Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

DoD Emails Show Why Josh Marshall Denied Access To DoJ Press Releases

avatar

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo was denied access to DOJ press releases as part of the President's information warfare strategy, closely coordinated with DoD, NSC, State, and the Department of Justice. Information was selectively pushed to some bloggers, and other information was withheld from others.
Those bloggers on the side of the Constitution, standing firmly against the President's illegal activity, were targeted for harassment. Some US government-coordinated information warfare harassment included use of the court process, claiming evidence of illegal activity had been gleaned only through illegal methods.

TPM Josh Marshall dared to spread truth about DoJ corruption, and illegal US government activity. The President and others in DoD and DOJ viewed TPM and Josh Marshall as threats to the US government disinformation warfare objectives.
101 shows the President and DoD war planners viewed some bloggers as friendly, and others as adversaries. This demarkation is consistent with DoD information warfare doctrine.  DoD previously claimed efforts to plant information with bloggers, or deny bloggers access to information was purely academic.
Unfavorable bloggers, by inference, were actively denied access. This government obstruction of data would not be consistent with information warfare doctrine, but consistent with this President's perverse application of information warfare against American civilians.
DoD had favorite bloggers they would provide information. This is consistent with US military efforts to impose religious views. Favorable radio shows, presumably monitored by DoD contractors were pushed to bloggers. Roxie Merritt, writes

"I am pushing this product out to my bloggers tonight."


Comments (43)

Thanks, Josh, for being an adversarial voice for all of us.

Even if that makes you un-American in George's book.

Being Un-American in Dubya's book is something we can all aspire to.

We should all be as disapointed as Hunter S Thompson was at being left off of Nixon's 'Enemies List' if Bushco does not consider us un-American.

avatar

Obfuscation of Information Warfare Office Names, Functions

Merritt's office name is internal communications, which is not consistent with external pushes of video feeds from DoD to bloggers.

- How have the information warfare office names in the DoD-released emails been crafted to mislead the public about their real objectives, mission, and relationship to support information warfare against American civilians?

avatar

Do the documents say anything about "Present" and Gotalife?

avatar

Here is one way DoD and DOJ may have been conducting information warfare on TPM and in the blogging community.

avatar

Example Confusion During Alleged Information Warfare

Here is the problem: One ID explains away "their" not explaining something; but the other ID was the one being challenged for that definition. It appears one person has confused themselves on which ID they were or were not using to respond to a clarification for a definition.

avatar

As stated before, I am not GSB27. You ask for a response to a comment I made in the this comment

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/us-attorneys-in-re-wecht-alleg.php#comment-2800494

Which you paraphrased in your comment. This comment was a response to another commenters question.

I have informed you on multiple occasions that I am not GSB27, yet you continue to post slander and harassing posts that I am.

avatar

You have violated this no contact order.

avatar

Two Different IDs, Responding As If One Person On A Single Issue

This is an alleged line of evidence warranting further inquiry by TPM management. You're going to be amazed when you see this step by step.

1. First hit this link.

2. Now, look at the link at 1, under these words:

Here you contradict yourself:

3. Name A: Look who responds: here.

4. Now, scroll down from #2, and look at who was responding: The other ID, NameB, not the one at 3, NameA.

Review

They appear to have contradicted themselves, and confused themselves on which ID they were or were not using.

avatar

This confusion appears to be material, and warrants inquiry in light of the DoD-email disclosures in re pushing product to bloggers.

The above ID confusion appears to destroy the defenses made here. They cannot explain why one ID, raising an issue, but being unable to respond; was then answered by the other ID. The issues should have been resolved by the same ID.

Requested Action

Please consider commenting on the alleged misrpresentation here.

avatar

Stress Testing

When people are confused, they may not realize they are posting with the incorrect answer-response.

Here's where you can look. As confirmation that they could distinguish between the two IDs, you'll notice this comment. Where they were provided a link, but did "not" author it, they asserted they were not the author.

They cannot explain why they did the opposite: The second ID, NameB responding to an issue originally raised with the first ID, NameA.

Their burden:

- Why are the unable to use the same ID to respond to questions about issues raised with one ID; but they are responding to questions with an ID that was never confronted on the issue?

- What is they explanation in being able to determine that they "did not" post something; but then contradict themselves, and not realize they were posting a response to a question/issue only raised to the other ID?

