Comments (106)

bobh wrote on May 16, 2007 5:26 PM:

And now we wll find out if anyone has been forwarding e-mails to the SJC secretly.

Tey claim no e-mails exist and Fitzgerald got his hands on NOTHING. Interesting.

Node of Evil wrote on May 16, 2007 5:35 PM:

I hope that the unnamed sources who claimed (was it McClatchy?) that the White House was intentionally witholding emails will come forward with the goods (assuming they can get their hands on those goods). In my opinion that's the best way to advance this story. Or, those sources could go public and testify to Congress. Hopefully one or the other will happen soon. Who knows, maybe that's already in the cards and Leahy wants to get the White House on record as saying "these are the only emails we could find..."

jazz wrote on May 16, 2007 5:41 PM:

How can this be. Did 't Kyle have a folder full of emails when he when in to discuss these matters with another DOJ lawyer? Or was that Monica?

Rebel wrote on May 16, 2007 5:41 PM:

This is good news! Now the courts will become involved and of course the Republicans will cry when they learn that executive privledge does not extend into the RNC. Rove might soon regret his attempted slight of hand by using non official email accounts. With it he lost the White House protection.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 5:44 PM:

This is very frustrating: I would ask that the Committee review their request. The issue is not just with the non-official e-mail accounts. The issue is [wait for it] . . . attached to the IP ADDRESS numbers.

For those who have no idea what this means, reconsider this: The entire focus has been on the RNC-emails. These are accounts.

However, there is a separate line of evidence that is public: Common IP numbers are linked PUBLICLY to the other websites that were used to transfer information, meet in cyberspace, and use instant messaging systems.

To reiterate: Rather than just focus on the e-mails -- and get distracted by whether there were or were not responses to the subpoena -- the Committee staff can look at the open records on the Internet of the IP number associated with the White House; then directly request -- without going to the White House -- the time sheets, work flows, and other taskings associated with those IP numbers.

For example, a given IP number in the White House at a specific time and location in cyberspace can be linked with other activity, comments, and views. Once it is shown that a given IP number was active, used, and linked with public comments, it's possible to trace that IP number to a given White House or DOJ Staffer; then review the history of that IP number to see what non-official information is connected; then identify other e-mail and IP/URL information.
After a while, you're going to see some patterns: IP numbers linking the White House, DOJ, and outside White House counsel are linked to common websites where there appears to have been non-official data transfers.

Again, the issue isn't just e-mail, but to find the URLs in cyberspace where personnel were meeting; and identify the open source information showing which URL and websites -- outside White House control -- these DOJ and EOP IP numbers are linked, connected, and exchanging information. These IP numbers can give you an idea of their expertise, types of communications being used, and comments on the non-official communications methods including instant messaging that are linked not only to DOJ and the White House, but also the NSA in re FISA and prisoner abuse issues.
Yes, e-mails are important; but the other side of the coin is to consider the larger patterns of interactions, communications, and public information linked with those IP numbers that will show other issues these players were involved in: This is a way to destroy the President's claim of privilege. Once the IP numbers are known publicly, all public information related to those IP numbers is fair game for public commentary, Congressional subpoenas and questions:

A. Why was this communication system/topic being discussed despite its sensitivity?

B. Why was the AG stating he had insufficient resources to comply with FISA requirements; yet DoJ Staff counsel IP numbers are linked with non-official business indicating the AG lied; and that, contrary to the AG claims, plenty of staff to meet the FISA requirements?

C. Why is the White House saying it has "no idea" about document retention requirements; yet IP numbers linked with RNC-connected law firms show within the RNC there were experienced attorneys who well know the RNC data retention requirements?

IP number-data can be linked with discussions, information, and other things that the sender did not realize could be linked to DOJ, the White House, or outside counsel. They've left some gems if the Committee gets the right IP data matched with the contradictory policies and information provided under oath to the Committee.

lildb wrote on May 16, 2007 5:47 PM:

Maybe it's just me, but even these brief exchanges seem damning, given that Karl is included at all in the email loop, for information that seems unnecessary to share with him if he really isn't involved in the firings. Esp. the second email; his is the first in the series of addresses. Why? If he's not involved, why is he the first person being sent the information?

Just noting it. *shrugs*

Mike Valentine wrote on May 16, 2007 5:54 PM:

By the way Ms. Gooding, did you ever receive a e-mail from Mr. Rove?

Code ... grip, like get a grip on the bull stuff

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 5:57 PM:

Let's give you an example of an IP trace

Note: Fielding was on the list of recipients: See page 3 of 11. Also note an e-mail: KR@georgebush.com, which is Karl Rove's Account, which is (apparently) indirectly linked to 65.112.142.8, which is a Qwest account.

If the Congress is serious about finding out about thie e-mail and the IP that is [apparently] attached, why no subpoenas to private telecoms to get the information?

A. Where is the record from Fielding that he opened this e-mail in the EOP?

B. What did Fielding do when he received this e-mail?

What this tells us is that there's a link between the White House counsel's office, and this e-mail which is routed (apparently) through Qwest. The keywill be to see who -- if anyone -- opened this e-mail, and responded; and how the response was routed back to all the recipients and the originator. There is a method to monitor who opens an e-mail, and this can link to new URLs, RNC, and other IPs connected to EOP, DoJ, and the RNC communcations center and legal cousel's office.

If you want more examples . . .

fuzz wrote on May 16, 2007 6:00 PM:

While the IP information itself may be in the public domain, the actual records (logs) of what took place are the private property of the owners of those records. It is highly unlikely that any service provider or intermediate mail server admin or web site admin is going to just hand those records over without a warrant--in fact they'd probably get the pants sued off of them if they tried.

I worked for a major network service provider and spoke with FBI agents a couple of times a month who were demanding such records. They would get angry and attempt to intimidate me (give me your full name and home address!) but the policy was very strict--no warrant, no records.

Buck wrote on May 16, 2007 6:01 PM:

This is not the tip of the iceberg.

The iceberg is elsewhere and in the hands of appropriate parties.

The second summer will be sizzling hot. At the cattle call, there will be carcasses dropping like flies.

fuzz wrote on May 16, 2007 6:06 PM:

"There is a method to monitor who opens an e-mail, and this can link to new URLs, RNC, and other IPs connected to EOP, DoJ, and the RNC communcations center and legal cousel's office."

Nonsense. There is a very-seldom-used mechanism that both parties have to explicitly enable, and even then an intermediate service provider would have no record of it. Logs kept by service providers are brief and not retained forever. There is not, for example, a record of every single transaction that you perform on the Internet--if a provider does keep that kind of detail, it's for a week, or a month, not in perpetuity. It's just too much information.

mark wrote on May 16, 2007 6:06 PM:

It DOESN"T MATTER if Rove deleted his emails ... the Justice Dept. backs up its email servers, probably every night, and the backups are always saved against the chance of a major system failure. Rove can delete his copy, but the backups are there in case he deletes something really important by mistake or the system has to be restored. Subpoena the damn backups. It's all there. Is there no Democrat with any computer sophistication at all looking at this?

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 6:09 PM:

The Department of Education seems to be using an outside e-mail service, too. Some that deal with its controversial Reading First program, which is under investigation for corruption. Anybody see a pattern? Wonder whether that e-mail service is in Tennnessee?

greenmeddler wrote on May 16, 2007 6:10 PM:

the bbc is reporting on 500 of these emails which were misdirected and now being analyzed. link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/14/1426254

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 6:10 PM:

This is not correct: "While the IP information itself may be in the public domain, the actual records (logs) of what took place are the private property of the owners of those records"

There are PUBLIC records of what people think are private communications; or public records which the sender did not realize would be publicly available connecting their IP with content which implicates specific legal counsel on specific legal issues and topics within EOP and DoJ.

It is possible to review these records, identify the common lines of discussions, and see who else was also doing things at the same time from other IP numbers of interest.

For example, a given DoJ Staff counsel can be linked with a given IP number; and there is a direct link to an outside lobbying firm at the same time. Small problem:

A. The discussion is disclosed;

B. There is evidence that the DOJ Staff counsel was linked to a common third party website, while the outside contractor was also reviewing teh same information;

C. the DoJ Staff IP number appears to have been recorded because they had an ongoing communcation using telecom or isntant messaging;

D. Other IP data linked to the DOJ Staff confirms the substante of the conversations, their expertise, and that there is an ongoing relatioship between the DOJ Staff member and this otuside contractor.

The IP Data can be linked with public information; and this data is not hidden, protected, or something the DOJ or White House can hide. The issue is whether the IP data, once it was linked with a problematic communcation, was destroyed; yet, the public IP information remains in tact.

The issue isn't the substance of the converation; but the incorrect belief that the public IP data did not exist; and that the RNC could destroy the private informatoin in the WH and DOJ systems. The issue isn't the data, but the gaps in the DOJ Staff workflows: What were they really doing; and if they were doing "good" things, why doesn't the DOJ data -- that has been destroyed -- show that the activity was benign?

Answer: The adverse inference is

1. They destroyed data they didn't think would be connected to DOJ OR the White House;

2. The issue is not benign, otherwise it would not have been destroyed;

3. The outside IP-connected information answers the question of what was going on, thereby linking the person, IP number, communcation, computer, and the issue with data systems outside the DOJ and White House countrol.

The issue isn't what they've destroyed, but whether the pattern of IP data -- that should be "no problem" is missing in the offiical files; but the open source IP-connected data is still intact.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 6:12 PM:

Yet another "Fuck You" letter from Justice. Maybe Leahy's next threatening letter can include a invitation for Sunday tea. Leahy seems in over his head. He still wants to play nice with this gang of miscreants. Cheney told you to fuck off on the Senate floor Leahy- didn't that give you some kind of idea of the type of people you're deal with?

riddle wrote on May 16, 2007 6:12 PM:

fuzz - You're presuming that DOJ, WH et al use Internet standards. I believe they instead use MS Exchange. Exchange *does* in fact have records of which emails are opened and which are not; which are sent to whom, etc, etc, ad naseum as it is based on a central mail database server.

ssda wrote on May 16, 2007 6:13 PM:

Seems like it might make sense for Congress to start pushing some buttons here.

In the same way that in a murder investigation the cops don't let on all they know, I'm hoping that the Senate has more of a strategy than just asking the Bush administration to cooperate and crossing their collective fingers...

Requires a little bit of 2-dimensional thought from somebody, but maybe you subpoena email records even though you already (secretly) have some of them - maybe via an individual witness or whistle blower. Then when they don't get produced, you have a pretty convincing case that there is a coverup going on...scare some folks into cooperating.

ahem wrote on May 16, 2007 6:14 PM:

That's taking the piss. Time to start sequestering servers.

