The purpose of this note is to outline for the House Judiciary and TPMM a line of inquiry to examine the White house involvement with the FBI interviews of Wecht jurors. This forms the basis for the House Judiciary to ask the US Attorneys Office to comment why a grand jury has not been empanelled to review these issues. No exception relevant to DOJ IG or DOJ OPR would warrant the President invoking state secrets to block an investigation of these issues; nor justify White House involvement with FBI interviews of jurors.

This comment is organized into two sections:

1. Background information about DoJ Activities requiring coordination with external personnel;

2. Discussion Questions

PART I: White House Coordination With External Entities

There are many issues which point to the common elements within the White House legal office and President. These factors relate to stovepiping of information within DOJ; and the public lessons of the US Attorney firings, and how the White House learned, in the wake of the Congressman Jefferson raids, what the FBI must do to get information from another branch of government.

This section shows the difficult of quickly moving FBI agents, and sharing information within the DOJ, unless there were decisions about the DOJ AG to coordinate this planning and information exchange with personnel in the Judicial Branch of government.

DOJ Operating Guidelines

The House Judiciary has opened an investigation into alleged improper FBI contacts with Wecht jurors. One issue of concern is the means by which FBI agents gained access to the Juror's names. The Jurors are not employees of the President or Executive branch, but were public citizens assigned to a jury pool in a separate branch of government. The Committee would like to know not only who made the decision behind these FBI contacts, but also how FBI agents gained access to this information. It appears the White House was involved. This comment outlines the basis for the allegations, and the lines of questions TPMM and Congress may wish to discuss.

It's been reported FBI agents have contacted Jurors for the Wecht trial. Before directly addressing their true motivations for contacting the Jurors, it's appropriate for the Committee to review how FBI agents work under Special Agents in Charge, and the relationship between the FBI, US Attorneys, and the Judicial Branch.

FBI Access To Judicial Branch Information

For the sake of discussion, one problem with the FBI contact with Wecht Jurors is the issue of how the FBI agents, working in the Executive Branch, had access to secret information, supposedly only known to the Judicial Branch. Supposedly the Juror's names are confidential, carefully guarded, and under the Court Administration Control. We've learned with the Congressman Jefferson case that the FBI does not have free license to walk into a separate branch of government, demand information, and walk out the door. Either the FBI provided an explanation to the Court Administrators in re the Wecht Jury, and acquired access to the Juror's names; or someone inside the Judicial Branch gave the FBI agents these names. It's less important, for now, to review how or why this happened until we confront the major issue: The FBI, despite the smackdown in re improper access to Congress, appears to have gained access to the Judicial Branch files.

FBI and US Attorneys

Turning away from the apparent internal control problems within the Court Administration, let's focus on the FBI's relationship with the US Attorneys office, and FBI leadership. This analysis will show, because of the horizontal and lateral stovepipes, that the most likely direction for the FBI access to and interviews of the Wecht Jurors has less to do with internal FBI or DOJ decisions, but direction from the White House.

First, the relationship between the US Attorneys Office and FBI deserves some attention. The FBI is not an employee of the US Attorney or prosecutor. The FBI and Office of US Attorneys are separate, vertical stovepipes within DoJ. The FBI does this which the US Attorneys do not necessarily know about. Conversely, the US attorney may ask FBI agents to do things, and the FBI agents may refuse. The US Attorneys do not control, direct, manage, or guide the FBI agents. The FBI is merely an investigative branch.

FBI SAC Management

Second, let's consider the internal workings of the FBI and the relationship with the Special Agents in Charge. Special Agents in Charge are busy people. They can have many hundreds of agents and personnel assigned. On a given day they may have many reports, intelligence briefings, and other classified activities. They have a hard enough time managing the day to day affairs to believe that "out of the blue" a group of FBI agents "on their own" interviewed the Wecht jurors. Rather, before any FBI agent would interview the Wecht Jurors, there would have to be direction, permission, or guidance from the Assistant SACs and SACs. Getting a single FBI agent to investigate a specific issue isn't a matter that someone can just pick up the phone, and call an FBI agents. That manning allocation needs to be reviewed, then an agreement that multiple FBI agents must be assigned to accomplish a specific objective.

In the case of the Wecht interviews, we know a few things happened. A single FBI agent did not act, indicating that a group of FBI agents worked, with ASAC and SAC concurrence. Also, we know the US Attorneys may or may not find this unusual.

Investigations Are Different Than Trial Case Management

The Office of US Attorneys and prosecutors litigate cases. FBI agents have no role in managing the litigation files. The role of the FBI is to manage investigations. The US Attorneys do not direct the FBI agents on a day to day basis; nor do the FBI agents only work on specific US Attorney cases. When we talk about an FBI investigations, we're not talking about US Attorney-directed efforts to support a specific case. The two are different. Someone above the FBI and US Attorneys office would have to organize this effort.

The question in re Wecht is: What factor would, out of the blue, inspire the Prosecutors to ask questions about the Wecht Jury members? The issue has to do with litigation preparation. One aim of the FBI agents in interviewing the Wecht Jurors appears to understand the internal deliberations of the Jury. Whether the prosecutors in the US Attorneys sought this out is secondary to the core issue: FBI agents were discussing this issue not with mere civilians, but with people only assigned through the Judicial Branch.

Required Coordination Above DOJ AG

Someone would have to do the following:

- Identify a requirement to contact the Wecht jurors

- Get SAC and ASAC concurrence to use FBI agents

- Assign a group of FBI agents to interview the Wecht jurors

- Correctly identify the key Office of Administration employee in the Judicial Branch with access to the Wecht Jurors names

- Coordinate the movement of the FBI interview information from the SAC to the receiving organization, presumably the US Attorneys Office, DOJ, and higher

Explaining US Attorney Direction To Independent FBI

Recall, we've stated that the US Attorneys and FBI agents do not have a hand-in-glove relationship. Someone with some perspective of the legal issues, not just this case, would have to decide there needed to be an effort to understand the Wecht Juror's views. The issue is to explain how the US Attorneys, with this indirect relationship, could convince the FBI, this quickly, to agree to a discovery plan, mobilize a group of FBI agents during this "oh, we're so busy chasing terrorists information"-era; then organize both the FBI, and US Attorneys to coordinate with the Judicial Branch, correctly identify the case, identify the Jurors names, and provide this information to the FBI; then take the interview files from those FBI interviews, coordinate them with the US Attorneys, and keep the Judicial Branch happy.

It defies reason to believe that anyone below the DOJ Staff level was not involved. As we saw with the US Attorney firings, the e-mail within DoJ clearly shows which DoJ Staff workflows required White house involvement. It appears what's happened is the White House trumped the Attorney General, directly directed the DOJ Staff to work with the Judicial Branch, and through the US Attorneys, organize with the FBI a plan to do the following:

- Identify the legal issues which the Wecht Jurors had trouble;

- Coordinate a clean plan to secure the Wecht Juror names from the Judicial Branch, and provide those to the FBI

- Ensure the FBI findings adequately met the litigation requirements of prosecutors; and served the political interests of the White House.

Lessons Of FBI Raid on Congressman Jefferson Office

Let's consider the arguments against the above, and start with the obvious: White House involvement. Unless the White House were involved, especially in the wake of the Jefferson Office intrusion, the FBI would have a problem: They would have impermissibly associated with personnel in another branch of government. This defies reason. It makes more sense, in light of the lessons of Jefferson, that the FBI would be more sensitive to political cover from the White House, and ensure that the FBI agents were "appropriately" acting in a way that the White House could indirectly support, defend, and justify. The public plan may be to distance the FBI from the White House on the Wecht Juror situation. however, the lessons of Jefferson suggest the opposite is more likely.

The other issue is the assertion the FBI agents did this on their own. That defies reason because FBI agents, during this "war on terror" are not in the offices sitting around with nothing to do. Rather, there' so busy, that they must rely on reserve, civilian law enforcement to complement the JTTF. They are very busy people. FBI agents on their own do not agree as a group to interview Wecht Jurors unless the ASACs and SACs, as a minimum, were involved; and the FBI agents had information from legal counsel outside DoJ.

Indeed, the problem with stopping at the SAC-level goes to the US Attorney-FBI agent relationship: They're independent. FBI agents are not there to conduct litigation analysis, but to gather evidence and intelligence related to criminal activity. Someone above the FBI, with power to influence both the litigators (receiving, requesting the information) and the FBI leadership (tasked to conduct the interviews).

Some may argue that this is a rogue US Attorney action, directing the FBI agents. That defies reason because the US Attorneys do not control the FBI agents. Rather, what's more likely tis the US Attorneys assigned to the DOJ Staff developed for the FBI the interview questions so the US Attorneys would have the litigation material needed. This would imply direct US Attorney-FBI collusion behind the DOJ AG back. That is unlikely.

Higher Coordination, Outside DOJ Required

Most likely what happened is something very similar to the alleged collusion over the US Attorney firings: Someone within the WH Political office worked with the DOJ OLC and legal personnel to identify a requirement, and close the loop on the perceived problems in the Wecht case. Those perceived hols are less important than the larger issue: Who would have a political and legal interest, outside an independent, mock jury, to find the specific reasons this Wecht Jury was or wasn't convinced; and what problems the Jury had with the Wecht prosecutor's arguments. Someone would have to know about mock juries, reject that approach, and convince someone to go directly to the Wecht jurors.

The White House does not necessarily have a bee-line access to Wecht defense legal counsel. All they have access is to the US Attorney working papers, and, now, the internal Jury deliberations responding to plaintiff and defense counsel arguments. Defense counsel provided their arguments in open court. Something within the internal deliberations appears to have prompted someone connected with the White House to organize DOJ resources, coordinate with the Judicial Branch, and conduct these interviews. Until the House Judiciary understands clearly the real people behind these FBI interviews, they'll not get straight answers on what was going on, why things were happening, or who did or didn't make a decision.

Unresponsive DOJ AG

For the sake of discussion, in light of Mukasey's comments about DOJ OLC memoranda still being operative, and DOJ AG's refusal to expressly enforce Geneva, it appears reasonable that the House Judiciary is not going to get a timely straight answer from the DOJ AG on what decision he made, the legal basis for the FBI involvement, or how information flowed from the Judiciary into the DOJ and landed at the FBI desk.

Part II: Questions

Given the DOJ OPR involvement with similar legal issues, it would be appropriate for the Congress, DOJ IG, and DOJ OPR to glean the lessons from the US Attorney firings, and apply them to this case: Broadly assume the FBI agents were acting under orders above the SAC level; and someone within the White House, in re Jefferson, would have been knowledgeable of the FBI plan to approach the Judicial Branch and Jury Members.

With the above in mind, let's consider a line of questions for Congress, DOJ OPR, DOJ IG, and TPMM:

1. Who in the White House political office was aware of the Jefferson intrusion efforts, and ensured the same political and legal cover was applied to the FBI access to the Judicial Branch?

2. What legal basis did the Executive Branch through DOJ OLC give to the Judicial Branch to justify getting access to these Juror names?

3. After the FBI received their information, who on the DOJ staff worked with the White House legal personnel to ensure the incoming FBI notes and transcripts were then matched with prosecutor/litigator objectives, then farmed out to outside counsel to prepare future litigation and media strategies?

4. Once the FBI completed their reviews, who on the White House staff coordinated the information through DOJ between the FBI and US Attorneys?

5. Once litigators reviewed the responses, who were follow-up questions from the US government-connected counsel then forwarded through the White House and DOJ Staff and SACs to the FBI agents?

6. How did the Juror names move from the Court Administrator's office, through DoJ, to the FBI agents; then back to the litigators and White House?

There are too many stovepipes involved, involving too many coordination points, for the White House not to be aware and actively involved with what was going on. This is the same crew who has not been able to coordinate a response to simple reconstruction in Iraq or Katrina. An inability to effectively organize is one key characteristic of the legal counsel connected with this White House and Department of Justice. They require careful supervision from the White House legal and political office leadership: The President.

