Comments (51)

lysias wrote on August 16, 2007 4:16 PM:

Somebody remarks on the earlier thread that "RSM" in "RSM Program Log" almost certainly is an abbreviation for "Robert S. Mueller".

modmom wrote on August 16, 2007 4:16 PM:

Couldn't RSM stand for his initials Robert Swan Mueller III?

grinner wrote on August 16, 2007 4:21 PM:

RSM may simply stand for Robert S Mueller's program log, meaning a log of what he did/who he met over those days...

It is unlikely that they will leak the code name or any other name so simply as like putting it on top of heavily redacted docs.

zAmboni wrote on August 16, 2007 4:31 PM:

"Realtime Surveillance Methodology"

zAmboni wrote on August 16, 2007 4:33 PM:

"Realtime Surveillance Methodology"

regular lurker wrote on August 16, 2007 4:39 PM:

Ummm...the word perfect file name is at the bottom of the page:
RSM_Docs/Miscellaneous/Program.wpd

Just call it "Program" and keep it simple.

oldtree wrote on August 16, 2007 4:56 PM:

why in the hell would they be so scared to reveal that they have been spying on enemies? they have to be spying on their political opponents, and or, each of us, to be this secretive. knowing what we do about this bunch, what could it be that they have done?
clearly, it is an impeachable offense.
must cost a lot to buy a government?

Punchy wrote on August 16, 2007 5:06 PM:

"Conyers stated today that he's going to seek an unredacted copy of the notes."

Anyone wanna bet me $100 on "executive privilege, bitches!" in 3.....2.....1.....?

Austin Cooper wrote on August 16, 2007 5:08 PM:

[Reposting this comment from another thread on TPM]

The notation at the lower left of the document:

"H:\RSM_Docs\Miscellaneous\Program.wpd
March 12, 2004 (4:06PM)"

This identifies it as a file residing on Mueller's network "share" drive (a portion of a server's hard drive reserved for use by a specific network user), which IT departments generally assign as the letter "H:\".

On Mueller's share drive is a folder, named "RSM_Docs" (For Robert S Mueller), within which is a subfolder, "Miscellaneous".

On March 12th at 4:06PM, Mueller first saved the MS Wordpad document, "Program.wpd" (which the images show) to the 'Miscellaneous' folder.

One thing of note: The timeline and events which Mueller details begins on March 1, 2004. The events in Ashcroft's hospital room occurred on the evening of March 11th.

Mueller did not write this document until 4:06PM on March 12th -- over twenty hours *after* the hospital room event, after his March 12th morning briefing and private meeting with Bush at the White House, and a later meeting with (still acting AG) Comey and unnamed others at the DoJ.

I don't suggest anything sinister; it's just a piece of information.

Bob's not Right wrote on August 16, 2007 5:09 PM:

Let’s test drive this

In early 2002 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge reaches an agreement with government lawyers on warrantless wiretaps ALREADY conducted without court approval. These applications are to be “Tagged” and the information used cannot be the basis for a FISA warrant, instead independently gathered information must provide the justification for a FISA warrant.

In mid May of 2002 Chief Judge Rehnquist appoints Coleen Kollar- Kotelly presiding judge of the FISC. She is informed of the secret surveillance program and agrees not to tell the other 10 judges; she also accepts the previous “Tagging” compromise.

Sometime in early 2004 James Baker discovers that the governments failure to share information about it’s spying program has rendered the “tagging” agreement useless. Baker alerts judge Kollar-Kotelly who complains to Ashcroft prompting a temporary suspension. The judge then requires high level Justice Department officials to “certify” the information was complete or face possible perjury charges.

This was reported in the Washington Post in separate pieces. All of this is a moot point now since the vote last month but with the Padilla conviction today it prompts me to ask.

Was the Padilla wiretap one of those “Tagged” taps

Was that the leverage that was used against Democrats to force the vote ie: letting a known terrorist free on technicalities, etc.

Is that why it had to be done before summer recess knowing the case was going to the jury.

At the very least it explains who put the fear of God into Comey, Ashcroft and Mueller about “certifying” complete information and why they would potentially resign.