And if that's all they can find, then it shows they've been destroying presidential records.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on May 16, 2007 6:17 PM:

the lies and deceptions don't need to be pinpointed by the internet confabulists and confoundedists ad infinitum to the delight of the white house prevaricators and despoilers.
Their crimes are out there and outrageous enough without a lot of electronic mickey mouse.
The military does not need to put up with this any more.
The Congress itself ought to call for a coup.

Double Ahem. wrote on May 16, 2007 6:20 PM:

I agree time to start sequestering the servers. Provided the servers still exist.

Remember according the the DAG and his assistant no one mentioned that it was necessary to secure documents in light of the congressional investigation in March? Opps, they're "lost" now.

Well, someone is still going to prison and it won't be the IT guy who merely followed orders. The again, crazier things have happened.

Mara wrote on May 16, 2007 6:21 PM:

Is that the "breaking news" that Justice turned over some emails from Rove to Judiciary? Not that exciting indeed.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 6:22 PM:

This is a repost of a comment. The problem with the assumption is that they are not considering that THIRD PARTIES -- outside waht the sender and reciever know about -- are aware of he IP numbers, and the content of these thought-to-be-priate/non-connected comments.

Original comment:

"There is a method to monitor who opens an e-mail, and this can link to new URLs, RNC, and other IPs connected to EOP, DoJ, and the RNC communcations center and legal cousel's office."

Incorrect/invalid response:

QUOTE: "Nonsense. There is a very-seldom-used mechanism that both parties have to explicitly enable, and even then an intermediate service provider would have no record of it. Logs kept by service providers are brief and not retained forever. There is not, for example, a record of every single transaction that you perform on the Internet--if a provider does keep that kind of detail, it's for a week, or a month, not in perpetuity. It's just too much information." ENDQUOTE

Posted by: fuzz
Date: May 16, 2007 06:06 PM

= = = = = =

Fuzz, you are correct if you are assuming that the e-mail and IP-content connections are isolated; and not known. What you are not realizing is that there are methods to interecept both the receiving and sending IP numbers and capature content using legal methods -- but neither the sender or receiver knows that the content has been intercepted, captured, or connected with either the sender or receiver.

Even if both the sender and receiver enable a blockign system, they cannot block their joint activity from being detected by third parties. there is a way to do this that NSA cannot intercept; and it has been used to intercept and identify the concerns of legal counsel connected with Libby.

Regardless whether the IP or DNS provide enables soemthing, the method used is not one you addressed. The records are outside the IP-ISP content provider control. Whether the sender-receiver "neable" something is irrelevant; this is a third-party data capture system that NSA cannot detect.

It doesn't matter if the ISP is or is not involved with this third-party captures sytem. Whether the ISP does or does not have records of this is irrelevant. The data is kept and retrained in other locations outside both parties and the ISP.

Whether the ISP does or does not retain the logis is irrelevant to this data capture system which Congress does not appear to understand. Whether or not a given transaction is or is not kept is irrelvant under this data capture system. Don't think in terms of e-mail or sender/reciever; but think the opposite: Common IPs, content, and sender-receiver believing that their data will not be intercepted or connected to their IP. There is a difference.

It doesn't matter if the data capture system is 1% or 100%; the issue is only from a legal perspective: Can it be shown that the data captured OUTSIDE THEIR KNOWLEDGE does not match what they believe exists; and can this difference be shown lawfully to be related to an effort to destroy data that the snder-recieve hoped could nto be traced to either of them, their IP, or the ISP.

All I can say is that there is a known way to do this; NSA cannot stop it; and the method is currently being used regularly against the White House, EOP, and DOJ. They do not realize the extent to which their "private" communcations have been thwarted; and the National Security Counsel [NSC] well knows there is nothing they can do about these intercept methods.

DoJ, EOP, the White House, and outside counsel have been set up. They're stuck.

MaxGowan wrote on May 16, 2007 6:23 PM:

Leahy knows who he's dealing with. Remember prior to the Senate he was a prosecutor, and a good one, too.

MaxGowan wrote on May 16, 2007 6:24 PM:

Leahy knows who he's dealing with. Remember prior to the Senate he was a prosecutor, and a good one, too.

starwheel wrote on May 16, 2007 6:25 PM:

What this tells us is that no matter how bad the Democratic leadership is going to screw the American people with this secret trade deal they are negotiating with the White House, we can't trust the Republican Party including their leadership and even the Republican National Committee with anything.

Dennis wrote on May 16, 2007 6:25 PM:

Who raids the justice department when it's covering up? Maybe congress could call up one of the "private armies" from Blackwater to do the job.

Now, wouldn't that be a hell've note?

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Moose Kateer wrote on May 16, 2007 6:27 PM:

So DoJ could locate only one email for Karl Rove "over the period of November 1, 2004 through May 2, 2007" pertinent to "the U.S. attorney firings"?

Those narrow parameters for discovery of emails is curious, as if Senate Judiciary Committee members are in damage control mode to overlook available evidence of 2004 GOP voter suppression.

Today at Bradblog.com, Greg Palast, bestselling author and BBC correspondent who's been all over GOP voter suppression--versus minority "voter fraud"--in US elections since 2000, reported a tepid response from Senate Judiciary members when he offered 500 incriminating emails from Rove before the 2004 elections; Palast says they link primarily to former Rove aide and GOP "oppo research" director Tim Griffin appointed without confirmation as Eastern Arkansas USA.

"One thing the American media still has failed to do is to explain why the GOP wanted to bring these cases. In New Mexico, in Arizona, in Georgia and a dozen other states, Republicans were pushing laws requiring voters to have special ID. In 2004, at least a quarter million citizens lost their vote because they didn't bring in the right ID. And which quarter million? Overwhelming, it was Black, Brown and "Blue" Americans.

[...]

This week, I contacted the office of Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy about the Griffin appointment to which they seemed oddly indifferent. His aide said, "Well, Griffin's just an interim appointee."

True, Griffin has promised to leave --- right after the 2008 election.

Prosecutor-gate is not about Gonzales' incompetence. It's not about appointing "loyal Bushies." It's not even about firing A Few Good Men.

It's about the 2008 election and changing the Department of Justice --- the agency charged with protecting voters --- into an army of Rove-bots...programmed to attack them."
Source: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4559#more-4559

So what's preventing Senate Judiciary members and journalists from ripping down the wall to recognize the real motive in appointing Roveian attack dogs like Tim Griffin as USAs--and to the DoJ's Civil Rights Division--to repress minorities who predominately vote "blue" come election time?

drmoore wrote on May 16, 2007 6:33 PM:

Security code: weight-As in the claims of executive priv carry no weight once the info hit the RNC. This is a no brainer for the courts. The RNC is not a branch of govt, especially the executive branch and therefore, what priv. The geese are cooked! The Doolitte and DeLay procedure at work again. I'm with those who believe that this is like a murder case when the detectives give you an opportunity to tell what you know when they already have what you know and when you don't tell all--WHAMMM! GOTCHA!

Michael McCracken wrote on May 16, 2007 6:35 PM:

What about that big computer that's supposed to be sifting everyone's email and phone calls? ECHELON? Think they have Rove's emails?

Gordon Hill wrote on May 16, 2007 6:39 PM:

When I sent an e-mail to someone it stored at least two places: my computer and the mail server that I used. If the recipient is receiving mail from a different server it will be stored there as well plus on their computer when they retrieve it. That's a minimum of three computers that have copies of the e-mail. When I delete it on my computer, it most likely is not erased, only made to disappear from my Inbox.

It appears that the Executive branch is taking advantage of the public misunderstanding of how e-mail applications work. I guess can't blame them for trying, but am surprised the Judicial Committee doesn't have access to Internet expertise.

drmoore wrote on May 16, 2007 6:42 PM:

security code-wind: as in white house just spitting in the wind now. they're sunk! rnc.org, gop.com--no .gov in these. What privledge?
whitehouse.gov-'nuff said

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 6:44 PM:

This week, I contacted the office of Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy about the Griffin appointment to which they seemed oddly indifferent. His aide said, "Well, Griffin's just an interim appointee."
Posted by: Moose Kateer
Date: May 16, 2007 06:27 PM

Security Code: right
I'm very concerned Leahy is not the right man for the job.

Styve wrote on May 16, 2007 6:48 PM:

No shit, Mark?! 3 weeks have passed since I saw this on FDL, about Waxman trying to determine which GOPers used the RNC accounts. The WH had hired Stroz Friedberg, some "nationally known" computer forensics firm, to provide "advice and technical support", which I read to mean...SCRUB!!
--------------------

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/26/ahhh-subpoena-power-or-why-is-henry-mostly-smiling/
RNC Emails

Yesterday morning, the RNC provided Waxman a list of 37 (out of 50) of the people with RNC emails. It also admitted that they had 25 million KB of email data for the 37 individuals in question (that's a lot of emails). And finally, they revealed that they had engaged a computer forensics firm to scan Karl Rove's hard drive.

These efforts include retaining a leading, nationally-known computer forensics firm, Stroz Friedberg, LLC, to provide advice and technical support. Over the last several days, Stroz Friedberg imaged several RNC-owned computers and blackberries that are currently being used by White House employees.

Okay–they didn't mention Karl by name. But if you're going to focus on just "several" people's data, you'd think Karl would be at the top of that several, wouldn't you?

Of course, all of this was an attempt to avoid having to turn over the shady emails that Waxman doesn't yet know about–but Waxman didn't buy it. So they still subpoenaed the RNC for basic information on the RNC email use.

As a result, I am asking the Committee to approve this subpoena. It asks the RNC to provide answers to basic questions about the use of RNC e-mail accounts by White House officials, such as a list of which officials uses these accounts and how many e-mails they sent and received. The deadline is two weeks.

It also asks the head of the RNC, Mike Duncan, to appear before the Committee in two
weeks to testify about these matters, Depending on the kind of response the Committee receives
from the RNC in the interim, I will consult with the members about whether the Committee will
need to proceed with this hearing.

I like that last bit–subpoenaing Mike Duncan to appear before the committee. I imagine that'll persuade Mr. Duncan to be a little more forthcoming with information about those emails.
------------------------

What ever happened with regard to the Duncan appearance before the House Jud. Comm?

The Bushies are a conniving lot, but I agree with you that there must be backups everywhere, not to mention the receivers of Rovian email would have copies of the outgoing email.