The above answers from the White House, DOJ AG, DOJ OPR, DOJ IG, US Attorneys Office, FBI agents, DoJ Staff, DOJ OLC, White House legal staff, White House political office, White House public affairs office, and Judicial Branch employees in the Administrators Office for the United States Court must address:

- Use of FBI agents to gather information not otherwise available in the Judicial Branch;

- The appropriateness of disclosing Judicial Branch information in the Office of Administration to US Attorneys and FBI agents

- The DOJ Workflows used to coordinate the information transfer, questions, and litigation preparation notes before, during, and after the FBI interviews

- The lessons of the Jefferson Office access, and who within DOJ OLC and the White House staff would have ensured this DOJ approach to the Judicial branch did not make the same mistakes

- Why anyone should believe the FBI asked for, on their own, this information; yet the inexplicable questions which suggests the FBI agents had an unusual interest in non-criminal matters, but more with litigation -- motions, trial arguments, factors affecting the jury jugement, and case management -- issues which the US Attorneys, not FBI agents, should be primarily organizing.

- The timelines White House, DOJ OLC, DOJ Staff, US Attorneys, FBI agents, and Judicial personnel were on to coordinate this effort, provide information, discuss options, outline questions, conduct interviews, assess initial responses, and then provide a final package for the White House and outside counsel to prepare for the next litigation

- Who within the US Attorneys Office agreed to work with the FBI on these interviews; and the information, questions, and issues they were given, from whom, to provide confidence to the President and DOJ OLC that these issues were resolved;

- Where DOJ AG was during this entire timeline

- When the SACs, ASACs, and FBI agents met, agreed to cooperate, conducted the interviews, then waited for follow-up questions funneled through DOJ Staff

- How the results of these interviews changed White House, DOJ OLC and outside counsel's case preparation

- Where are the workflows within DoJ, how were these workflows organized

- What issues from the US Attorney firings (alleged DOJ AG improper discussions with legal counsel) are we seeing again

- What discussions within DOJ OLC, DOJ AG, and other DOJ Staff occurred after the House Judiciary Committee disclosed their plan to review these matters

- Who provided the names from the Judicial Branch to the FBI; and who within the White House and DOJ OLC discussed and approved the exchange of this information, and subsequent use by legal counsel.

testing, I like your passion on the issue however I had to provide a contrary opinion based on the facts. You are attempting to put blame where it is not. Central DOJ is not the issue in this case. The issue is you have a US Attorney that has gone way off reservation and has unlimited resources at her disposal. These resources include the FBI among other agencies.

The comments in this comment respond to the invalid assertions here.

[Numbers have been added for reference only, not part of original]

The analysis and responses are defective and inadequate to justify confidence in your assertions. You have failed to make your case here, or the information showing the White House has been implicated in the effort to direct FBI agents at Jurors. The point you're missing is the media article is non-sense. The basis for your assertions is a flawed news article. You don't really believe this:

Imprecise: 1. Testing, I have attempted to answer your viewpoints with fact and links to the news article.

It is incorrect to make the conclusions you did. Your analysis fails. You are unable to make coherent arguments. Re-read the responses. The issue you're missing. Your analysis doesn't work (added text):

Imprecise Analysis: 2. Basically, I have (unsuccessfully) tried to fill in the holes in your analysis that results from you not reading the articles on the case or understanding the process in relation to a hung jury. I do not mean to offend; however at this point perhaps bluntness is best.

This is not correct, in that FBI agents do not report to her; they are assigned to the FBI, not the US Attorneys Office. You're free to believe otherwise:

Dubious "Fact": 3. The simple fact is US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan is the head of the DOJ for the Western PA District. All members of the DOJ report to her in that district as well as Washington.

Putting aside whether this is or isn't true, this is something which doesn't address how did the FBI agents know, this quickly, which questions to ask: and who organized the effort within the DOJ to gather the information. Even if your assertion is true, you cannot explain the speed of the FBI action, their ability to quickly organize litigation related information. The problem you have with this assertion is you later contradict yourself, at 6:

Dubious Facts: 4. The second fact is the jurors names were provided to both the defense and the prosecution at the onset of the trial.

Whether the law permits this or not, has no bearing on why the FBI agents when to their homes:

Red Herring, WMD: 5. After a hung jury, the defense and the prosecution is allowed by law to interview the jury to poll them on the case.

This shows you're not sure about the Jury names or contact information; or how someone working for the President (Article II, Executive Branch) was able to walk to the court, get secret information from the Judicial Branch, Article III, and nobody would say anything.

Doubt: 6. The addresses were already provided to the court and were surely released to the defense and the prosecution after the verdict.

This is the eligible pool, not the lists:

Protected, Personal Information 7. If you go to federal court house and look at the public record, you get all the names and addresses of the jurors on the case.

You're free to go there and demand to see home addresses of voters. To get access to that information, this quickly, especially in transferring the information from the Court/Judicial Branch to the FBI/Executive Branch is stunning. The problem is your assertion, that a "media report" is fact, when it is merely what the DOJ wants the public to believe. It appears you're confused, making arguments to believe non-sense, or not challenging the information using coherent arguments. Look at your analysis at the original link: You've made a sweeping assertion; and you've provided nothing.

Dubious Facts: 8. Here is the latest news story which outlines this fact: Link provided

You have no basis to exclude the White House from the involvement in orchestrating the FBI interviews at their home, with the US Attorney, DOJ, or the Judicial Branch. You're changing the focus from whether the White House was or wasn't involved with the FBI interviews; to whether or not the FBI was or wasn't involved with the case. Those are two separate, distinct issues.

Denial, Wrong Issue: 9. The White House is not orchestrating a case against a Pittsburgh Democrat.

This is an assertion, which Conyers still has not yet reviewed, and based on what little we know, there's little reason to believe your characterization of the events:

Dubious Assertion: 10. What you have is a US Attorney who has gone off the reservation in an attempt to curry favor with her superiors.

You may be correct that one US Attorney has gone "off" the reservation; but this can hardly explain why your arguments are imprecise. As with 9-11 and WMD, the public embraced red herrings. There is no difference here. Red herring are the same. Your request to not point out red herrings, or make comparisons to WMD and 9/11 are noted.

Invalid Demand, Prior Restraint 11. Please stop posting responses that say red herrings and talk about 9/11 and WMD. Such responses are beneath you and belittle your arguments.

Its proper to remind you and others that WMD and 9-11 have relied on dubious arguments, red herrings, and arguably reckless, retarded legal counsel memoranda. If you can get the US Attorney to testify under oath. The US Attorneys do not supervise FBI agents. When you read the entire comment, which you show evidence of having not understood, we'll talk about whether someone else should or shouldn't read something. Your comments about the issue show evidence you misrepresented or grossly misunderstood the argument. After you reconsider your remarks and the original comments, perhaps others might take your request to read information seriously:

Look in Mirror12. I ask that you please go and research the workings of the US Attorneys and the court system prior to pushing points as fact when they are not.

Curiously, you're "pushing" a news article as fact, but missing the point: Your arguments, and basis for criticism are imprecise. That is a flaw with your argument and analysis. The basis for your criticism must be precise. it is not. You're free to believe what you want. Your arguments are not persuasive. Your criticisms of the White House being involved are invalid. Your arguments are changing. That is a sign of a desperate argument within the arguably retarded DOJ Staff counsel to keep doing what they've been doing with the US Attorney firings. Your errors are linked with your apparent inability to read the argument implicating the White House:

Attorney Standards of Conduct, Dubious Assertion: 13. My concern is that when someone pushes things that are wrong in this type of argument, the result is the entire argument fails to gain support. In this situation, a review of the US Attorney in this case is surely warranted.

Indeed, the US Attorney must be reviewed, but in the context of the direction and coordination she made with DoJ Staff, White House counsel, and other staff who would have to know that a US Attorney and FBI were using information from outside the Executive Branch.

Your attack on that argument is flawed and imprecise. If you would like to make specific textual comments about the information provided implicating the White House, you are free to forward those to Conyers, post them on TPMM, or discuss them with others at the DOJ Staff counsel. Until then, until you provide a line-by-line analysis of the flaws with the original argument implicating the White House, you're in no position to argue that someone has or hasn't made a credible argument. Your imprecise analysis does not warrant a retelling of the original argument implicating the White House. You are free to explain why you keep asserting the FBI agents are under the US Attorneys control. You have failed to do that. You do your work, and maybe someone might take you seriously. You've got work to do. As does the arguably retarded DOJ Staff counsel.

Effort to clarify the relationship between the US Attorney and FBI agents: They are within DoJ, but are not in the same chain of command. US Attorneys do not supervise FBI agents.

Improper for Buchanan to conduct a DOJ OPR-like review.

Responses to red herrings, and imprecise analysis.

There's a common pattern, as with the Iraq WMD and 9-11 issues:

Dubious claims

Invalid arguments

Changing the argument

Failure to provide evidence

Assertions without any precise citation

Assertions that "articles prove something" without any citation of that article; nor any direct copy of any content which supports the assertion

Look at the common pattern of the links:

- Assertions the articles "prove" a fact about "what the law allows", but the cited article does not mention hung jury in the context of a statutory practice, or US Attorney manual custom

- Assertions that a particular articles proves a legal theory, but the cited article does not mention the law, that asserted legal theory, or the language

- Changing the argument from whether the US Attorney does or doesn't have control over FBI agents (they do not) to whether or not the FBI agents are or are not in the Judicial Branch (a misreading)

The comments within this comment respond to this.

Thank you for your commentary. Your arguments have failed. You need to provide a case citation or other controlling language form DOJ. The links you've provided are to news articles. You claimed those news articles supported/proved "facts", but you've failed to quote any text. However, those articles you posted as links do not include any text or quotes which support any of your assertions. This is your argument. Make it. Nothing you've said justifies confidence in your assertions.

Specifics

No citations, no case law, no statute citations:

Bushicide. I'm from Pittsburgh, I know the law,

Prove this, you keep asserting it, but provide nothing by way of the law, any quotes, or a reference to any article. You're asking the world to believe what you are saying on assertion alone. That's the same non-sense we had in re Iraq WMD:

I understand the administrative barriers between the DOJ and FBI, I know this case, and I'm sorry but the testing guy is flat out wrong.

This argument fails to make any headway. You're asking that someone believe your assertion -- that a review of this situation would ignore Buchanan -- this is absurd:

My biggest concern is because people such as testing are pushing so hard for this situation to be about the White House and Bush directly, they are going to let an extremely corrupt and dangerous prosecutor such as Mary Beth Buchanan have a pass. This lady is worst than Ashcroft and Gonzalez combined.

This doesn't address the legal issues, or the White House involvement:

The situation basically is that Buchanan saw the writing on the wall that Bush and Co. wanted to go after Democrats.

Nobody is saying ignore Buchanan, but you've misconstrued that assertion:

She then decided to start a string of cases which this Wecht case is apart of.

This is meaningless, TBD:

Now the case has blown up and she is using resources as best she can to attempt to patch things together.

You're contradicting yourself, again. You stated the opposite: That the law permitted this, it does not: The law does not expressly forbid things; but that distracts from the White House coordinated required to get this going:

Talking to jurors after a trial is not illegal at all.

The law may allow something, but the White House must be involved, this distraction fails. This argument has nothing (yet) to do with illegal activity, but whether the White House coordinated the effort:

Sending the FBI to do it is in poor taste and can be seen as intimidation, but it is not illegal.

This means the FBI agents are not assigned to the US Attorney. Key words is "request" which means that someone in DOJ had to coordinate her "request" with the FBI:

The local FBI can be utilized for the requests of the local US Attorney.

You have not provided any facts, only claims that articles (which are meaningelss) "prove" facts which you have not been able to justify:

I'm sorry that my opinions and the facts don't align with the great Bush witchhunt.

Look in the mirror, and your arguments fail:

I just do not wish to see people that are not informed push angles of a story that are not there and alleged assertions which are not fact that result in real criminals getting a pass.

You're not serious, and you don't really believe what you're saying.

Testing besides providing long winded rants, your comments have no case law, articles, or guidelines supporting what you are saying. All your links do is link a reader to another one of your comments that provides no basis for your argument. It is interesting that you now attack my comments on the same ground.

Defining A Jury Poll

Sometimes people have different ideas about hat definitions mean. This doesn't mean that they are wrong, or incorrect. It may suggest that some have a different, novel perspective of a common term.

Today's term is "Jury Poll". It appears there is not uniform agreement what this means, what's permitted, how it is done, or when it occurs.

