Mystery Poster "Deep Modem" (DM) = What is DM telling us? FORGET the MYSTERY part.

[L. Coyote]

THIS THREAD = Focus on the CONTENT of the Mystery Poster. This is a spin off from a broader discussion at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1641762&mesg_id=1641762

The Cannonfire blog has reprinted all of the poster's output in one spot.
Here are the 'Mystery Poster's post, reproduced in full. Read it first in full please. From Cannonfire:

===================
A mystery poster on Gonzales, the RNC emails, and more = July 31, 2007
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/07/mystery-poster-on-gonzales-rnc-emails.html

In my post below, I give voice to the increasingly popular suspicion that the NSA surveillance program at the heart of the controversial testimony by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was being used to "mine" data on the administration's political enemies in an election year. A good case can, I think, be made for this idea.

But a more complicated scenario has appeared on TPM Muckraker. The person behind this theory is not one of Josh Marshall's investigators but an anonymous "mystery poster." After writing long and detailed pieces, this individual refuses to sign his or her name -- not even with a nick, not even with "Anon." The same person may have presented his case ten days ago on the CREW site.

===================
Apparently, this is our Mystery Poster: Constant's pations
http://constantpated.blogspot.com/search?q=berenson

So, the writing of this blog is fair game within the focus of this thread
(as if DUers actually constrain themselves to stay on topic) :rofl:

===================
There is a PDF file of the complete postings too, presenting a Word doc. I lost track of that link. If someone has it, please post.

[conscious evolution]

1. some content

His postings led me to this http://www.abraxascorp.com/default.asp

[Trillo]

2. I find this fascinating

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

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/07/mystery-poster-on-gonzales-rnc-emails.html

I've looked at some of the eop.gov wikipedia edits, particularly deletions, and have wondered if that isn't one of the primary NSA programs. Simply censoring inflammatory facts.

[conscious evolution]

14. More like incriminating facts

The example I found seems to be a case of trying to hide the fact that the cia's use of outside contractors is common knowledge.That it has been publicly available knowledge negates the use of hiding behind national security as a defense.

[Trillo]

64. Here are some of the ones I've found that I find curious

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=31470086
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=57053514
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=20772622
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=25076247

This just looks like graffiti:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U_Street_Corridor&diff=next&oldid=27011961

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=29003104
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=prev&oldid=31485692

[L. Coyote]

66. Interesting o ee what the White House is up to.

writing

"and rusted-out 1984 Nissan Maximas sitting in people's freaking back yards"

and

Former U.S. prisoners of war "confirmed that Fonda handed over information regarding their identities"
to NLF insurgents (better known in the U.S. as the "<[Viet Cong>]"), and

deleting

"According to an article written by <[Seymour Hersh>] published in <[2000>] ''<[The New Yorker>]'', General McCaffrey committed <[war crimes>] during the Gulf War by having troops under his command kill retreating <[Iraq>]is after a <[ceasefire>] had been declared. "

and

"Currently Brazil can produce fuel-grade ethanol for about $1.00 per gallon"

and

" Over 100 innocent individuals have been sentenced to death in United States since 1973."

The last one on Ronald Reagan is interesting to flip ahead on to the Newer Edits. Someone else was working on Reagan's image too thru an ISP account.

[conscious evolution]

3. hmmm

modem wrote this

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.

Could this be how they are getting around the 'official' email policies?
http://www.abraxascorp.com/applications.asp

TrapWire®

To prevent a terrorist attack, it is critical to detect the discreet but identifiable indicators of the pre-attack preparations. Only by uncovering these preparations can we take actions designed to deter or intercept a terrorist strike before it begins. TrapWire enables security and law enforcement professionals to prevent terrorist attacks and apprehend those involved.

For the first time there is a means of addressing the suspicious activity problem prevalent throughout urban and even remote critical infrastructure environments.

TrapWire was designed by former civilian and military intelligence officers representing hundreds of years of counterterrorism field experience. TrapWire moves your organization away from risk mitigation to risk prevention and helps you avoid the loss of life and damage incurred by an attack.



BZPP and TrapWire®

TrapWire has been supported by The Department of Homeland Security Infrastructure Protection as critical to Buffer Zone Protection Planning (BZPP).

The TrapWire solution addresses:


Integrated Planning
Law Enforcement Connectivity
Training
Protective Measures
Equipment Needs

[TBUSA]

5. NS1.Sidley.com

I followed DM's direction to review some of the IP addresses of people who edited EOP wikipedia information. I did a WHOIS on an entry for 198.23.601.10 and I found that the server name is NS1.Sidley.com.
In reading through Anon's posts (on Cannonfire) I found that Sidley is a counsel
or maybe even the General Council for Verizon...
The NS1.Sidley.com site no longer exists. If that server had something like the SharePoint software on it , then Sidley and other members of that site could share information there.
Keep digging..

[Wiley50]

7. IMHO this is exactly the kind of probing that we need to be doing

Keep pursuing searches like this. We will eventually find a site that is still active.

Might be worthwhile to install the SharePoint software on the machine we are using.

I, myself, would be of no help trying to do this. I'm just not tech savvy enough,
although I can grok the concepts involved

[L. Coyote]

30. RE: "Might be worthwhile to install the SharePoint software on the machine we are using."

Our existing DU software does this just fine. In the research area we have open, editable threads. You can start stuff there.

[Wiley50]

44. I mean that if we could locate and be able to get into one of their Shareware sites

Having the software on our machine would allow us to inspect what is going on there

Of course, our research forum is state of the art

and almost completely unused

[Duer 157099]

9. The domain is still active

Not sure I understand what you mean when you say the site no longer exists.

The prefix "NS1" in the URL refers to the server being used as the DNS or name server (it resolves domain names to IP addresses).

The site sidley.com is up, so it's logical to assume that ns1.sidley.com is also still active (although of course not necessarily)

[hang a left]

16. I don't know if this is helpful

WhoIs Lookup for 198.232.62.16:

OrgName: Sidley and Austin
OrgID: SIDLEY
Address: Sidley and Austin Network Administration 1 First National Plaza
City: Chicago
StateProv: IL
PostalCode: 60603-2279
Country: US

NetRange: 198.232.32.0 - 198.232.63.255
CIDR: 198.232.32.0/19
NetName: NETBLK-SIDLEY
NetHandle: NET-198-232-32-0-1
Parent: NET-198-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS1.SIDLEY.COM
NameServer: AUTH50.NS.UU.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 1993-12-22
Updated: 2002-09-13

RTechHandle: MEV1-ARIN
RTechName: Vendl, Mark
RTechPhone: [phone]
RTechEmail: [e-mail]

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-08-01 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

Geo-Location of 198.232.62.16:
Country: UNITED STATES (US) City: (Unknown city) Latitude: Longitude:

[L. Coyote]

31. Sidley's NetRange: = 198.232.32.0 - 198.232.63.255 Domains ???

That's a lot of IP #s. What we need is the domain name list, for all domains in that range.

[On the Road]

17. Sidley I Believe is Outside Counsel to Verizon

Here's a link to an article on the Sidley Austin LLC site (which is interesting in its own right):

http://www.sidley.com/cyberlaw/features/clickwrap.asp

[L. Coyote]

32. I believe Verizon has a legal staff. This is just an article citing a case.

[L. Coyote]

27. Techno-babble. NSI is the name server AND E-Mail Recovery at Work!

the domain is sidley.com. You want the WWW address to see the domain, as in www.sidley.com.

According to my inside information, this is what the network admins has been up to at Sidley Austin:

Since last November, creating emergency recovery mail stores on the MS Exchange server to recover email from an earlier time after an email policy of anything over 90 days old was to be deleted.

Also, of course, on a daily basis the admin maintains 24 servers--assembling and configuring member server, having them join the domains and assigning them tasks (ISA server and Blackberry Enterprise 4.1 upgrade, installing Backup Exec 10), does daily backups, monitors servers, rolls out new network printers, configures IP settings, installs new switches, works with network engineers checking VPN connections, and upgrades firmware on firewalls.

This is a large, global law firm. They have a net block, and have their own server.
There will be lawyers and staff in diverse locations globally working from and on this network.

[L. Coyote]

29. RE "Could this be how they are getting around the 'official' email policies?"

We know parts of the answer, and DM has given us more.
Shared workspace, instant messaging, non e-mail modes.

Blackberries is one of the forms to look at.
Who is the ISP the White House Blackberry accounts?

What private Web-based services were used? Things like personal accounts?

Meanwhile, I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this??

[defendandprotect]

109. Shirley . . . if the mystery poster is reading any of this, he understands that he needs to . . .

contact people who will more readily understand what he is trying to communicate -- !!!!

[southern_belle]

4. bump

[defendandprotect]

6. Shirley, Dems know that this is directed at them; politically -- ???? More Nixon/Watergate --

The Visa Courts have evidently said "no" to this program twice now?

What we need are a LIST OF THE NAMES OF THOSE BUGGED --

Is anyone asking for that???

And, what about the Dem? Do they have sufficient systems to counter-act wiretapping, etal?

[L. Coyote]

33. RE: What we need are a LIST OF THE NAMES OF THOSE BUGGED --

Everyone and everything. They put a splitter on main global communications lines and captured all of it!

An insider warned me that US communications have been routed outside the USA so USA law does not apply.
That's where the captures from inside the USA went, I believe, to overseas locations not under USA law.

[defendandprotect]

79. Right . . .. I understand you . . . and everything is possible with these idiots ---

however, there will be SPECIFIC targets -- just as the anonymous poster is suggesting to us that there are designated people being communicated with/to very QUICKLY. An inside network.

And the fact that we have so much corruption among the contractors suggests that they might be having stuff bounced off of them.

"go to" will involve lists of privileged insiders - probably more than one list --
and "pick up" will involve lists of targets they want --
sure they'll want to get everyone's information, but when it comes down to it they're probably tapping Paris Hilton and Donald Trump -- and a big net for anyone who is supposed to monitor them . . . . anyone on the intelligence panels .... and of course always being sure that the guys they've got locked in -- Clarence Thomas, for instance -- are still working for them and not getting other ideas. One of the biggest arguments against this stuff is that they can't possibly take it all raw and have it make any really sense; too much of it. So they've got to have narrowing chambers. And stuff that picks up specific subjects/words -- maybe even some sub-level people trying to deal with raw stuff from specific areas. But they can't deal with it all. It has to get limited somewhere. Somewhere is what we're looking for.

[L. Coyote]

85. Total Information Awareness involves capture and storage, and use later too.

One rationale for capturing and storing all communications of interest is that you do not know what you will want to discover later. Therefore, you need to capture everything now and store it.