Austin Cooper wrote on August 16, 2007 5:10 PM:

Yep; WordPerfect... my bad.

cv wrote on August 16, 2007 5:16 PM:

What Gonzales says is that nobody objected to the program that was finally agreed to by all--the Terrorist Surveillance Program--which allowed warrentless wiretaps between domestic and foreign sources. So what was the program, Program X, that might have inspired massive resignations?

It seems logical that the the only thing that goes farther than this and is objectionable enough to cause massive resignations, is so repugnant to law enforcement (particularly those with a libertarian bent) is a massive, warrentless domestic surveillance program. Could it be the once-proposed "Total Surveillance Program" which promised to sweep up and analyze every single email and phone call in the United States?

I can imagine that the administration would not find this a violation of privacy rulings because no person reads an email or listens to a phone call unless the computer algorithms tag it as suspicious. Probable cause is not needed to gather the signals, only to have someone look at it. Could this be what they mean when they say that laws have not kept up with technology.

Of course it's BS and self-delusion, but that may in fact be what's happening.

Austin Cooper wrote on August 16, 2007 5:23 PM:

1.) There were eavesdropping and surveillance Programs established by a Secret Executive Order, possibly dated January 17, 2002, and written (at least in part) by John Yoo. We don't know the full scope of the EO's direction.

The Programs were to be approved by the Attorney General every 45 days as being in compliance with law as regards wiretapping, and 4th Amendment protections -- but the Programs would not fall under any review under FISA.

2.) Over March 11-12th, 2004, acting AG James Comey refused to approve the Programs as legal. (Note: This was something John Ashcroft had apparently done, like clockwork, for two years without demur?)

Some aspect(s) of the Programs were in Comey's determination not lawful, and his feelings were strong enough to make him, and FBI Director Mueller, and other senior DoJ personnel, threaten to resign if the Programs were approved without some, unknown modification(s).

3.) After Ashcroft, Card, Comey and Gonzales's scene at the hospital, and Mueller and Comey's later exchanges with Card and Bush at the White House, some changes were made in the Programs -- Bush, however, had already signed off and approved them without the Attorney General's signature.

[Note: The New York Times had gotten wind of aspects of the surveillance Programs during 2004, but when the White House invoked National Security, the Times sat on the story for a year or more.]

4.) In December, 2005, The NYT -- when it appeared they were about to be scooped by the Washington Post -- printed a story which revealed (1)The existence of the secret 2002 Executive Order establishing the Programs; (2)The cooperation of nearly all U.S. telecomm, data-switching and hosting providers in accessing data and voice communications -- including the existence of specially-constructed facilities at the offices of these vendors, utilized by unidentified government personnel.

(Data mining -- as separate from tapping into specific communications between specific persons -- was speculated about due to the kind of technology involved, but has not been yet proven.)

Due to the public revelations of the Programs, Bush admitted their existence -- however, he *only admitted to interception of communication between foreign nationals in communication with other foreign persons in the U.S., or with American citizens* (He did not admit to data mining or any wider effort to correlate differents categories of data -- flight trave records, DMV, etc).

These specific items he *did* refer to as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program", or TSP -- and even though Bush finally agreed to place these activities under review of the FISA Court, they are only aspects of the larger, overall Program.

And even these aspects were potentially illegal -- in January, 2007, an FISA Court judge refuse to approve a warrant or warrants which the government had applied for. This was apparently not revealed to the new Congress.

6.) Bush did not reveal any other aspects of the wiretapping and surveillance Programs. That there are other aspects has been suspected -- but Comey's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in May of 2007, and Gonzales' dissembling testimony in July, gave even larger hints. DNI Admiral McConnell's letter to Senator Specter of July 29th stated so, absolutely.

azbill wrote on August 16, 2007 5:24 PM:

All this would come out if they would just impeach the lying Abu Gonzales. Come on Congress, you still have a job to do and getting Abu in jail would be a GREAT start. And why not call Ashcroft in front of the committee and see if he remembers ANYTHING?

lysias wrote on August 16, 2007 5:26 PM:

So within with DOJ was in the loop when the NSA program(s) were initially authorized? We know John Yoo was, because he wrote the original Office of Legal Counsel memo that blessed the program(s).

However, we know from a New York Times profile of Yoo from a couple of years ago that, the morning of 9/11, when the Justice Department building was evacuated, Yoo was asked (by whom, was not stated) to stay behind in his office. Which he did, so that in the next few days he did a lot of legal work with White House lawyers (presumably including Addington) on the legal consequences of 9/11.