Let's put aside the fact that we're not mentioning specific court rules or cases, and just focus on the generic concept of "jury poll". We're not asking you to explain the practice of jury polling, asking you to explain your definition of "jury poll":

I also do not understand why I must explain the common practice of POLLING A JURY.

We appear to be having a different view about what "polling" a jury means. Perhaps the following issues might assist:

Helping To Clarifty Terms

- Is it your view that a "jury poll" is something that only the court does; or is a "jury poll" something that attorneys and investigators do?

- Would you agree that a "jury poll" is something done after the trial?

- What phase of the trial is a "jury poll" conducted: In your view is the poll after the jury has given up; or is the poll done at another time?

- Is it your view that a jury poll is an interview done to exchange ideas?

- When you mention "jury poll" are you referring to information gathering about reasons the jurors made a conclusion of law; or are you talking about a poll that someone else might ask about speculative, future, unknowns?

- Do you view the jury poll as being a range of questions which are not regulated, conversational, and involve some give and take between the jury and others?

- When someone dues a jury poll, in your view, does that mean they can ask any question which the court cannot regulate; or does this mean that the court can narrowly define that subject of inquiry during the investigation?

- Do you view jury polling as something that there are not rules or guidelines governing those practices?

- Is it your view that polling a jury is the same or different than conducting an investigation?

- When we poll a jury for information, in your view, are we interested in asking for information about prospective, speculative things; or are we asking for certain, concrete, retroactive things?

There are several reasons for asking for clarification of what someone means when they talk about "jury polling". There are some important factors which need to be considered.

Until we get a clear idea of what someone may be defining as a "jury poll," we're not in a position to assess their comments about other issues. It's a simple question to ask someone to clarify their view of what jury polling means. Until that clarification occurs, it does little good to review their analysis -- premised in an inconsistent, possibly invalid definition of "jury polling" -- about whether or not the attorney or investigator conduct is or isn't proper; or whether they have credible views on who else would have to coordinate on these FBI interviews with jury members.

It is important that some have (apparently) deliberately confused the words "jury poll" and "attorney interview" and "FBI interview". Once we get some clarifications from them on their definitions, we'll get a sense of what misrepresentations DoJ Staff counsel and others may be deliberately planing in the media to muddy the waters. It appears as though there is some deliberate misinformation surfacing with one goal: To make it appear that impermissible conduct affecting jury independence is being explained away as a "common" practice, when, in fact, the real conduct is not common. What is common is one type of jury polling; what is not common is a separate, different practice: Interviews.

The questions which seek clarification on jury polling are designed to test and determine the following:

- What is the definitions someone is using on jury polling;

- Where might their information be coming from;

- Is there only media-sourced information related to what is "common" practice;

- Why are people asserting they are "familiar" or "know" the law unwilling, unable to cite specific case law, law reviews supporting their assertions about what jury polling is or is not?

It's not our job on TPMM to do the staff work for the DOJ OLC; nor is it to provide feedback to DOJ OLC on which media messages they need to correct so that we are deceived. The US Attorneys office has a job: To prosecute. The question, as was the case with the US Attorney firings and Iraq WMD: To what extent is dubious information, under the guise of authority, being planted in the media, taint the public debate, and achieve objectives that are contrary to legal requirements, ethics, or other standards of conduct applicable to government officials, legal counsel, or members of the information pipelines.

At this juncture, given the time that's lapsed, DoJ OLC appears to have several problems:

1. There's been a credible allegations that the White House has been implicated with this FBI interview of jury members;

2. The basis to refuse those allegations have, at best, backfired or at worst, raised more questions than the DOJ OLC is prepared to answer, as was the case with the FISA issues;

3. There's been no adequate explanation for why there is apparent confusion between "interviews" and "polls"

4. DOJ OLC has not adequately worked with DOJ PA to resolve concerns about apparent DOJ Staff counsel planting misleading, unreliable, or confusing information with the media.

As with the US Attorney firing issues, FISA, and Iraq WMD, the initial responses are not consistent with a clean story. Rather than resolve issues, the small nuggets in the media are, at best, creating confusion; at worst, that confusion, not the alleged White House involvement with those improper FBI interviews of jurors, is getting the attention. The concern is that each argument to deflect attention from the arguments for White House involvement are based on faulty reasoning, incomplete analysis, misrepresentations, and lack of precision. If there was something regular, proper, or appropriate, then we should have a resolution, not more confusion.

None of the issues raised -- about the apparent White House involvement in the alleged improper FBI interviews of jurors -- has been adequately refuted with coherent objectives, valid criticisms, or precision, but the opposite: They've been treated with a broad brush. That is not adequate. This bolsters the case, especially this far into implicating the White House, that there's a reasonable argument to be made that the White House involvement is real, direct, and something many would not like to openly acknowledge. However, the facts as they appear tend to support, and not adequately refute this assertion about the apparent White House involvement.

We judge the following:

- DOJ Staff counsel -- working in concert with the PA US Attorneys office, DOJ OLC and White House counsel -- have discussed on background with media various confusing media messages by design to deflect attention from improper FBI interviews to creating the false impression that "jury polls" and "attorney interviews" are the same as "FBI interviews"

- The DOJ OLC and US Attorney know there is no case law supporting any assertion they've asked th e public to believe that "jury polls" are the same as "attorney interviews" or "FBI interviews"

- DOJ Staff have impermissibly left the impression through the US Attorneys office that something that improperly affects jury independence in the judicial branch is something that the Executive Branch can assert as a power, when it cannot;

- The DOJ staff would like to distract attention from the Supreme Court recognizing that no defendant has a right to demand jury polls in re the Eighth Amendment; but they would like to create the illusory right or power, not within the Constitution, that the President and others can demand access to jury members;

- DoJ Staff would like to distract attention from rights which do not exist, but create the impression that the President, US Attorneys, and FBI agents have powers and rights which the Supreme Court does not recognize a criminal defendant has: The right to demand a jury poll to ensure a fair trial.

Some have curiously suggested they "know" the law; that they have information; that the information is "out there" on the internet; or that they are too busy to explain their views. If someone were to know the legal definition of a jury poll, then they should -- to resolve a misunderstanding -- be able to point to a specific thing on the internet to support their statements about why these FBI interviews are or are not proper; then after than, generate support for why their criticisms about the apparent White House involvement should or shouldn't be believed. The easy step isn't taken; the more difficult step has merely been asserted as proven, but not demonstrated. This is an invalid demonstration reasonably expected in teh public forum. There have been some reasonable conclusions that the White House has been implicated, yet those suggesting this theory is invalid have not met their burden to discredit the investigation into those allegations. The scales are not tipping in the favor of those who say the White House or DOJ OLC are not involved. They may not be; but nothing we've read or seen suggests their involvement can be excluded. Rather, the US Attorney's statements or non-statements suggests some carefully crafted messages by legal counsel outside the PA-area.

The above should be considered in the spirit of the sad lessons of the Iraq WMD issues: Invalid, dubious assertions about various lines of evidence were not adequately refuted; and the claims supporting those assertions were weak; and those challenging those views were not credibly debated. IT appears the same is occurring here in re the apparent White House involvement with the decision to use FBI agents to interview jurors. DOJ OLC and the US Attorneys office needs to explain why jury polling is or isn't the same as an attorney interview or an FBI interview.

It's also been suggested that mock juries are worthless. That's an assertion, but fails to address the issue: How do we explain the use of mock juries, and the information legal counsel get from mock juries to answer questions. There is something very important: A jury deliberation is not the same as a jury conclusion. Deliberations are ongoing; conclusions are verdicts with an end. A mock jury will focus on jury conclusions; an poll does not. A poll will focus on something else, and the timing of that poll is important in the trial. The issue isn't when this happens, but are those who are talking about jury polls able to differentiate between when a jury poll is or isn't different from an interview. If you're confused, don't worry. Stick with this, and with time you'll see there's an important issue which hasn't been mentioned. DOJ OLC and the US Attorney needs to commit to something before we openly discuss that issue. On Monday or Tuesday they are expected to walk into the trap, and you'll be able to see what they've walked into. Until they are stuck, they're going to dig themselves deeper into a hole on this.

This comment responds to the quotes below from this comment It appears the confusion stems from inconsistent arguments about what a jury poll means, when it occurs, what it is used for, and how it is different or the same than an interview.

1. Irrelevant

Testing and others, I am not defending the Bush administration.

2. No Basis To Characterize Arguments As Erroneous

This assertion is based on lack of clarity over what a jury poll is. Not interested in the legal definition, but your view of what a jury poll is:

My concern is your failure to understand the inner workings of the DOJ, in this case the Western PA office, has caused you to jump to an erroneous conclusion that the White House must be running the show.

The above doesn't adequately discuss the specific comments, problems, or errors with the original argument implicating the White House.

3. No Basis to Narrow Possibilities

This appears to narrowly conclude the scope of the problem, without an adequate explanation from the US Attorneys office over the difference between jury polls, attorney interviews, and FBI interviews. There doesn't appear to be a reasonable basis that only Buchanan is controlling the decisions; nor that DOJ OLC and the White House are not involved:

The simple fact in this case is it appears that US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan is controlling the decisions in the case.

4. Deriding Mock Juries To Test Arguments

We're asked to believe interviews (as opposed to jury polls) are "common" to analyze legal arguments, but that mock juries are less than optimal. Mock juries provide insights into how litigators' arguments will or will not work. Your comment about why mock juries are or are not adequate fails to explain why mock juries are not used in preference for something else. Whether that "something else" is or isn't a jury poll, attorney interview, or FBI interview is a secondary issue, pending your clarifications:

I hear the crap about mock juries and what not,

5. "Common" Practice Without Discussion for Judicial Oversight Rules of That Practice

This changes the word from "poll" to "interview", without explanation:

when you fail to understand that interviewing juror members in a hung jury is commonplace in the court.

6. No Link to Procedures of Common Practice

This is absurd arguing that the plaintiff and defendant counsel would want information to know the result of the second, subsequent trial trial:

This process is down so that both sides can understand the likely result of a retrial. This practice is know as polling the jury.

7. Muddling Terms: Poll v. Interivew

Again, mixing terms from "jury poll" to "FBI interview"; then asking us to accept a "jury poll" is common so (by implication) so "must" the FBI interivew. Rather, FBI interviews of jury members is generally unheard of.

It is not commonplace to use the FBI to do this though.

8. Assertions Impermissibly Narrowly Define Issue

This misstates the issue, distracting attention from the (apparent) deliberate obfuscation over "jury poll" or "attorney interview" or "FBI interview". The issue isn't the anger, but whether a reasonable argument implicating the White House has or hasn't been adequately addressed. It has not:

That is the issue in this situation. People are angered that the US Attorney had the FBI contact the jurors.

9. No Basis To Distract Issue

The issue isn't "zeal" to do anything, but what seems most reasonable: Can the US Attorney, in light of Jefferson, order the FBI, outside her control, to do things which she calls an "interview" but some would rebel an "acceptable jury poll":

The concern that is now raised is because you have are so zealous to implicate the White House, you will overlook the true criminal in this situation. I hope this does not happen.

The above argument asks that we look at the "true" crime, but ignore other explanations implicating the White House explaining what might be behind the decision to conduct FBI interviews, as opposed to jury polls.

10. Same As Iraq WMD: Inadequately Argued Points

You've failed to provide any link citing one case; and you've not clarified your definition of jury poll; or how it is or is not the same as an attorney interview or an FBI interview. The issue is that you're using convoluted arguments, imprecise definitions, and haven't cited specific comments within the links you provided to support your assertions. This is your argument to make, but you haven't made it. This was the same problem before the Iraq invasion: Many assertions, and no credible backup or arguments; nor adequate explanations and discussions.

I await the fifty responses that argue WMD, 9/11, Red Herring and scream at me for not providing links.

11. Appearance of Deception Allegedly Linked With DOJ Staff Objectives

If DOJ Staff are involved, as appears to be the case, this could be a DC Disciplinary board issue. This statement appears deceptive in that the poster claims they have "no time" to do the following:

- Provide a link to a case that would support their claim;
- Show how the US Attorney has no oversight of the FBI;
- Explain how a "jury poll" is or isn't different than an "interview" an FBI interview or an attorney interview:

Sorry, I do not have time to provide links for known court practices such as polling a jury or the known relationship between the FBI and the US Attorneys.