In the national defense context, if you discover a cell of enemy combatants in the USA, you need to go back and find out who they phoned, what web sites they accessed, etc., for as long back in time as possible. This is possible only if everything is captured and stored.

Now, the problem is, Can we trust Republicans doing voter caging and other felonious activities to steal elections with all that info? Not when they fire USAs for political purposes. Placing political operatives into USA positions indicates we MUST distrust them..

[defendandprotect]

87. But . . .. am I wrong? . . . realistically, we know who the terrorists are -- Buschco --- and . . .

this is going to be political --
probably financial profit --
tracking enemies --
secret illegal discussions --

same stuff Nixon did --

And I don't see either Ashcroft nor FISA courts objecting to what you're relaying --
The Courts and Ashcroft have to be suspicious that something else was going on --
something NOT having to do with tracking terrorists, IMO.

And, again, in order to have info be useful, it can't be that general.
For instance, if Palast knew that "caging" was happening . . . but not that there were 3 million with 1 million challenges successful and not about the long list of military members . . ..what would he have had?

And, there will be times when they -- like Palast -- have to convert it into something more like hard copies. Evidence you can hold in your hand.
Usually first questions are: Who was the source?

Power via $$$$$ is going to be what it's about . . . thru political control.

Bear in mind, I'm under the notion that Bushco did 9/11 -- so they know we're not looking for the terrorists.

[conscious evolution]

8. Does any one have

a list of gov IP addresses?
I seem to remember seeing such a list here on du way back when I was just a lurker here.
Such a list sure would come in handy about now.

[L. Coyote]

34. UGG and USM have whois sites

http://whois.nic.mil/
http://whois.nic.gov/

A good whois is http://www.whois.ws/

It may refer you to other whois sites, like ripe, etc.

[Duer 157099]

10. Let me point out one thing to be careful about

And it's just paranoia, but still.

In doing this research, if someone posts a link here (on DU) to a site/URL of interest, if the reader clicks on the link, then the person who owns the website destination is able to trace the hit back to the originating link (on DU).

In cases like this, it's a good idea to actually copy and paste the URL into a fresh browser window so that no traceable history is available on the destination end. Just in case it gives *someone* (whoever that might be) a heads-up about *something* (whatever that might be).

Know what I mean?

[windbreeze]

11. yeah, I think I got that?...n/t

[Buttercup McToots]

12. Bump...up

keep digging...
I got lost at the market thread today...sigh

[Duer 157099]

15. Let me try to clarify...

For example, let's say a lawfirm or contracting firm is involved, and they have a website. And let's say that someone posts a link to their website in this thread. And let's say that someone in this thread clicks on the link to that website.

Well, the owner of the destination website (lawfirm, contracting firm, whatever) can now see that a link from DU sent someone (or more importantly, a *lot* of someones) to their site, and they might backtrack via that link to this thread, and discover that someone here has been looking into, say, how they have been modifying Wiki entries.

This might give a heads-up to someone, such that they stop doing whatever they think is of interest to us. That's all.

[redacted]

22. That is a VERY important point! Everyone should do this. Big thanks dotcosm!

I would encourage researchers to ALWAYS use fresh browser windows so that DU, Kos et. al. aren't listed in the HTTP REFERRER field in the logfiles.

There are a number of clipboard utilities available to speed up copy/paste operations in situations like this. One free utility I use daily is Jumpcut (Mac OSX).

Again, big thanks dotcosm!

:yourock: :yourock:

:headbang: :headbang:

[L. Coyote]

36. That might b overkill. Google has already crawled this thread any times.

Also, it is a lot of work to track log files, even with good software.
And, what do you have when you do it? You see who is linking to your site.
Big deal in a world where they have every IP you connect to, every e-mail
address you have mailed to (anyone need a list of 5,000 reporters?),
all w/o a need to get a warrant.

[havocmom]

26. Question about tracking links and tabs on browsers

Would opening a link in a new tab give a heads up to the site about the site the link was on? Is 'open link in new tab' command safe, or does one actually need to copy and paste site address in a freshly opened window?

[Trillo]

62. Yes.

If you're using Firefox, opening a link in a new tab sends the REFERER. There are test sites out there that you can play around and test various scenarios, as well as plugins and extensions to turn some of the unneeded and undesired fields off.

[havocmom]

71. Thanks. Will just copy & paste in new tabs

Will that keep the referencing site safely hidden?

[Trillo]

73. Yes.

In that case there is no REFERER or "referring site", by definition.

Here's one test site:
http://labs.beffa.org/sendreferer/
I'm sure there are others. It's always a good idea to check the operation of any added extensions to verify that they're working as expected.

[L. Coyote]

35. This works both ways. DU admin can see which IP looks at which post.

So keep setting those traps and posting those keywords!

Also, you can influence where people searching the Internet get there info by redundantly combining certain terms in a post.

[Duer 157099]

41. Heh, yeah of course that's true

But I'll let *you* make that request to Skinner ("say... I don't suppose you have time to search the logs for me, to see if any interesting IPs looked at a certain post?")

Someone will have to write the software to scan it. Gives me a headache just thinking about it.

I notice DU ranks very highly in Google searches, so yeah, I get what you mean about that.

On another note, I've been playing with that wiki scanner thing, and it truly is like getting lost down a rabbit hole. Overwhelming. We need a research thread though, just for posting results -- or was that what this was supposed to be, lol?

[L. Coyote]

42. RE; "We need a research thread"

That has to be done in the Research forum. These threads have short lives, and get locked.

[AikidoSoul]

68. This is intriguing Dotscosm N/T

[L. Coyote]

78. SPOOKY: I downloaded a 178 MB log file, part of this month on my domain.

It is about a 1,000 page text file in Word. Trying to open it overheated my laptop, and shut it off. It is over 100 million characters, and contains the data for over 1 million hits. So, you really need programming to extract data, and this is best done on a really good processor, far more than a laptop. In May my domain had over 2 million hits, or a 267 MB log (simple text ASCII) file.

I have records of every computer that has requested certain posts on DU. I won't bore you with how I can do that, but the IT-educated know how to do this, and do not need Skinner's help. I can do it to any post on any Web forum, with only some exceptions. I then know what computer the person is using, what system software they have, what browser and version they use, which post the request comes from, and more. Most nerds can do this; "spying" is no longer limited to a few government James Bond professionals.

But, who wants to look through a Word text file 1,600 pages long? I write this to give readers some idea of what is possible, and, more importantly, of who knows how to spy on whom. When I have sent information to United States Attorneys, Congresspersons, and lawyers, I have determined if they actually access the page, for example.

And, just for kicks, I determined the White House has not used official computers
to access my domain during the first few weeks of this month, for example. :rofl: Spooks R US

[Duer 157099]

112. Well now you've given me a challenge to think about

If what you post is true, that's a huge revelation to me.

[L. Coyote]

19. The URL of the post with the link is logged by the server receiving the request.

Perhaps they will enjoy reading this thread!

However many times this image is requested from the White House server will now be recorded for posterity!

Unless of course the IT records disappear with the e-mails.
What assurance have we that true history will be preserved?

[Tansy_Gold]

38. Paranoia?

This whole discussion is taking place on a public and well-known message board. This whole discussion is discussing information that's been placed on a public and well-known message board. And you're worried that someone will trace it back to DU????????

I haven't seen anything uncovered in any of the _investigations_ here that isn't/wasn't easily obtained with a click of a mouse. Even the connections made are either insignificant or just, well, just public knowledge. Bradford Berenson's law firm is connected to wiki edits? Gee, wow, what a SHOCK! Someone is trying to cover up the fact that something is common knowledge. Oh, GMAFB.

The identity of DeepModem is unimportant, but the information she/he is divulging ought to be of some significance. So far, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe it is or will be. It's led to a big fat zero.

When the original Deep Throat was giving information to Woodward and Bernstein, he wasn't also putting it in the Personals columns of the National Enquirer. To get the information out, he sought reliable and discreet channels. He gave them the information, not a bunch of jabberwockied hints and teasers. They had to find independent confirmation of what he told them, but he didn't give them junk.

Now, maybe Deep Modem is fishing on the internets for someone, someone just lurking out there in cyberspace, to whom to divulge his/her secrets. ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? Do you really believe Deep Modem would post on places as heavily monitored as DKos and DU and TPM? Do you believe she/he would TRUST anyone who approached him/her via any public, open, unsecure channel?

I mean, it's not like a bunch of DUers _discovered_ Abraxas. The company operates in the open. You haven't stumbled across a big secret operation. Oh, I'm not denying the company might be engaged in nefarious, even illegal activities. But just finding its website is, well, it's what you're SUPPOSED to DO! That's what websites are for!

Oh, never mind. This was fun for a while, and I don't expect anyone here to pay any attention to me. But this is just plain nuts.


the DUer who is glad she isn't really

Tansy Gold

[L. Coyote]

40. Again, good points. As ponderous as this media is, I would not go back to killing trees.

In some ways it is hilarious to see how little substance is brought forth. In other ways it is tragic to see how busy some people are trying to derail discussion of very serious issues, lead the discussion astray, create panic and paranoia, etc.

However, since this thread has started, I have received some insider information about the IT department at the law firm. That info is in one of the posts herein. Apparently, they are the subjects of a subpoena for e-mails and the IT dudes have been working at e-mail retrieval in the last year, recovering e-mails that were deleted. Sound familiar?

There is a reason why some people derail these discussions. It isn't because we are discussing baking cookies. It's because the kind of cookies we are discussing have to do with surveillance and spying. IT comes with the territory (typo intended).

At the same time, there is this to consider. Thousands of people read these threads in the first 24 hours, at least some times. We see it, if not write it, here before it appears in the WA Post and elsewhere. And, those disrupting, or going off topic, or asking questions non-specialists need to ask, provide a very real aspect to what is being discussed and often enhance the discussion. In the WA Post, they don't get to chime in or ask something and get an answer.

As ponderous as this media is, I would not go back to killing trees for my info.

[Tansy_Gold]

45. Then find the subpoena for the emails

Find the grand jury. Find the subpoena. Put details out here for us to see. These should be public information, ¿verdad? _Inside information_ about the IT dept isn't good enough.

I just sat down with my boyfriend and asked him about this in hypothetical terms. "Suppose you were a government insider and you had crucial information you wanted to leak. How would you go about it?" He's not into politics, but he knows computers. So he came up with the usual means -- contact a trusted reporter at a trusted newspaper -- and then offered some _secure_ ways to do that. We hashed over the old Deep Throat "follow the money" routine. But when I suggested that the information might be put out via a public message board in mysterious code, he laughed. Out loud.

"Why would you put it out to the public, or worse, out to the _enemy_? Why give them any opportunity to scotch it, or worse, find out who you are, what you know, what you're doing? Oh, you can use a remote server or even a couple of different computers or whatever, but you got no fucking guarantee your boss isn't watching the very places you'd be posting it. Get real!"