But who else, if anybody, in DOJ was in the loop at that time? And, by 2004, Yoo was out of government and back at the Berkeley law school.

myiq2xu wrote on August 16, 2007 5:27 PM:

Interesting that Gonzales, Card and Cheney attended those two meetings in Card's office the day before the hospital visit, but Cheney doesn't recall sending Fredo and Howdy to the Hospital.

gawks wrote on August 16, 2007 5:28 PM:

According to the FBI director, Ashcroft tells Card and Gonzales that "he was barred from obtaining the advice he needed on the program" -- again, note program, singular -- "by the strict compartmentalization rules of the [White House.]" Now that's cronyism! For the first time, there's the suggestion that even John Ashcroft -- the attorney general of the United States and by all accounts a loyal Bushie -- didn't know all there was to know about the warrantless surveillance efforts. Apparently, Ashcroft wasn't considered trustworthy enough to be kept in the loop on the most legally controversial program of them all -- though his counterpart at the White House, and eventual successor, clearly was.

It's not clear to me that this is the best way to interpret this sentence... isn't it more plausible that Ashcroft was read into the details program, but that the "strict compartmentalization rules" promulgated by the WH meant that he couldn't confer about the details of the program with staff lawyers at DOJ? This is similar to the objection voiced by Sen. Rockefeller in his letter to Cheney. Or am I missing something?

Louis wrote on August 16, 2007 5:29 PM:

Re: 'According to the FBI director, Ashcroft tells Card and Gonzales that "he was barred from obtaining the advice he needed on the program" -- again, note program, singular -- "by the strict compartmentalization rules of the [White House.]" Now that's cronyism!'

Another, perhaps more appropriate term may apply here -- "stovepiping." That was the buzzword that came up over and over again in the critiques of the way pre-war intelligence was handled. This behavior fits that model all too well.

David Taylor Shannon wrote on August 16, 2007 5:32 PM:

I think you are interpreting the statement -- that Ashcroft was barred from obtaining the advice he needed on the program by the strict compartmentalization rules of the White House -- to mean that the White House was withholding information about the program from Ashcroft.

I read it differently. I think it means that Ashcroft was briefed, but then barred from discussing the program with the professionals in the Justice Department. As a result, he couldn't get any advice from his own people about the program's legality.

We have seen this before. Some members of Congress were briefed on these programs, but then told that the couldn't talk to anyone about them. Again, that prevented them from getting the expert advice they needed to formulate objections.

This is a very good technique. It makes the person responsible for the program without giving him or her the ability to do anything about it.

lysias wrote on August 16, 2007 5:32 PM:

How could Ashcroft authorize the program(s) every 45 days starting in 2002 if he was out of the loop?

Austin Cooper wrote on August 16, 2007 5:37 PM:

Compartmentalization of information occurs even among these clowns, and if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say Cheney's fingerprints are all over it. It's like a set of nesting Russian dolls.

A Program is set up -- with which the VP is "intimately involved", as he noted to Larry King. 'lil Boots lets Cheney do whatever he wants on that side of things.

So, Ashcroft might receive a briefing on the Program -- but portions of it, the Russian doll inside what he's allowed to look at, are compartmentalized from him.

Those aspects may bear directly on the legality of the Program, but that doesn't matter: Deadeye Dick knows they're not legal -- but it's what he wants. Why spoil the beauty of a thing with legality?

Sooner or later, all this tracks back to Cheney.

Code = fear

Mitch wrote on August 16, 2007 5:39 PM:

Still dancing around semantics. Is it singular or is it plural. Is it past tense or present. Is it fully parsed or not.

Our descent into ultimate ruin is an absolute certainty. It's over.

Austin Cooper wrote on August 16, 2007 5:41 PM:

"How could Ashcroft authorize the program(s) every 45 days starting in 2002 if he was out of the loop?"

I'm not certain about this point, which is why I added the question about his refusal. The point is, the 'check and balance' for the program was supposed to be that the AG signed off on it's legality every 45 days -- this was supposed to molify Congress, I guess.

If I've gotten any details wrong, please clarify it for everybody else. I've got a cold.