It is our belief, and this is only an opinion, that the President's information warfare was targeted at TPM to dissuade public oversight of the alleged White House involvement with the FBI interviews in re Wecht Jury.

You'll find the posting styles, argument style between both posters is similar; and that their original posting schedules were substantially the same. After challenge, the posting schedules diverged. It appears they knew there are serious legal issues attached to the White House email inside DoD on the information warfare, and the email from DoD with the White House staff name on it.

avatar

All,

Please beaware that this blogger is attempting to slander me through claiming I am another poster. I have already informed him on multiple prior occasions that I am not the individual known as GSB27.

avatar

You have violated this this no contact order, and have not substantially complied with your legal requirements under that order.

avatar

Material Change in Position

We have evidence that their original assertion, devoid of any facts, is unraveling.

A. Historical, Retroactive: "Do not":

This is from the original no contact order. The original unsupported assertion, left the impression that there had been historical alleged illegal activity:

"As stated before, do not defame or slander me with accusations that I am somehow connected to the DOJ. I AM NOT."

"Do not" leaves the impression that someone has done something, and should stop. However, there was no evidence provided, as the no contact order stipulated. They did not meet their burden.

B. Prospective Position; "Attempting"

They are now changing to a prospective view of possible misconduct. Now, they've contradict themselves, ignored their alleged unsubstantiated assertion of criminal activity.

"Please beaware [stet, "beware" or "be aware"] that this blogger is attempting to slander me through claiming I am another poster."

The only reasonable conclusion is that they know, or should know:

A. The original assertion, accusations were allegedly false and devoid of any facts;

B. The subsequent assertion contradicted their original statement;

C. They've changed their allegations about alleged supposedly certain, historical, retro-view improprieties, to a prospective view of possible activity;

D. They've changed their position from a (certain, right or wrong) retroactive specific assertion about the past; to a forward look at possible prospective action;

E. They haven't read or understood the terms of the no contact order;

F. They still know or should know they have nothing to support their assertion about the past; but are changing their assertion to something esle;

G. They've changed their position without any explanation;

H. They have essentially admitted, by providing no details, that there is no evidence about any historical misconduct which they assert;

I. They still have not substantially complied with the no contact order requirements for there to be evidence behind their assertion;

J. They've changed their position from (a) making vague arguments about one set of accusations; to (b) a different set of vague accusations; and

K. They're not providing anyone with a stable argument, but something that is shifting within the winds.

The above defies reason. The inconsistency means we don't need to spend time taking them seriously about thier unsupported assertions. They cannot meet their burden. There is no evidence. They have no plan to support their assertion.

Their material change in position related to the accusations substantially and fatally undermines reasonable public confidence in their ability to make a coherent argument, prompting the no-contact order, which they continue to ignore.

Review

The arguments continue to change. This needs to be understood. Please continue to evaluate their arguments. They provide no evidence supporting their assertions of alleged misconduct, but make sweeping assertions. These assertions change from historical assertions about supposedly certain things, to prospective, possible future action. It's all speculative.

avatar

These Are Personal Opinions Which May Or May Not Be Consistent With The President's Domestic Information Warfare Doctrine and Practices

Here is the potentially damaging information, which DoD emails appear to support: That there was a White House connection with information warfare, coordinated with DoD.

It is our view, the information warfare directed at US civilians occurred when FBI agents gathered information from the Wecht Jurors. The answers are on the DoD JCON database:

- Who was notified;
- Which CC copies went between the US Attorney, FBI, and outside counsel;
- How the names of the sealed jurors were going to be explained away;
- What the US Attorney would attempt to pretend was acceptable, despite the deliberate attempt to create confusion about what a "jury poll" was or wasn't.

It remains to be understood how the alleged White House-directed information warfare, directed at the Wecht Jurors, unraveled once the US Attorney was allegedly implicated with improper statements and disclosures.

The problem: The PA bar does not release the information about ongoing investigations. There has been no disclosure of the PA bar review, as it hasn't started yet on these issues: They haven't happened. You're reading them right now.

However, the poster mistakenly said that the matter was under investigation. They had no legal basis to assert that, as they claim they are not connected with DOJ and should now know the status of a pending PA legal review of a US Attorney practicing law in Philadelphia on still not yet transpired events.

We recommend you revisit the content, and discussion at the blog implicating the White House in the FBI contacts of Wecht Jurors, but look at this as information warfare, not a simple issue within DOJ.

