'

[Blackhatjack]

165. buttercup look at post 149 above by redacted... I think it is significant...

I was using Google as the search engine.

Redacted used Yahoo and got completely different results.

[Wiley50]

177. And Look At Nonny's Post's 168 and 176 about SharePoint

Remember that Sharepoint is like a private wiki

Anon talked about this in an older post

so when he says wiki

maybe he really means SharePoint

So maybe we are looking at EOP IP's to locate these private SharePoint Wiki's

I think that's what we need to look for

[shance]

174. Buttercup, mi cabeza esta hilado!!

Heads a spinning, but I know you're on to something.

Its just going to take a few more read throughs.

;)

hoping all is well in your world***

[L. Coyote]

178. "They have non-official IM-systems which you have not been specifically made aware or requested."

This indicates the Rove, et.al. were using Instant Messaging too, some such system. (And what of maybe a secure system for NSA or DoD?) If this source is reliable (BIG if still), needed are some sharp legal minds doing interrogatories of the witnesses who are speaking to the committees, to get a better handle on what is not being told.

Imagine several people are IMing or e-mailing each other about their Wiki activity.
Can this be "seen" in the entries, who is coordinating edits with whom?

[redacted]

183. Right. Everyone needs to stop thinking strictly in terms of email

when that's probably just the tip of the iceberg. And that goes for subpoenas, too.

It's important to think in terms of the entire range of computer-mediated communication, including instant messaging, SharePoint, Wiki/Wikipedia systems, and other collaboration tools, whether or not the Government is using them because a lot of these communications don't seem to involve government systems. As pointed out upthread, many of the curious responses given in testimony make a lot more sense if one assumes they're talking about systems other than email.

[Buttercup McToots]

185. Well...I see the night crew has been busy...

What do we do now?

I'll troll around this am and look for more clues...

[Buttercup McToots]

187. More anon ...8/21/07

One element of this that I've never seen sorted out properly is the post-Ivan FEMA monies and the 2004 elections. It's pretty clear that the FEMA dumped on FL, AL, and GA (I think GA was included) was awarded to certain areas for elections purposes but, IIRC, in the various fraud cases that were just getting sorted out before the DOJ closed them, seemed to indicated that FEMA was being laundered through various faith-based recovery groups specifically to pay for GOTV, etc. efforts.

Posted by: anon
Date: August 21, 2007 6:24 PM


???
I've bitten my tongue, but I would encouarge you to review the SAS99 discussion as it relates to GAGAS. GAO has some input. When you're looking at the audits done of this data, consider: US government auditors have standards that they use to provide them assistance. One assertion is that SAS99 is "only" used for financial audits of corporations. This is false. It is a general standard; it replaced SAS82; and SAS99, as you can see from the link below, is something that asks auditors to raise questions about auditing indicators. Read the article.

As to the issue of Rove: Auditors would have to explain why the financial data/electronic data/other data that they look at did or didn't trigger an increase in audit scope. Ask them: Once the problems with Rove were first learned, did the GAO, Congress, and President's auditors increase audit scope. If not, who is peddling nonsense that SAS standards do not apply?

Ask: Is someone saying, despite GAGAS, that the SAS guidelines can be ignored; and that this link below "doesn't apply", despite the GAO having input? If you're saying these standards can be ignored, I'll have to conclude someone is living in Alice's Wonderland.

Posted by: Link on Audit Doubt
Date: August 21, 2007 11:58 PM

link:
http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2005/105/essentials/p32.htm
Foundations in Auditing and Digital Evidence

By Bruce H. Nearon


E-mail Story
Print Story

JANUARY 2005 - The foundations of auditing are competence, independence, and due professional care. All three affect the quality and the value of an audit. In today’s environment, where audit evidence is increasingly digital in nature, the exercise of competence and due professional care have taken on a new and different character.

Competence relates to an auditor’s technical ability to discover a material misstatement in the financial statements and
is a function of education, training, and experience. It enables an auditor to collect evidence to support the audit opinion and weigh it in order to determine if the evidence is sufficient and reliable.

Independence requires an auditor to conduct the engagement with objectivity, integrity, and lack of bias. Although a critical underpinning of the profession, the meaning of auditor independence has been the subject of debate for decades. For public companies, the debate was ended—at least for now—by the issuance of the SEC’s Final Rules on Auditor Independence. The same applies to audits subject to Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). Both the SEC and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which establishes audit standards for GAGAS, significantly tightened auditor independence requirements for GAGAS audits. For non-SEC companies and not-for-profit entities not subject to GAGAS, the more flexible AICPA Ethics Rules still apply.

Due professional care is what society reasonably expects of a professional, which means performing the work according to the norms and standards of other professionals in the same field. For auditors, this means compliance with the Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS). An essential element of due professional care is performing the audit with a reasonable degree of skepticism.