JohnW1141 wrote on August 16, 2007 5:45 PM:

The Bush/Cheney/Rove gang was spying on the 'Democrats', not al Qaeda, and this is what caused the threat of mass resignations.

JohnW1141 wrote on August 16, 2007 5:46 PM:

The Bush/Cheney/Rove gang was spying on the 'Democrats', not al Qaeda, and this is what caused the threat of mass resignations. Rational people saw another Watergate scandal and didn't want any part of it.

Anonymous wrote on August 16, 2007 5:51 PM:

Obvious question here.

What other meetings does Mueller have notes of? Can Congress blanket subpoena Muller's diary, if he keeps one?

Keeping diaries is always the downfall of public officials.

Bob's not Right wrote on August 16, 2007 5:53 PM:

I go back to my above post, forget the Padilla speculation.

It seems to me that Ashcroft (and other "high level Justice Department officials) was forced into a position to "certify" that the information was complete to the FISC judge Kollar-Kotelly.

This was sometime in early 2004 and it seems plausible that he signed off on it every 45 days because there as no compelling reason not to. When judge Kollar-Kotelly started to threaten perjury that raised the stakes.

disclaimer: I am reporting from second hand news accounts and internet timelines, I do not have any personal knowledge nor have I verified the facts.

Thomas Biegel wrote on August 16, 2007 6:03 PM:

Is Ashcroft and his wife dead? Why haven't they been called to testify?

TheraP wrote on August 16, 2007 6:16 PM:

Austin Cooper,

I'm wondering if the whole record was not "typed into the computer till 4:06 on March 12, but that there may have been written notes taken earlier, at the various points in the record.

I note that because the note written after the hospital visit is in the present tense "Comey tells me.."

Again, just noting what appears to me to have taken place. That notes may have been written at various points on a time-line and then typed up after the fact. (if I am correct here, then it is possible that there may be info in the written notes that never made it into the typed notes? just a speculation...)

Campesino wrote on August 16, 2007 6:27 PM:

We have seen this before. Some members of Congress were briefed on these programs, but then told that the couldn't talk to anyone about them. Again, that prevented them from getting the expert advice they needed to formulate objections.

This is a very good technique. It makes the person responsible for the program without giving him or her the ability to do anything about it.

Posted by: David Taylor Shannon
Date: August 16, 2007 5:32 PM
************************************************
This is similar to the objection voiced by Sen. Rockefeller in his letter to Cheney. Or am I missing something?

Posted by: gawks
Date: August 16, 2007 5:28 PM
*************************************************

I've never understood why the Democrats didn't hold hearings on this when they controlled the Senate in 2002

RWN wrote on August 16, 2007 6:33 PM:

This all appears to be a house of cards about to fall very fast. Padilla's conviction will be appealed, it will engineer poison fruit in the retrospect, the SF AT&T case will also come forward and release more information....in the meantime hopefully there is some backbone pills provided and the AG is under impeachment investigation for perjury to Congress (which Schumer and Leahy laid a trap) exposing more reason to investigate...and forcing the exec privalege which was in the end what got Nixon,

as the house of cards falls...more revelations that every American was snooped on...systematically believing that they were a threat...why do I know, because I know a few at Northcom....and whenever I mention the item that do you really believe there are Americans who are traitors...they look knowing I am right but knowing that any dissent is a threat...then there is the NYC thing about home grown terrorists (ala Great Britain)

In the end why was that former DOJ attorney raided for supposed posting...could the spying netted him?

Of course....

But i am merely a red blooded citizen who votes, who is a patriot and believer in the Constitution...

The SF and subsequent story of the attorney having to write a brief without books and all drafts destroyed is in of itself an affront to our legal system.

I am hoping the ultimate backbone of this nation is the courts...they have slowly worked this not to the aggression we would have liked.

But remember, it was a simple judge in DC who received evidence in the Watergate trial before sentancing that actually started the official unpeeling....eventually the House fell then.

myiq2xu wrote on August 16, 2007 7:51 PM:

Josh, looking at your post you say that Addington was at one meeting. As I read the notes, Cheney was at two meetings, but at one the notes show that lawyers from the OLC were also present.

There is no mention of lawyers from OVP.