We argue that the US Attorney firings is less about the Department of Justice, but more about illegal Presidential information warfare: Support those with favorable views; and punish those with unfavorable views. The DOD-email you read above substantially supports the assertion that there was a White House-organized effort to target views, suppress opposing arguments, and substantially attempt to intimidate and block bloggers from exercising their Constitutionally recognized rights to comment on issues of public importance, national security, and the United States Constitution.

The leaders who put themselves above the are substantial threats to the US Constitution. Those who enable that illegal activity do not deserve public support, but to be called what they allegedly are: Domestic threats to the United States, the United States Constitution, and the American people's national security interests.

The rule of law shall prevail, thanks to the leadership, resolve, and persistence of TPM's Josh Marshall.

avatar

- Which CC copies went between the US Attorney, FBI, and outside counsel;>

This information was requested again by Congressman Conyers this week. The DOJ is being unresponsive to the request. Hopefully, the DOJ provides Conyers the information he has requested.

Is this the royal we you are using here?

As I have stated on multiple occasions, I feel that a review of the use of the FBI in this manner by the US Attorney is warranted. I do not however buy the assertion you have raised that the White House is directly involved in the Wecht Jury/FBI Contacts.

To date, you have made this claim on multiple occasions, and I have asked that you provide evidence of such. Instead, you have steadfast refused to provide such evidence. At most I receive a link to another one of your postings which contains more allegations, yet no evidence.

Please “testing”, if you have evidence, you should disclose it. Such information would be beneficial and actionable to Dr. Wecht’s attorneys. If you do not wish to disclose on TPM, you could send the information to McDevitt, Wecht’s lead attorney, and it could be filed in a motion for discovery to understand truly if there is such involvement by the White House.

I, yes I do not use the royal we as you do, do not believe that such improprieties have occurred on part of the White House and instead feel the Wecht case is nothing more than an over aggressive US Attorney grasping at a case of straws in an attempt to appease a leadership environment in the DOJ that has had a history of rewarding those that go after prominent Democrats.

You may be correct in the PA Bar proceedings; however if you would review the case and the filings within PACER, you would be aware that the PA bar review was initiated per the order of the court on a motion filed in the federal case. Both parties, the defense and the prosecution, asked for sanctions against either side for allegedly improper disclosures and contacts with the Press that would impact the jury.

Instead of granting the sanctions, the district judge referred the issue to the PA Bar for review which started both the investigation into the matter and the disclosure of that an investigation was initiated was disclosed within subsequent motions and opinions of the case within the federal court document system PACER. It is also worthy to note that the US Attorney filed a subsequent motion to seal the response of the PA Bar in relation to the order of the court so that individuals following the case would be unaware if the investigation request was granted. This subsequent request was denied by Judge Schwab.

I recommend you read up on the US vs. Wecht case. There has been extensive press coverage of the majority of motions filed and two separate reporters blogged the trial testimony from the entire proceedings, so you would not need to be financially impacted by purchasing copies of the motions from PACER.

I am not connected to the DOJ. You have been told this fact on multiple occasions, yet still continue to push forth the improper assertion that I am.
Agreed, the rule of law shall prevail and Josh Marshall has been an hero in bringing issues to the light of day.

avatar

error occurred in posting. I will attempt again

- Which CC copies went between the US Attorney, FBI, and outside counsel;

This information was requested again by Congressman Conyers this week. The DOJ is being unresponsive to the request. Hopefully, the DOJ provides Conyers the information he has requested.

We recommend

Is this the royal we you are using here?

the White House in the FBI contacts of Wecht Jurors

As I have stated on multiple occasions, I feel that a review of the use of the FBI in this manner by the US Attorney is warranted. I do not however buy the assertion you have raised that the White House is directly involved in the Wecht Jury/FBI Contacts.

To date, you have made this claim on multiple occasions, and I have asked that you provide evidence of such. Instead, you have steadfast refused to provide such evidence. At most I receive a link to another one of your postings which contains more allegations, yet no evidence.

Please “testing”, if you have evidence, you should disclose it. Such information would be beneficial and actionable to Dr. Wecht’s attorneys. If you do not wish to disclose on TPM, you could send the information to McDevitt, Wecht’s lead attorney, and it could be filed in a motion for discovery to understand truly if there is such involvement by the White House.