The failure to provide the links means you've provided not information to justify any criticism that the White House been implicated with the decision to direct FBI interviews of jurors.

Rather, based on a review of your other comments on TPMM, it appears you do have, and are commenting elsewhere. You're just choosing not to spend time supporting your argument. You've asserted that you "know the law" and there are "known" court practices, but you refuse to link to one.

Said another way, you claim you have "no time" to find a link to a known court case (which supposedly supports your argument), but you are posting on other topics. You appear to be providing an excuse not to provide a link not because you don't have time, but because you have no link that addresses your claim. You appear to be providing invalid links to media reports which are not adequately discussing the difference between "jury polls" "attorney interviews" or "FBI interviews". You appear to be deceptive.

Comments here related to original comments here , bracketed below:

You've shifted the focus from whether the US Attorney does or doesn't control the FBI; to whether those more generalized resources are or are not under their influence. You've provided no facts:

1. Dubious Facts Without Clarifying "Jury Polling"

testing, I like your passion on the issue however I had to provide a contrary opinion based on the facts.

2. No Basis For Immunity

This unreasonably insulates the White House, without adequately addressing the arguments for their involvement, and implicating the White House with the decision to direct the FBI to conduct interviews with jury members at their homes:

You are attempting to put blame where it is not.

This is correct, the issue is the White House involvement with the FBI interviews of jury members at their homes, and DOJ Staff involvement with that decision and discussion before the FBI conducted interviews/interrogations with jury members:

Central DOJ is not the issue in this case.

3. Assertions Inconsistent With DOJ Chain of Command

DOJ OPR and DOJ IG would not agree that the FBI works for the US Attorney or is assigned to Buchanan:

The issue is you have a US Attorney that has gone way off reservation and has unlimited resources at her disposal.

4. Failure To Explain FBI Relationship With Court On Information Transfer

The US Attorney cannot direct, on her own, the FBI. The FBI is not under the US Attorneys office or the Office of US Attorneys. It is a different division within the DOJ:

These resources include the FBI among other agencies.

The US Attorney had to go to the SACs; but to use FBI agents to go to the jury members' homes, she had to get that information from the Article III judicial branch. That means the White House had to know about this exchange of information from the Court to the DOJ, otherwise the DOJ would be repeating the errors of the raid on Congressman Jefferson's office.

For clarity, Philbin is not an attorney, but with the public affairs office.

Margaret Philbin, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Pittsburgh

- What information did legal counsel provide to her with the intent that the allegedly false and incorrectly information from legal counsel was disseminated to mislead the public?

This doesn't say Buchanan supervises FBI agents, but merely meets with representatives:

"In more complicated cases, I like to meet personally with the law enforcement agencies to discuss the case and, in many cases, review the evidence myself," Buchanan said.From

Nobody makes a point of saying they "meet with" people they regularly supervise. This is intended to show Buchanan goes out of her way to cross the treshhold from the US Attorney's office, and cross into the FBI's domain of conducting investigations and gathering evidence, to review the status of the investigation. FBI SACs, not the US Attorney, supervise FBI agents.

Buchanan's role has nothing to do with conducting investigations or gathering evidence: She merely presents the case and evidence for trial. She manages the case, she does not manage the investigation. FBI does things the US Attorneys don't necessarily know about or keep track of.

Relevance To Implicating WH With FBI Interviews of Jurors

This goes back to the speed with which Buchanan was able to "direct" the FBI agents, relying on Article III Court information, to go to their homes. Someone above the FBI on the DOJ Staff, not Buchanan as a US Attoreny in DoJ, would have had to coordinate the FBI, the information from the Judicial Branch, and the issues of using court information to interview, not investigate jurors.

COMMON TACTIC WHEN SOMEONE IS WRONG

This is a common tactic with someone has stated something that is wrong or baseless. Instead of addressing the point, the person takes a term and attempts to dilute its importance to the discussion by posting question after question opposed to anything of merit.

In this situation, it was noted that the prosecution was attempting to poll the jury as they are allowed to do. Opposed to addressing this point, the response by someone that disagrees is please define jury polling with about thirty questions.

Summary of Testing Argument:

The White House must be directly involved

Evidence: NONE

Response to anyone that does not agree with Testing Viewpoint: Your dubious, red herrings such as 9/11 and WMD, imprecise analysis, etc. etc.

This comment responds to the same post, reposted here and here.

The argument -- about whether something is or isn't valid -- is premised on your assertions about jury polling. You've not adequately addressed the questions on jury polling. We can't get that clear; there's little to believe you can credibly argue for or against something more complicated. Perhaps you can, but it's dubious. If you would like to provide something that supports your views about what a "jury poll" is, we can discuss that; then assess whether your commentary about jury polls should or should be taken seriously; then consider, after we've reviewed your assertions about jury polls, whether or not your criticisms about other issues should or shouldn't be covered.

1. Asserted Ability To Quickly Find Links Not Matched By A Fair Showing

However, we've had new information. Now, you admit you do have time to post legal citations. Yet, you claim the information was too long. Nothing is stopping you from opening your own blog; or from posting the information here. You are free to post the information here, at this blog. You claim in 10 minutes you have 40 citations. Then in 1 minute you should be able to get four citations. You still have nothing. Your error is to refuse to provide even one link to back up what you are saying is the "right" definition of a "jury poll". How can we possibly take the next step and take you seriously on comments about the relationship between the FBI and the jurors; or who must have been involved; or why the US Attorney would do this. You're asking for a leap of faith before taking one step. That defies reason.

The issue doesn't appear to be a lack of space, but a lack of interest to provide one (1) like to back up your assertions about what a jury poll is; or how a jury poll is or isn't different than an attorney interview. One link does not take much space. Start with one.

Testing, I sat for about ten minutes and started to prepare a response, however after the response became over forty pages of citations to how you are incorrect, I thought it best to not post and simply point out the outright error.

2. Misrepresented Issue, Then Diverted

This misrepresents (again) the point: The issue has to do with the speed the FBI and US Attorney were able to move; and how quickly the US Attorney was able to secure DOJ Staff concurrence to direct an FBI interview (not a jury poll) of jury members at their homes. You have not addressed Congressman Jefferson's office raid:

Basically, your argument is that the information on jurors is protected from the prosecution, defense, and public.

After mischaracterizing the argument, then you say that that is the wrong argument. You should stop arguing with yourself:

It is unfortunately not.

3. Juror Concerns At Odds With FBI Conduct

If this information is public, then you have not explained why jury members still would like to be anonymous:

The information on jurors is provided to the prosecution and defense upon the seating of the jury.

This doesn't address why the DOJ Staff and US Attorney are using confusing terms between a "common" jury poll, but then asking us to believe that those are the same as an attorney interview:

The information on jurors is provided to the public as part of the public record. This information includes names, addresses, occupation, etc.

4. No Clarity on Difference Between A Jury Poll and FBI Interview

You claim that the FBI agents, without a warrant, can go to soemone's home, and conduct an "intervie3w" but you are failing to explain how this is or isn't the same as a "jury poll":

Unless an anonymous jury is seated, which did not occur in this situation, all the information is available to the public.

5. Unreasonable Refusal To Provide One Link

The issue isn't the research, the issue is your argument behind what you are defining as a "jury poll". You still aren't answering the questions:

Sorry, I am not going to post something that should be known already if you did your research on this issue.

6. Projecting

Look in the mirror with this:

PLEASE STOP POSTING YOUR IDIOTIC RESPONSES THAT PROVIDE NO CASE LAW OR CITATION TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT.

You still haven't addressed the questions related to jury polling. All you need is one link, and you refuse to provide one:

Your postings to date have been one of common practice by individuals that lack an argument.

You are looking in the mirror, and appear to be mirroring the DOJ OLC arguments:

You write dubious, unsubstantiated, etc. hoping no one sees these exact errors in your argument.

No Clarity To Your Definitions; No Basis To Believe Assertions On Other Topics

This distracts attention from the dubious assertions you've made, as documented above:

You then add Red Herrings such as WMD and 9/11 because keeping on topic about "Why a US Attorney sent the FBI to talk with Jurors" is out of your scope of reasoning.

Projecting A Diversion

You have failed to address the issues of what a "jury poll" is and how this is different than an attorney interview; or an FBI interview. You appear to be doing what DOJ OLC and the US Attorneys have done. You've misrepresented the argument. The issue is whether or not anyone should believe your assertions about what a jury poll is; and how a jury poll is or isn't different than an attorney interview or an FBI interview. You've failed to make the case that your concerns, criticisms, or comments should be taken seriously:

Then if your diversion tactics have failed, you attempt to argue that the messenger, myself, is somehow against the review of the US Attorney's actions in this case which fails to take into account that I was the individual who posted the link to the article in question on the jurors concerns over the FBI contacting them on a previous TPMMuckraker blog posting and stated that TPM should do an article on it.

Is it your contention that you provided the information to assist then, but are not willing to assist in clarifying your own argument now? You've well defeated your own argument. You've posted article links which do not support your assertions about a jury poll, nor have you provided any commentary about the links you've provided. Again, those are distractions from the issue of why we should or should not believe you about your assertions of what a jury poll is.

Response to Testing:
OK, SO THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT:
The issue has to do with the speed the FBI and US Attorney were able to move; and how quickly the US Attorney was able to secure DOJ Staff concurrence to direct an FBI interview (not a jury poll) of jury members at their homes.
HERE IS THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT BEING DEBATED IN THE PRESS AND BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:
The issue has to do with the decision to utilize FBI agents to schedule and be apart of the interviews of the jurors.
The concern of such practice is that the use of the FBI in this manner can be viewed as intimidating to some (in my opinion most) people when it becomes public and this same public body has the potential future jurors of the second trial within it. It is a reasonable view that such tactics by the FBI would become public due to the media attention and coverage on this case.
The issue does not have to do with the speed of such actions at all. If you review the information on the case that is available, you will realize that the jurors were out for over three weeks on this case and had stated by the end of week two that they were hopelessly deadlock. The decision to immediately initiate interviews and polling of the jurors after the trial verdict was rendered (and if it was a hung jury) was surely made well prior to the decision on the final day of jury deliberations. This view is an assumption on my part, yet since the Assistant US Attorney made the call to ask for a retrial in less than five minutes after the judge ruled a mistrial, it is a fair assumption. The Assistant US Attorney surely did not request a retrial without first getting the approval of US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.
Here is what is wrong with your lasted posting
FIRST: You have posted nothing to support any of your arguments to date. Instead, you have posted assertions that are not substantiated or have posted comments on Gitmo, 9/11, WMD that are not related to the topic at hand. It is also very amusing that you post links to your other comments that have nothing in them of substance at all. A link to your other comments is not a link to source material.
SECOND: You once again overlook the fact that the information on the jurors is fully available to the public, the prosecution, and the FBI. To date, you provide no information how such information on this case has been sealed opposed to the standard practices of the court. I recommend that you review the articles on this case in related to the failed effort to seat an anonymous jury available by the PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE and TRIBUNE REVIEW January first week editions.
THIRD: You now bring in Jefferson’s Office raid which is not related to the topic at hand. Another great move of misdirection since you provides no substance in your assertions to date. This tactic is becoming a common one on your part. I have not answered it because it is not related to the issue at hand. The execution of a search warrant and seizure of evidence is not related to the request for a voluntary interview which is the central issue here.
FOURTH: You once again overlook the fact that multiple papers have already reported that the person leading the investigation and prosecution of Dr. Wecht, US Attorney MARY BETH BUCHANAN, has released a statement through her staff that she order the FBI to contact the jurors to set up interviews. Please go review the PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE, THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE REVIEW, WTAE, and all other news outlets.
FIFTH: Now you say you have issues with the jurors asking to remain anonymous in the newspaper when they provided their views on the case. Once again, the information on the jury members such as their names, address, and occupation is publically available if you go to the court house. Most people will not go to the court house to review this information as clearly demonstrated by your very actions here. Even though this information is public, the papers can not publish such information without the consent of the jurors.