You think I'm trying to sabotage this Hunt for Red Herring? No, not really. I don't care how long any of you want to spend on this. If you, Coyote, or anyone else can come up with some concrete revelations, I'd be more than happy to change my tune. But I don't think it's gonna happen.

Here's the scenario I posed to the boyfriend:

"Suppose you're a high level white house staffer and you've long believed the official line about the integrity of the boooooshies. Then one day you discover a copy of an email that provides clear evidence that karl rove directed the whole U.S. Attorneys' firings, and he did it to protect several influential republican congressmen who were about to be indicted for connection in an election rigged by touch-screen voting machines. You are so shocked, you go into denial for a while but then you decide you want to get the information out there. The problem is, if you do it too blatantly, you run the risk of revealing who you are and maybe losing your job. You need to keep your job if you want to provide more information. So -- HOW DO YOU LEAK THIS INFORMATION AND PROTECT YOURSELF AT THE SAME TIME?

"Do you do post cryptic messages on a public message board, messages so cryptic that no one even knows what you're talking about? Do you lead them via round-about trails to information that's not only irrelevant but considered common knowledge?"

His answer was "Of course not."

This thread started with a request that everyone look not at Deep Modem's status as a _mystery_ poster but rather at the information she/he has actually posted. This is the third such thread I've followed, and I haven't seen ANY information revealed beyond stuff that's far from anything remotely controversial.

Someone asked "We need a list of the people who have been bugged!" Does anyone have any evidence that there's been _bugging_ of any kind? To what end? What's happened to the people who have been bugged? What actions have been taken as a result of the bugging?

Look, if you or I had really valuable inside information, we would NOT post it in public fora. We would go to someone like Sy Hersh who has the resources and the connections to substantiate our claim and at the same time protect us from discovery. We might know ways to keep our identity secret, via remote servers and all that other wifi stuff that I don't know shit about, or we might ask others for information about how to keep such information "safe."

The last thing a serious inside leaker is going to do is put the incriminating evidence out there for all to see. He/she has more brains than to risk that the administration would find it.

I know, I know, I know. It's been a big thrill to think we've all been on a real treasure hunt, that we've all been _entrusted_ by Deep Modem with getting to the bottom of the mystery and saving democracy from the evil depredations of the boooosh-cheeeeeney fascists. Maybe it will all turn out to have been an experiment by some psychology prof to see how people react when tempted by the possibility of being in on the downfall of the regime.

But ask yourself, in all honesty, has anything really been discovered, or have a lot of people wasted a lot of time and energy on something that is going nowhere? And in the meantime, have they been distracted from . . . . . something else?

You make comments about the people attempting to distract the Deep Modem support team, but did you ever think that Deep Modem is the distraction? Look to see what he/she may be distracting you from.

El ojo que ves no es ojo porque tú lo veas; es ojo porque te ve.

[L. Coyote]

48. The subpoenas are public knowledge. Where the subpoena trail leads is not.

We may be getting off topic in many ways, but okay. This is relevant. There are well-known subpoenas, and they are not being complied with. Nonetheless, we know that certain IT guys are recover e-mails (that had been deleted after 90 days) over at Susan Ralston's attorney's law firm, where her attorney, Bush's former White House counsel Berenson, is a partner, where another partner was appointed Deputy National Security Advisor. And, the OP linked to an article about Berenson at DM's (?) blog.

This e-mail recovery effort has become known because of this thread and the attention to Deep Modem, and certain keywords. It was DM who pointed out that we should be looking over there. Maybe it means nothing, but it is online and searchable information now, with a set of keywords in this post. Maybe it means something, maybe not, maybe it will mean something to someone tomorrow. At least I gained a new source of inside information. If Berenson, et.al., are busy recovering lost e-mails, but not turning them over, even that is interesting.

So what is the larger perspective on the Gonzalez situation. It is not WHO the Mystery Boss who hires and fires is, it is WHY the Mystery Boss is firing the USAs. There is more to this than the voter fraud smoke screen. Just ask Carol Lam.

So, back to research and reading, for now. That seems the best way to dedicate some time now, and stay on focus.

[Tansy_Gold]

53. You just made my point for me

No one who has "insider information" on a crucial issue is going to want it out in public domain. And that's exactly where you just put it.

Assuming you're not making all this up, don't you think it likely that there is at least _one_ someone in the administration who monitors DU and dKos and the rest of the leftwing blogs? And don't you think that that someone, again assuming you're not making this all up and/or putting in _secret code words_ to your co-conspirators, would report to his superiors that "Hey, somebody over at Berenson's office is spilling the beans about our email recovery operation! It's all over DU!"

That's why leakers, _real_ leakers, don't go public. They go to sources they can trust to keep a secret. There are no secrets on DU; everything posted here is available to anyone, leftwing, rightwing, troll or lurker. I'll bet if you went through the logs of the IPs that have viewed some of these threads, you'd find a WH address or two.

Tansy Gold, who is really. . . . . . . . someone else

[L. Coyote]

54. I would make this point. People leak info to put it out there, not to keep it secret!

Just ask Vice-Resident Dick Cheney. If his leak had not been in the NY Times, it would not have been of use to him!

I'm not making anything up. I'm carefully parsing what I say, albeit not parse-lying like Gonzo-lies.
Conspiracies are secret, so one cannot have co-conspirators if one is writing
on open fora (except if _one_ is using _real secret code words_ of course).

White House IP addresses trolling this forum might constitute more Hatch Act violations.

What the people in goverrnment, corporrations, and law firms need to remember in today's IT world
is that they now entirely depend on the IT guru's who administer their networks for security.
Their work product, their every word in e-mails, on Blackberries, in collaborative work spaces,
all of IT is accessible to the individuals who control the networks. Did they overlook this??

[Tansy_Gold]

56. Cheney's leak was of SPECIFIC information to a

specific and trusted source. He knew exactly what he was leaking and what he wanted the publication of that leak to do.

As is the case with most genuine leaks -- there's a specific purpose in mind, and generally the results are expected within a very narrow timeframe. If there's no urgency, there's no need to leak.

Nothing, absolutely nothing about this "Deep Modem" case makes any sense whatsoever. Do you really believe "Deep Modem" is leaking bits of nonsense to remind his/her bosses that they're dependent on IT gurus for security? Give me a fucking break, Coyote. That would be much more effectively done internally and/or by "leaking" a single email, whether on a sensitive or non-sensitive topic. Besides, why warn them if DM is on _our_ side? Why not just leak it, the more sensitive the better?

Do you really think it's impossible for a WH staffer to monitor DU? Would they really be worrying about Hatch Act violations at this point? Couldn't they claim that taking the pulse of the public on issues such as secrecy, the war, etc., is part of official work? And even if it were a violation, do you think the administration doesn't have people, outside the WH, off the record, monitoring it anyway? Or the RNC for that matter?

And if there are _secret code words_ hidden in the messages, why draw attention to them. Isn't that like shouting "Hey, everybody! I'm sending a secret coded message with secret code words in it!" No one, not even the repukes, are _that_ stupid. (And then to put out a couple of nice long posts with _possible lists of code words_?)

I'm not buying it. If I'm offering a challenge to anyone who thinks any kind of opposition must mean the codes and the secrets and the leaks are real, hey, I'm not gonna try to stop you. But don't be surprised if you don't find anything.


Tansy Gold, who is not speaking in code

[Duer 157099]

59. I, personally, do not think that "dm" is an insider

I think it's just someone who is watching things closely and who has connected some of the dots, and who knows that much more brainpower/manhours are needed to connect more dots, and so is encouraging the blogosphere to pursue certain avenues.

And as for what to do with this info? Many of us here at DU already realize that in some areas, the bloggers are much more aware of details regarding various investigations than even members of Congress (not that that is a difficult accomplishment). All it takes is watching a few Congressional hearings on c-span to realize that most (all?) of our reps in congress barely can keep up with the details. Just listen to the questions they ask, and the ones they don't! It's frustrating as hell to realize that they are not the best of the best, and that their staffs are not being thorough.

So, the blogosphere is being called upon to help. We may uncover plenty of interesting leads, but I worry about whether anyone will ultimately care, considering what Congress actually does when they are already holding several smoking guns.

[Tansy_Gold]

77. I thought the early assumption was that DM *was* an

insider and therefore was trying to leak information?????

Look, I'm no logician, but it seems to me we've got a couple of possibilities:

1. DM is an insider trying to get specific, factual, time-sensitive information out of wherever it is he/she is inside.

Is DM actually trying to get information out? It doesn't appear so, because there's no information there. Leads and teases, but no real info.

If DM wanted to leak specific, factual, time-sensitive information to the Dems/opposition, would she/he have just started scatter-shooting data on the blogs, or would she/he have contacted someone directly? Seems to me she/he would have initiated some kind of direct or semi-direct (through an intermediary) contact rather than take risks the information wouldn't get out or would reach the wrong hands/ears/eyes.

Would DM want to run any risks of giving the WH a heads-up on this? I don't think so. Not if the information is specific, factual, and time-sensitive.

This leads me to believe DM is NOT an insider trying to leak specific, factual, time-sensitive information.

But there are still two aspects of that, and if both are not simultaneously true, it's possible that one or the other could still be true: DM is indeed an insider but has no specific information to leak, or DM is not an insider but does have specific information to leak.

2. DM is not an insider, but does have specific, factual, time-sensitive information to leak.

If DM isn't an insider, why the need for hiding her/his identity? Why go through all the techrobatics, all the teasing, all the blogging and posting and so on? Why not just take the information where it needs to go? Even if it comes out on the blogs, it's not going to mean anything.

3. DM is an insider, but doesn't have specific, factual, time-sensitive information to leak.

Now, this one has real possibilities that fit the facts -- those facts being simply the blog posts.

If DM is an insider who only suspects certain things are going on or have happened but doesn't know how to verify her/his suspicions, DM _might_ post clues on a public blog as a way of getting help to verify the suspicion. DM might even post on well-known public left-leaning blogs/boards because she/he believes that's were the most diligent follow-up will be generated.

_But_ in order to achieve any success at this, DM would have to monitor the resultant discussions to find out if her/his seeds sprout. This could be risky. And too much interaction with DM's _audience_ might also be risky.

While I would pretty much rule out #1 and #2, I'd give #3 at least a chance of being the actual case -- but it only supposes a potential discovery, not a specific leak. In other words, maybe even DM doesn't know what the answer is.