Styve

biggerbox wrote on May 16, 2007 6:50 PM:

This DOJ that says it doesn't have any relevant emails, isn't it the same one run by that guy who said for a year that he couldn't imagine that Comey had any testimony that would add to Congress' understanding?

We saw yesterday how accurate that assessment was.

MarkusQ wrote on May 16, 2007 6:59 PM:

The nameless poster ranting about IP addresses above appears to be a troll.

While some IP addresses are linked to various domains or even individual machines in publicly available sources (e.g. DNS) and even more information can be found in private log files (assuming those have been retained) there is nothing whatsoever to connect a particular IP address to an individual.

Further, even the most detailed log files do not track individual packets at the level he is suggesting. While it is practical to capture such information on a small scale for a short amount of time (say, for a minute or two on an office network) wholesale recording of all internet traffic on the scale he is suggesting simply isn't possible with today's technology.

--MarkusQ

Montlakedawg wrote on May 16, 2007 7:00 PM:

Can someone explain how executive privilege could concievably apply to emails sent to those not covered by that privilege, e.g., those at the Republican National Committee? I'm just a civil litigator, but in my world, the act of sending an attorney-client privileged document to someone who is not covered by that privilege waives the privilege (absent excusable neglect, mistake, etc).
Here, it seems Rove and others emailed cohorts outside of the Executive Branch regarding their political strategies. Those cohorts aren't cloaked with the executive privilege simply by receiving the email, are they?
This begs another question - doesn't Congress' subpoena power extend to the RNC? Since I could subpoena the RNC for relevant, responsive documents in a civil case, I have a hard time believing that Congress can't.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 7:16 PM:

MarkusQ and Anon: I think what Anon might be suggesting is that a certain range of IP addresses has been deliberately targeted for preservation -- at least, that's how I interpreted the complex description. The question would be the time frame. I would assume that it would not matter if the communications were encrypted either, since this would basically just be documenting that the communication occurred.

Please clarify if this is an incorrect understanding.

Kevster wrote on May 16, 2007 7:23 PM:

White House to America:

FUCK YOU

fuzz wrote on May 16, 2007 7:26 PM:

Exchange may well have such records, but they are still private property. I'm addressing the notion that there is some public clearinghouse of IP address information that is being ignored.

I'm not saying that some third party could not capture such information (that's a different topic), only that there is no public record of such transactions available.

If someone knows of such a place where public records of this stuff are available, by all means post a link and prove me wrong.

IANAL, but I am a network engineer with 15+ years experience.

MarkusQ knows what's up.

DW wrote on May 16, 2007 7:31 PM:

During an interview with Amy Goodman and David Iglesias, Greg Palast at Democracy Now claims to have 500 of these emails in his possession--these emails apparently are the dirt on Tim Griffin's voter disenfranchisement effort in Missouri.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/14/1426254

Keep on digging--there's dirt on the Bush cabal all the way to China!

ytterbius wrote on May 16, 2007 7:32 PM:

Somewhat jokingly:

Congress should require the RNC to provide all emails found under the keyword "close hold" as potentially relevant to this investigation.

daCascadian wrote on May 16, 2007 7:33 PM:

Any information that is needed in this matter is stored by the NSA and should be available on demand. Any information that is not available should be a basis for further investigation of the parties involved in making sure it is not available.

This is not rocket science people. It is a criminal investigation that needs to be done under the RICO laws.

code = degree (as in what degree of criminality are we seeing here ?)

"The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." - Jim Hightower

SteveW wrote on May 16, 2007 7:33 PM:

Gee, and I was so looking forward to learning Karl's weight loss...then weight gain tips, not to mention how he maintains all of his chins.

Oh, and lest I forget, how does he manage that strange texture and hair color. Surely he's shared those tips with that other blowhard, Donald Trump.

We entered the absurd with this administration the day G.W. Bush and his merry gang of crooks took over the White House, so if we can't have Karl's emails, we might as well be brutally honest and mean about how he physically appears. At least that's the only thing that makes me feel better considering Karl's and the Bush Administration's continued arrogance in the face of logic and all reasonable concern for the future of our country.

What would Karl do if he were in our place?

fuzz wrote on May 16, 2007 7:40 PM:

'MarkusQ and Anon: I think what Anon might be suggesting is that a certain range of IP addresses has been deliberately targeted for preservation -- at least, that's how I interpreted the complex description. The question would be the time frame. I would assume that it would not matter if the communications were encrypted either, since this would basically just be documenting that the communication occurred.

Please clarify if this is an incorrect understanding.'

A mail server at the White House sends what may have been an email to a mail server at the DoJ at X time on Y day. Even if you could get that information (forget about publicly, but via subpoena) it proves nothing. How many emails go from the White House email server to the DoJ email server (and vice versa) on a given day? How do you prove that White House Intern A hadn't forwarded the latest whacky Ann Coulter column to DoJ Intern B? It's impossible.

Now, if you can get a subpoena for the logs and backups of the various machines in question, you may be in business. Then again, I have more than once been charged with disappearing certain information from all logs and backup media, and I did a pretty thorough job of it. A determined investigator who knew where to look and who had access to sophisticated forensics tools might have been able to recover it. Of course it's easy enough just to burn the backup media in question.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 7:41 PM:

IP Connected data implicates legal counsel in alleged war crimes. This is a commentary on two comments above; and provides some responses.

Markus and Anon,

Message 1, MarkusQ and Anon: "I think what Anon might be suggesting is that a certain range of IP addresses has been deliberately targeted for preservation" Yes, some IPs are targeted because they are linked to DOJ, EOP, and DoD. If we look at the IP numbers for EOP; and look at the patterns of interaction, and other data connected with that IP, we can learn things the sender-receiver did not think would be important, but are: Availability of a resource; whether the tasks they were working on matches the DOJ workflow assignment logs; and whether the tasks linked with that IP match what the AG said was or was not possible.

" -- at least, that's how I interpreted the complex description. The question would be the time frame." Response: Correct, Only talking about a data stream connected with an IP. The key is to compare the workflow requirements under the regulations and statute with the data that is captured; and contrast the legal requirements with the known IP-connected data. The differences indicate violations of federal law, and are admissible.

" I would assume that it would not matter if the communications were encrypted either, since this would basically just be documenting that the communication occurred." It's not an issue of data encryption, but the opposite: Linking IP-connected data that the sender-receive never thought would need to be encrypted; or encrypted communications that have been publicly tagged and are no longer hidden. Please clarify if this is an incorrect understanding.

=====================
Message 2:

Markus: "The nameless poster ranting about IP addresses above appears to be a troll." You're entitled to your opinion, Markus.

Markus: "While some IP addresses are linked to various domains or even individual machines in publicly available sources (e.g. DNS) and even more information can be found in private log files (assuming those have been retained) there is nothing whatsoever to connect a particular IP address to an individual." Comment: OK, but this isn't what I'm talking about; if the explanation isn't working for you, then can't help.

Markus: "Further, even the most detailed log files do not track individual packets at the level he is suggesting." Response: Not talking about tracking packets, but something else. Remember, this isn't e-mail, but IP-connected data; not the same as e-mail packets. One doesn't need everything; only the stuff that shows they've deleted information; or they don't realize the information is there. A small amount of deliberately deleted information is more valuable than alot of information that -- as content -- doesn't mean much. Remember, not focusing on content of information; but the conduct connected with that IP-connected data.

Markus: "While it is practical to capture such information on a small scale for a short amount of time (say, for a minute or two on an office network) wholesale recording of all Internet traffic on the scale he is suggesting simply isn't possible with today's technology."
Response: Again, not talking about 100% data capture; but ID gaps in IP-connected data.
= = = = = = =
sc: "Seem", as in It seems many people are not aware of how this is done: So it means Congress and the President have a joint problem -- they don't know something that has already been done. The data connected with IP numbers fatally shows Gonzalez has been lying; and the DOJ Staff counsel have, as with NSA employees, using instant messaging systems. Outside legal counsel have been linked with requirements and conduct that they appear to not want the public to connect to their law firm. Using these methods, the information can be linked with former White House counsel on data retention requirements; and also problems with the AG statements on FISA.
This is merely a secondary line of evidence available to support issuing indictments against formerly assigned white house counsel, DOJ Staff, FBI agents, US Attorneys for their alleged knowledge of, and refusal to end -- as required -- violations of the Geneva conventions; and how illegally captured information was used to support prisoner abuse. There is no statue of limitations. They have a major problem on their hands.

The fact that we have on TPM many people asserting "this is not possible" -- while it is possible and has been done -- indicates the scope that the public, White House and Congress have been not realizing the full lines of evidence available to show the white House counsel, DOJ Staff, and outside counsel have been lying, engaging in unprofessional legal conduct, and could be prosecuted for witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Legal counsel has no idea how this works; and the data implicating outside counsel in this data destruction, malfeasance, and alleged war crimes is stunning.

Arguably, any effort to say "this is impossible" is at odds with reality: It's already been done. It's comical to read the emphatic denials of something that is real. If you don't undersatnd the above method and how outside counsel has a fatal legal problem linked with alleged war crimes, I'll guess you'll have to wait to read about in the NYT.

fuzz wrote on May 16, 2007 7:46 PM:

Even if the NSA has this data they aren't going to admit having it, much less produce it on demand. And if they did it would be thrown out of court.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 7:49 PM:

fuzz: Anon (the "other" one) says this:

[blockquote]"All I can say is that there is a known way to do this; NSA cannot stop it; and the method is currently being used regularly against the White House, EOP, and DOJ."{/blockquote]

It does not say that the archive is publically available and I would doubt if it is. But it does suggest that *someone* is doing this and has the info.

Or it could just be bullshit, of course.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 8:02 PM:

We have further evidence this method is credible, and the denial is high about the fatal problems linked to DOJ, White House-EOP, and outside legal counsel on issues of war crimes, NSA violations, prisoner abuse, rendition, and evidence destruction.

A. Servers not relevant

"A mail server at the White House sends what may have been an email to a mail server at the DoJ at X time on Y day. Even if you could get that information (forget about publicly, but via subpoena) it proves nothing."

Response: Saying something "proves nothing," is -- in the absence of IP-connected data -- walking on thin ice. There are things that are provable using IP-connected data.

B. Third Parties not relevant

"How many emails go from the White House email server to the DoJ email server (and vice versa) on a given day?" response: Irrelevant, the IP-connected data shows personnel assigned; tasking; and what they were doing or not doing. It's possible to compare the work flow number in DOJ with the actual work the DOJ Staff counsel was doing; and trace this to the White House scheduling lists for tasks and responses. this is also logged in the Congressional correspond logs.