Since the case of Dr. Wecht has been highly publicized throughout the Pittsburgh area, I can imagine why the jurors would not want their neighbors and everyone else knowing they were on the jury in the case. Many people have divergent opinions on the case overall and I could imagine that the jurors would not wish to have their neighbors and other random people share such views. Additionally, once the jurors release their names to the press, they can no longer argue that others should respect their privacy. Dr. Wecht, the individual in question, has a history of writing poison pen letters to individuals that have disagreed with him.

SIXTH: Yes, I do claim the FBI can interview a person without a warrant BECAUSE THEY CAN TALK WITH SOMEONE VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT A WARRANT. A warrant is required to search someone’s property, arrest someone, but it is not require for an agent to ask someone questions in relation to an investigation. If a person refuses to be interviewed, the FBI can then seek a warrant/subpoena to compel the individual to provide an interview/testimony. At this point in time, the FBI agent has to demonstrate the merits to the court to get a warrant. What is demonstrated by your assertion here is once again you have demonstrated you do not have a grasp on even the fundamental investigative, legal processes, and the requirements of law. I know, I will get your bull about providing a link, but once again I say to you please gain a grasping of the knowledge at hand

What is the issue with using the FBI is that jurors may not realize that they can decline such interviews. When you read the multiple reports on the topic at hand (the FBI’s contact with the jurors), you will notice that the FBI has initially attempted to set up an interview with the people. The FBI needs these jurors consent for the interviews, yet does not necessarily need to tell the jurors the FBI requires such concessions. That paper notes that the agents said they would be willing to go to the jurors house or the jurors could come downtown. This tactic is a simple one of getting the jurors to unknowingly volunteer for an interview because it is the FBI calling. They, as others, may not realize they can decline such meetings.
SEVENTH: You once again attempt your parsing strategy between jury pooling and interview opposed to reviewing what is allowed by prosecutors and defense attorneys in relation to polling as well as interviewing jurors about a case once the jury has been released.
I am now highly amused that you have once again gone on record providing a comment that shows you do not understand what you are talking about at all. It is cute that you posted the article in the TPMCafe; however in the future please keep to facts opposed to bold assertions.

The issue of at hand is that the use of the FBI has two ramifications:
(1) The jurors may not realize that they can decline such interviews and choose not to answer certain questions since the person asking the questions is an FBI agent opposed to one of the Assistant US Attorneys. Some may argue that a US Attorney is a scary person to deal with; however US Attorneys do not carry guns on average and also do not arrest people.
(2) The other issue is that when the information is released that the jurors of the former trial were contacted by the FBI directly after the hung jury, a member of the next jury may be hesitant to not go along with the prosecution’s view on the case due to fear of FBI harassment.

As a suggestion, you may wish to start your blog to post links.

You've misrepresented the concerns and arguments. The issue is the FBI contact, who worked with the US Attorney, and assertions from the government which defy reason. Without a reasonable response, adverse inferences are warranted: This was above the US Attorney, and DOJ, within the White House. By now we should have heard something credibly refuting this. This has not happened.

OK, SO THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT: The issue has to do with the speed the FBI and US Attorney were able to move; and how quickly the US Attorney was able to secure DOJ Staff concurrence to direct an FBI interview (not a jury poll) of jury members at their homes.

Narrowly Characterized The Issues

The issue, as reported, is the issue: The media representations, and information from the US Attorneys office. What the media is saying is meaningless until the DoJ officials are forced to provide evidence under oath to Congress. Then' we'll consider their views of whether this is or isn't proper; and what else is going on.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT BEING DEBATED IN THE PRESS AND BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:

The issue is whether we should believe that it was the US Attorney's decision, alone. The explanations would have us believe that this only has to do with a prosecution. However, depending on how one views FBI interviews, the argument could be made that this has nothing to do with a prosecution, is outside what the FBI should be doing, and clearly would require some White House involvement to approve this extraordinary action. It was likely thought the FBI tactics would not be discovered, that's why they did it. What appears to be happening now is a media blitz to explain this away.

The issue has to do with the decision to utilize FBI agents to schedule and be apart of the interviews of the jurors. The concern of such practice is that the use of the FBI in this manner can be viewed as intimidating to some (in my opinion most) people when it becomes public and this same public body has the potential future jurors of the second trial within it. It is a reasonable view that such tactics by the FBI would become public due to the media attention and coverage on this case.

- Why would the FBI care whether there was or wasn't attention on something that was "OK"? The government hasn't answered that, raising doubts about their motivations about the action, and their concerns after discovery of the activity.

There is no basis to assert this is "not" an issue:

The issue does not have to do with the speed of such actions at all.

These assertions need to be something the government addresses, not indirectly through the media or others:

If you review the information on the case that is available, you will realize that the jurors were out for over three weeks on this case and had stated by the end of week two that they were hopelessly deadlock (stet, "deadlocked") .

Here's where we get into the confusion (again) about "interviews" and "polling". "Surely" made is an assertion the government should demonstrate, not for the media or others to infer. The government has not done this.

The decision to immediately initiate interviews and polling of the jurors after the trial verdict was rendered (and if it was a hung jury) was surely made well prior to the decision on the final day of jury deliberations.

The issue is whether we're talking about a jury poll, an attorney interview, or an FBI interview. Still do not have clarity:

This view is an assumption on my part, yet since the Assistant US Attorney made the call to ask for a retrial in less than five minutes after the judge ruled a mistrial, it is a fair assumption.

This is irrelevant to the question of "jury poll" and interviews:

The Assistant US Attorney surely did not request a retrial without first getting the approval of US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.

The burden is on the government. Until they provide information, the public may make adverse inferences:

Here is what is wrong with your lasted posting FIRST: You have posted nothing to support any of your arguments to date. Instead, you have posted assertions that are not substantiated or have posted comments on Gitmo, 9/11, WMD that are not related to the topic at hand. It is also very amusing that you post links to your other comments that have nothing in them of substance at all. A link to your other comments is not a link to source material.

This distracts attention from the FBI interviews at home, and which procedures they were following, and under whose authority:

SECOND: You once again overlook the fact that the information on the jurors is fully available to the public, the prosecution, and the FBI. To date, you provide no information how such information on this case has been sealed opposed to the standard practices of the court. I recommend that you review the articles on this case in related to the failed effort to seat an anonymous jury available by the PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE and TRIBUNE REVIEW January first week editions.

FBI activities with another branch of government make the Jefferson raid (access to another government's office) relevant: Was the FBI access to the data in the COurt appropriate; or was it improperly used? Government has not addressed that.

THIRD: You now bring in Jefferson’s Office raid which is not related to the topic at hand. Another great move of misdirection since you provides no substance in your assertions to date. This tactic is becoming a common one on your part. I have not answered it because it is not related to the issue at hand. The execution of a search warrant and seizure of evidence is not related to the request for a voluntary interview which is the central issue here.

The media reports are not the same as DOJ OLC or US government testimony before Congress under oath:

FOURTH: You once again overlook the fact that multiple papers have already reported that the person leading the investigation and prosecution of Dr. Wecht, US Attorney MARY BETH BUCHANAN, has released a statement through her staff that she order the FBI to contact the jurors to set up interviews. Please go review the PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE, THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE REVIEW, WTAE, and all other news outlets.

This doesn't address the government's failure to adequately explain the FBI interviews, the timing, or who gave the direction. The US Attorney may say something, but that doesn't mean it's true.

FIFTH: Now you say you have issues with the jurors asking to remain anonymous in the newspaper when they provided their views on the case. Once again, the information on the jury members such as their names, address, and occupation is publically available if you go to the court house. Most people will not go to the court house to review this information as clearly demonstrated by your very actions here. Even though this information is public, the papers can not publish such information without the consent of the jurors.

This is imagining why the government's assertions might make sense; but do not expressly state, under oath, the government's evidence:

Since the case of Dr. Wecht has been highly publicized throughout the Pittsburgh area, I can imagine why the jurors would not want their neighbors and everyone else knowing they were on the jury in the case. Many people have divergent opinions on the case overall and I could imagine that the jurors would not wish to have their neighbors and other random people share such views. Additionally, once the jurors release their names to the press, they can no longer argue that others should respect their privacy. Dr. Wecht, the individual in question, has a history of writing poison pen letters to individuals that have disagreed with him.

The issue is coercsion and how the FBI is or isn't following procedures. This appears to repeat the government excuses without compelling the government to explain this. Moreover, if this was "OK", there would be no reason for the government to worry or provide answers:

SIXTH: Yes, I do claim the FBI can interview a person without a warrant BECAUSE THEY CAN TALK WITH SOMEONE VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT A WARRANT. A warrant is required to search someone’s property, arrest someone, but it is not require for an agent to ask someone questions in relation to an investigation. If a person refuses to be interviewed, the FBI can then seek a warrant/subpoena to compel the individual to provide an interview/testimony. At this point in time, the FBI agent has to demonstrate the merits to the court to get a warrant. What is demonstrated by your assertion here is once again you have demonstrated you do not have a grasp on even the fundamental investigative, legal processes, and the requirements of law. I know, I will get your bull about providing a link, but once again I say to you please gain a grasping of the knowledge at hand

Congress needs to understand whether the DOJ needs to have a tighter leash, or how these FBI contacts with jurors are or are not affecting other cases including grand juries:

What is the issue with using the FBI is that jurors may not realize that they can decline such interviews. When you read the multiple reports on the topic at hand (the FBI’s contact with the jurors), you will notice that the FBI has initially attempted to set up an interview with the people. The FBI needs these jurors consent for the interviews, yet does not necessarily need to tell the jurors the FBI requires such concessions. That paper notes that the agents said they would be willing to go to the jurors house or the jurors could come downtown. This tactic is a simple one of getting the jurors to unknowingly volunteer for an interview because it is the FBI calling. They, as others, may not realize they can decline such meetings.

There is a difference between a "jury poll" and "an interview" they are not the same things. The government has not provided an adequate response:

SEVENTH: You once again attempt your parsing strategy between jury pooling and interview opposed to reviewing what is allowed by prosecutors and defense attorneys in relation to polling as well as interviewing jurors about a case once the jury has been released.

I am now highly amused that you have once again gone on record providing a comment that shows you do not understand what you are talking about at all. It is cute that you posted the article in the TPMCafe; however in the future please keep to facts opposed to bold assertions.

This narrowly looks at the issue before conducting a review. It's premature to say the issue is narrowly anything:

The issue of at hand is that the use of the FBI has two ramifications: (1) The jurors may not realize that they can decline such interviews and choose not to answer certain questions since the person asking the questions is an FBI agent opposed to one of the Assistant US Attorneys. Some may argue that a US Attorney is a scary person to deal with; however US Attorneys do not carry guns on average and also do not arrest people. (2) The other issue is that when the information is released that the jurors of the former trial were contacted by the FBI directly after the hung jury, a member of the next jury may be hesitant to not go along with the prosecution’s view on the case due to fear of FBI harassment.

You've mischaracterized and misrepresented the concerns. These issues of alleged FBI harassment of jury members could be relevant to ongoing war crimes investigations in re DOJ OLC and war crimes prosecutors.

I can not even believe you went to now calling (stet) this war crimes.

You're welcome back any time, I have enjoyed talking to you. Please visit soon. It's the government's job to provide relevant answers and explanations:

I am out of this idiotic circus. From what I have seen, all you do is post blog postings that provide no relevance at all. As I stated already, you are a fucking idiot. That is right a fucking idiot.

The link wasn't a response to you. If it was a response to you, it would have been put under your comment. It was not. It was for others. Unclear why you're concerned with whether a response is or isn't responding to you given you've decided (or maybe not) that you aren't going to talk, listen, dialog:

Your last posting did not respond to my previous posting at all. Instead, you put five paragraphs down on WMD and 9/11 only to then go into the Geneva convention.

DoJ has to follow the laws of war, not affect grand juries reviewing war crimes, and not harass jury members:

Here is a news flash for you: The DOJ does not have to tell you the law that is already printed and readily available. The issue in the case in hand is the use of the FBI to conduct the scheduling of the interviews nothing more than that.

- Why are you mentioning what DOJ is or isn't doing;

- If you claim you "know" the law, why aren't you able to provide one (1) link to support your assertion about what is a process or obvious?

- What is your basis for asserting what "the issue" is?