4. DM is not an insider but, like many of us outsiders, has certain suspicions and is looking for confirmation.

Though she/he may couch her/his posts in a style that _suggests_ insider information, DM may in fact have no more information than is readily available on the internet. For example, the "discovery" of connections between the DC law firm -- Sibley?? -- and the DoJ appointments and Ralston's attorney: such connections are hardly mysterious or secretive, and given the booooosh administration's long history of cronyism, it's not surprising, either, that there would be more than one connection between the administration and a "loyal" law firm.

Nor should it be really surprising that various WH offices, cabinet departments, etc. are engaged in editing wikis. Why wouldn't they? The temptation has to be enormous: wikipedia is a commonly-consulted source of general information about zillions of subjects, so wouldn't it make sense for the administration's minions to update areas that concern them? Okay, so _we_ consider their updates/edits as disinformation, but even so, is _that_ surprising? No, it's not.

If #3 is possible, #4 is more probable, at least in what passes for logic in Tansy Gold's mixed-up little head. But what good does it do to reach a conclusion about DM's status, if not her/his identity?

Well, to me, it suggests an entirely different strategy than what has been going on in these threads.

Instead of trying to figure out what DM is saying or trying to say, you might want to figure out what questions DM is trying to answer. In other words, turn this into a game of Jeopardy!, where the objective is not to come up with the answer but discern the question.

If the question provokes the possibility of an answer being dangerous -- and by that I mean it's specific, factual, and time-sensitive AND poses a threat to the life or liberty of an individual or to the administration -- it might be wise to take any further discussion to a more secure location.


Personally, I think #4 is the most likely case, and I also think it's highly likely that DM, insider or outsider, has cloaked her/his theory or theories in a rhetoric that makes them seem more substantive than they are. I still believe there's no there there. . . . . .but I won't rule out the possibility of someone else finding something. However, I don't believe the present strategy will ever prove productive.


Tansy Gold, who has been wrong before and will be wrong again, without a doubt

[Duer 157099]

43. I understand what you're saying, but

it's sort of not exactly like that.

The Internet is an historical repository, and some of that history was created at a time when people may not have considered ramifications of things they had done, or that there would be massive search and archive capabilities.

That it is publically available is certainly part of the issue -- subjects that are being treated as "priviledged" by various parties may be shown to in fact *not* be privileged precisely because they have been discussed on the Internet.

The specific issue of not linking back here is merely to buy time. For example, people might be considering changing their IP hosts, things like that, just to make the searching a tad more difficult. It can be a PITA to make certain changes, but if they find that certain blogs are on a specific trail, they might do it.

For example, the wiki scanner thing is useful, but one must know the IP addresses that were being used back in 2005/2006 (or whenever). They can change, just like phone numbers change.

[Blackhatjack]

13. K & R

[L. Coyote]

18. Bush/Ralston lawyer: sidley.com is a K Street law firm. A partner is Bradford A. Berenson

This is now Susan Ralston's counsel of record. Formerly counsel to George W. Bush!

http://www.sidley.com/lawyers/bio.asp?ID=9406

Washington, D.C.
1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

"From January 2001 through January 2003, Mr. Berenson served as Associate Counsel to the President of the United States. In the White House, he worked on a wide variety of legal, legislative and policy issues associated with the Bush Administration’s relations with Congress, its justice and domestic policy initiatives, and the war on terrorism. These included judicial selection, responses to congressional oversight and investigations, the USA Patriot Act, the Military Order authorizing the use of military commissions, detainee and anti-terrorism litigation, presidential action against terrorist financing, and the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security."

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

That is why the link in the OP is:
Apparently, this is our Mystery Poster: Constant's pations
http://constantpated.blogspot.com/search?q=berenson

[Duer 157099]

20. One point anon kept making was

that if something (a topic) were publically discussed (eg, a wiki entry modification, that might disqualify any privilege that could be claimed regarding that topic.

So, all these little bits and pieces could certainly add up to a large sum, if they can eventually all be tied together.

[Buttercup McToots]

21. I think they are spooked...

Trent Lott said "disaster could be on our doorstep" if lawmakers failed to act on Protect America Act two weeks ago.
Presumably there were ongoing NSC wiretapping / datamining operations picking up traffic related to financial market volatility.
ABC/Disney News, the White House, and DHS had spent most of the summer talking about "gut feelings" and imminent attacks.
Then 3 things happened:
1) The house of a former DOJ lawyer, TT, involved in wiretapping operations was searched by the FBI;
2) The stock market tanked;
3) Karl Rove announced his resignation.
Why would "disaster could be on our doorstep" if US intelligence agencies are required to obtain warrants from FISA to do their spying?
The warrants are allowed to be filed after the fact, so the timeliness argument is bull.
Why is this administration so frighted of oversight? And frightened they are...

Keep digging...There is a light there somewhere...
And ps
Abraxas scares the hell outta me...
Bump...up

[L. Coyote]

37. The disaster on the doorstep has to do with legal liability of the corporations that

violated the law by providing and taking part in the illegal surveillance of US citizens. We, You and I, can take them to court and seek damages for violation of our constitutional rights. They stand to lose more than their net worth, by some accounts.

What is now sought is like the torture escape law, retroactive "forgive their sins" legislation precluding legal action for past crimes.

This is what the Protect America Act does going forward, but not backward!

[defendandprotect]

80. "Millions are suing AT&T" . . . yeah . . . but more . . .

[redacted]

24. Right! He's "whipsawing" them. And it DOES defeat privilege claims.

I've planned to post about this important point for several days, and I plan to finally say more about this topic over the weekend.

It's really difficult to participate when, if you're like me, you've got these 10 minute breaks throughout your workday.

[L. Coyote]

28. Sidley Austin Partner Appointed By President Bush As Deputy National Security Advisor

Sidley Austin Partner Appointed By President Bush As Deputy National Security Advisor - US Affairs
http://lawfuel.com/show-release.asp?ID=12683
May 31, 2007


WASHINGTON, May 31 LAWFUEL - The Law News Wire -- Today the President appointed Sidley Austin LLP partner Daniel M. Price as Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs. In this role, he will serve as principal advisor to the President on international economic issues and will be responsible for coordinating Administration policy on international trade
and investment, foreign assistance to developing countries, and the
international aspects of energy security and climate change. He will begin at the White House in early July.

Mr. Price heads the International Trade and Dispute Resolution Group,
which joined the firm in May 2002 with 35 professionals. The Group, which
has grown to more than 50 professionals in Brussels, Geneva and Washington


======================
Sidley Austin LLP is one of the world's largest full-service law firms,
with more than 1,700 lawyers practicing in 16 U.S. and international cities
including Beijing, Brussels, Frankfurt, Geneva, Hong Kong, London,
Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney and Tokyo. In 2006, Sidley was named to Legal
Business' Global Elite, their designation for "the 15 finest law firms in ....
the world." Sidley was again named the number one law firm for overall .....

[Buttercup McToots]

23. From TP

Question for you guys with expertise in Constitutional/civil law.
We are in the middle of a war, supporting one side of a conflict (ie... Maliki)...
A group here in the Unites States decides to disrupt the United States (actually, the President's) efforts by monetarily and influencially supporting another entity, subverting the effort by the President.

Would this historically be classified as treason, or can treason only be considered reasonable if it is an action taken by folks who are not really that important or influential...

Posted by:
Date: August 24, 2007 5:35 PM

[redacted]

25. Has anyone been able to access this record in the Wiki Scanner database yet?

"There is a valuable source of information. It is about this subject. There is a way to bypass this obstacle. If you visit the "White House Office of Administration"-wiki entry, look at all the IP updates."

I tried doing exactly this overnight on Wednesday night, but got nowhere. Couldn't find the office's IP address block or blocks at that time, and reverse lookups using domain or entity names weren't working. Then the Scanner apparently went down.

Help? Anybody?

[L. Coyote]

39. Go to this URL

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

Then click the history tab.

198.232.60.10 is Sidley

So someone using the law firm's (representing Susan Ralston) network was editing wiki.

Note also this Braking News:
Justice Department says White House Administration Office not subject to open records law FOIA
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070822-1101-whitehouse-secrecy.html

[Duer 157099]

49. FYI, here are some IPs

Although probably not the only ones.

198.137.240.0-198.137.241.255



It's important to note is that the record was last updated in 2003, meaning that the IP block is still associated with the EOP.

Only one wiki scanner hit shows up from this group, for IP 198.137.241.13, for this page:

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=198.137.241.13

FYI, FWIW

[in_cog_ni_to]

84. IP 198.137.241.13 is Michael Powell. Colin Powell's son who worked at the FCC.....n/t

[rucky]

46. I guess he wasn't thinking of the history books...

when he named his blog.

[L. Coyote]

47. Good one. We needed a light note.

:rofl: Toot toot for you!

[redacted]

52. Another light note: Why's the White House editing RANDI RHODES' Wikipedia page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=52978508

[L. Coyote]

55. On a hilarious note, Did you click the newer edit link? n/t

[redacted]

58. LOL! Can't wait till she hears about this!

Good material for Monday's show.

I love Randi. Been a big fan since '03, before Air America. She's great.

[Duer 157099]

50. More IPs to play with

Remember all those emails that were mistakenly sent to the wrong email domain?

They can be found here, with their headers expanded:

http://2004.georgewbush.org/deadletteroffice/headers.asp

Since these emails were from the date range we're interested in, these should be interesting to search in the wiki scanner. And remember, be creative about expanding the IP range, since contiguous IPs are often assigned to the same entity. Also remember that many of these IPs will probably be for personal ISP accounts.

Post what you find...

[L. Coyote]

51. Note the Hatch Act violations in plain sight, on the Internet.

For example, Sen. Collins staff playing politics with their dot.gov accounts.
Have the offenders been removed from USG service? Anything at all happen yet?

Also, the time stamps tell you if they are at work, even if not using government e-mail servers.
Playing politics on the USG clock is also a Hatch Act violation.

[redacted]

57. Big thanks again dotcosm! Very smart!

That gets another YouRock:

:yourock: :yourock: :applause: :applause:

[Duer 157099]

61. My pleasure!

It'd be nice to get a real collaborative research effort going on this, even if just on the IPs in that email dump, just to see what turns up.

The nice thing about that dump is that it is history, and while those IPs are no longer likely associated with those people, the wiki archive can still be cross referenced to them. Who knows if it would yield anything useful, but it's a lot of dots.

[redacted]

60. Anybody know if he/she/they posted again in the last 24 hours?

[L. Coyote]

63. More interested in how many people are reading what he said. These post

indicate that there is little concern with the substance of the discussions by DM.

For example, in Cannonfire's More on the Mystery Poster, there are a few points that merit discussion, moreso certainly than speculations about the inner mental machinations of possible whistleblowers and leakers (however interesting such psychological topics may be).