I, yes I do not use the royal we as you do, do not believe that such improprieties have occurred on part of the White House and instead feel the Wecht case is nothing more than an over aggressive US Attorney grasping at a case of straws in an attempt to appease a leadership environment in the DOJ that has had a history of rewarding those that go after prominent Democrats.

Lastly, your blog posting should be noted as the White House ALLEGEDLY implicated in the FBI contacts of Wecht Jurors.

The PA bar does not release the information about ongoing investigations.

You may be correct in the PA Bar proceedings; however if you would review the case and the filings within PACER, you would be aware that the PA bar review was initiated per the order of the court on a motion filed in the federal case. Both parties, the defense and the prosecution, asked for sanctions against either side for allegedly improper disclosures and contacts with the Press that would impact the jury.

Instead of granting the sanctions, the district judge referred the issue to the PA Bar for review which started both the investigation into the matter and the disclosure of that an investigation was initiated was disclosed within subsequent motions and opinions of the case within the federal court document system PACER. It is also worthy to note that the US Attorney filed a subsequent motion to seal the response of the PA Bar in relation to the order of the court so that individuals following the case would be unaware if the investigation request was granted. This subsequent request was denied by Judge Schwab.

I recommend you read up on the US vs. Wecht case. There has been extensive press coverage of the majority of motions filed and two separate reporters blogged the trial testimony from the entire proceedings, so you would not need to be financially impacted by purchasing copies of the motions from PACER.

they claim they are not connected with DOJ

I am not connected to the DOJ. You have been told this fact on multiple occasions, yet still continue to push forth the improper assertion that I am.


Agreed, the rule of law shall prevail and Josh Marshall has been an hero in bringing issues to the light of day.

avatar

You have violated this no contact order, and have not substantially complied with your legal requirements under that order.

avatar

I see that you have not addressed the request that you provide evidence in relation to your allegation that the White House is connected to the contact with the Wecht jurors.

This trend of you making allegations and providing no evidence to substantiate your allegations is very telling. Sad, it would have been beneficial to the Wecht team if such was true.

avatar

You have not substantially complied with this no contact order, and have no complied with your legal obligations under that no contact order.

avatar

Ah, "legal right". Buddy this is a blog. You are not the lawyer, police, judge, etc. for TPM. Your rants are becoming very telling of your mental stability.

As stated in my prior posting, if you have evidence of White House involvement in the Wecht case you should share it. If you are aware of a crime and allow it to continue unchallenged, you are guilty of facilitating such crime yourself. In this situation, you should disclose the evidence that supports your allegation that the White House has been directly involved in the Wecht case.

avatar

Here is a summary of the President's alleged illegal domestic information warfare against American civilians, with links to notes commenting on the DoD Information warfare guidance.

avatar

Here is a sample FOIA plan for the DOJ JCON database, with specific FOIA related issues in the President's domestic information warfare program here.

The comments below the second link should be studied closely before reviewing the suggested FOIA plan in re DOJ OLC and the JCON database.

avatar

For your convenience, we've dovetailed the DoD information warfare principles with the FOIA questions of DOJ OLC here.

avatar

Here is the corrected link from here.

avatar

Apply DoD Redacted Information To DOJ JCON

Here are a list of sample parameters to review when examining the JCON database, and reviewing FBI, DoJ OLC, and other DOJ contacts with the White House on the President's domestic information warfare.

The information you are looking at at this link in this comment was obtained through methods which the House and Senate Intelligence Committee will have to discuss with DOJ OLC, the FBI, and contractors managing the JCON database.

The NSA cannot track all things, especially efforts to fully enforce and defend the Constitution from domestic enemies. The DoJ error was to attempt to dissaude Josh Marshall and TPM. They chose the wrong civilians to confront. They will be lawfully defeated.

WOW! Testing is going to self link in an ever decreasing circle at ever increasing speed untill he flys up his own ass like an internet swoosh bird.

avatar

Welcome

1. The above information has linked to embedded PDF files on other sites. This shares some of the detailed explanations behind the embedded links to the DoD PDF files, and other information on TPM.

2. If some have suggestions on how to discuss these White House/DoD/DoJ disclosed emails, files, and information warfare-related documents without providing extensive footnotes, feel free to offer some suggestions.