If you would like to quote this "readily" available material, go ahead, but you have declined. If you change your mind, feel free to post. Until then, we'll make adverse inferences. You've narrowly constrained the issues, but are not providing a basis for your assertions. Your answers to simple questions appear evasive. You have not provided consistent answers on whether you are or are not busy; or whether you will or will not provide one link, much less forty. Without information, the public is reasonable to make adverse inferences. Burden is on the government.

Please let the government respond and justify confidence in their assertions. If they will do something more than provide media statements -- as was done during Iraq WMD issues -- public might believe them. Until then, the responses aren't helping the government's case, or justifying confidence that the assertions about the government conduct should be accepted as benign or appropriate. Nothing you've provided warrants confidence in any statement you've made in defense of the government; nor that there's an interest to fully discuss all the issues raised with jury polls. You have not been responsive. The House Judiciary Committee and TPMM may consider that when formulating their inquiry of DOJ and the White House. Thank you for visiting, and I look forward to your responses which provide useful links, information, and better clarity to your views on "jury polls". The government has alot of work to do to justify confidence in their media releases.

Nothing we've read from the government would credibly refute the White House involvement. Please stop making arguments for them. DOJ OLC has a hard enough time given the war crimes issues. It would be preferable if the government responded to the concerns, rather than have the public, relying on the media, defend the government. Why are people inclined to explain away so much with unreliable information; and no links to information that would justify assertions about why a jury poll is or isn't proper. Again, the issue is the government information through DOJ PA and the PA for US Attorneys Office isn't responding.

Alleged inconsistent statements

Notice the contrast between the following assertions. The comments are approximately thirty-six hours appart.

The first comment would have us believe that they, as a basis to believe them, have supeior insight, knowlege of the law, and a level of legal sophistication. The second comments contradicts that, and casts themselves as an innocent messenger, devoid of any legal responsibility, and not within the scope of dialog or inquiry. The former asks for a special exception to a standard; the latter asks that they be above direct questions.

The asserted legal insight:

"I know the law"

-- April 12, 2008 9:36 PM From

The innocent messenger:

the messenger, myself,

-- April 14, 2008 8:11 AM From

You are free to complain to the White House and TPMM: You are asking in my blog that I stop talking. This is analogous to someone entering your home and asking you to do or not do something:

Please JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP.

The arguments for this conclusion -- that the white House has been implicated with the decision and direction to the FBi -- has not been adequately addressed by you, the government, the DOJ Public Affairs, or the media reports of what the US Attorney has said or reportedly done.

You have made the half baked idiotic assertion that the White House must be involved.

The information was posted on the blog, you are free to post there as well. If you have another view, or would like to suggest someone doesn't know what they are talking about, perhaps the TPMM Cafe would like to know more about this. Indeed, in light of the tremendous public concerns about the US Attorney firings and White House refusal to permit the WH Counsel to testify, you would have everyone believe that the WH isn't involved with this US Attorney-related action. You've provided no basis to exclude that possibility -- that the WH counsel, as it was with the US Attorney firings, was involved with the decision to use FBI agents to interview jury members at their home -- from the line of inquiry.

I made the mistake of posting the fact that no one (except for your rant on TPM CAFE that you posted) have made this argument.

You claim this is a "normal" process, but fail to cite any language, case law, or other things. Even when you do consider information, you assert you do not have time to provide information or clarity to your definitions. The issue isn't whether you know the law or whether your definitions is correct, but whether your definition of a "jury poll" is or isn't clear. Once we have a clear view from you about what you believe a jury poll is, then we can have a discussion about your views on the supporting material for that view. We're still waiting for clarification of your definition.

Now you are attempting to look at normal processes you do not understand and argue that your original premise is correct.

The issue here is whether you would like to communicate about your views of what a "jury poll" means; and clarify the basis for your definition. The issue isn't the law, or the "Right" definition of a "jury poll" but whether you are or are not being clear in your definition of what you view a jury poll to be, when it occurs, why it is used, what happens after that jury poll occurs.

Unfortunately. IT IS NOT. YOU DEMONSTRATE YOURSELF ONCE AGAIN TO BE FUCKING IDIOT.

It would be preferable if you were to review the list of questions about a "jury poll" and provide a lengthy commentary about your views. You have chosen not to respond, nor provide that clarity.

You assert you have facts, but you admit that you are merely repeating information from the media, but are not providing clarity to your views. The question here, narrowly, isn't the law or facts, but your precision in your statement of what the "facts" are. Repeating what the media is saying as a "messenger" (your word) is hardly sharing your views about what a jury poll is.

Your "facts" are not supported by clear, concise, or thorough definitions. You've well read the many comments, have decided which comments and links you would like to comment on, ignore, or focus on.

I have stated the facts and all you have stated is wild speculation.

A Congressional review, with public comment, puts the burden of proof on the government. Even during a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the government. Whether someone or something is or isn't on trial has no relationship with whether the burden of proof is with the government.

The government is not on trial here at all.

This unreasonably asks that we look at "the issue" in a narrow way; but exclude the possibility that the White House was involved. Why are you spending so much time arguing that that is outside what is possible? You have no answer. It seems absurd, in light of the WH counsel involvement with the US Attorney firings that it might not be the first concern: Is the White House still meddling? That option seems off the table for dubious reasons.

The issue though is the use of the FBI to handle the interviews.

A review needs to broadly look at the repeated abuses by the White House in re the US Attorney; and explore the White House connection to DOJ OLC, the US Attorney "direction" and the use of FBI agents in interviewing jury members at their home.

I agree with you that this needs to be reviewed.

You may not agree, but that does not mean that that option should be ignored as an opening line of inquiry: To keep an open mind that White House connections to the FBI interviews are as real as connections to the US Attorney firings. The basis for your belief or agreement is not based on a review, but in making arguments to not explore that possibility. In light of the White House involvement with the US Attorney firings, you fail to make the case that it is laughable that the White House is still involved with the US attorney actions or FBI decisions and interviews.

I do not agree with your wild unsubstantiated and laughable conclusions that the White House is involved.

You'll have to provide some assurances that you've reviewed all the information available to you, have reviewed all possible comments provided, and that all comments available do not justify some concern about the White House involvement with the FBI, US Attorneys, and improper use of DOJ resources.

Testing or what ever you name is, YOU PROVE YOURSELF TO BE A FUCKING IDIOT.

Clarifying The Public Reaction To Concerns About This Blog Content, Links, Comments, and Cited Information

The Asserted Defects of This Entire Blog's Content

The note requests clarification whether there are any other supposed "defects" or problems this blog is alleged to have created by asking questions, discussing issues of public inquiry, or reviewing the existing public information.

Is There Anything We Missed?

Please note whether you agree or disagree with any of the following; or whether you substantially support the following assertions that have been made about the content, information, and lines of inquiry presented.

Reviewing The Allegations

All, please beware that the individual who posted this known as TESTING is know (stet) to post unsubstantiated accusations such as this blog posting. He is little better than a spammer and his blog postings are spam at its worst.

While there may be some truth in the posting, it is only surely a result of pure accident on his part if there is so. Testing simply posts things he does not know about and then says because no one has stopped to explain the topic to him and the ins and outs, there must be a conspiracy.

He is no better than ChickenLittle....THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING.

The above comment asserts, as fact, several things:

- Provided a warning that views, links, and other conclusions should be ignored;

- Asserted that the content posted on their own blog in nothing but spam;

- Asserted that all statements, if true, are by accident; and

- Claims the poster knows nothing about the information.

Allegations About The Comment

The above comment has been posted several times in this blog. It appears there is something going on to stifle discussion:

1. The commenter is posting multiple comments about their views

2. The commenter is not connecting this comment with the content of the blog contents; and

3. The commenter is making assertions that someone is speculating, while failing to consider the material posted, linked, or discussed.

Not Satisfied After A Thorough Inspection of All Blog Contents

The commenter mentioned that you've done a complete review of all comments, have found none of them satisfactory. Is it your position that all content posted has no relationship to anything; and that you are not inclined to provide links to support your assertions?

There are a few problems with the analysis:

A. You've asserted you've provided a complete definition of a "jury poll" but kept open the option of who conducts that, when it is conducted, and what actions occur after that jury poll has occurred;

B. You claim that the information provided is not valuable, but provide no examples from the very content where you've posted this comment;

C. You claim that you've done a complete search of all the blog content, and are not able to find anything of value

D. Despite repeated assertions that you are not required to provide clarity to your view of what a jury poll is, you claim that your characterization of what a jury poll is legally and factually accurate, and that there is no other possible definition which might apply to a jury poll;

E. You claim that after doing a complete review of the blog, you have concluded all links, citations, commentary, and reviews of all definitions; and all questions are invalid, not to be taken seriously, and should be rejected;

F. You claim that nothing within this blog is accurate, except by a mistake, and that nobody should pay attention to anything here;

G. You assert that it is common practice what a jury poll is, but fail to provide any information to justify why your view -- of what a jury poll is or is not -- should be believed

H. Despite no showing of why your views of what a jury poll is or is not, nor a credible concise statement of why your view of the definition of a jury poll should or shouldn't be accepted, you have provided nothing to justify concerns that the White House is not involved;

I. When asked to provide coherent arguments about why the White house is not involved, you rely on media reports, and incomplete definitions of what a jury poll is

J. When asked to provide clarity to your views of what a "jury poll is" you provide inconsistent statements on whether you do or do not have time to provide that definition, backup material, or supporting information;

K. When you are confronted with reasonable doubts about the US Attorney's statements, you do not offer case law, court practices, nor legal commentary to provide any analysis to justify why your views are more valid;

L. Despite you providing no clarity, you want the world to accept as true -- without any examination -- that the White house was not involved, the FBI was only relying on the US Attorney, and that your conclusions about the supremacy of you over all contents, authorities, and other information in this blog is supreme.

Did we miss anything? Free to explain where any of the above may be incorrect, or that any other information you've read here is of no value; or the basis for ignoring everything. Please, be specific with which content you want ignored, which links you would like to be rejected, and which other possibilities you would like for the Committee to not consider, and which questions you would like nobody to ask. Feel free to post at length.

Assertion of Comprehensive Review

Here is the assertion of a comprehensive review. where they provide (at the link) a conclusion about the legal merits of various arguments, and provide a summary opinion of the law, court procedures, and legal authorities:

I looked through all your old postingsFrom

The poster has said they took time to carefully review the content of the entire, meticulously weigh the arguments and links provided, and provided a considered legal opinion about the content they read. This shows excellent, thorough, comprehensive analysis, and an excellent command of the legal authorities, precedents, and court room practices.

Indeed, we are led to believe they have substantial professional legal training and are providing public legal opinions, based on a well regulated legal background, about the quality of their review and the scope of their opinion about the information posted. It appears, based on their thorough review, they are asking that we accept as fact their conclusions about the legal issues, and take their opinion as controlling authority to guide us to specific actions related to future material legal decisions.

Anyone reading this comment on TPMM may wish to reconsider the source of the information, and re-examine their claims. You'll notice their claims -- why the White House could not be implicated with the FBI interviews -- hinged on a key, reckless, and unsubstantiated claim.

Assertions As Fact Without Independent, Supporting Documentation

Tellingly, when pressed, the assertion was not backed by any court procedure, merely an assertion which proved recklessly unreliable. The evidence is the failed argument; the evidence is the refusal to provide detailed remarks or definitions; the evidence is the inability to provide case law, regulations, manuals, or other citations justifying confidence in the assertions.

Things did not add up, just like the pre-Iraq invasion arguments in re WMD. When an argument does not stand up, and people will not respond to questions asking for clarification, that means there's a major problem. The answer isn't to blame those asking the questions or assert that they have a problem. The answer is to find out and discuss what might be really going on. Some want to do the opposite: Out of ignorance take options off the table related to specific lines of inquiry, allegations, looming relationships, and patterns of abuse.

Unreasonable To Remove Options

It is reckless, in this environment, for anyone to remove from the table any link between official misconduct in DOJ and the White House. We have a new DOJ AG. This abuse was supposed to end. It continues. The common element is the President. Same President, same abuse of power, but new faces willing to carry out those abusive orders, just as we saw with the FBI raid on the Congressman Jefferson office.