C. Excuses not relevant

"How do you prove that White House Intern A hadn't forwarded the latest whacky Ann Coulter column to DoJ Intern B? It's impossible."

Response: doesn't matter on a given day what did or didn't happen; but the larger pattern of conduct since 2001 that is linked with White House counsel, outside counsel, and then compare this what they should have been doing as required under Geneva. using this method, its possible to pierce the veil on internal White House deliberations and things the President thought were secret, but have been captured using this method. The White House communications and internal deliberations, as are outside counsel in re FISA NSA issues, are not secure using this method.

4. Subpoenas not relevant

"Now, if you can get a subpoena for the logs and backups of the various machines in question, you may be in business." Again, it's possible to do this without a subpoena using methods the NSA doesn't understand; and the NSC cannot stop.

5. Fatal admission: Ooops

"Then again, I have more than once been charged with disappearing certain information from all logs and backup media, and I did a pretty thorough job of it." Thank you for fatally admitting that you attempted to destroy something. And your credibility is....?

6. E-mail investigators not relevant

"A determined investigator who knew where to look and who had access to sophisticated forensics tools might have been able to recover it."

Comment: Hmmmm. . . .you might be right. Gee, I wonder if legal counsel is aware of this method; and could their attorney-client communications be compromised lawfully with these fatal disclosures which they failed to protect as they had a duty to protect? Sounds like an attorney-credibility problem; and an issue of confidence with the client that legal counsel has fatally disclosed, in contravention to their attorney standards of conduct and duty to clients. Problem for the legal community.

7. Evidence destruction not relevant, but the objective of this review

"Of course it's easy enough just to burn the backup media in question."

The "solution" is evidence: Obstruction of justice and evidence destruction. That's not possible when the data is captured by third parties.

This is a problem legal counsel have created for their clients: legal counsel have fatally disclosed this information; and have breached their duty of confidentiality to their clients. The adverse information is something the legal community cannot put back in the bottle: it's linked to other public information which pierces and destroyes the President's claim of priviilege, especially as it relates to evidence of illegal actdivity: That information cannot be lawfully classified, and legal counsel knows this or shoul dknow this, raising more questions about what else has failed in the attorney-oversight system.

All you have to do is admit you're dealing with an unknown which the legal community is not prepared to handle as their clients get trashed by war crimes prosecutors. Legal counsel haven't planned for this, andlet down their clients. Ooops. This is a problem for the reckless legal counsel which has fatally disclosed this adverse IP-connected data. These are war crimes-related issues and there is no statue of limitiations. Yes, there's more.

fuzz wrote on May 16, 2007 8:02 PM:

Anon,

Actually, at the packet level an email looks the same as anything else. You seem very passionate, and I appreciate that, but you are entirely wrong and you have no idea what you are talking about.

To a knowledgeable person what you are suggesting is akin to there being a secret method by which one can drive out of New York towards Boston and wind up in Los Angeles an hour later. It's just not possible. The closest thing that exists are "black boxes" that sit directly on target networks recording all traffic that passes by. In those cases that information is the property of the party who runs said black box; it isn't available to the general public.

Please provide some sort of documentation to back up your claims, else we'll consider you a troll and ignore you henceforth.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 8:04 PM:

Anon/IP-talker: The only problem I have with the scenario you describe, is that it is waaaay more subtle than the egregious law-breaking that we already know has occurred. And, as demonstrated here, it is very difficult for most people to even understand. I have a hard time believing that this sort of e-trail will ever lead anywhere. I can just hear Gonzolez or Rove testifying that "I don't recall ever deleting that email -- not that I didn't, but I just don't recall doing it. Sorry. I take full responsibility for my neglect. blah blah blah" and everybody yawns, again.

See what I mean?

Buck wrote on May 16, 2007 8:08 PM:

All this speculation is just wasting time. Don't worry about it. They will be there when the time comes.

The R's are now saying through some of their media pundits "don't throw me in that briarpatch".

Don't worry. We won't.

Uncle Remus already has the rest of the story well planned and it will be another spellbinder.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 8:08 PM:

Fuzz, no basis for this statement: "Even if the NSA has this data they aren't going to admit having it, much less produce it on demand. And if they did it would be thrown out of court."

What basis are you arguing that adverse information, fatal to legal counsel's interests in EOP, DoJ, and White House is not admissable? There are entities outside NSA control that can do this; and there are entities that have this information that have already disclosed it outside the legal process.

The plot thickens, possibilty sinks in: "It does not say that the archive is publically available and I would doubt if it is. But it does suggest that *someone* is doing this and has the info."

You're very smart. How many war crimes prosecutors have the IP-connected data? LOL DoJ, White House EOP, and outside counsel have been fatally linked to alleged war crimes related issues using this method; and unlawful use of government resources despite FISA requirements to the contrary; and information outside counsel knew about evidence retention requiremnts, but did not -- as it appears -- fully do what they should have done.

Hear that war crimes prosecor getting closer? This is going to hurt the RNC. They knew what was possible, but did it anyway. There are consequences for messing with the Justice System. Not nice to ignore the laws of war.

fuzz wrote on May 16, 2007 8:13 PM:

Anon,

"Again, it's possible to do this without a subpoena using methods the NSA doesn't understand; and the NSC cannot stop."

So your position is that you are more informed about this topic than the NSA? Where do you get your information? If you can't provide a source should we assume the aliens are sending the information in beams through your aluminum foil hat?

I think so.

porgy tirebiter wrote on May 16, 2007 8:16 PM:

Remember, these are people who have always said that Nixon's only mistake was not destroying the tapes. They would have no compunction whatsoever about destroying evidence.

DJ (a prior Anon) wrote on May 16, 2007 8:20 PM:

fuzz, you're entitled to your baseless speculation, just like Anon is entitled to post what s/he thinks is apropos.

I hope that what Anon is posting is true. It sounds like Anon might be affiliated with some sort of legal team that are going after war-crimes prosecutions, and they have the goods as described. The fact that the same "goods" might be useful for the USAtty (etc) scandal is coincidental -- although with the amount of crimes this administration is engaged in, the *goods" might be good for quite awhile.

No statute of limitations on war crimes you say? Well finally some good news.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 8:20 PM:

fuzz Date: May 16, 2007 08:02 PM

You asked for some documentation. Already available. Check this message on this page:
May 16, 2007 05:57 PM. It can be done right before your eyes using the info DoJ just released today in response to the Leahy letter.

---------

" I have a hard time believing that this sort of e-trail will ever lead anywhere. " This isn't e-mail, but IP-connected data. they're not the same. It's possible to lead it to the EOP, White House, and DOJ Staff counsel, and outside counsel, and into the NSA communications.

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

Fuzz, thank you: "you are entirely wrong and you have no idea what you are talking about." The tiney problem: This has already been done. I appreciate you don't understand it; the problem is that despite your lack of understanding it's been done.

There are certain things the NSA, NSC, and White House Communications office cannot do, intercept, detect, or monitor: "It's just not possible. The closest thing that exists are "black boxes" that sit directly on target networks recording all traffic that passes by. In those cases that information is the property of the party who runs said black box; it isn't available to the general public."

How this method works is something the White House, DOJ, and EOP will not understand until too late. The data isn't propriety when it has been disclosed; how the third party software works to capture this data lawfully would amaze you. The General public would be surprised by what is known using these methods.

fuzz wrote on May 16, 2007 8:40 PM:

Anon,

Try putting the foil shiny side out.

Others,

a) I apologize for feeding the troll. Mea culpa.

b) If any Congressional staffers have managed to slog his or her way through this trollfest, I'd like offer my services pro bono to assist with any ongoing investigation into this matter. I can be contacted through the TPMCafe site as "fuzz". For obvious reasons I'll only respond to folks with .gov email accounts.

Have a fantastic day!

DJ wrote on May 16, 2007 8:46 PM:

fuzz: are you saying that it's impossible for someone to "tap" an IP? Anon, are you saying that this is analogous to looking at the phone records for a certain phone number (IP)? In that you can monitor the incoming/outgoing connections (phone numbers/IPs), and can infer various things from that?

Styve wrote on May 16, 2007 8:53 PM:

Whoa~~

Who was that masked man?!

Excellent discussion...thanks!

je wrote on May 16, 2007 9:13 PM:

The idea of getting the backups is exactly the right idea. The most interesting is probably the backup of the email servers for smartechcorp.net. I think they also have some interesting log files.

They host rnc.org and do a ton of work for the RNC. When I checked a while back, inbound email to Rove at the RNC appears to go through the ISP's corporate mail server and then forwarded to mail5.rnc.org. He reads it using email using either POP3 (unsecured) or a web-based browser (unsecured). They are using @mail so it should have decent logs.

In case any staffer is reading this, subpoena
the backups of mail5.rnc.org (64.203.96.131) and the log files from both mail5.rnc.org and the corporate mail servers for the ISP (64.203.97.101
and 64.203.98.245).

Mister C wrote on May 16, 2007 9:23 PM:

Did we look under the rug?

Looks like the witch hunt is over - nothing to pin on the administration. Democrats should run out of failed "purges" just in time for the 08 elections.

Mister C wrote on May 16, 2007 9:23 PM:

Did we look under the rug?

Looks like the witch hunt is over - nothing to pin on the administration. Democrats should run out of failed "purges" just in time for the 08 elections.

Prantha Trivedi wrote on May 16, 2007 9:57 PM:

I heard (years ago - on the radio) that the WH server backs up all email every night, night after night, right after close of business. I heard that the back-ups are all stored (but don't recall where) in such a way that if someone needed to check for all email that passed through the system on (say, for example) July 13, 2003 at precisely 2:25 p.m., a computer geek at the WH could simply pull just that info and provide a DVD of all the email that passed at exactly that time.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 10:02 PM:

The problem, obviously, is that not all email passed through the WH system.

Bonnie wrote on May 16, 2007 10:11 PM:

Why does it have to be a hard slog? Congress got everything they ever wanted to know about Clinton.

parrot wrote on May 16, 2007 10:14 PM:

It occurs to me that the Dems must be having political leadership problems of a serious nature for them NOT to go after Gonzalez at this point. Again, the Dems need to drop the corrupt by the wayside and push forward. That is what American voters were messaging the Dems when they took back the Senate this fall. The question is, when will they use that power to actually clean up Washington, rather than just watch AG AG and the President flaunt the law and the Constitution.

The Oracle wrote on May 16, 2007 10:16 PM:

Great posts about tracking the trail of Rovian corruption.