3. The goal of the links above is to show how some of the information warfare policies may have been implemented, as the DoD-disclosed emails discuss. If others have different views on how to adequately explain the White House email retention problems, CIFA-related domestic surveillance, FBI contacts with jury members, and DoD policy to work closely with some bloggers, NSA FISA violations, feel free to post links to those discussion, PDF files, or other White House documents.

4. In that spirit, the following comment fails to adequately provide a useful comment, suggestion, or alternative; nor does it attempt to seek clarification for what information has been posted, why some PDF links from DoD are or are not provided, or how the White House is or is not involved in the domestic information warfare:

WOW! Testing is going to self link in an ever decreasing circle at ever increasing speed untill he flys up his own ass like an internet swoosh bird.

5. It's incorrect to suggest the links are to an "ever decreasing" circle, as the links do the opposite: Link to an expansive list of DoD, White House, and DoJ PDF files. The links on information warfare go to the just-released PDFs; and the summary commentaries discuss how the President's information warfare relates to internet warfare against American civilians. These could be serious issues of Geneva implications, if proven the President did attempt to mobilize civilians to support illegal warfare, and take combat-related actions stripping civilians of their Geneva protected status.

6. If some would like to explain why Geneva should not be discussed in the context of information warfare, you'll have to point to the DOD information warfare guidance and prove that there is no discussion anywhere related to legal compliance issues. That is your burden, which you have not met and cannot met. Feel free to review that information and make your case.

7. You have also failed to provide any explanation for how "linking" on the internet or TPM is or isn't related to body contortions in physical space.

8. Your term "internet swoosh bird" is unhelpful to your objective, comment, or attempt to communicate. You have failed to make a strong case that you have access to medical information showing how electronic data can or cannot induce others to sprout wings, engage in body contortions, or attempt to move as if some sort of "swooshing bird" that magically moves between the internet, across the ether, into three dimensions, then folds those wings to enter other unspecified locations.

9. You have failed to explain how this electronic-ether-movement does or does not permit lawful or unlawful access to various NSA intelligence files, or whether this method was or was not used to lawful obtain information, access, or other resources to effectively defend the Constitution againt this alleged reckless President and his chorus of alleged war criminal.

10. These are issues involving the Geneva Conventions. These are serious legal problems confronting this President, the United States government, and the alleged war criminals who have induced others to engage in illegal information warfare through others against TPM and Josh Marshall. Perhaps you may wish to reconsider whether you will or will not attempt to review the linked-PDF files to decide whether you would like to make excuses to not defend the Constitution, or whether you would like to join Josh Marshall in defending this Constitution against these alleged reckless enemies.

11. Choose wisely. There is no statute of limitations for prosecuting war crimes against American civilians, or in investigating alleged efforts to dissuade enforcement, investigation, and public discussion of violations of the laws of war.

The TPM Posting Policy

12. Having reviewed the PDF files linked to the White House, DoJ, and DOD related to information warfare, and the Geneva implications, let's review the specific TPM policy in light of the assertion.

Before you post, please review the Terms of Use you agreed to when you created your account.

13. Here are some of the relevant terms, for this comment only. You agreed not to use any "vulgar" or "objectionable" language:

You agree not to use TPMCafe or the Service to:

upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available ("Post") any Content:

- that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, false or inaccurate, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

13. TPM may or may not take any action to enforce its policy:

"we cannot guarantee that any action will be taken as a result of your correspondence."

Geneva

14. The laws of war prohibit any effort to dissuade discussion of, collection of, or attempts to safeguard war crimes evidence. You also have a posting term and policy which expressly prohibits vulgar language:

"WOW! Testing is going to self link in an ever decreasing circle at ever increasing speed untill he flys up his own ass like an internet swoosh bird."

15. The commenter has provided no information that any information is false, invalid, unrelated, or is somehow a misrepresentation. Rather, the commenter has expressly stated, implied, or left the impression that they did not review the linked-PDF files; and attempted to create the allegedly false impression that the links were irrelevant, less than worthy of consideration, or somehow trivial.

16. It cannot be argued issues of alleged war crimes linked to the President, information warfare, or the DoD PDF files are trivial. Nuremberg establishes legal obligations on civilians, legal counsel, officers of the court, and government officials to enforce, defend, and fully respect the laws of war. It appears some would like to explain away the linked-PDF files as a trivial matter, not consider the Nuremberg implications, and ask that the likes of TPM readers ignore, not pay attention to, and trivialize these serious issues of Geneva.