The Congress needs to look at the FBI interviews in the context of abused FBI powers under the NSLs, and determine how many NSLs the FBI have used to keep secret their "interviews" with other jury members:

- How many NSLs did the FBI issue, on their own, to "justify" "interviewing" jury members?

- FBI agents have lied in secret to the FISA court. How many times did the FBI lie to get this information the court said was not to be released?

- Has anyone asked about the NSLs, FBI agents, and improper use of NSLs to intimidate court personnel, jury members, or Judicial Branch officers and Court officials?

- Is it possible jury members may have been contacted, and threatened that if they discussed the FBI contact that they might be prosecuted?

- How many FBI agents, as was done with Congressman Jefferson and the jury interviews, have acquired non-public information, and met American citizens at their homes to stifle reasonable inquiry, judgment, and decisions?

- Does anyone see the link between the FBI abuses of the NYT reporters on the NSA-CIA issues, and these FBI visits to the jury members?

Their TPMM Conduct Does Not Reflect Credit On Themselves

If you scroll up and dwon this particular comment thread, you'll see specific language which raises reasonable questions about the appropriateness of language used to comment on TPMM; and whether or not the TPMM community wishes to continue to receive comments from someone using this type of language.

The information above outlines how this person was conducting themselves despite no information supporting their assertion about classified information; and broad, reckless use of derogatory language to distract attention from reasonable questions about the connection between the White House and this inappropriate access of classified information in the Judicial Branch.

Those reading this blog for the first time may wish to skim to the top, read the original arguments, and then ask yourself: Why didn't we consider this line of questions earlier; and did we get distracted by meaningless drive from someone who failed to provide specific, documented procdures making a good case why a particular line of evidence should or should not be demanded. You can be the judge. I trust the internet to quickly make a determination whether this information above should be reconsidered; or whether it should be rejected out of hand.

However, I find it curious that someone -- outside this blog -- would post in this blog and claim the blog owner is spamming their own blog. Does anyone else want to spend this much time explaining why we should apply the lessons of Iraq WMD; who wants to re-argue the lessons Josh Marshall gleaned in re the US Attorney firings -- that the White House is connected. Who is asking that we accept on face value the planted media stories from DOJ public affairs, and not independently demand specific definitions, coherent arguments, and caselaw supporting what people are saying is "normal" practice. It's reckless for anyone to pretend DOJ is doing the right thing.

White House Is Not Immune To Scrutiny

The court is a separate branch of government. It is not a debatable point that this White House has abused power. The question is what reasonable argument can anyone give that the White House is not doing so again? If you want to wait for a foregone conclusion before asking questions or starting an line of inquiry, then don't waste your time attempting to explain away the White House abuse of American civilians through the FBI. This White House has abused American civilians with NSLs, illegal surveillance, and with warrantless inspections by DoD personnel. It remains to be seen what else.

If you are not happy reading the arguments linking the White House with the FBI abuses, then stop reading the internet. Let the Congress and the American public live in a dream land. If you want to debate an issue, fine, let's debate. But when you continue to make repeated assertions that you know "the facts", yet ignore your flawed arguments, and refuse to provide a minimal level of assurances behind your assertions, don't show up after the news arrives that you've been proven wrong. Your failed arguments, from the outset, are the evidence: The story isn't adding up. The next step is to find out what we're going to do to ensure this stops and does not happen again. But without any inquiry, it appears the public would like to lap up -- again -- the non-sense from the White House, DOJ, and media -- as was done with the Iraq WMD issues -- and not consider the possibility that we don't need to relearn the lessons. The problem isn't with the FBI or US Attorney. It's with the White House.

Assurances Based on Dubious Assertions as "Facts"

To date, we have not been given reasonable assurances, case law, nor citations to justify why the White House should be excused from a direct, lawful political-legal confrontation over its repeated abuse of power; or why the DOJ assertion of what "jury polling" means should or shouldn't be contrasted with what is most reasonable.

This is an interesting comment, and admission. The poster is admitting:

A. Their assertions about this information being "publicly available" were incorrect, not unique to this case, based on incorrect information, and faulty assumptions;

B. When they said there were "common" procedures to do this, they've not cited any procedure that would cover the release, access, and use of non-released information;

C. When they say the White House was not involved -- on the false assumption that the information was public -- is based on a faulty premise, when, in fact, the information was not public.

Specifically, you were not under any reasoanble "impression" in this case that the information was not public. The poster expressly asserted -- as a "fact", which was false, and not based on anything related to this case -- that the court always provides the information about jurors to the public, and this is never protected;

Also, when the poster says these proceedings were similar to "normal judicial proceedings" they failed to explain why an after-trial interview is or isn't the same as a dubiously labeled "jury poll"; nor have you cited any specific procedures which govern this situation.

- How many assertions have they made as a basis to reject information or ignore lines of inquiry based on dubious assertions, abusive language, or gross and reckless use of profanity which as no place on TPMM?

- How many valid answers to their questions have they rejected with sweeping assertions which have no relationship with the original content,and shows evidence they have not considered the information, links, caselaw, or other precedents which they have expressly asked for, but later rejected despite commenting that the information was invalid, untrue, or not to be taken seriously?

- How many times has this commenter, after reversing the burden of proof, then used those valid answers as a basis to then repeat their line of insulting comments which continue to not address the points they asked to be clarified?

- How many reasonable requests for information related to their assertions about "facts" have they expressly rejected or not provided on the false assertion that they did not need to prove what they were saying

- How many malicious comments has the poster left which has substantially detracted from, not aided, and substantially consumed scarce, finite TPMM resources?

- Where would the TPMM sponsors like to spend their money: Paying for commenters to continue with malicious, unhelpful, insulting comments that all TPMM sponsors are asked to wade through?

- How much money do you as a sponsor want to pay TPMM to bring into your homes, dance before you, and compel you to wade through?

Baseless Reasons To Reject A Reasonable Line of Inquiry: White House Connection With Abusive FBI Interviews

Further, based on no examination of this particular failure mode, you've rejected -- without any inquiry -- the arguments implicating the White House. Your sole objection is based on the now discredited proposition that the FBI interviews were normal, routine, and the information was public.

Nobody forced you to multiply say what you've said. You alone rejected the arguments which implicated the White House based on the false and arguably reckless assertion that the information was public, when you knew or should have known that your assertion was not linked with an examination of this case. Rather than accepting that you might be wrong, you've openly linked the basis for your rejecting any possible White House involvement on the now-discredited theory that the FBI was relying on information "anyone" could access.

Here is a link to an article that ran this afternoon in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. While previously I was under the impression that the proceedings were similar to a normal judicial proceeding, it appears the judge made a ruling that barred the recording of jurors' names on the record.

This is irrelevant and in no way an excuse. As said before, we're not dealing with DOJ, the FBI or the US Attorney on issues of jury polls. Jury polls are not the same as interviews. It does not matter what you may think the US Attorney can or cannot do; or what they can or cannot order the FBI to do; or what access the FBI has or does not have to personal information. The court alone decides, not the US Attorney, not some vague "procedures" which you still have not provided, nor any vague notion of a "jury poll" which in no way justifies home interviews of FBI agents using classified information, not released to the public. Your error was to fail to consider this case and reject a line of questions on the basis of the assertion of a "common place"-assertion, which you knew, or should have known, was impossible given the non-common case, the DOJ interest to mislead the public, and your allegedly reckless reliance on the US attorneys' statements which appear to have been planted to mislead the public.

The information was still classified, and not open to the public, despite claims this was "open" and "common practice", this is irrelevant:

The judge made this ruling after he failed to seat an anonymous jury.

The issue is hardly what the FBI did or didn't do; or what the US Attorney did or didn't do; but whether we should believe your assertions about what "should" be happening when you've only linked to incorrect media articles repeating the dubious assertion of "common" interviews.

With this revelation, it appears the issue is not only why the FBI was utilized to handle these interviews, it also now is how did the FBI get the names of the jurors if such information was stricken from the court record per the judge's ruling at the start of the trial.

These Questions Were Already Asked, But Recklessly Rejected

Why should anyone take your questions seriously now after you've rejected these types of questions posted elsewhere. If you have a serious question to ask, perhaps you may wish to revisit your baseless assertions, and reconsider which questions have already been asked, but, because of your laziness and unwillingness to consider this case, you've wasted time blabbering about how things should "not" be considered. How can you be serious when you ask the world to take now your question. The basis for your question isn't any analysis of this case, but a reaction to the information which has been well known to not match what is reasonable, or consistent with what should be happening: Jury integrity.

You're late on this, especially since you're rejected this as impossible: With the "this is perfectly normal, common place, and no problem-argument DOJ planted with the media, and you swallowed without any independent review of those claims, and no examination of any procedures which the FBI and US Attorney should have relied. They did not exist because the court controls the information. There's no telling how many other links, arguments, and other "inconvenient arguments" you've similarly rejected without any sensitivity to the facts of the case. Now, it's staring you in the face:

Has anyone seen such a thing before? Would such a violation result in disciplinary action against the prosecution if they are connected to the mishandling of this information?

It appears you're too emotionally close to the case to step back, and consider the possibility that the US Attorney is working on behalf of the President to repeat the abuses of the FBI raid on the Jefferson office, and illegally acquire information which a branch of government has ordered not to be released. However, you've repeatedly rejected that notion as inapplicable. Now you get to invoke that line of questions, reconsider your arguments, and pretend that your prior statements did consider something which you, on the record, rejected. Your choice.

Re-examining the Basis to Reject Or Accept Implicating the White House

Once the court states this is not public information, how do we explain:

1. How the FBI agents got access to that information contained outside the Executive Branch;

2. How the prosecutor got access to that information;

3. Why we should believe the Prosecutors' so-called "direction" to the FBI to do this was possible, given the FBI didn't have access to that information;

4. How did the FBI carry out this order: Physically get access to the names, from whom inside the court; what ruse was used; what authority or power was invoked which nobody should have recognized as lawful;

5. What information do we have from the Congressman Jefferson case that sheds light on how the FBI was able to get access to the information in another branch of government?

6. Who in the White House did what to coordinate the US Attorney (who does not supervise FBI agents), the FBI agents (who did not have lawful access to the names) and the DoJ Staff (which has provided assurances in the media that the interviews were "commonplace")?

Investigation Lesson When Confronting Dubious Assertions

Let's remind the readers why it's important to compel people to go on the record:

A. Have they argued fairly;

B. Are they pointing to specific facts;

C. Are they making sweeping assertions as facts;

D. Without any review of a specific situation, are they saying specific options or failure modes are not possible

E. Have they attempted to argue that other explanations are not possible, despite taking not time to consider the possibility that there may be additional information;

F. Have people adequately considered, reviewed, and examined other views rather than sweep them aside on the basis of faulty premises, which some demand others accept without question on assertion alone.

G. Once the arguments linking the White House to the FBI interviews have not been adequately addressed, are people open or closed to directly confronting the President

H. Have all arguments for and against a specific failure mode, or line of actions linking the President to these FBI interviews been considered;

I. Is someone committing to a line of arguments that use stable, consistent definitions; are are they hedging their bets, hoping to keep their options open so that regardless the outcome, they can claim they were right?

Nothing Has Credibly Dismissed Or Refuted A Basis To Not Implicate the White House In These Abusive FBI Interviews

On the table is the stronger argument which implicated the White House, fully discussed the connection between the White House and the FBI interviews. Nothing we've read would justify any confidence that this argument has been weakened. At best, with each revelation, it becomes less credible for anyone to argue to ignore the possibility it was the White House, above the US Attorney, directing Executive Branch agents to work with others to gather information the Judicial III branch was unable, and unwilling to permit anyone in the public to get access.

The arguments to the contrary, as you see above, do not stand the test of scrutiny, just as was the problem in re Iraq WMD, 9-11, and the repeated abuses this government has "justified" on dubious claims. The public doesn't need the GOP when the DNC will use any excuses to keep their head in the sand and claim others don't understand something. No, you do not understand how this President is abusing power, manipulating the public, and inducing you to ignore asking the needed questions, and put the burden on the government to justify why we should believe its claims.