In the case of the most corrupt administration in American history, where there's smoke, there's fire.

And in the Bush administration, it's not just a little smoke, but a lot of smoke, indicating a forest fire of incredible size is present, a fire raging across all fifty states.

And no matter how many trolls try to piss on the Democrat's constitutionally-mandated investigations of the most corrupt administration in American history, they will not succeed.

Because Democrats have honesty, integrity and the TRUTH on our side, and it is obvious that the TRUTH will finally set our country free from the most corrupt administration, and Republican officials, in American history.

Unfortunately, the damage done by Hurricane Katrina pales in comparison to the damage done to our democracy by the Republican Party. It will take decades to root out all their corrupt and clean up the mess they've made of our democracy.

parrot wrote on May 16, 2007 10:33 PM:

Interestingly, the emails turned over don't seem to include any emails that might have been used to violate the Hatch Act. Hertling et al need to be called before the Congress to answer questions regarding violations of Hatch...these are unlikely the only emails that were between the RNC and RCC, et al that would point to violations of the law.

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on May 16, 2007 10:40 PM:

What do you expect?They have all the money and all the power.They can do whatever they choose for another 19 months.The scary part is: how much longer will what they have done work to their advantage.
I want to see the clip of grandad getting into the car with babaroo at crawford the night of the first fake election.
He is extremely agitated when asked whet he thinks is going on in fla.He says something like "well, there was some glee for a few hours then something went wrong. We're going to be fixing that now". Or,"something went wrong and we have to fix it".
Anyone remember that?
That was nov 99.
You think much has changed since then?
You see what I mean?
All this really has nothing to do with how congress or the senate,etc deal with anything.That's just what we get to read about so we think something is being done.
Don't get distracted.
Code word: judge Hah! Right

matt rose wrote on May 16, 2007 10:41 PM:

Raptor?
Remember the program called Raptors, that was going to cull the internet for any and all information.

Is it coincidence that it was shut down when it was? Do you think the data has been purged from Raptor as well? Is it fair for congress to ask?

Rove is not stupid, and apprently not terrible careless either. Question is. . . did he miss anything.

bcg wrote on May 16, 2007 10:47 PM:

My guess is that the request was an obstruction trap: if the DoJ does not produce emails whose existence is substantiated by independent evidence, another count of obstruction and conspiracy can be levelled.
One? That's ridiculous. The White House has to be hoping that there's no independent confirmation to try and run this one.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 11:06 PM:

No mention of searching the metadata for bcc's. Only to's and cc's.

Plus its pretty clear they're only searching records in the phyiscal offices of AG and DAG. I have my suspicions if anyone went down to the computer center and searched any of the servers...

Austin Cooper wrote on May 16, 2007 11:08 PM:

Remember -- from top to bottom, the White House and RNC are full of persons who (in my opinion) are criminals, bent on nothing but protecting themselves and the interlocking criminal conspiracies which constitute the GOP's real bequest to America.

Think they're going to cave over a letter from people they don't respect or fear?

Code = fire, as in what burns paper

UnEasyOne wrote on May 16, 2007 11:35 PM:

What I am confused about is that when the RNC decided to turn over the relevent e-mails to the White House instead of the congress there was no uproar. It seems to me the congress can simply subpoena the RNC for production of the documents. It's not like there is a single paper copy already in the possession of the White House. It's also absolutely new to me that anyone can designate a third party to decide what documents will be produced in response to a subpoena. If I'm missing something obvious here, I'd really appreciate being set straight.

drational wrote on May 17, 2007 6:44 AM:

What I am confused about is that when the RNC decided to turn over the relevent e-mails to the White House instead of the congress.

They did this to get them out of the custody and control of the RNC before a subpoena. Giving them to the White House places them under the executive umbrella, and if that doesn't work, at least gives the WH a heads up on what they need to fight over and prepare for leaks.

People aren't getting mad, because Paris is going to jail and Blake and Jordan are in the Idol Finals.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 8:07 AM:

"This is good news! Now the courts will become involved and of course the Republicans will cry when they learn that executive privledge does not extend into the RNC. Rove might soon regret his attempted slight of hand by using non official email accounts. With it he lost the White House protection.

"Posted by: Rebel
Date: May 16, 2007 05:41 PM"

Whether the courts become involved depends on what the Congress already knows but hasn't yet revealed. And as Gonzo already agreed with Leahy (in January) that the DOJ isn't covered by Executive Privilege, it's a slam dunk that the RNC isn't. What they are trying to do is pass the unprotected emails through the White House "filter" so then they might conceivably be covered by the Privilege. Doubtful strategy, as they they weren't to begin with.

And if history is any indication read: 2000 election theft -- the first to run to court is always Bushit, at the same time he's making moral arguments for tort reform.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 8:21 AM:

"This is very frustrating: I would ask that the Committee review their request. The issue is not just with the non-official e-mail accounts. The issue is [wait for it] . . . attached to the IP ADDRESS numbers."

And you think Congress, through its staffers, especially but not only their own computer tech. people, don't know that fact? Sure, the emails are important, not only for their content, but also to show the as-yet-unconvinced among We the people, that the WH doesn't deal honestly; and will actively lie/perjure and obstruct justice.

At the same time, it is a useful "cover" issue, while behind it Congress continues confidential investigations about which We the people -- and, ore imostrant, the WH -- know nothing.

"For those who have no idea what this means, reconsider this: The entire focus has been on the RNC-emails. These are accounts."

As far as We the people -- and the WH -- _know_ the "entire" focus has been on the emails. Do you know for a fact that that is the only fact?

"However, there is a separate line of evidence that is public: Common IP numbers are linked PUBLICLY to the other websites that were used to transfer information, meet in cyberspace, and use instant messaging systems."

Are you the only individual who knows about that? Or might the IT people consulted by Congress, and even some Congressional staffers, also know it?

Congress -- the Democrats -- are not stupid. Nor is Congress as hepless as so many seem to "think". Congress is actually -- in fact, law, and reality -- co-equal with the Executive, and has numerous tools by means of which to press its power of oversight. You apparently "missed" Watergate, an instance in which Congress showed it has power no less awesome -- and awe-inspiring -- than that of the Executive. It can also get the best available expertise and advice available.

SC = step. As in step by step by step has a pattern similar to drip, drip, drip . . .

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 8:27 AM:

"If the Congress is serious about finding out about thie e-mail and the IP that is [apparently] attached, why no subpoenas to private telecoms to get the information?"

"Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 05:57 PM"

Do you know everything Congress does in its pursuit of investigation? I'll bet you don't. So how do you _know_ there haven't been such subpoenas?

You don't.

SC = shirt. As in: Huh?

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 8:34 AM:

"The second summer will be sizzling hot. At the cattle call, there will be carcasses dropping like flies.

"Posted by: Buck
Date: May 16, 2007 06:01 PM"

_THIS Summer will be sizzling hot! Congress aready has sufficient hard evidence to begin the "show cuase" phase of the impeachment effort. Comey's testimony was timed by the Committee to advance the ongoing investigation; next up: Goodling, and Gonzo yet again -- and he will be under oath again: he dare not refuse.

The impeachment effort is further along than most realize. Meanwhile, most have been attacking the Democrats over the superficial public _impression_ they've been giving.

SC = meat. As in, "Get ready vegans -- you'll soon be seeing meat."

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 8:41 AM:

"Yet another "Fuck You" letter from Justice. Maybe Leahy's next threatening letter can include a invitation for Sunday tea. Leahy seems in over his head. He still wants to play nice with this gang of miscreants. Cheney told you to fuck off on the Senate floor Leahy- didn't that give you some kind of idea of the type of people you're deal with?

"Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 06:12 PM"

Where did you get the idea that Democrats are stupid? Republicans told you?

Congress -- and Leahy -- know much more than they've so far revealed. At minimum: assume they know more than you do.

sc = glove. As in, iron fist in velvet glove.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 8:53 AM:

"It appears that the Executive branch is taking advantage of the public misunderstanding of how e-mail applications work. I guess can't blame them for trying, but am surprised the Judicial Committee doesn't have access to Internet expertise.

"Posted by: Gordon Hill
Date: May 16, 2007 06:39 PM"

How do you know the Judiciary Committee doesn't have access to such expertise? Did they tell you something they won't tell the WH?

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 9:12 AM:

"Can someone explain how executive privilege could concievably apply to emails sent to those not covered by that privilege, e.g., those at the Republican National Committee? I'm just a civil litigator, but in my world, the act of sending an attorney-client privileged document to someone who is not covered by that privilege waives the privilege (absent excusable neglect, mistake, etc)."

You'll have to wait for Bushit to give his directly-from-Rove/Cheney analysis is how the Privilege applies to anything and everything designated by Bushit at second-hand-from-Rove/Cheney.

Meanwhile, bask at reality: the Privilegel doesn't apply to the RNC -- which is why the RNC wants to send the emails to the White House, so then it would conceivably be covered by the Privilege. To obvious a ploy, though; and that which wasn't protected by it to begin with won't be covered by it later; especially when it all has the smell of criminality.

"Here, it seems Rove and others emailed cohorts outside of the Executive Branch regarding their political strategies. Those cohorts aren't cloaked with the executive privilege simply by receiving the email, are they?"

Not if one factors in the various facts, including the clear imlication that Rove, et al., didn't view those emails as so germaine to Executive deliberations that there shouldn't be risk of it being sent to outside the Privilege's scope.

"This begs another question - doesn't Congress' subpoena power extend to the RNC? Since I could subpoena the RNC for relevant, responsive documents in a civil case, I have a hard time believing that Congress can't."

There's the difference between politics, on one hand, and law, on the other. Congress certainly has the lega authority to subpoena RNC records; but it is also controlled by the opposing party, and there is the issue of appearances. Which obviously doesn't mean Congress hasn't "silently" subpoenad, or worked out a deal. If anyone of the several entities is terrified of the fall-out over this, it is the RNC, and its concern with future elections, and the future of the party itself. It is clearly in the middle between Bushit and Congress. Does it protect Bushit -- and be sen as part of a criminal enterprise, and go down with him? Does it not protect him, yet accept lesser penalty for having been part of, or at least conduit for, a criminal enterprise?

I can't say the RNC is comfortable with the position in which it finds itself. Nor can I deny that I am thoroughly enjoying the fact that the Party of Nixon is paying the price for having continued his methods of winning elections, corrupting the system, and underming the rule of law.

Posted by: Montlakedawg
Date: May 16, 2007 07:00 PM

SC = parcel. As in, RNC is part and parcel of an longstanding and ongoing anti-American criminal enterpise.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 9:22 AM:

"This is not rocket science people. It is a criminal investigation that needs to be done under the RICO laws."