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-on-mystery-poster.html

This is a short list compared to the many topics in all the posts:

* Verizon was allowing the NSA to listen in on private telephone calls and emails

* Verizon responded they could not confirm or deny ...

* Drew C. Arena is the "Vice President and Associate General Counsel Law Enforcement and national Security Compliance, Verizon."

* There is an overlap between the WH, RNC, Verizon, DoJ on the FISA through the AMDCOS-intermediary link within the Verizon e-mail.

* AMDCOS, an Israeli telecommunications company in St. Louis, MO, is a DoJ contractor accused of spying DoJ and telephone and credit card records of U.S. intelligence operatives.

* Fleishman Hilliard may have stripped down versions of the NSA intercept data.

* Gonzales' "this program" or "that program" relate to NSA data stripped of identifying information, transferred to a firm associated with DoJ and DoD.

* What is the explanation for the discrepancy between Mueller's and Gonzales' description of the surveillance programs.

AND, I sure would appreciate avoiding a flame war or even discussing why we are not discussing such and such. I'm trying to reclaim the OP focus, what is being said by Deep Modem.

[redacted]

65. Perhaps I was not clear. What I'm interested in is whether or not the MP has

posted new information during the last 24 hours. Some of his most informative posts appeared during weekends.

[L. Coyote]

67. I intended to reply to the OP n/t

[L. Coyote]

69. Sidley Austin LLP Pays IRS $39.4 Million Penalty

Rs. Get out of jail free, just pay the fines...

================================================
Sidley Austin LLP Pays IRS $39.4 Million Penalty
IR-2007-103, May 23, 2007
http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=170731,00.html

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced that it has reached a settlement with the law firm of Sidley AustinLLP,the successor firm of the merger in 2001 between Sidley & Austin and Brown & WoodLLP, which has paid a civil tax shelter promoter penalty of $39.4 million. The penalty stems from the firm’s promotion of abusive tax shelters and a failure to comply with tax shelter registration requirements.

“Sidley Austin has paid a significant penalty for its role in promoting abusive tax shelters,” said IRS Acting Commissioner Kevin M. Brown. “The firm has also taken concrete steps to prevent a recurrence of this behavior in the future, which they have agreed to maintain going forward. We appreciate their actions and their cooperation in our ongoing investigations.”

The firm issued opinions in connection with potentially abusive tax shelters to over 700 high-net worth individuals and corporations. .....

[L. Coyote]

70. Clerkship Bonus Watch: Sidley Austin to $50K

Clerkship Bonus Watch: Sidley Austin to $50K
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/08/clerkship_bonus_watch_sidley_a.php

Some good news, from a very happy tipster:

Sidley has just announced that they have raised clerkship bonuses to $50k! YES! .........

[L. Coyote]

72. SoNY USA = FEDS decline to prosecute Sidley Austin

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/05/29/law_firm_slides/
29 of May , 2007 at 9:38 pm

NEW YORK—The U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York has decided not to seek criminal charges against the law firm Sidley Austin LLP, the investigation of which arose out of the fraudulent tax shelter and other activities of former Sidley Austin Brown & Wood tax partner Raymond J. Ruble.

U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia explained that the decision was reached in accordance with the Department of Justice’s “Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations”.

The decision was predicated on a number of factors, including that Ruble carried out the major part of his alleged fraud, including the provision of fraudulent cookie-cutter opinion letters, and brought in a substantial part of the firm’s revenues, while a partner at the law firm Brown & Wood. B&W, a New York-based firm, merged in May 2001 with the larger, Chicago-based firm of Sidley & Austin, LLP, forming the firm SABW (which has since changed its name to Sidley Austin). ................

Sidley has acknowledged, through a public statement of responsibility that its role with respect to certain tax shelter transactions wrongly and fraudulently deprived the U.S. Treasury of significant tax revenues, Garcia said. ....

[L. Coyote]

74. Bush hires new group of lawyers, including several from the So. NY USA office.

Recently, the White House hired a new group of lawyers, including several from the So. NY USA office.

QUESTIONS include, of course, if the lawyers BUSH hired from So NY USA were involved in this and the settled SEC cases involving other Bush attorneys and advisors, not to mention lobbyists working for the RNC, Bush, and the corporations charged with defrauding the government. So many link, so little research time.

FROM: Ed Gillespie, Tenet Healthcare lobbyist, Ex-RNC chief named President's Counselor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1111575
===============
Former Chairman of G.O.P. Will Join Bush’s Inner Circle
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: June 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/washington/14gillespie.html

WASHINGTON, June 13 — Ed Gillespie, a prominent Washington lobbyist, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and longtime adviser to President Bush, will join the White House inner circle as the next counselor to the president, Mr. Bush said Wednesday.

Mr. Bush made the announcement in the Oval Office, with Mr. Gillespie and the aide he will replace, Dan Bartlett, by his side. In selecting Mr. Gillespie, Mr. Bush reached for a consummate insider, someone comfortable both in the ways of Washington and the White House itself.

.............

=================
Bush Hires Lawyers to Fight Legal Battles with Congress
by Ron Hutcheson
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/09/1757/

WASHINGTON - President Bush is signing up legal help as he girds for battle with the Democratic-led Congress.

Faced with a flurry of document requests and expanding congressional investigations, the White House announced Friday that Bush had hired nine lawyers, including five who’ll fill new jobs in the president’s legal office. The recruits have solid experience in white-collar crime, government investigations and constitutional law. .........

“The White House is laying in its stone wall,” said John Flannery, a former federal prosecutor and a Democratic activist. “They are preparing to deflect the subpoenas for Rove and Miers from the beaches of Capitol Hill to the heights of the Supreme Court if necessary.”

[L. Coyote]

76. July 23, 2006 = I.R.S. to Cut Tax Auditors

I.R.S. to Cut Tax Auditors
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: July 23, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/business/23tax.html?ex=1311307200&en=b03aaef959e9ae64&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


The federal government is moving to eliminate the jobs of nearly half of the lawyers at the Internal Revenue Service who audit tax returns of some of the wealthiest Americans, specifically those who are subject to gift and estate taxes when they transfer parts of their fortunes to their children and others.

The administration plans to cut the jobs of 157 of the agency’s 345 estate tax lawyers, plus 17 support personnel, in less than 70 days. Kevin Brown, an I.R.S. deputy commissioner, confirmed the cuts after The New York Times was given internal documents by people inside the I.R.S. who oppose them. ........

[L. Coyote]

81. Sidley Austin Lives to See Another Day

Sidley Austin Lives to See Another Day
by Kelly on May 23rd, 2007
http://www.taxgirl.com/sidley-austin-lives-to-see-another-day/

…Unlike Jenkens Gilchrist, which folded after being hit with penalties related to tax advice involving tax shelters ..... According to the IRS, at least one attorney at Sidley issued opinions in connection with potentially abusive tax shelters. .... Michael Garcia, the US Attorney for the District of New York, announced that he would not file criminal charges against Sidley. The decision was based largely on Sidley’s ongoing cooperation with the IRS in their investigation, the fact that Sidley did not mass market the shelters and that the purveyor of the schemes, Raymond Ruble, who was ultimately fired ....

Ruble is currently awaiting trial with eight other defendants (each of whom is a former KPMG employee, other than Ruble) for conspiracy to defraud the IRS and various tax evasion offenses; the case is U.S. v. Stein.

[L. Coyote]

75. Sidley Austin LLP 2005 Total Lobbying Income: $4,350,000

Anyone see red flags in the list of those paying for services:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/firmsum.asp?txtname=Sidley%2C+Austin+et+al&year=2005
Groups That Have Retained Sidley, Austin et al:

.......

e.g.

Society for Diagnostic Med Sonography - $120,000
Society for Vascular Surgery - $140,000
Society for Vascular Technology - $120,000

[defendandprotect]

82. Could it be that Karl Rove left the White House to handle this from OUTSIDE . . . ??????

If I were investigating what has gone on, I'd be following ole Karl Rove around for the next months.

The name of their game is stealing by cheating and they are much more ambitious, IMO, than any of us have ever dreamed.

INTENSE SECRECY is necessary to all of this.

And they want retroactive approval for what they've done because they can't keep the lid on without it.


I didn't get very far along in looking at what the mystery poster has posted -- btw, does someone know the identity? -- however, this is the point I'm making . . . they had to communicate and rapidly with each other -- how many? I think this makes it clear:


QUOTE --
18. excerpt only --
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." UNQUOTE

What are the "non-email methods" . . . ??????? ??????????????????????????????????????????
for "non discussions" --- ???? ???????????????????????????????

Obviously, some part of the Pentagon is after Bush -- but another part may be aiding him --
if that's so, Cheney will be deeply involved and perhaps doing his own thinking???
Planning ????

[L. Coyote]

83. Regarding your questions. non-email, DM's id, the NSA spying, and ROVE

Your Q: What are the "non-email methods" . . . ????... for "non discussions" --- ????

Shared workspace. Imagine a web site with only a select class of persons having access, like a military web, or a law firm's web. Basically, a private network. So, in such a space I might check out a document and edit it, save the edit, then e-alert collaborators. Someone else reviews my work, does their edit, then the boss looks it over and does an edit....

Your Q: btw, does someone know the identity?

There is a link in the OP to his blog. One idea I consider for his posting at TPM is that his blog was not being read or cited anywhere. That is suspicious, and perhaps the blog was being black listed, somehow blocked. I have been researching these topics, and never turned up his writing. I find no links to it in DU either. Curious, given the topics. So, maybe he just decided to take his thoughts to well-read sites.

Regarding your quotes of DM: "How the online collaboration relates to e-mails, links, URLs, decisions, timing of meetings, or subsequent actions/patterns/decisions remains to be understood."

This portion is important. It points to how he is speaking to Congress and investigators. I have yet to see that this is so however. There is some question of the possible red herring aspect of the posts. One of my first reactions to the posts was "free-association disorder."

Also, he seems to promulgate the idea that the domestic surveillance is being stripped of individual identification, hence made legal to read. If anything in all this is a red herring, perhaps it is this view in support of the Bush spying. My informant on this says it is piped overseas, where US law does not apply. If true, that is the huge secret! Any statements that the captured communications are being altered to make them legal to read seems the smoke screen, if what my informant said is true. This is the sort of program that would fit the scenario with Mueller, Comey, et.al. resigning, and that would place the telecommunication companies in the US in legal jeopardy because their actions in the conspiracy to evade the law takes place inside the US. It fits the known facts about the installations at the telecoms.

Regarding Rove, instead of repeating my opinions here, read this thread:

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

[defendandprotect]

86. Some of it I understand, much I do not -- very time consuming to following . . ..

Thanks for the response -- I really don't want to waste your time; but I'll comment anyway . . .