Austin Cooper wrote on August 16, 2007 7:58 PM:

TheraP,

Yep -- that's my guess as well. My instincts tell me that Mueller added the notes about any activity before 3/11/04 to put the events in some kind of context.

Just as an aside, people in corporate life do keep running logs like this in digital form, particularly when dealing with problematic individuals or circumstances -- a bad boss, a compromising situation, etc.

Mueller may have originally made handwritten notes, and they may or may no longer exist -- they should be subpoenaed also if they do.

Bob's not Right wrote on August 16, 2007 7:59 PM:

Austin Cooper 5:41PM

“The point is, the 'check and balance' for the program was supposed to be that the AG signed off on it's legality every 45 days -- this was supposed to molify Congress, I guess”.

I don’t think the problem was from Congress, I think their own Justice department was the inhibiting factor. This explains to me something I have been trying to reconcile. Ashcroft was no big libertarian and he certainly carried a lot of water for the administration. So why did he leave in a whimper and why did he go against the administration on March of 2004?

It seems to me that an independent Justice Department could not be contained or in their view “trusted”, so they got Ashcroft to acquiesce to the appointment of Gonzales and go quietly into retirement. I think Ashcroft was just as scared of the boogey man terrorist as Bush and company and he looked the other way until he was forced to put it on the line.

Congress was no threat to Bush, Delay saw to that but they ran into a few roadblocks from the FISC judges and maybe others. This further explains why a wholesale gutting of Justice was started in 2004/2005 and apparently unqualified individuals were placed in position. Could it be that what we thought was the Karl Rove political machine guiding the levers was really the systematic dismantling of checks and balances turning everyone into an island of information with no way to get to the other islands.

My big question is this. How does he leave office and what does he do with the program(s) and trail? He is required by the constitution to only serve, nothing belongs to him. If there is as nefarious a plot to hide illegal activity while he is in office how does he do it when he leaves office? The next President would be briefed and have complete access to all the apparatus of the nation. This puzzles me.

regular lurker wrote on August 16, 2007 8:08 PM:

March 12, 2004 was a Friday. The day before, Thursday, March 11, was the Madrid train bombings. Thought it was worth noting since it was a large scale terrorist act.

moondancer wrote on August 16, 2007 8:27 PM:

Austin Cooper @5:41

Just speculation, but my instinct was he was unknowingly signing off on more than he knew. Probably came to a head after talking with comey and goldsmith that he was being tooled by WH. I mean this is plausible, him not being the sharpest knife in the drawer. Once he saw the whole picture he demurred.

Josh Jasper wrote on August 16, 2007 8:46 PM:

The actual document might have the change logs if they were not turned off. This way Conyers would be able to see all the edits

regular lurker wrote on August 16, 2007 8:55 PM:

Question: if he typed the notes into his palm pilot (or similar) using word perfect, couldn't the date on the notes reflect the download? The timing coincides with the end of a work week.

moondancer wrote on August 16, 2007 9:02 PM:

Bob's not Right@7:59

Bingo! Thats what doesnt make any sense. All this power acquisition, centralization only to walk away? Plus to trust likely democratic administration to keep mum?
It makes no sense..

JD21 wrote on August 16, 2007 10:09 PM:

I love CREW. Even if it took 3 years for the government to finally slap some Obama smearers on the wrist, it never would have happened without CREW. Fortunately Obama can fend for himself and crushed in that election despite all the Republican dirty tricks. Don't count Obama out of this. He is formidable and good.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29934

JD21 wrote on August 16, 2007 10:50 PM:

Huh?

There are complexities in every family in America," Giuliani said calmly and quietly. "The best thing I can say is kind of, 'Leave my family alone, just like I'll leave your family alone.'">

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3487614

Is this the standard the right-wingers applied to Bill and Hillary's relationship. I don't think so. The funny thing about the Fox-Republican officials and politicians (fops) is that they are so serious about their double standard. As if they really believe it! They are hypocrites. Hypocrites. Hypocrites. And no amount of denial will change it. They need to get up off their high horse and out of Washington. Or we will escort them.

I will take a politician who gets a BJ on the side any day over this incompetent bunch of crooked, hypocritical, cheating, disloyal fops.

johnnydoughey wrote on August 16, 2007 11:08 PM:

RWN:

Re: Padilla...
8 or 9 years ago, I would have thought it a completely idiotic suggestion, but having paid way too much attention to this administration I would now not put it past one of his interrogators to hand him documents to get his fingerprints on them...