17. The Congress and Attorney General have expressly stated, implied, left the impression, and communicated through third parties that they plan to take no action, not impeach, not prosecute, and do nothing to enforce the laws of war. That is unacceptable. One person has attempted to Confront the Department of Justice: Josh Marshall. He won an award for that needed opposition which the media, Congress, and Executive Branch personnel have largely refused. This inaction on the laws of war by others could be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.

DEMANDS

18. You shall end your use of vulgar, objectional, and profane language. Whether TPM management does or does not enforce their policy is unrelated to your requirement to clear the way for a war crimes discussion. Your comment is in the way, is not helpful, and tends to undermine reasonable confidence that you are serious about fully asserting your Nuremberg-obligations which you have under the laws of war: To ensure the laws of war are fully complied, met, and not breached to deprive civilians of their protected status.

19. You shall visit the embedded links, discuss your views on the White House files showing the White House staff was involved with alleged information warfare, and narrowly confine your commentary to the war crimes issues and information programs within the narrow subset of Geneva, illegal information warfare, and the alleged illegal efforts of the President and others to target Josh Marshall with illegal information warfare.

20. You shall stay on topic, and not attempt to trivialize any Geneva issues. All other commentary outside that narrow topic is unrelated to this topic and does not belong here. You are free to comment on other matters on your own blog. You have chosen not to do that. That is your error.

21. Until you comply and substantially demonstrate you have reformed yourself, you shall not read, visit, or post on this comment thread. You are not welcome on this comment thread, unless you comply with the above demands.

22. You shall CEASE and DESIST from any effort to induce anyone to believe that the PDF files are unrelated to Geneva, the laws of war; and not leave any impression that these are anything but important, serious, and grave allegations related to international war crimes against American civilians.

23. You are DENIED any right to appeal this determination. Until you comply with the above, you may or may not be notified of efforts to determine your status and compliance with or attempts to thwart enforcement of the laws of war. These are serious issues.

24. You shall end your alleged effort to trivialize war crimes. When you end that effort, perhaps we will have a discussion about something else, somewhere else. Until then, you picked the wrong blog.

25. You shall rethink your commitment to the laws of war. When you do, and fully grasp the serious situation confronting this President, perhaps you and others might be inclined to marginally support efforts to investigate these allegations, gather evidence, and successfully ensure the laws of war are fully enforced. You have not met your burden.

NO CONTACT NOTICE

26. Until the above demands are met, you shall no longer attempt to communicate directly or indirectly with "testing" or anyone else attempting to discuss, share views, or provide fair public commentary on these serious war crimes issues.

27. You are DENIED the right to appeal this notice and demand. If you have evidence supporting your reform, you shall agree that this "no contact notice" remains in effect, until you substantially demonstrate that you are fully enforcing the laws of war, as required under the Nuremberg Precedents.

28. You are DENIED any right to attempt to dissuade discussion of or reviews of these serious allegations of war crimes. Any effort to work with third parties to attempt to dissuade discussion of, derail, or marginalize these alleged war crimes against American civilians could be construed as a subsequent violation of the laws of war.

29. This "no contact notice" remains in effect until you agree, in writing, to end your alleged efforts to to trivialize the grave breaches of Geneva. This "no contact notice" may be modified at any time to incorporate any legal precedent related to the laws of war, Geneva, Nuremberg, or other obligations under the laws of war.

30. You are denied the right to work with anyone, third parties, or others to seek to block discussion, thwart investigations, or work with anyone to attempt to not fully enforce the laws of war or trivialize these issues. This requirement on you is based on your legal obligations under the laws of war, is applicable anywhere in the universe, and cannot be revoked by you, others, or any competent judicial tribunal, legal authority, DOJ OLC memoranda, or other contractor or agreement.

Nice work as always, Testing.

I almost enjoy your argumentation, and couldn't ever come up with as much as .10 as you do.

ooops...

always, not almost.

avatar

To all:

I would hope that all could refrain from the personal attacks, and confine their comments to the original topic. I must admit, I am not sure if TESTING is serious, or his/her post is an elaborate joke, or what, but it seriously detracts from the value of TPM.