Yes -- Rove may be working now thru Halliburton/Dubai -- or sitting in his library bouncing off who knows what??? Obviously, their intent was to not use regular channels. In fact, doesn't much of the Iraq stuff go thru CIA/Langley???? Saudi's must have a few websites -- !!!!

If they were using methods outside of US they would want to be sure not monitored except by them.
Military/Pentagon secrecy would enable that; especially with Cheney's talents at manipulation with Pentagon/DOJ. Negroponte might have had a few ideas. Friends out of government now.
People who aren't suspected; not receiving subpeonas.
Certainly we're not talking about faxes . . . are we???
For all we know, they may have been using some real estate office to run their messages thru?
Some church -- the Vatican. Some part of CIA channels?

There are websites with voice transmissions?

If you look at GOP propaganda . . . it was simple, secret and not believable . . . but they and maybe still are sending recorded instructions with msg for every GOPer to follow. And, those "stay on message" messages seem to go back to even the time of Nixon. So they're well trained in this.

Like the support letters for Libby; someone has to generate the original material/idea --
Presume that comes from top down -- it begins "non-discussion."

Besides an ordained order/number of participants there also have to be passwords/codewords --
info on access. And . . . eventually someone has to pay the bill?

I doubt it could mean that people have to physically leave their offices to play the game?
Laptops are really transportable now -- ???

Re identity -- think the link says that guy KNOWS who's posting -- the mystery guy's identity.
Can you confirm that?

The guy doesn't seem like an egoist -- he seems to genuinely be pointing, but more like he's missing some key to this. He has some insight, some suspicions -- any more, I have no way of knowing.

Re this --
QUOTE . . . .
Also, he seems to promulgate the idea that the domestic surveillance is being stripped of individual identification, hence made legal to read. If anything in all this is a red herring, perhaps it is this view in support of the Bush spying. My informant on this says it is piped overseas, where US law does not apply. If true, that is the huge secret! Any statements that the captured communications are being altered to make them legal to read seems the smoke screen, if what my informant said is true. This is the sort of program that would fit the scenario with Mueller, Comey, et.al. resigning, and that would place the telecommunication companies in the US in legal jeopardy because their actions in the conspiracy to evade the law takes place inside the US. It fits the known facts about the installations at the telecoms.UNQUOTE

Understand, but doesn't seem sufficient for the fear --
They're sweeping away their footprints -- making things legal after the fact; which will also get AT&T off the hook. It's their MO.

And, in fact, the Congress seemed to get really fearful after it passed the last junk on FISA.
Wants to go back and redo it -- change it. There was a sense of emergency -- ???

Re Rove and the website . . . which I've scanned before; not in full --
What I'm asking is if their networks are down; if their networks are dangerous right now;
Could Rove be out trying to establish new networks? New ways of communicating?
For all I know Tim Griffin has an aunt with a website they all use . . .
but there have to be crumbs falling and a trail and stuff that can be picked up --

Right now, for all we know, the Congress may have hit into the vein and are reading their communications????

Now . . . coming back again . . . doesn't the FISA Court have to know WHO/WHAT/WHEN specifically re permission to wiretap? Indicating a list????

[L. Coyote]

88. MORE background information:

It may be useful to follow these links and get more sense of the broad context of Deep Modems postings. This is some of the recent research informing my opinions:

Yesterday was a GREAT DAY for Falwell TO DIE. Or, the Buffalo Jump to Hell.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x899312

Email-Gate FACTS: Felons, georgewbush.com, gwb43.com , et. al.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x523978

DEAL OR NO DEAL? Abramoff's and Rove's ex-aide has "useful information" about Abramoff, White House
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x995236

DIA SPYING: NGIA collecting data, 133 U.S. cities, ID everyone, nationality, political affiliations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x983282

GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY. Is Everyone in the WHITE HOUSE Going to the "OUT" House?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1069515

Years of OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE E-MAILS go missing. Five Million E-Mails Lost??
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x649088

NIXON'S (and Bush's?) Presidential Death Knell = "attempting to stop the wheels of justice"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x715123

COHEN: Alberto Throws Paul Under Bus; Ditto James to Alberto
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x890032

"It it Still a Crime to Lie to Congress." Gonzales Delivers Indictment, Charges BUSH with LYING.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x975882

Campaign 2004: Were Bush / Cheney / NSA illegal wiretaps spying on Dems?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x925247

EXIT RIGHT. Sara Taylor, WH political director, Rove Aide RESIGNS? "subpoenas for her testimony"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x990202

Ed Gillespie, Tenet Healthcare lobbyist, Ex-RNC chief named President's Counselor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1111575

SO, how many secret domestic spy programs are there anyway, and are they legal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1481897

[conscious evolution]

96. video teleconferencing?

[L. Coyote]

98. Right on. Good idea. But, are they recorded?

This is lkike a telephone call, except with a picture. Would there be a recording/electronic record?

[conscious evolution]

99. I would have to think so

Everything else on the web stays there.Why not vc?

[L. Coyote]

101. When we broadcast classes to several campuses, it is not recorded.

This is essentially video conferencing. Recording is possible, but not done.
It takes a lot of memory to record all the video broadcasted.

Think also of telephone conversations. They are not recorded, just the fact that the number was called and the duration.

[G_Leo_Criley]

89. kick

:kick:

glc

[Buttercup McToots]

90. On Crooks & Liars

anon Says: I’m reposting this just to keep people on point …

Do you understand that you are discussing the tactics of military based hegemony as if there were a right way to do that?

1) Wars of opportunity are international crimes. The US subscribes to this via treaty, therefore wars of opportunity are crimes in the US. The US has committed international and US federal crimes.

2) Torture is an international crime. The geneva convention is accepted by treaty by the US which makes torture a US federal crime. Internationally, the Taliban and Al Qaida were aknowledged as being covered by the Geneva Convention. The US has committed torture on both, therefore committing international and US federal crimes.

3) … and more …

Do you understand that the discussion SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT MILITARY TACTICS OR TROOP LEVELS. You are discussing the best way for a criminal to stay alive and succeed after committing a home invasion. The criminal will argue that he is there and there is no point discussing how he got there. The police would argue that is the actual point - how did he get there. The answer to that question will result in criminal charges. In fact, all that follows the original crime is a subsequent crime.

Do you see? The US committed crimes - internation and federal - by pursuing this war, acts of torture and more. They want to start history AFTER those events, just like the criminal in the home invasion example. They must be denied. The clock MUST start at the time of the crimes. You are having discussions as if the original crimes never occurred. Crimes were committed. All that follow the commissions of those crimes are crimes as well.

Will a surge work? Are you kidding? Put 2 million troops in Iraq and I promise you Iraq will get peacefull REALLY QUICKLY. But … so what? What about the original crimes?

Does a forcefully subdued Iraq justify the original crimes? Bush, Cheney, McCain, Clinton, Lieberman and on and on would tell you … yes.

I say no …. in fact … HELL NO.

It wouldnt matter if the criminal who invaded your home painted your bedrooms, he would still go to jail for home invasion.

The US is an unprosecuted criminal state. We must correct this.

Quote This Comment August 26th, 2007 at 10:41 AM - PDT

[Buttercup McToots]

91. Con't

anon Says: EZ @ 8:

How come Bush is not attacking the Saudis? Bush made a deal with his boss that they cannot go after the Saudis and the country of Jordan since they are supporting the war game.

Traitors in the islamic world is similar to the traitors in the christendom.

Bush’s dad is, I believe, the only president to continue receiving intelligence briefings. As a note, Bush’s dad provides consulting services for the Saudi royal family. (The US government provides secret service protection for the saudis)

See a pattern here? You would be very hard pressed to identify benefit for the citizens of the US in any of this - therefore either Bush is incompetent or he doesnt work for US citizens. You would find it very easy to see example after example of benefit to Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud.

Who does Bush work for? We know who his dad works for.

Quote This Comment August 26th, 2007 at 10:47 AM - PDT

anon Says: Annoyed Canuck @ 20:

EZ @ 8:

How come Bush is not attacking the Saudis? Bush made a deal with his boss that they cannot go after the Saudis and the country of Jordan since they are supporting the war game.

Pakistan, too. For some reason, the tribal areas along the Pakistani-Afghan border, where Al Queda moved after 9/11, and where Bin Laden is probably still holed up, is off limits to US military action.

Wahabi Islam, developed in Saudi Arabia, finds some of its most fertile soil in Waziristan.

Did you read recently that the House of Saud just recently announced acceptance of the notion of Islamic State. In a way, this all ties together.

Quote This Comment August 26th, 2007 at 11:07 AM - PDT

[Buttercup McToots]

92. Look at 32

I can't tell...head spinning from anon's

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/26/bill-moyers-surge-in-bushco-propaganda-denies-reality-on-the-ground/#comments

[WillyT]

93. Does Anybody Have A Cliff Notes Version Of What This Is All About ???

Because I've gotten lost in every thread on this so far.

Could somebody break this story down gently for me???

:banghead:

[L. Coyote]

94. GOOD IDEA! It seems there are people who want everyone to stay "lost" on this.

I'm trying to say the focus should be on the content. What is the "nutshell" of this?

Someone is offering advice on how to investigate all the inter-related scandals/illegalities
of the Bush administration, related to FISA-DoJ and Bush's admitted illegal domestic spying.

Even members of Congress are still trying to answer the question you pose, What This Is All About ???
For example, What is the extent of the illegal spying?

We really do need the Cliff Notes version of Bush scandals.
Who has time to read the Encyclopedia Amerikkkana version?

I need to find the PDF URL again, to the complete postings. Anyone?

[L. Coyote]

95. Here is a useful Reference Library listing by DUer frogcycle

http://algaeawards.dbc3.com/reflib/

It includes posts from kpete's thread on DU, Tue Jul-31-07:

CLUES? - Bushco Already Caught? - Is This "Mystery Poster" Another "DeepThroat"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1479959

I'm looking for that PDF still.

[L. Coyote]

100. Summary from Kos, of one of the posts only

http://algaeawards.dbc3.com/reflib/HTMLPage4.htm

[defendandprotect]

108. Well this is physical interference/supervision . . . ???? Gestapo . . . !!!!

QUOTE Has the FISA court, Congress, and Judiciary been fully apprised of how these units operate;
UNQUOTE

One way or another Bushco relies on aggressive tactics -- Ashcroft in his hospital bed!!! after having been denied information to base any decision on . . . !!!! --- might I say, violence, to get what they want.

What do they have to submit to the FISA Court??
Maybe they've been denying the court info, as well?

As far as the few details I've found re the Senators who were supposed to be watching the intelligence agencies, what was happening long, long ago was that the Senators were being targeted and bounced out of Congress if they weren't sympathetic. So, for long time, info hidden. Threats to those who have tried to do their duty to keep things in bounds -- oversight.
We're way, way late on doing something about all of this.