Recently, the Auditing Standards Board issued Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) 99, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. The backbone of this standard is an increased emphasis on professional skepticism. Skepticism requires a questioning mind and an unwillingness to accept things at face value. For auditors, this means not relying solely on inquiry and not assuming that records provided by clients are authentic without other corroborating evidence. Computer records, defined here as digital evidence of transactions, are particularly troublesome because often they can be corroborated only by other digital evidence. As such, their authenticity and reliability are difficult—if not impossible—to ascertain without understanding and testing the information technology controls around them.

The value of the audit is a function of the interaction of independence and competence. An easy way to understand this is to examine the extreme cases. If a user of an audit opinion believes the auditor has zero independence, then, no matter how competent the auditor, a user will not expect the auditor to report a breach. On the other hand, if an auditor is perceived as fully independent but totally incompetent, then the user of that audit opinion will not expect the auditor to detect a material misstatement even if it is obvious. The true value of the audit lies somewhere in between these two examples. No auditor can truly be 100% independent and 100% competent.

In theory, auditor independence should approach 100% for all auditors, due to personal ethics, firm culture, independence safeguards, and the threat of litigation. Therefore, auditor independence should not be the driving factor in the audit value function.

Today, we have more than 100 years of financial auditing experience under our collective belts, yet procedures remain little changed from those of 20, 40, or more years ago. This is a troubling thought, given the way that information technology has dramatically changed almost every aspect of society, including the way business transactions are initiated, recorded, processed, and reported.

Many auditors may not be aware that the emergence of the electronic digital computer, and later the microprocessor, resulted in a profound and not-so-subtle shift in the very nature of audit evidence. The audit process is the collection and evaluation of evidence. Prior to computers, evidence comprised physical documents and enterprise values that were based on tangible assets. Now, when more than 90% of business records are estimated to be in easily alterable digital formats that can have multiple iterations and views, and enterprise value is based on intangible assets, how can the auditor weigh the sufficiency and competence of such audit evidence? Furthermore, if the auditor’s work winds up in a legal dispute, how can an examiner of facts determine the authenticity of mostly digital audit evidence used to support the opinion?

Foundations

Competence, independence, and due professional care are the critical foundations of auditing. Although independence has been the subject of much debate within the profession over the years, competence has received less attention. Nevertheless, the universal migration of financial information, accounting records, and audit evidence to digital media may be cause for concern. Due professional care may also be an unrecognized issue because many auditors do not raise their level of skepticism when evaluating digital audit evidence.

In 1994, the Kirk Report found very little wrong with existing independence rules. Three years later, an AICPA white paper on independence called for a major overhaul; however, when it came to the effect of IT on auditing, the Kirk Report and the AICPA white paper took similar positions. The Kirk Report stated that the profession was at a critical juncture, and even though much had been accomplished within firms, serious issues remained. The report implied the effect of IT on auditing, stating: “Information technology has changed the nature and complexity of companies’ records and the speed and ease with which those records are produced and changed.” According to the AICPA white paper: “Astonishing breakthroughs in information technology are redefining the audit function, placing new demands on auditors.” The white paper also states: “The information revolution is likely to change the very nature of the audit function, as well as the role of the auditor … it is certain that auditors will be called upon in the future to possess even greater skills and expertise in information technology.” Auditors may already know this because they cannot escape the effect of dramatic continuous changes in information technology on their daily lives, practice, and clients. However, with few exceptions, this knowledge has not been translated into significant changes in audit procedures, except for documentation with automated workpaper preparation software and communication by e-mail.

Even though almost all financial accounting records are in digital form, in general, auditors are not trained to collect and evaluate it. Nor, in most cases, do they learn how to do this in practice. This is contrary to the requirements of generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS), which require the auditor to have adequate technical training. GAAS has recognized the differences between physical evidence and digital evidence since 1974, when these differences were first codified by SAS 3, The Effect of EDP on the Auditor’s Study and Evaluation of Internal Control. In 1984, SAS 3 was superseded by SAS 48, The Effects of Computer Processing on the Examination of Financial Statements, which, in turn, was superseded by SAS 94, The Effect of Information Technology on the Auditor’s Consideration of Internal Control in a Financial Statement Audit (currently in force).

In 1970, four years before SAS 3 was issued, there were approximately 130,000 computers in the entire world. These computers were primarily used by large companies, government agencies, universities, and research institutions. Except for the large firms that audited these entities, SAS 3 was irrelevant. Even where SAS 3 did apply, financial statement auditors did not perform the work; rather, special EDP audit units performed it. By the time SAS 48 was issued, the diffusion of computers had increased to the point where many midsize companies had minicomputers. This meant that their auditors had to consider the effect of digital evidence on firm competence and the audit.