One doesn't "investigate" "under the RICO laws". One investigates, and compares and contrasts the evidence found with potentially applicable laws. Otherwise the investigation is prematurely narrow, and possibly incompetent or dishonest. Only right-wingers or the logic-impaired jump to conclusion without evidence, then seeks only the evidence which will support the conclusion.

"Posted by: daCascadian
Date: May 16, 2007 07:33 PM"

SC = glass. As in, people who have glass stones shouldn't throw houses.

stuart eugene thiel wrote on May 17, 2007 9:24 AM:

Remember the brouhaha over the pardons Bill Clinton issued in his final days in office? And how trivial it all looked at the time?

I was just thinking that if the new president came in planning to have his minions commit various felonies, with the understanding that he'd pardon all the felons as he left the White House, he'd just naturally give himself the "Clinton did it too" alibi.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 10:04 AM:

"Looks like the witch hunt is over - nothing to pin on the administration. Democrats should run out of failed "purges" just in time for the 08 elections.

"Posted by: Mister C
Date: May 16, 2007 09:23 PM"

Except that in this case we have a witch who pled the fifth.

So I guess witches do exist after all.

Therefore, let the investigation/s continue.

SC = soap. As in: Come clean, Monica: If you deny being a witch, you're lying, and will be excuted. And if you admit being a witch, you will be executed because a witch.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on May 17, 2007 11:34 AM:

I didn't see this question posted, so apologies if I've missed someone's post:

Are these (duplicate) emails found anywhere in the earlier DoJ productions?

If so, were there redactions in those earlier-produced emails?

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 1:53 PM:

There is a flawed argument about the third party data captures. For Congress to get access to this information it would have to publicly ask for it; as of now, Congress has no method to identify the third party data capture repositories. To argue that Congress is doing something in secret is meaningless: They have no system in place to privately or publicly identify the third party data captures, or where this method and the data is being retained.

Also, NSA has no method to prevent these third party data captures. If they did, it would be possible to do it. By implication, because EOP, DOJ, White House, and DoD have not prevented third party data captures of IP-related data, the inference is that NSA has no system in place to understand, detect, or mitigate these third party data capture systems. If there was an NSA system in place, we wouldn't be having this discussion about something that is happening.

DJ,

"are you saying that this is analogous to looking at the phone records for a certain phone number (IP)?" No, different: Third party data captures are outside NSA. Congress has not PUBLICLY requested this information; the only request has been narrowly on the e-mails.

"In that you can monitor the incoming/outgoing connections (phone numbers/IPs), and can infer various things from that?" There are third party data capture systems. Yes, it is possible to infer things.

Forgive me as I digress, but this is analogous to looking at a star cluster [in the days before Newton], and seeing only a static picture. When Kepler and Leonardo came along, they looked at the pictures in a new way: There was predictable movement. The third-party data capture systems rely on a time sequence that is different. It's a different way of capturing information from inside the White House, NSA, and legal counsel's offices.

The point is that the IP-data capture systems permit the access, entrance, and extraction of data without violating a law; but doing the opposite: They rely on the voluntary disclosure of the White House, DOJ, and legal counsel content anytime. The use and non-use of the electronic data, and time-analysis of the patterns gives insight into their communication topics, specific discussion points, key relationships, and their social networks that have not been disclosed.

The third party data captures can also identify the use or non-use of non-official [and possibly violations of the Hatch act] communication systems; and ongoing discussions related to a specific topic, concern, or information the President believes is protected. This assumption is not valid under the third party data capture systems.

IN effect, this IP-connected data presents many problems for legal counsel:

A. War crimes related evidence can be traced to specific legal counsel, clients, and US government officials;

B. Information inside the White House, NSA, NSC, and DOJ connected to specific discussion points can be traced, catalogued, and disclosed: This ensures that the President cannot claim the information is privileged in that he and his staff have inadvertently disclosed the details of the conversations, memorandum, and other information related to illegal activity;

C. The method can identify the inconsistencies in the staff compliance with statue; and shed light on when public officials have lied to Congress about staffing availability, despite legal requirement that staff counsel are available.

D. The timing of the information disclosures in the third-party data captures can be contrasted with the reporting times that the Attorney General and President had under the statute -- but did not follow, hence a subsequent line of evidence showing illegal activity and non-notification to Congress;

E. The third party data captures can show the times when Counsel, Members of Congress, EOP, DOJ Staff and DOD personnel were aware of legal issues; and this can be contrasted with their public assertions that they didn't know something, putting them in a perjury trap

F. The data capture systems can identify when issues and legal memorandum were being discussed; and the disclosure of this information then means that privilege is waived in that the legal counsel have failed to ensure the information, discussion, and other client-sensitive information has been protected. This is a duty on legal counsel to protect from their disclosures, not for the public to hide or protect. Once the information has been disclosed and has been captured lawfully by third parties it is fair game for discovery, enquiry, and examination in the open media, court, and during depositions.

The key on this data capture system is that it helps identify the lines of evidence counsel though had been destroyed; or lines of evidence they though were protected. No longer can they be confident that destroyed evidence will not come back; or that evidence of an assumed protected conversation has not been disclosed. IN so many words, the approach ensures that legal counsel can no longer be confident evidence of illegal activity which they acquire -- and inadvertently disclose -- will not lead to other information in the public domain, and be used to impeach witnesses, conduct obstruction of justice investigations, or show evidence destruction.
-------------
So called experts of e-mails have said this method is impossible. It defies reason to believe that the "experts" calling an approach impossible, would then privately use this method. That makes no sense.

"How do you know the Judiciary Committee doesn't have access to such expertise? Did they tell you something they won't tell the WH?"

The question goes the other way: Until Congress publicly shows otherwise, can't rely on the "we're doing it in secret"-argument. They may be, but until we hear something affirmative, why are some willing to accept that "things are being taken care of" despite no evidence? You might be right; then again, you might be wrong. Better safe than sorry: Raise the issue now publicly and keep the pressure on.
------
Congress has only publicly discussed e-mails. They may be doing something else. All this note does is ask people to remind Members of Congress that the issue is not just e-mails, but a broader issue of IP-related information. NSA does not have a system that uses this method; there is no program manger that does this; and the assumption NSA has about the data capture system using e-mail packets is fine for one method of communication. However, there are other lines of communication that do not rely on this data capture method. Burden is on Senate Intelligence Committee to ask NSA if they have a method to do this. The answer is no.

"Do you know everything Congress does in its pursuit of investigation?" and "As far as We the people -- and the WH -- _know_ the "entire" focus has been on the emails. Do you know for a fact that that is the only fact?" and "Are you the only individual who knows about that? Or might the IT people consulted by Congress, and even some Congressional staffers, also know it?"

All we can go on are the public subpoenas which narrowly focus on e-mails. If you have specific information that there's is "other stuff" going on -- not documented in the public subpoenas -- you're free to discuss. If you want to argue that something is "outside the subpoenas but has been subpoenaed; but we have nothing to show for that", that's not a strong argument. Maybe someone has a "private subpoena" that Congress has been secretly issuing. I'll believe it when I see it.
---------------
Congress has publicly only discussed e-mails. If the NSA has this system in place, then they have no means of controlling what has already happened: Third party data captures of internal deliberation information inside EOP, DOJ, and other US government entities. Surely, if the NSA had a system in place to capture this, they would have prevented the disclosure of this information. The third party data capture system exist, NSA has not stopped it, and by implication they have no system in place to thwart, detect, or defend against this data capture method. Whether Congress wants to review this is a separate issue. The data is there IF CONGRESS OPENLY ASKS for it; they have not publicly done so, so there's no reason to believe that they've secretly "identified" The third party data capture systems; much less asked them the right questions to get this data.

"It can also get the best available expertise and advice available."
If Congress can get the "Best" advise available, why is there reluctance to entertain the notion that third parties have a data-capture system using IP-connected data? I see no credibly public discussion of this information, only a focus on e-mails in the subpoenas. You might be right: They might be looking at the IP-connected data, but you don't know that they are. If someone wants to remind Congress -- again -- about this "mysterious method" that Fuzz says is impossible -- feel free. Don't want to hear later, "Nobody thought of . . ."

Supposedly the best minds can't understand the third party data captures of IP-connected data. If there's someone else out there that knows about this, is using it, and can defeat it -- they're quiet. The shorter answer: They have no method to prevent this third-party data capture system; and the NSA -- if it knows about it -- has no method in place to protect the White House, DoJ, and DoD communication systems from this interception method. NSA managers do not have a straight answer for the intelligence committee because they do not understand how their communications have been compromised.

Recall, there is no statute of limitations on war crimes. All data captures can be eternally used. Entities like law firms may outlive the life of their senior partners, but the data captures can still lawfully -- eternally -- hold a law firm to account and result in their lawful closure if they are indicted for war crimes. The data captured using these third party data capture systems can be disclosed at a time, place, and manner most adverse to the legal firms interests. They've going to lose.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 2:30 PM:

DJ,

The important thing about this US Attorney e-mail isn't just the details we're learning about DOJ, but about the patterns of interactions.
For example, We've learned that DoJ consulted with WH legal, counsel, and public affairs. It stands to reason on other issues -- FISA, rendition, prisoner abuse, NSLs, -- that the same DOJ-WH discussions in re US Attorneys were also occurring.

This means a couple of things:

1. The data and work flows connected with these data, time lines, and activities inside EOP, WH, DoJ, and DOD would support what they were really doing. However, if the statute calls for something else, but the third party data captures show counsel and staff were not complying with statute -- despite public assurances that there was no problem -- then this is a problem. Once a specific attorney, US government official, or other person can be impeached {discredited as a witness using third party data captures), then they have to decide: Are they going to stay with the President, or are they going to side with the law. There is no middle ground.

2. If there are in the case of the US Attorney memorandum a line of evidence and interactions, but there is no similar coordination on the FISA, prisoner abuse, and NSLs issues, we have to ask why the difference.

3. IN light of Comey's testimony showing that there were memorandum related to concerns that the activity was not legal, yet third party data captures show that the discussions within DoJ, WH, and EOP did raise these issues that were supposedly "not a concern," then this puts the WH legal counsel in a problem: Independent data can disclosed the content of their internal deliberations lawfully; yet their characterization before the court that the issue was not a concern is at odds with the Comey public assertions that there were memorandum.