We have to understand that the CIA is a threat to the nation and democracy.

And that the whole FISA deal is a threat to democracy even BEFORE the extensions.

Re missing e-mails and such . . . obviously we need some real penalties for this crap.

[L. Coyote]

113. YES, jail time is the deterrent. The Rs did not foresee oversight, or jail time!!

[L. Coyote]

97. US confirms key role of telecom firms in wiretapping

Lacking in the governments revelations are any details on where the illegally surveillance captures were diverted to.
Was the data sent outside the United States to escape the Constitutional protections arrorded US citizens inside the United States. Did the Bush administration decide that they can spy on us if they move our e-masils and phone calls outside the US, since US law does not apply there. This is what my informant indicated, that everything was routed to a foreign nation for this specific reason, to skirt American laws and Constitutional protections.

======================
US confirms key role of telecom firms in wiretapping
By Eric Lichtblau, New York Times News Service | August 24, 2007


WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has confirmed for the first time that American telecommunications companies played a crucial role in the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program after asserting for more than a year that any role played by the companies was a state secret.

The acknowledgement was made in an unusual interview that Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, conducted with The El Paso Times last week in which he disclosed details on classified intelligence issues that the administration has long insisted would harm national security if discussed publicly.

He made the remarks, an apparent effort to bolster support for the broadened wiretapping authority Congress approved this month, even as Democrats are threatening to rework the legislation. They say it gives the executive branch too much power.

It is vital, McConnell said, for Congress to give retroactive legal immunity to the companies that assisted in the NSA eavesdropping program to help prevent them from facing bankruptcy because of lawsuits over the program. .............

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/24/us_confirms_key_role_of_telecom_firms_in_wiretapping/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News+%2F+Nation

[L. Coyote]

102. Karl Rove used AOL: Susan Ralston deposition. Did DM read this?

No mystery here, as of June 19, 2007.

Susan Ralston deposition PDF: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070618105351.pdf

Susan Ralston answers questions about Karl Rove's e-mails. He used private accounts "from day one."
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29131
Submitted by crew on 19 June 2007

Q Were other White House officials aware that Mr. Rove in 2001- was providing e-mails from his polìtical accounts to investigators who were looking at Enron?

A I believe so, because all of the documents that we collected were then turned over to the White House Counsel’s Office.

And then there's Rove other private, but not RNC, e-mails:

Q Do you know what hi s personal e-maìl account address was?

A It was an AOL account. I don’t remember right now,

Q Do you know whether Ken Mehlman used a political e-mail account?

A You know. Karl also had a “Rove.com” e-mail address .

Q You are referrìng to a personal e-mail address?

A Well, it was — it wasn’t — I don’t know how you would classify it, but it was a “Rove.com” e-mail address. There were — I can’t remember when, but at some point his Rove. com e-mai ls all went to the same political account. So if you sent an account — if you sent an e-maìl to George W. Bush.com or if you sent an e-mail to him at Rove.com, it went to the same place.

[L. Coyote]

110. Apparently YES. Just scroll down to his post!!

I think I have an explanation for some of the "Mystery Poster" posts. The real poster was on CREW all this while.

Someone was trying to keep people from turning up CREW on their search results by copying and pasting the posts, scattered the same keywords elsewhere.

And it worked really well. Only one problem. I was researching other threads too, and this Karl Rove post led me, totally by coincidence, to discover Deep Modem on CREW!

Thanks for resigning Karl. :rofl: You can quit playing Deep Modem now and go spend some time with the family.

[L. Coyote]

103. CREW: Submitted by Anonymous: Leahy Apparently Ignores Open Source Information

At this point, the need for a timeline is also apparent. Not just of anonymous postings, but a timeline of when specific information first appears in the public domain.

This is not the only anonymous posting on CREW that is of interest.

===============================
Leahy Apparently Ignores Open Source Information
Submitted by Anonymous on 2 July 2007 - 2:35pm
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-8720

Open Source Information Links Former And Current US government Officials To Adverse Inferences

It is fiction to suggest Congress must rely only on information the President has. Open source information, linked with the personnel listed below, is fatal to the US government position and claims of privilege. The information listed below shows there is ample evidence which has been disclosed.

Congress does not need to wait for the Executive to agree to disclose information that has been disclosed.

It is reasonable to reject the Congressional-Presidential implicit assumption that the needed information to prosecute the President only remains within US control, and is protected by executive privilege. This notion is false.

[L. Coyote]

104. MORE: Prepare Back Up Plan When Congress Fails To Defend Constitution

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-8701

Prepare Back Up Plan When Congress Fails To Defend Constitution
Submitted by Anonymous on 2 July 2007 - 12:37pm.

State AGs Can Prosecute A Sitting President And Members of Congress

There is little to believe Leahy's threats will amount to much. I would encourage the public to assume the Congress will bungle this. In light of the apparent continued GOP control of the Senate -- their ability to block resolutions, which the DNC failed to do in re MCA/Patriot Act, etc -- I have little confidence Congressional "threats" to do anything will amount to much.

Congress Cannot Stop We the People

The answer is not with Congress: It is with We the People. Congress may choose not to issue contempt citations; and may bungle an impeachment. However, there is nothing stopping other options: State Attorney Generals -- any of the 50 -- from prosecuting a sitting President outside impeachment.

Congress Cannot Defy Defenders of Constitution

We've heard many excuses why things will not change -- despite the November 2006 voter mandate for change; and indeed the corruption may continue. Rather than throw up our hands and say, "We can't do anything," assume the opposite: There are people working with the State AGs to enforce the law against this President.

Congress On Wrong Side of Law

DoJ OPR and the US Attys may be blocked at the federal level, but this does not stop the States from defending the Constitution against the President. Rather, where Members of Congress are individually reckless in not fully asserting all options to defend the Constitution, they could be prosecuted for 5 USC 3331 violations of their oath of office.

Congress Has No Power To Thwart Grand Juries

State Grand juries can making findings of fact which Federal District Courts generally accept. The Federal Judiciary may be corrupted, and the DOJ Staff counsel may be influencing the US attys not to enforce Geneva; but this does not mean all 300 Million of US can be forced to assent to this lawlessness.

Congress has no power to compel anyone to assent to this abuse of power; even if congress cannot agree, their lack of action is not precedent nor a mandate for We the People not to take lawful action outside Congress.

Prosecuting the President, Members of Congress

Please encourage your friends to discuss with your State AGs the option of prosecuting a sitting President outside impeachment. Members of Congress can also be prosecuted for failing to fully assert all lawful options to defend the Constitution.

Congress May Not Assent To Unconstitutional Conduct

If the legal community and Members of Congress will not join the Constitution and defending it for We the People, it is reasonable to make an adverse inference: Members of Congress have recklessly defied their oath; and are on the wrong side of the law. We the People and the Constitution are on one side of the line; this President is on the other. Members of Congress and the legal community appear to be signalling that they would rather remain silent, and not fully join We the People.

We the People May Assert Our Power to Check Congress

Then Members of Congress, the President, and the US government officials -- backed by the reckless US legal community and outside council -- have made the wrong choice. Time to call them what they are: Domestic enemies of the US Constitution. Where they refuse to impeach, they may be lawfully prosecuted.

Requested Action

Share this information with your friends. Congress may promise something, but they are not delivering. One Party Controls Congress. The DNC could block budgets and refuse to rubber stamp. They have poorly chosen.

We the People must provide the leadership this reckless DNC and GOP have refused to exercise. Please contact your State AG and remind them of their oath; and the possibility that if they refuse to defend the constitution they too could be prosecuted and disbarred. Time for Americans to choose which side of the the line they want to stand. Standing with the President is the incorrect choice.

[L. Coyote]

105. MORE: Prosecuting A Sitting President: State-Led Effort

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-9561

Prosecuting A Sitting President: State-Led Effort
Submitted by Anonymous on 7 July 2007 - 7:32pm.

Suggestion: Read This, Share With State AG

1. Legal Citations In Law Journal Article

Jonathan Turley; American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 37, 2000. From Pillar to Post: the Prosecution of American Presidents

Turley is law prof at Georgetown.

Remind State AG's of their oath. Once Impeachment is off the table, prosecutions remain.

2. Sen. Ashcroft Comments in re Clinton Impeachment

"My first preliminary thought: the president would appear to be subject to the compulsory process of the criminal law. Put simply, the Constitution and our history appear to reflect the fundamental principle that no man is above the law. The president is subject to the law, not above it. If he violates the law, he can be prosecuted.

But there is a second important question, and that is this: Assuming a president can be prosecuted, should he be prosecuted, when impeachment is a viable option? I think not. Prudence dictates that absence extraordinary circumstances, that when impeachment is available to address presidential misconduct, prosecution should await the resolution of the impeachment question by the Congress.

3. Congressional Refusal To Impeach Opens Door To State Prosecutions

If impeachment is off the table, Ashcroft implicitly is arguing that prosecutions remain on the table. Yet, if the US Attys will not prosecute, then the State AGs must.

A. US Attys Thwarted, State AGs Must Act

The President has clearly affected the US Attorneys, blocked DOJ OPR. There's no question that there would be a delay by the US Attys in reviewing these issues. They have no credibility, especially the inaction in the wake of the Grand Jury review of OVP. Wow, big Fitzgerald indictment-conviction gets flushed. Time for the States to target the President with prosecutions.

B. State Level Legislative Actions Blocked

Congress has blocked state level efforts in re House Rule 603 to pass proclamations calling for Congress to investigate. Congress has communicated it is not interested in defending the Constitution using impeachment. Congress decided to take impeachment off the table: Prosecutions can proceed.

Hardly takes a leap of anything to conclude prosecutions remain on the table; and that Ashcroft's comments well support the State AGs in targeting this sitting President.
Paraphrasing Franklin, "You have a Constitution and a Republic. If you want to keep it."

4. Extraordinary: Alleged Congressional Malfeasance On Geneva Violations

Congressional inaction on issues of war crimes, FISA violations, and decisions to take impeachment off the table arguably are extraordinary circumstances: No President has ever been given a blank check by his opposition to violate the Supreme Law, and face not prospect of legal consequences.

DNC Control of Congress is irrelevant when they continue to refuse to use impeachment investigations to compel accountability and this President's assent to the Rule of Law.

Time for the State AGs to get contacted: Game on for state level prosecutions outside Congress outside impeachment. Time to target Members of Congress for 5 USC 3331 violations for failing to use all legal options, including impeachment, to defend the Constitution. Inaction against Members of Congress allows their oath to be meaningless; and for the Constitution to fall into disrepair and nullification. That is impermissible.