I never thought I would ever distrust our government as much as I do now...

The Oracle wrote on August 16, 2007 11:23 PM:

(Bob's not Right): "My big question is this. How does he leave office and what does he do with the program(s) and trail? He is required by the constitution to only serve, nothing belongs to him. If there is as nefarious a plot to hide illegal activity while he is in office how does he do it when he leaves office? The next President would be briefed and have complete access to all the apparatus of the nation. This puzzles me."

1) Well, this shouldn't be a problem for Bush's and Cheney's "unitary executive" as long as there's no "next President."

2) Or if elections are held in November 2008 with the successors chosen to replace Bush and Cheney being either rubber-stamp Republicans or DLC-selected Blue Dog Democrats.

3) Or BushCo and the "unitary executive" Republicans will win back control of the U.S. Congress which would put a stop to anymore of those pesky hearings being conducted by pesky "rule of law" Democrats, with an occassional "rule of law" Republican joining in.

4) Or outgoing BushCo will fully brief, without reservation, their incoming White House successors in early 2009 about all that BushCo has been doing, just as Bill Clinton's outgoing administration fully briefed incoming BushCo about all that the Clinton administration had been legally doing to address and thwart the right-wing religious terrorist threat...which BushCo proceeded to blow off completely as war preparations against Iraq were begun.

5) Bush signs an executive that permanently seals off from public view what they've been doing, with the hope that the incoming administration or any future administration will honor Bush's last-minute executive secrecy order...which will be signed at the same time Bush pardons everyone in his administration of any past wrongdoing...just like the Republican governor of Kentucky did several years ago with members of his state administration.

Bob's not Right, I see no. 4 being highly unlikely because of all that BushCo has to hide, as well as all the effort BushCo has put into politicizing the executive branch of our government, in an attempt to turn the executive branch into a permanent arm of the RNC. But the others are still in play.

Karl Rove is leaving the White House to handle no. 2 and no. 3, while Alberto Gonzales is remaining as Attorney General to take care of no. 1 and no. 5 if no. 2 and no. 3 don't occur as planned.

Rove is entering the private sector so there'll be no more pesky public oversight of his private RNC electioneering activities. Private e-mail accounts. Private corporate crony jets to ferry him around, crisscrossing our country from swing state to swing state, trying to find someway, anyway, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, to "fix" the November 2008 elections so "loyal Bushie" Republicans will win, as well as as many "loyal Bushie" DLC-selected Blue Dog Democrats as possible.

Gonzales will continue to run interference as head of the Justice Department, while inserting "unitary executive" language into legislation, signing statements and executive orders, while also working on the no. 5 contingency plan.

What? Me worry?

Now, don't get me wrong. I completely trust the Bush administration and trust everything I hear on Faux News. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Molly Ivans wrote on August 16, 2007 11:27 PM:

Raise Hell !!

steambomb wrote on August 17, 2007 12:59 AM:

When will this AG be held accountable for perjury the same way that you or I would be if we committed it? The same way Scooter Libby was held accountable for perjury. When? The (code word) Public wants to know. I think we would like to know NOW!

anon wrote on August 17, 2007 1:32 AM:

I dunno if any of this is going anywhere. Sure, it's important but it's so "closely held" and so clearly the tips of several icebergs that even if a lot of the questions raised here are answered, we're still screwed and the guys running these programs are still running their programs. I think this--and so much of Team Bush--is boiled down nicely by Greenwald. In short, picking over the details is nothing more than Kremlinology which is fine if you are looking at someone else's government but not so useful if it's your government. The big picture--at both the root level and the solution level--is that Bush has clearly been breaking the law and getting away with it. Sorting out the historical record is important but impossible to do without sorting out what to do about Bush breaking the law.

asdf wrote on August 17, 2007 5:33 AM:

> Ashcroft wasn't considered trustworthy enough to
> be kept in the loop on the most legally
> controversial program of them all -- though his
> counterpart at the White House, and eventual
> successor, clearly was.