Request For Assistance From TPMM Readers

Again, I would ask all TPMM readers to consider contacting Josh Marshall, ensure that he is aware of the evidence and abusive comments above, and encourage him to make a decision whether we want to have specific commenters still have access to this site. I ask that you consider this request in the spirit of oversight of the government, and the common effort to challenge abuse of power, whether it is in government or on the internet in the form of reckless, dubious, unsubstantiated, and abusive comments which have no place on TPMM.

Thank you for your support.

Still Unresolved: TPMM Community Is Still waiting for the following

- A coherent explanation for what they view is a "jury poll", when it occurs, what's involved, and how this relates or does not relate to assertions that this is common place; the timing of this poll; and other issues still not addressed at the list of questions still ignored;

- A set of procedures, caselaw, or other legal documents justifying their view of what a jury poll is or isn't;

- A credible discussion from them about the questions they have initially rejected on the basis of dubious arguments, but now want us to consider as novel, despite no evidence they considered those questions or continuing that line of inquiry;

- A discussion of which specific legal citations they are invoking to reject or accept various definitions of what they view as a credible basis for what is or is not a "jury poll" and how these precedents on jury polls should or shouldn't be contrasted with FBI interviews or attorney interviews

- An explanation why they said that the White House could not be implicated; a discussion why the basis for rejecting this linkage hinges on a now discredited theory;

- An explanation why they should not re-post corrections to all their comments to clean up the mess they created on TPMM with recklessly dubious, false, incorrect, and false statements which they knew or should have known were not connected with anything but a dubious reliance on DOJ_sourced information which has been discredited, proven false, and could not have been taken seriously.

- A plausible explanation why they should not be banned from TPMM for leaving repeated, insulting comments on TPMM with repeated use of profanity and derogatory language, unrelated to any reasonable inquiry, but based on still-not-supported assertions about what is "common" or what is or is not a "procedure".

Narcissism

One practice of narcissism is to rapidly move from one emotion to an abusive emotion then back again. When they've gone too far, they'll attempt to rally others to attack those who have stood up to that abuse.

The pattern is this:

- Provide highly emotional language, interactions - Shift requirements to others - Refuse to respond - Ask for forgiveness - Then continue the abusive cycle

Notice The Times On Each Entry

I. First the (disingenuous) apology:

"Testing, I apologize." -- April 14, 2008 8:40 PM

II. Then, the profanity and abusive language:

"Can you just shut the fuck up. Seriously. You are a fucking loon" -- April 14, 2008 10:31 PM

A. Using Spam To Provide Vague Warnings

"More speculation and bullshit by testing. Post no better than spam from this blogger." -- April 14, 2008 10:56 PM

B. Concern Troll

Three Times "All, please be aware that the individual testing post unsubstantiated crap and when someone calls him on it, he simply posts more and more crap. The guy is no better than a spammer and should be banned from the site." -- April 14, 2008 10:59 PM

C. Vague accusations:

"All, please be aware that the individual testing post unsubstantiated crap and when someone calls him on it, he simply posts more and more crap. The guy is no better than a spammer and should be banned from the site" -- April 14, 2008 11:00 PM

D. No new information:

"Testing, I still find your postings to be unsubstantiated spam from an individual that does not understand or know what he or she is talking about." -- April 14, 2008 11:02 PM

Oh, by the way, your definition of Narcissism is not accurate. Narcissism is "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy." Here is a link to further information:

http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/personality_disorders/narcissism/narcissism_defined.html

It is interesting that since you are a self appointed expert in law, the workings of the FBI, DOJ, White House, and now you are a trained psychologist as well.

both sides were under "strict orders" from the judge not to record the jurors' names during jury selection

unnerved by FBI requests for home visits to explain why they deadlocked in the federal public corruption trial

Names, Public Keys: DOJ Staff To Forensics Conference

The following can be used as a basis for discovery of the FBI records, contracts and travel documents. The following names, and email information can be used to examine others within FBI and DOJ who are communiating on these issues; and identify their connection with the White House, OVP, and outside legal counsel on the email retention, NSA surveillance, and the jury interviews.

A. This is a sample FBI public key, for emails: 1024D/B555E1BB

B. Here are alleged DC-based DOJ connection to the forensics conference:

Ted M. Burkes, BS

ted.burkes@ic.fbi.gov

Bridgette T. Frost, MFS

bridgette.frost@ic.fbi.gov

- Which FBI agents has she met with who know Stephen S. Stallings?

- Which FBI agents did she discuss data retention issues?

- When did he rcomputer first log an access to the public conference notes?

So I followed the link over from the TPMMuckraker story on the Wecht case to read this dribble. What an utter waste of time. At least with SPAM, you pretty much know it is such by the tag line.

Spaceholder

Stallings Statements Pre-Trial Phase

The Wecht Jury deadlocked. The Court asked the US prosecutors whether the government was going to conduct another trial.

Stalling is reported to have made allegedly reckless, and non-permitted statements on the Wecht Trial. The government responded that there would be a second trial. Stallings, after this government decision, then released information to the media which allegedly undermined the defendants chances of an impartial trial.

Stallings Allegedly Well Knew Statements Within Pre-Trial Nexus

There is no plausible excuse that this was "permitted, post-trial" communications. Stallings is reported to have said, "We do, your honor, and we will" when asked whether there would be a second trial; and then, Stallings disclosed allegedly impermissibly statements through the media.

Stallings allegedly knows or should know that the appropriate standard of conduct in re prosecutor standards applies to pre-trial statements, and any asserted exception of a "post trial"-argument is irrelevant.

Emerging Evidence Leaning Toward Illegal Electronic Surveillance

Congress needs to understand the emerging evidence suggesting the NSA and FBI have illegally conducted illegal electronic surveillance on the Judicial Branch, gathered classified information, and impermissibly intimidated jury members to gather prosecutorial information unrelated to any bonfide law enforcement objective.

There is a reasonable basis and public line of evidence strongly suggesting government deception in how it obtained information. If this deception is real, then the question turns o whether classified judicial branch information has been provided to the US Attorney and/or FBI under the pretext of an "investigative lead".

Evidence of Government Deception

The statements the government is making deceptive statements about who it contacted, how it obtained the actual jury member names, and the relationship between the 100 names on the potential list to the FBI interviews.

Stallings appears to have a problem: He's got FBI agents contacting jurors, but the names of the jurors weren't supposed to be released.

Stallings said he obtained the names [plural] from a list of more than 100 potential jurors released by the court.

However, Stallings doesn't explain his contradiction:

The government has interviewed exactly one juror

In "only" interviewing "one" juror, Stalling is not differentiating between contacting, interviewing, or informal approaches through third parties.

Further, Stallings cannot explain how he whittled the list of 100 potential jurors into a list of actual jurors.

Pulling Back the Layers of Alleged Government Deception

For purposes of conducting the review of Stallings statements, and the government's refusal to fully cooperate with an inquiry, we admit as true -- for the sake of discussion, making adverse inferences -- that stallings' report is true:

- That the government had a list of 100 names;

- That the government interviewed only juror

We have no reports of any potential jurors, not on the final jury list and who were not on the Wecht Jury trial, stating they were contacted. Stallings must explain:

- The process used to whittle down the list of 100 to the actual jury members;

- Why no potential jurors were contacted before the news media reports on the FBI contacts

The government has not commented on how many potential jurors they contacted; or why the government -- before it contacted and interviewed one actual jury member, was only contacting potential jurors.

We have no reports that any potential jurors were contacted. Stallings and DOJ inexplicably were able to find, on the first attempt, one potential juror on the list who was an actual juror.

- How many potential jurors were contacted by the FBI before an actual juror was located for that one interview?

Stallings says that the government only interviewed "one" jury member, implying that out of 100, Stallings and the FBI narrowed the list down to one juror, contacted only that juror, and correctly spoke to a potential jury who was an actual juror. On odds alone, the chances of that happening is 1%, and defies reason.

Unable To Credible Explain Access To Actual Jury Members

The government is making dubious, implausible assertions about how they transitioned from more than 100 potential jury names, to a certain list of jury names. Specifically, Stallings appears to have the real list of names, but does not appear to be able to explain how he really obtained it. His method to explain away the problem on the basis of 100-names, doesn't solve his problem: It makes his defense more difficult. Inexplicably, Stallings was able through some "divine" method to whittle the names from 100, to actual juror members; and only interview one. That defies reason.

It appears what's happened is the US government has the final list of names, but is attempting to create the impression that some "other process" was used to go from "public" information to that "sealed, final list".

Dubious Government Explanations Warrant Adverse Inferences

The government's explanations are unreasonable. There appears to be a reasonable basis to investigate the US Attorneys office for access to, receipt of, and improper use of sealed court information allegedly obtained only through improper electronic interception and access to sensitive court records, communications, and sealed electronic data.

It cannot be argued that the President or NSA can shield this activity on the "state secrets" or "national security" grounds. Wecht is not the subject of any terrorism investigation; nor do the legal issues touch on matters relating to lawfully Presidentially protected or shielded information.

It cannot be argued that this alleged NSA-DOJ surveillance is protected by any deliberative shield, as the decision to engage in monitoring of court information has nothign to do with a law enforcement objective, but with a prosecutorial objective. The available exceptions to the FISA warrants do not apply.

Rather, in invoking any shield to a FISA-related review of these alleged violations, the President would have to explain why the FISA-recognized exceptions were invoked; but the court was not informed of illegal methods, without a warrant to access sealed court records.

- What electronic methods did DOJ and the NSA use to access court records, provide this information to the US Attorney?

- How was the list of actual jury members provided by NSA or NSA contractors through the US government and White House to the US Prosecutor?

- Was the information provided by NSA to the FBI on the "investigative lead"-pretext?

- Is the government deliberately confusing "prosecutor interview" and "FBI investigation" to justify byassing the FISA court, and obtaining the list of jury members through unlawful electronic interception of sealed court information?

You hit the nail on the head, and understand the concerns behind this. The pattern her has been calling attention to erroneous information, and ignoring other arguments linking the White House to the FBI interviews.

Attorney Standards of Conduct

A. What if gsb et al are one person, and that person is trying to spread disinformation in a public forum about an ongoing legal court case that might be heading for another retrial

It could be something of interest to Congress, especially in light of State Laws applicable to the US Attorney's office in PA. Counsel cannot issue statements through others that the rules do not permit counsel to make.

Alleged GOP Connection To Disinformation

B. What if that same person had an affiliation with a party to that on going legal contretemps?

There's an apparent GOP legal crew that is using a DNC front to comment on these issues. Funds from someone supposedly with the DNC are going into the GOP. One of the attorneys in Texas appears to have a public profile that is with the DNC; but it appears they are financially connected with the GOP through an intermediate firm.

NSA Domestic Messaging

It remains to be understood how the NSA domestic surveillance is triggering which media messages, and which emphasis of which legal points in the articles.

C. Would that person spreading this disinformation have any legal or civil liability exposure for the knowing distribution of said disinformation regarding that ongoing case?

Possibly, because if these legal statements would be connected with the DoJ and US Attorney's office, it could implicate DOJ Staff through the Attorney Standards of Conduct. It's a violation of the attorney standards of conduct for legal counsel to have released through others statements that would not be permitted under the attorney standards.

Concerns

Significant energy to:

- Discredit valid questions and arguments linking the White House to the FBI interviews;

- Using deliberate legal parsing to muddy the waters;

- A new ID to distance oneself from the original valid concerns with the attempts to distract;

- Heightened national legal counsel interest on these issues, with an apparent link through the DNC into the GOP;

- Selective retransmission of dubious assertions and conclusions in the open media; and

- The pattern of conduct substantially mirroring problematic statements from the US Attorneys office.

Several Common Lines Dovetailing

- White House Implicated
- DNC funding to GOP Organizations
- Stallings Ethics: DOJ Press Releases
- Miers TX law firm (data auditing)

I would look at the above in the context of the original arguments linking the White House to the FBI interviews; the allegations made against Stallings; and the technical link bewteen the US Attorney's office, OMNI hotel, DOJ, and the White House.

It appears the common link is through the digital data forensics contractors who may have had a role in gathering the names of the seated jurors. Stallings explanation of how he whittled the name down from the potential jurors to the seated jurors defies reason.

Once we include Miers' law firm and the digital audits in the nexus, that would implicate Rove and the other players in the US Attorney Firing. The lessons of the US Attorney-firing are highly relevant, but some would ask that we cast those aside.