5. Action Plan

A. Read the Article by Turley;

B. Contact your State AGs: What is their plan to review the Turley Article and prosecute this sitting President and VP outside Congress;

C. Talk to your friends in other states.

6. Discuss This Draft Indictment At State level

A. State Standing

Constitution guarantees to all States a Republican Form of government, which includes an enforcement mechanism.

B. Assertion of Retained State Power

States have power to do this: Amendment X reserves all non-delegated powers to the States. Congress was not delegated power to prosecute a President only impeach. States retain and may at any time assert this non-delegated, reserved power at any time without coordination with Congress. The intent of framers was for the States to act as one of the last vanguards of the Constitution against an abusive Government. The State prosecution is consistent with the Framers intent of preserving the Constitution, not, as this Congress and president have done, impersmissibly let the Constitution decay.

C. Allegations

President's conduct has denied the States of the Constitutionally Protected Guarantees: Refusal to enforce; failure to defend Constitution; illegal abrogation of Supreme Law and Geneva.

D. Charge

President has violated his oath of office to ensure the States enjoy a Republican Form of Government; and illegally abrogated war crimes.

E. Punishment, Remedy

The President and Vice President may be jailed; pending their release, the Speaker shall Assume Duties of President. President and VP shall retain title of "President' and "Vice President" but all legal duties and power shall be transferred to Pelosi and her Congressionally-approved Nominee, per 25th Amendment, by a simple majority vote in each house.

Make it happen.

[L. Coyote]

106. CREW a GOLD MINE of "Anonymous" posts: Missing OVP Evidence Admissible

Missing OVP Evidence Admissible
Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 3:53pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6818

No merit to Any Assertion there is "no" evidence

CREW reports,

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for info. on this issue was denied on the ground there were "no documents" on this matter.

Mandatory Documents, 32 CFR 2800

Small problem: 32 CFR 2800 compels OVP legal counsel to create records, documents, and other management systems to meet the OVP security program requirements.

Ref:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

There is no basis for the FOIA to have been denied. The OVP or DOJ assertion that there is "no evidence" or "no record" may be adversely entered into evidence for the Grand Jury to conclude, OVP and DOJ has not complied with all 32 CFR 2800 requirements, and violated the law.

Problem for OVP Auditors in re 32 CFR 2800

DoJ needs to discuss, as it failed to do with POTUS blocking DOJ OPR from reviewing FISA, what basis it has to not investigate 32 CFR 2800 violations; and why there has been no credible accounting of the OVP legal counsel documentation and tracking requirements 32 CFR 2800.

Here are the legal requirements showing there must be records, and OVP misleading, but response has been unresponsive as required:

(1) Security Clearance Procedures. (i) The Counsel to the Vice President will:
(A) Be responsible for the processing of full field investigations for personnel assigned to the Vice President's staff. Department of Defense detailees are processed by the Defense Investigative Service.

(B) Inform the Staff Security Office of individuals whose full field investigations have been satisfactorily completed and approved and of any subsequent changes.

(C) Notify the Staff Security Office as soon as he/she is aware that a staff member is planning to terminate his/her employment.

Ref:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

OVP has fatally asserted there are not records, yet 32 CFR 2800 shows us that there must be records.

FOIA, Grand Jury Subpoena, Discovery

# 1. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel Compliance Records

- How does OVP or DOJ legal counsel explain "no records" when 32 CFR 2800 compels records by OVP legal counsel in re security compliance programs?

- Did OVP use "non records"-systems connected with Microsoft Outlook, and file sharing systems that are electornic and "non records"?

# 2. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel Evidence of Notifications

- How did OVP or DOJ legal counsel "inform" others without creating any record of document that notification, as required by 32 CFR 2800?

- What "non document" methods does OVP legal counsel use to comply?

- When did DoJ Staf learn of these "non document" file sharing systems not provided in the FOIA request?

# 3. Missing, Not Provided OVP System to Manage Investigations

- How were the investigations managed and processed by OVP legal counsel if there were not records, plans, or any organizing or reviewing meetings to monitor status of these reviews?

- Did OVP legal counsel discuss, communicate, interfac,e or share data with anyone, any entity, or any contractor using Microsoft Outlook SharePoint, a file sharing system; or any other "non document" method of communication to comply with 32 CFR 2800?

# 4. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel System to Track Changes

- How are changes tracked and reported, as required 32 CFR 2800?

- Were these changes tracked in any "non document" medium, to include file sharing, electronic, or other "non paper" communication, storage, retrieval, or transfer system?

# 5. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel Method to OVersee Investigations

- What method, if there is no record, does OVP legal counsel use to track, monitor, and oversee field investigations, as required 32 CFR 2800?

- When did DOJ staff learn 32 CFR 2800 was not being followed?

- Did DoJ Staff review "non document" evidence when responding to this FOIA request?

# 6. Missing, Not Provided OVP legal counsel Plan to Monitor Compliance With Atty Duties; no evidence of a Supervisory Plan of OVP Legal Counsel for Other OVP assigned Counsel

- How does OVP legal counsel show that it has complied with 32 CFR 2800 on issues of notification, oversight, tracking, and monitoring of its legal requirements under 32 CFR 2800?

- What evidence does DOJ Staff have that it reviewed 32 CFR 2800 relative to OVP counsel assertions?

- Has OVP legal counsel fully complied with all "non document"-related requirements of 32 CFR 2800 and the DC Bar Rules, compelling counsel to provide an oversight plan for subordinate attorneys?

- What "non document method" did OVP and DOJ staff consel use to track the status of training of subordinate attorneys on the 32 CFR 2800 legal requirements?

# 7. Missing, No Evidence of OVP Legal Counsel Change Tracking across all management systems

- What is the method by which OVP legal counsel tracks changes to personnel status and incorporates them as required 32 CFR 2800 into other system, paperwork, and management training plans?

- What did DOJ Staff do when it realized OVP Counsel had not met all requirements of 32 CFR 2800; and there were not records as would be expected of a competent OVP mangement oversight system in re 32 CFR 2800?

- DiD DOJ and OVP Staff review, in responding to this FOIA, the "non documents" in electronic format, on file sharing sytems, or sent via software sytsems like SharePoint in MicrosoftOutlook?

Other Research

For more information on what documentation and evidence should be there in OVP legal counsels office in re security compliance, but apparently has been illegally withheld, destroyed, or not created as required, 32 CFR 2800:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

[L. Coyote]

107. SPIN OFF: NEW Mystery Poster on CREW = "Anonymous" +++ Deep Modem's Mother Lode?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1669387

[L. Coyote]

111. The REAL Mystery Poster no mystery. Deep Modem may be a RUSE and here is

where the real posts are located. Follow this link:

NEW Mystery Poster on CREW = "Anonymous" +++ Deep Modem's Mother Lode?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1669387&mesg_id=1669387

While some questions and speculations may remain, there is no doubt that these are authentic posts by the "Anonymous" poster. Now, what to name her/him?

How about "Deep Lawyer"?

[RainDog]

114. did I miss the mention of this?

from TPM-

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004018.php

Democrats may tether the approval of Bush's forthcoming nominee to a Watergate-style agreement for the creation of a special prosecutor to investigate Gonzales-related scandals about the U.S. attorney firings and the surveillance program. As Isikoff writes, with a fresh account on the record about widespread wrongdoing at the Justice Department, Goldsmith will provide the Democrats with "fresh ammunition in their campaign for a special prosecutor."

Goldsmith's first public disclosures about the surveillance program aren't going to be his last. On September 17, he'll publish his exposé...

[L. Coyote]

115. FOUND: Deep Modem's source. FORTY original "Anonymous Lawyer" posts at CREW with links:

FOUND: Deep Modem's source. FORTY original "Anonymous Lawyer" posts at CREW with links:

Here they are, in chronological order. I thank the other members of the Research Squad for compiling all the anonymous posts under discussion.
All I did was attach the links to the list, which made chronological sorting possible, and add a few missing posts by our "Anonymous Lawyer."
There are another dozen or so posts on CREW that I do not include yet, most that I know of being shorter and on the linked pages.

As you will see, this material represents a series of legal opinions and suggestions directed to the staff at CREW.
When reading the copied and pasted versions elsewhere on line, knowing where they come from and that context will
provide greater sense of who is addressing whom.

27 Sept 2006 2:55pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/26669#comment-10
11 April 2007 7:06pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27374#comment-4816
31 May 2007 1:43am	http://citizensforethics.org/node/28567#comment-5967
31 May 2007 1:39am	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28576#comment-5966
31 May 2007 1:52am	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28590#comment-5968
31 May 2007 2:38am	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28590#comment-5969
31 May 2007 7:03pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28616#comment-5990
2 June 2007 7:27pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28670#comment-6056
2 June 2007 9:53pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28670#comment-6058
4 June 2007 6:16pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28670#comment-6105
9 June 2007 4:08pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28744#comment-6184
11 June 2007 7:26pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28744#comment-6231
13 June 2007 7:36pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28786#comment-6271
19 June 2007 7:42pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29131#comment-6429
20 June 2007 5:37pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29149#comment-6459
23 June 2007 4:35pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29170#comment-6570
23 June 2007 8:18pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29170#comment-6581
24 June 2007 5:18pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29170#comment-6693
25 June 2007 2:56pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6729
25 June 2007 3:53pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6818
25 June 2007 6:11pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29193#comment-6937
25 June 2007 6:35pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6938
25 June 2007 6:55pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29193#comment-6939
26 June 2007 12:28pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29195#comment-7242
26 June 2007 3:37pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198#comment-7255
26 June 2007 4:56pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198#comment-7258
27 June 2007 3:59pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29207#comment-7297
30 June 2007 8:11pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198#comment-7258
2 July 2007 12:37pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-8701
2 July 2007 1:10pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29237#comment-8703
2 July 2007 2:35pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-8720
2 July 2007 4:47pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29242#comment-8908
3 July 2007 12:53pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29256#comment-8925
3 July 2007 1:35pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29256#comment-8926
3 July 2007 3:23pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29256#comment-8941
3 July 2007 3:31pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29260#comment-8942
3 July 2007 4:11pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29260#comment-8949
8 July 2007 6:59pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29348#comment-9579
14 July 2007 4:33pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29370#comment-10343
12 July 2007 1:43pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29408#comment-10056
21 August 2007 3:23pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29947#comment-12502

No doubt, CREW can use our support. You can help here: http://www.citizensforethics.org

[L. Coyote]

116. 21 August 2007 is a distinct poster, not the Anonymous Lawyer. n/t

[L. Coyote]

117. NEW spin off: "Mystery Poster" DEEP MODEM Demystified. SOURCE Found at CREW

"Mystery Poster" DEEP MODEM Demystified. SOURCE Found at CREW
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1692772