4. When we look at the required reporting to Members of Congress; and compare the known times that DoJ, WH, EOP, and outside counsel were discussing an issue [using third party data captures] this present a problem: [a] Why is counsel publicly saying they didn't know, yet their internal deliberations show in the Comey memorandum that the issue was raised and did establish a time line requiring Congressional notification; yet [b] Even if the notification did not occur, when can it be shown that Members of Congress were aware of this issue as evidenced by the third party data captures of their discussions, and notifications that there was something they should be paying attention to, but did not ask.

5. when reviewing issue of Geneva and war crimes, the issues of Nuremberg hinge on when did legal counsel become aware of the requirement, problem or legal issue; did they have a duty to act under their attorney standards of conduct; when did they actually become aware of the issue; and what would they like people to believe they were told. Third party data captures remove doubt as to whether counsel were or were not notified and aware of the information; and this can be compared to the time lines with DOJ OPR when counsel should have reported their concerns. The issue isn't the e-mail, but hate difference between [a] the legal duty of counsel to do something; [b] the time that counsel wants the public to believe they were or were not aware; and [c] the actual time they were informed; and [d] the lag time between when they should have done something, and when they finally chose not to do what they had a legal duty under Geneva to report, prevent, inform, or remove themselves.
The issue with third party data captures isn't the content as much as it is a top-level view of whether major events are or are not consistent with the legal requirement; and whether counsel and WH/DOJ legal personnel did or did not fully do their jobs when they were really told in writing about something; or whether they chose to not do what they were required to do under the laws of war.

For example, when Gonzalez said that there were insufficient staff, or not enough time to process FISA warrants, this can be shown t be a lie. Third party data captures show the times that DoJ Staff counsel were working, their work flows, and can contrast the times that the DOJ Staff were working on non-official business; then compare this with the FISA warrant processing requirements; and who the Attorney general did not have a manning problem, but he had a leadership problem: A decision to ignore FISA: and no plan to ensure that DOJ Staff were working on the required workflows to meet the FISA requirements. Comey's testimony corroborates the issue: That there were known legal concerns, but the DoJ Staff were not used to address these legal issues, but let to do other things other than what the FISA requirements called for.

The problem for WH, DoJ, and outside counsel is that it can be shown using third party data capture systems that they were aware of legal requirements; they did have discussions on the issues; they have publicly misrepresented their understanding of the legal issues; and they have misled the courts on whether the activity was or was not lawful. Third party data capture systems attach to specific personnel, legal counsel, and WH-DOJ-DOD employees the times that information was known, the memorandum they were discussing, and contrasts with with the public versions of what they would like the court, public, and Congress to believe.

The short answer: The time lines to not add up, the IP-connected data shows Gonzalez was lying; and that the FISA-rendition related issues are connected with the US Attorney firings in terms of time lines, actions, notifications, and the approach of "we know nothing" despite the opposite: Real concern inside the White House that the legal implications of these issues ultimately attach with war crimes, prisoner abuse, and unlawful use of data.

It appears the timing of the events is related to a larger goal of the VP to protect his loyal staff within the intelligence community; and the interesting contrast is to review Cheney's approaches in [a] Iran-Contra; [b] Watergate when he was on the WH Staff in re Ford; and [c] how he is working in the Plame investigation. Using third party data capture systems it is possible to compare the information that Cheney had when he reviewed the NYT article, and question whether eh really did underline the document; or whether this was retroactively created to mislead the Grand Jury. If you look closely at the underlining and the information in the hand written comments, you'll see a contrast: Cheney was discussing in his hand written comments information that he did not have. This suggests the underlining was not a real event, but a ruse. This can be corroborated using the third party data capture systems of Libby's counsel; and reviewing counsel's concerns with various issues. [This is just an example of how this works with a grand jury.]

The problem for WH, EOP, DOJ, DoD, Addington, Cheney, and outside counsel: The third party data captures have been going on and it is impossible to destroy this information which is outside their control, ability to influence. The records have been locked; and they are connected to specific time lines, data, dates, and events; it's impossible to re-order the events to make them match what Bush, Cheney, and Addington would have us believe must have happened to justify their conclusions. Rather, because the milestones, data, and timeliness are fixed as they are -- it's possible to compare the known time line relative to the known legal requirements and see there are major problems with Members of Congress not following up on issues they knew, or should have known to act on.

Third party data captures confirm Members of Congress know about issues that they have not done what they require. At this juncture, it's safe to say that the issue with the US Attorney firing is larger in terms of how it shows Members of Congress did not timely act on issues of FISA, rendition, prisoner abuse, and known violations of Geneva: The time lines are locked; third party data captures show when Members of Congress were notified; and the problem is the lack of subpoenas and specific requests. Surely , if Congress had evidence that would show they were doing the Right thing on Geneva, they'd produce it and not keep it quite. Third party data captures show the inconsistencies between legal requirements, public statements, private discussions, and the duties of US government officials an and legal counsel to have done things under the Geneva Conventions.

There is nothing they can do to prevent these data captures; and NSA has no means to prevent this from occurring. As said before, the President, Cheney, Addington, and outside legal counsel are stuck with DOJ and the US Attorney mess: It's the same kettle of fish, just a different cut. When legal counsel wakes up and realizes that they have a legal problem, we might see some movement; until then, legal counsel inside the White House, DOJ, and outside counsel have a major war crimes problem and no solution. They have too much time between now and the 2008 election; and then there's the issue of there being no statute of limitations on war crimes, universal jurisdiction, and the inability of NSA or anyone to target all the third party data capture systems. It's impossible. These guys are going down, they have no defence, and they are stuck with what cannot be changed.

Ultimately, it will come down to whether DoJ, WH, EOP, and outside legal counsel want to side with [a] the President or [b] the law. If theyu choose wrong, they're wrong. They could be disbarred, losing all they value. They don't have a choice. For now, they're being left to wander so the third party data capture systems can continue. Failing to timely do what one should is not a nice thing, especially when legal counsel has a legal requirement under Geneva to do the opposite of what they are doing. Nuremberg concluded that legal counsel who failed to do what they should have been doing could be prosecuted for war crimes. The same risk applies to EOP, DOJ, WH, and outside counsel going forward. There is nothing they can do to destroy this third party data capture system, the data it has, nor adjust the time lines to match what they need. Comey's testimony shows the third party data capture systems can work to show an inconsistency between what legal counsel have been saying and reality. These are issues of war crimes, international criminal law, and disbarment. Legal counsel have chosen to mess with the wrong justice system. Again, they are going to lose because they did not know about the third party data capture systems; or the IP-connected data implicating them.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 3:30 PM:

"There is a flawed argument about the third party data captures. For Congress to get access to this information it would have to publicly ask for it; as of now, Congress has no method to identify the third party data capture repositories. To argue that Congress is doing something in secret is meaningless: They have no system in place to privately or publicly identify the third party data captures, or where this method and the data is being retained."

So, Mr. Unidentified Know-it-All Blowhard, why are you not alerting Congress to your brillianc-- er, geni--I mean, awe-inspiring hypothesis?

Let me guess: your surname is "Madsen," and if we pay you cash, you'll provide the names of your reliab[ly] unidentified sources.

DJ wrote on May 17, 2007 5:48 PM:

Anon: hey, I appreciate your posts, even if some here don't.

How would Congress know who to ask about this? The NSA? You've already said the NSA doesn't know about it. So unless this alleged third-party leaks something directly to some member of Congress, not much will come of it in a timely manner. Although I infer from some of your posts that this info will ultimately be used in war crimes prosecutions, but that could be many years away. We need help NOW, before they dig an even deeper hole.

Aquaria wrote on May 17, 2007 6:24 PM:

I'm glad others have noted the strange attempt to claim executive privilege with the RNC emails. IANAL, but it seems to me that executive privilege could only be called up for acts done under the umbrella of doing government (read: official) work. Ergo, if these emails were about anything having to do with official government business, then they needed to be transmitted using the official WH emailing system, as per the Presidential Records Act. I might find it annoying if a Rove or whoever uses Yahoo email to yak up baseball scores with a buddy on government time, but that's undertandable. Using an alternate system to conduct government business in violation of the law? Smells not only way more wrong than talking sports on company time, but also illegal to me.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 7:41 PM:

Issue, basis for Congrses to requst IP-related information from third parties: Third Party Data Captures Fatally Destroy WH-DoJ-RNC-outside counsel Legal COunsel Defense in re FISA violations, rendition, domestic surveillance, and war crimes

My only reason for posting is to encourage people not to lose hope: Just because RNC has not cooperated on e-mails, there are other data capture systems in place other than e-mail interception that help support prosecutions.

"So, Mr. Unidentified Know-it-All Blowhard, why are you not alerting Congress to your brilliance-- er, geni--I mean, awe-inspiring hypothesis?"

Already did. If they refuse to listen or you have other ideas how to do this, nothing is stopping anyone else from discussing this with Congress. If Congress doesn't ask, it's their decision not to fully assert their oath, 5 USC 3331.

The problem: Congress is also one of the targets of the data capture system, and this links to issues with various AG violations which Congress has known about but not acted on.
---------
"How would Congress know who to ask about this? The NSA? You've already said the NSA doesn't know about it."

Congress has been provided the information, samples, and how the method works. If they choose to ignore it; or not act on it, I cannot control that. This data is something NSA has no control over; rather, NSA is one of the targets of this method, which they cannot stop or prevent from being used against them. This is why NSC is worried: They have no counter measures for it.

"So unless this alleged third-party leaks something directly to some member of Congress, not much will come of it in a timely manner."

The information has been publicly disclosed and details about the DOJ data captures have been openly discussed showing Gonzalez committed perjury about the FISA violations; whether Congress chooses to ignore it, act on it, or bury it is out of my control. All I can do is alert people to the issue: There are other ways -- besides RNC e-mail -- to gather evidence. Anyone is free to ignore this, pass it along, or discuss it. I cannot control this at this juncture.

"Although I infer from some of your posts that this info will ultimately be used in war crimes prosecutions, but that could be many years away. We need help NOW, before they dig an even deeper hole."

I hear you. The same approaches can also be used in transmission and helps facilitate communication on other issues. This puts the Constitution first, and the US government and legal community second.
-----------------
"Let me guess: your surname is "Madsen," and if we pay you cash, you'll provide the names of your reliab[ly] unidentified sources."

No, there's no promise for anything, nor a request for cash. The sources are inside DOJ, WH, EOP, and outside legal counsel. All I can do is tell you that there is IP-connected data unrelated to E-mails that Congress has not apparently publicly asked for. Given the resistance to this approach on this board by so called IT experts, I can only presume that Congress is equally not aware of this approach.