Uhm, doesn`t the language suggest that Ashcroft was in the loop but, like senator Rockefeller, not allowed to bring others "in the loop"? Like by seeking (either independent *OR* cleared??) expert advice on say: telephone switches, FISA, the various then recent opinions of the FISA judges, the political room for extending the patriot act, the (based on arrests apparently low) success rates of targeting US numbers based on network analysis of traffic data, the legal basis for obtaining this traffic data, the scarce transcription and translation capacity that this program takes a huge bite out of (guesstimating from the many NSA job ads), the chances surveillance records turning up in (fisa) court cases revealing the lack of a warrant, the supposedly less invasive and some argue even legal ways of doing traffic analysis based on one way hashes (phone numbers do not offer enough entropy, especially at a place where supercomputers suck up more electricity than the local power company can easily offer, might only work with loads of salt! as Ashcroft may or may not know), fbi disappointment with the tonnes of supposed "leads" the NSA was feeding them...

You know stuff you wanna know if you decide to sign of on this stuff, all things a justice chief doesn`t just known of the back of his head.

big brother wrote on August 17, 2007 6:50 AM:

Surveilence satellites recording activity 24/7 over America. Data mining our electric transfers with telecommunications industry cooperation and warrantless wiretapping all of which is now in the hands of the neocon politicists is tyranny today. That we are now living under is a fact that the elected dems have approved is a chilling fact. Remember all of this data has no known destination with no known limits. Karl Rove, RNC, financial institutions, foriegn agents and who knows who has it. Say Blackwater, a private papamilitary may now have a growing list to utilise for the neocon causes, the New World Order and other oponenets of "We The People" powered Democracy in favor of the Corporate Oligarchy that has and will profit immensley from this Iraq war and the destabilization of the Middle East as promoted by Princeton History Professor Near Eastern Studies Bernard Lewis who it seemed promoted the destabilization of those govermnets to rduce the population to tribal conflict and religious factionalism. This is a neocon philosophy. Bush/Cheney have succeeded in doing just that. After the Cheney 1994 statement that taking out Saddam would leave Iraq without a government it is clear that they knew exactly what they were doing. Destroying the country, slaughtering 100,000s. Leaving one solution selling us their oil to rebuid what they destroyed. One huge problem Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan may not cooperate with that plan or the natural gas pipeline THE World Corporate Oligarchy needs to feed its growing energy demands.
The second thing they accomplished was bankrupting the national treasury so the next administration, which they anticipated to be Blue Dog Democrats, will be unable to fund entitlement programs, infrastructure repairs and national healthcare and other European style government socialism. The unregulated economy can still be plundered by the insiders that are now destabilizing thew world economy and being bailed out by our own middle class tax dollar. Mission accomplihed as dad and son celebrate on their speedboat with dad driving and Carlyle Group fat with profits the Bushes have little to do but make conservative appointments the rest of the term. They have pulled of the biggest heist of alltime. They jacked the United States Treasury.

bwindrip wrote on August 17, 2007 8:09 AM:

Posted by: The Oracle
Date: August 16, 2007 11:23 PM

I think we need to see a grassroots/netroots effort to follow Karl Rove's post-White House exploits assiduously.

He deserves the same level of attention as Princess Di. Literally.

KestrelBrighteyes wrote on August 17, 2007 11:37 AM:

Why waste time, money, and effort on a perjury trial? We've already seen how this administration protects convicted felons when the lies they told under oath were to protect Bush and company.

Impeachment is the only way to get rid of Gonzales, and hopefully get the information being held back when subpoenas are ignored.

Bob's not Right wrote on August 17, 2007 2:35 PM:

Oracle:

I would think that you were right about # 5 but I don' see how it happens.

Pardon the long post but here are excerpts from the US code

United States Code section 2201 title 44: Definitions

As used in this chapter - (1) The term ''documentary material'' means all books, correspondence, memorandums, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio, audiovisual, or other electronic or mechanical recordations. (2) The term ''Presidential records'' means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President….

United States Code section 2202 title 44: Ownership of Presidential Records

The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter

United States Code section 2203 title 44: Management and Custody of Presidential Records

Through the implementation of records management controls and other necessary actions, the President shall take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records pursuant to the requirements of this section and other provisions of law….

Under US law the Vice Presidential records are to be treated the same as the President.

Whats his end game?