Twenty years later, the business landscape has changed dramatically. There are more than 550 million computers in the world, and almost all organizations of any size maintain their accounting records on computers. Yet most auditors still approach digital records as if they have the same intrinsic qualities as physical records. A first step in gaining technical competence is appreciating one’s limitations and realizing that there are some things one does not know. Once an auditor accepts her limitations, she is obliged to either acquire the necessary skills or hire someone who already has the requisite knowledge and skills. Unfortunately, many auditors do not realize—despite SAS 94—that hardcopy printouts and listings generated by computers and used for audit tests are only a physical “view” of digital evidence, which could have been easily altered to deceive them. Therefore, with regard to competence, auditors must have the skills to evaluate the reliability of digital evidence used to support their audits. They need to ask the questions: What is the possibility that this printout, listing, or document is erroneous, by either intent or error? Who in the client’s organization has the opportunity and incentive to alter digital records in order to conceal misappropriation of assets or to misstate the financial statements?


Travel isn't half of the story. GSA alone oversees $60 BILLION in spending, including no-bid contracting. The true insinuation in the Rove/Jennings PowerPoint presentation to the GSA political appointees was "Spend the money where we assist Republican candidates."

What needs to be examined is where the bucks $$$ stopped, not just where the airplanes landed. Look at the no-bid contracts, their timing, and the timing of political contributions to key districts from recipients of government contracts and, in particular, bundled contributions including from their lobbyists. Look also at the RNC money and Bush campaign contributions. Look for kickback schemes, a la Abramoff.

Posted by:
Date: August 22, 2007 1:38 AM

That was TPM...don't know if it is same poster...

[nonny]

192. FEMA uses SharePoint software too

This is a newsletter from April 8 2005

Hundreds Have Completed SharePoint™ Training

In just one month since we rolled out the
pilot learning management system (LMS)
with SharePoint training modules, nearly
400 people have completed one or more
of the modules. Training is available
online, 24-7, for your convenience at:
https://learning.hazards.fema.gov/elms/
learner/login.jsp
Your user name for the LMS SharePoint
training pilot will be your first name
combined with your last name. For
example: KristineMcLaughlin (no space
between names and case sensitive). Your
initial password for the SharePoint
training pilot is STUDENT (all caps).

MIP Content in QuickPlace Moves to SharePoint This Weekend

This weekend, the final QuickPlace migration will occur
to move information from the MIP QuickPlace site into
the Map Mod SharePoint environment. The SharePoint
team has done an initial migration and review with MIP
team representatives. Based on this review a few
changes and a final push of documents will occur this
weekend. As of Monday, April 11, the MIP QuickPlace
will become read-only and SharePoint will serve as the
document repository for MIP development related
documents. Thank you to the team who worked to make
this migration possible.

http://www.floods.org/Newsletters/MOD_Team_Times/MTT_04-08-05.pdf

[Blackhatjack]

189. Some plausible conclusions that we might draw from Anon's posts....

This Administration decided to use technology to subvert the requirements of the Presidential Records Act, and now they realize that records have been left out in the open which reveal exactly what they were doing and who was eagerly trying to cover it up.

Parsing of words under this Administration has been raised to a new level to try and mislead Congress about what has been going on.

Officials 'inside' the WHite HOuse have been resigning to try and put space between themselves and the efforts of the Administration to cover up and prevent disclosure of incriminating evidence of wrongdoing.

RNC email accounts are clearly outside the claim of 'Executive Privilege' and the emails could not be erased from all known repositories. So the RNC is now facing the prospect that there is recoverable evidence that it acted as a co-conspirator with government officials to subvert the Presidential REcords Act, and there is likely even more dynamite in those emails regarding other wrongdoing.

Abuse of the RNC email system is only one branch of information being protected by WH stonewalling. Wikis, or collaborative sites, have obviously been used for official purposes and in all likelihood corrupt practices have been carried out which relate to no-bid contractors, campaign contributions, and abuse of government resources --not to mention unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

There are 'insiders' in this Administration who have knowledge of what has been going on, and some are 'leaking' what they know.


IMHO, those are just a few conclusions that jump out at me.

[L. Coyote]

196. A reflection on that

"Officials 'inside' the White House have been resigning to try and put space between themselves and the efforts of the Administration to cover up and prevent disclosure of incriminating evidence of wrongdoing."

This also must be considered from the Hatch Act perspective. Anyone using their time on the clock and/or government property in violation of the Hatch Act is subject to removal from government. The resignations follow a pattern. First a Hatch Act violation is revealed, then they resign. Once an employee leaves USG service, they are outside the reach of the Hatch Act, and no politically scandalous removal hits the news. There is this factor of the Administration not been scandalized by numerous removals for violations of the law, of course.