That Congress hasn't included this IP-related data in the subpoenas suggests they are not aware of the approach, its utility, or the means by which it can fatally undermine key Presidential defenses on issues of war crimes, prisoner abuse, executive privilege, and data retention.

There is no desire to "get" anything, but the opposite: To give the public assurances that despite RNC refusals to cooperate on e-mails, there are other options to capture, examine, and review issues as they related to FISA, war crimes, rendition, prisoner abuse, and the DoJ Staff misconduct since 2001.

I appreciate the skepticism: It's the same within the EOP, WH, DoJ, and oustide counsel. I cannot, as you well know, prove anything except say: The IP numbers, if they are studying outside e-mail, will sh owe you that Gonzalez has been lying on FISA; and that the President's legal team has well discussed legal concerns with issues they have publicly said were not a concern. Once these White House, DoJ, and outside counsel discussions are known, and linked with specific IP numbers, this will fatally open the doors for Congress to ask more questions.

The problem is Congress is not serious about taking this to its logical conclusion -- impeachment. Despite that, state officials outside the impeachment process may prosecute a sitting President; and grand juries may prosecute and gather evidence of DOJ, White House, EOP, and outside counsel misconduct relative to Geneva and attorney standards of conduct.

If you are connected with the grand juries, please don't isolate your data review to the e-mails, but look at the IP-connected data that can help show whether or not legal requirements have or have not been met.

A. Did legal counsel really work on legal requirements as advertised; or were they really doing something else -- something else, in contravention to their legal and professional duties and obligtions;

B. Did Members of Congress and staff counsel really respond to the reports of misconduct that were disclosed, or were they working on something else -- data captures show they have not worked on what they should have, in contrvaention to 5 USC 3331, oath of office requirements;

C. Did EOP, DoJ, and WH legal counsel really fully assert their legal requirements under Geneva; or were they doing something else -- data capturesa against confirm legal cousnel did not fully assert their oath, and the internal deliberations, as COmey indicated, are not consistent with outside counsel's arguement that the activit was classified. No, it has been illegally hidden in violation of statute and executve orders; and data captures confirm legal counsel is aware of the problem in their legal defense in re AT&T litigation on FISA. Comey's statements are a known problem which counsel has not planned on.

EOP, DOJ, and WH legal counsel can only physically do one thing or another; the documented woorkflows that they were really working on cannot be one thing, yet the legal requirements something else. That may have been what's happened, but the disconnect between [a] what the Law requires; and [b] what they were really doing, as capture din the third party data captures tells us to what extent legal counsel have lied, misled the court, or engaged in conduct that warrants review by the disciplinary board.

The issue isn't the violation, but once that known problem existed, did counsel appropriately report misconduct of peers as required; did they contact DOJ OPR as required; or did they sit on it? The reality is: Nothing was done; and subsequent assertions that they were doing the right thing -- by way of reports -- is not supported by the third party data captures which do not support their contention that they fully asserted their oath.

Because the RNC is not aware of these third party data captures, they're not in a position to defend against it, nor destroy the evidence which remains outside their control.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 8:24 PM:

The issue boils down to whether or not Congress is serious about protecting the Constitution using all means available. It is discouraging when Members of Congress throw up their hands suggesting, "Oh my, the RNC hasn't cooperated" yet the Congress isn't serious about impeachment.

The issue is whether Congress will stop pretending that there is nothing that can be done; and whether Members of Congress are going to face the real issue: they've been complicit by not following up on these issues, and in taking impeachment -- a credible threat of sanctions, and basis for POTUS to respond -- off the table.

Why disclose a third party data capture system to Congress who has a greater loyality to doing nothing than in really asserting its power? If Congress refuses to act, then it shall be denied the details of data capture systems which shall be used to investigate, target, and prosecute them for complicity with war crimes. It makes no ssense to disclose details to the very members of Congress who have shown disdain for their oath, taken impeachment off the table, and show reckess disregard for the oath and Constitution.

Third party data capture systems put the evidence on the table that the GOP Senate will have to explain: Despite these known internal deliberations, why did they have no plan to put the Constitution first; and what again is their basis for arguing they should be given more power, yet they've not used the existing power they have to protect their Constitution.

The problem with the RNC is that they've incorrectly believed that by destroying e-mail tat nothing can be done. The IP-connected data from third party data capture system undermines this flawed RNC assumption. The RNC has no idea what information has been collected; nor do they comprehend the scope that their attempted e-mail-deletion ruse is meaningless: Other methods exist -- totally unrelated to e-mail -- that can prove the issues which RNC says are "not provable" because the e-mail was destroyed.

More broadly, once outside counsel is shown to have [a] a reputation for knowing data retention requirements; and [b] an ongoing relationship with DOJ and WH legal counsel; but [c] there is no evidence that the data has been retained as required, the line of questions becomes:

A. Tell us again, outside counsel, why you are in a position to justify confidence that your legal defense of DOJ Staff counsel is worth something; but when it came to issues on data retention you either said nothing, did not ensure compliance, or let the non-compliance policies roll over the responsibilities you as counsel had.

B. Tell us again, outside counsel, why your assertions that these issues are "classified" are relevant given the data shows the activity is illegal and cannot be lawfully classified.

C Tell us again, outside counsel, why you are asserting that this data, deliberation, and evidence is "privileged"; yet, third party data captures -- which have access to the data you say is hidden -- have fatally identified they very thing you said cannot be discussed: Times, topics, discussion points, and schedules of personnel who were supposedly doing something else.

What is happening is the issues of executive privilege have been turned don their head. Once the issues are disclosed and available through third party data captures, the President cannot claim that the issues is privilege; rather, once disclosed -- even inadvertently -- the problem belongs to the President. His public assertions were based on the assumption that he could control video, images, statements, memorandum, and other planning documents related to rendition, prisoner abuse, and other war crimes.

Third party data captures help identify the specific documents, meeting minutes, policy memos, signed documents, and other discussion points that were occurring when the President incorrectly believed tease would never see the light of day. If the statute requires one thing, but the data captures show something else -- as they do -- this is the basis to destroy the President's claim of executive privilege and demonstrate counsel has inadvertently disclosed information which opens the bard do to exhaustive, probing discovery and depositions.

The issue is simple: Just because the RNC thought it could hide evidence behind [a] hidden e-mails or [b] destroyed e-mails or [c] executive privilege or [d] secrecy classifications, my only point is the RNC's assumptions of this "magical wall to oversight, discovery, and evidence retrieval" is flawed in that third party data captures make the assumed-RNC shields irrelevant.

The data is not lawfully classified when it is related to illegal activity; Presidential plans related to war crimes are not protected when they related to illegal activity; and memorandum and discussions known to have occurred through evidence opens the door to additional questions related to that disclosed communications, even if DoJ, WH, EOP, and outside counsel incorrectly through there was some sort of shield.

The third party data capture systems are designed to make the attorney-client privilege on issues of war crimes and unlawful war crimes meaningless: Counsel has inadvertently disclosed details of meetings, information, and other information that they have incorrectly told clients would not be disclosed to third parties. This information is available, despite what legal counsel believes ass it relates to the rule of evidence.

Just as NSA gives JTTF investigative leads -- using illegally captured information to direct JTTF to "admissible" evidence -- the same can be done with third party data captures as it relates to legal counsel. Information that legal counsel has been given in confidence -- on the assumption that it would not be disclosed -- has been disclosed by counsel to third parties using this lawful data capture system.

The issue is the third parity data captures systems are in place, the IP-numbers can be linked with negative information, and RNC legal counsel has no idea who inside WH, EOP, or DOJ is cooperating. It is possible using this third party data capture system to enter the White House, outside counsel, DOJ, or EOP and identify which IP numbers were used to disclose information the President, AG, and outside counsel thought would be hidden behind secrecy and executive privilege.

The question for legal counsel: Do they want to bet that their computer isn't linked; or that their discussion and input to these illegal memorandum have not been disclosed to grand juries; or are they going to pretend that nothing can be done; or that the third party data capture systems do not exist. It doesn't matter what legal counsel believe: The issue is simple -- since 2001, they've been involved with unlawful war crimes, the data has been locked, and even long after they are gone, their law firms -- as a legal entity -- shall remain the target of war crimes investigations worldwide.

It doesn't matter if the EOP, DOJ, WH, and outside counsel think this is a ruse: The longer they delay accepting the reality of third party data captures, and the reality that they have been linked to war crimes evidence, the harder time they're going to have explaining why nothing was done; or they failed to timely report their evidence. The burden rests with legal counsel. Let's hope they think this is a bluff: It will only get worse for them.

Where are they going to hide? The moon? There is no statute of limitations; the data exists; and there is nothing the President, EOP, WH, or outside counsel can do to destroy this. The question is whether counsel will see the light and come forward; or be adjudicated with war crimes for refusing to do what they knew they had a duty under Geneva to do: Ensure the laws of war were followed as thy related to prisoner abuse, rendition, illegal use of data for unlawful interrogations, and unlawful ware fare.

Inaction on Third Party Data Capture Data is Admissable

Members of Congrss have enough information about IP-related data to ask for it. They hhave not. Yet, even if Congress does nothing -- despite a legal requirement to act through impeachment to enforce the laws of war -- that inaction of Congrses, and the deliberations to do nothing, is itself evidence which third party data capture systems can subsequently monitor and disclose. It doesn't matter if nobody believes this or nothing is done: That inaction -- above and beyond the original third party data captures -- is admissible evidence for purposes of adjudicating war crimes, where there is no stature of limitations.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 10:36 PM:

Anon: is that "third-party" a non-US party?

Anonymous wrote on May 18, 2007 3:18 AM:

Anon,

Remember the Pentagon Papers and the NYT. Is there no significant reputable newspaper investigative reporter who would look into this and report it all?

Heretic wrote on May 18, 2007 6:41 AM:

Fuzz,

With all due respect, you are the one who seems like a troll. Your personal attacks on a thoughtful poster, regardless of whether he is right or wrong, is quite revealing. You are a reprehensible person and it is you whose posts should be ignored until you learn to behave with some civility.

Heretic wrote on May 18, 2007 6:49 AM:

Fuzz,

With all due respect, you are the one who seems like a troll. Your personal attacks on a thoughtful poster, regardless of whether he is right or wrong, is quite revealing. You are a reprehensible person and it is you whose posts should be ignored until you learn to behave with some civility.

somedude wrote on May 18, 2007 8:12 AM:

I still can't grasp the public mindset regarding "The NSA Surveillance Program." Is it perceived as