Who is responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act violations inside the Administration? The White House Office of Special Counsel. Apparently, the OSC people are giving the guilty a free pass out of government, ensuring that they can be hired back later elsewhere in USG. This is itself likely criminal conduct if there is a conspiracy to not punish. So, they are avoiding being barred from USG employment, rather than putting "space" between themselves and the Administration, because they do not escape the long reach of the inquisitors.

If this is in fact what isd happening, ROVE WAS FIRED, in effect. More here:
Has Rove's Egg Hatched? The Firing of KARL ROVE or Why His Family Needs Him Now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1591504

[Blackhatjack]

197. I agree with your Hatch Act analysis... but I think there is more driving the resignations

Remember this is an Administration which was not subject to any kind of oversight for 6 years, and one in which Rove bragged they would create a permanent Republican Majority.

When there are no investigations, and pockets are being stuffed, the urge to let down your guard is greatest. I think these corrupt officials got 'lazy' and screwed up by leaving evidence of what they were doing 'out in the open.'

Once Congress came under Democratic control the long unused machinery of government oversight was put back to work. The fields are just full of corruption to be exposed.

But combine this with the fact that this Administration thought they were so smart and that by using technology they would escape detection of their corrupt deeds. Now they are caught in the wringer, and the only answer they have is to 'stonewall' all investigatory requests.

The Hatch Act violations may have been the trigger to make individuals resign, but he depth of corruption to be investigated has not changed.

[L. Coyote]

200. Good analysis. I would add, to the last moment, they did not forsee

losing both the House and the Senate, or in other words, it never occurred to the excessivley hubrisict neocons that there would ever be any oversight of Bush/Cheney. Metaphorically, Turd Blossom, Bush, and Cheney all got caught together in the bathroom with their pants below their knees.

[Buttercup McToots]

194. This is off topic somewhat...but

I saw this over DK

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20061211-033912-3373r

FBI is covering up Anthrax case (6+ / 0-)

I am not making this up.

The U.S. government's "growing bioterror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population."
-- Dr. Jonathan King, Professor of Molecular Biology at M.I.T. and a founder of the Council for Responsible Genetics

Dr. Francis A. Boyle is a scholar in the areas of international law and human rights whose distinguished career includes the drafting of the legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

Here is what he is now saying:

"I believe the FBI knows exactly who was behind these terrorist anthrax attacks upon the U.S. Congress in the Fall of 2001, and that the culprits were US government-related scientists involved in a criminal US government biowarfare program," Boyle said.

I always believed they did it...

[Buttercup McToots]

199. So...I repeat...What do we do now?

What do we do with all of this?
Is there anyone else working on it?
I can't believe it is just us digging deeper and deeper...?

Anybody?
BHK? L C.?
Batman?

[L. Coyote]

201. Haven't we already done it?

Aug-20-07, 07:49 AM to Wed Aug-22-07, 12:14 PM = 4923 Page Views

Who are those 4,923 page views. 200 are posts, some are redundant DU readers....

How many are NY Times, WA Post, etc. researchers?

What DU does is allow access by the entire planet to discussions.
We, the media the media reads, create the content and the world reads it.

And, yes, we keep digging deeper and connecting the dots.

[Buttercup McToots]

203. Thank you L Coyote

:)

He seems to have gone underground today...
I can't find him...

[L. Coyote]

205. Looks like TPM is being monitored by a "quick reaction" worm.

Posted by:
Date: August 22, 2007 1:38 AM

Travel isn't half of the story. GSA alone oversees $60 BILLION in spending, including no-bid contracting. The true insinuation in the Rove/Jennings PowerPoint presentation to the GSA political appointees was "Spend the money where we assist Republican candidates."

What needs to be examined is where the bucks $$$ stopped, not just where the airplanes landed. Look at the no-bid contracts, their timing, and the timing of political contributions to key districts from recipients of government contracts and, in particular, bundled contributions including from their lobbyists. Look also at the RNC money and Bush campaign contributions. Look for kickback schemes, a la Abramoff.

=================
Posted by:
Date: August 22, 2007 1:51 AM

... Notice that NEITHER party actually has any desire for the behavior to stop. ......

=================

Only 13 minutes to produce a "Dems are baaaad too!" response from this sheeple without a name. TPM is being watched closely, it seems!

[redacted]

202. We slurp coffee and try to wake up so we can function on the job today?

More coffee required after staying up until 3AM PT with this thread.

Seriously, like others here, I think I have a pretty good idea of what's next but can't spend time posting about that or anything else until later today.

[L. Coyote]

207. Spin Off for Links to Deep Modem Posts

Mystery Poster "Deep Modem"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1641762