AH

avatar

Having vented -- can somebody point me to the e-mails which are mentioned in the title of the original post? I can find no link to them anywhere, nor quotes from an e-mail.

avatar

See page 101

avatar

Thank you for the link to page 101. There is nothing on that page related to TPM or Josh Marshall -- in fact nothing at all about blogs. I searched the entire PDF for reference to TPM or Josh Marshall, and found nothing.

Please explain.

avatar

We the People

I. Powers and Rights Reserved To We the People, Never Delegated or Violated Without Consent

A. The People are expressly defined as human beings and does not refer to corporations or contractual relationships.

B. No contract, agreement, or promise may ever bind any human to refuse to enforce the law, or prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest.

C. We the People may believe anything, including the possible belief that this Constitution must be discarded and replaced with a superior document which defends the People and protects their power to enforce this Constitution against the Government.

D. The People are educated to apply the lessons of history to ensure rights are preserved, power asserted, and this Constitution is protected from domestic and foreign enemies.

E. The People have the enforceable right and power to review any public document and access any public official.

F. The People have the enforceable right to engage in any speech, communication, or discussion on issues of war crimes, government incompetence, or allegations of reckless government planning and maladministration.

G. Government officials, agencies, departments may not invoke any power or right they have denied to the People.

H. The People have the right to affordable housing. Where none is available, the government is denied the power to prosecute anyone for not living in a home, or residing in a public park, open forest, or public lands.

I. The People have the enforceable right to freely travel, without questions, and without delay. Any law enforcement officer, agents, or contacted security official who uses any ruse, scheme, or deception to engage in pretextual stops shall be enforced as a violation of this Constitution.

J. The People have the enforceable right to compel govenment officials, contractors, and securty personnel to identify themselves, disclose their policies and procedures, and respond to complaints about violatins of this Constitution, the Supreme Law, or laws of war.

K. The People may not be subject to any electronic surveillance except on probable cause and a warrant before a judicial tribunal. The President, Congress and others are expressly denied the power to enact, create, use, or rely on quasi-judicial tribunals to self-certify warrants to conduct surveillance.

L. All denied powers to the US Government in this Constitution are reserved to the People to be used to defend the Constitution.

II. Powers and Rights Reserved to States

A. States shall have authority to enforce any law within their jurisdiction. Failure to enforce the laws of war shall be prosecuted as a war crime.

B. States shall, when the Federal Government refuses to enforce the Constitution or Supreme Law, enforce the national and international law against contractors, legal counsel, state or US government officials.

C. Any state may start impeachment investigations or proceedings against the President, Member of Congress, or US government official on issues of international laws of war, domestic rebellion, or violations of the Supreme Law oath of office, or Geneva Conventions. The States shall, upon receipt of an impeachment investigation or conviction from any other state, shall within 10 days debate that resolution. If convicted by 2/3 of the States, that US government official shall be removed from office. Any effort to thwart State efforts to enforce the US Constitution through impeachment investigations or impeachment proceedings at the State level may be construed as a subsequent violation of this Constitution and laws of war.

D. The States may, without notice, organize themselves to collectively defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the United States government. The States Governors have the standing power, right, and authority to use deadly combat force to enforce this Constitution against US government officials.

E. A failure of any State official to enforce the laws of war shall be subject to a war crimes trial within 90 days of discovering that evidence. Where there are credible allegations of war crimes, a failure to investigate shall be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty.

F. States have the power to enforce contract obligations between contractors and the US government which affect the rights of their State citizens. Failure to enforce these contractual obligations against the contractors or US government could be construed as a subsequent violation under the laws of war and US Constitution against legal counsel, state officials, or court officers.

III. Independent Branch

A. All US government, contractor-provided, and legal counsel data shall be retained in an independent branch.

B. The President, Congress, and Judicial branches have no power, right or claim to not fully fund this Independent Branch

C. The Independent Branch conducts electronic surveillance of the US government, stores that data, and ensures there are independent, safe, retained records of all US government transaction, including conversations and memos between legal counsel and government officials. Once created for the government or connected with any legal or illegal activity, these records are public records.

D. The data may be seen only upon a showing of reasonable belief or suspicion by the United States Congress, Court, or Executive Branch that the information may be useful in enforcing the Constitution, Supreme Law, or GEneva Conventions.

E. Private citizens may view any data, unless the US government provides sufficient, detailed evidence why that request for information should not be met for bonafide, lawful secrets. Any effort to hide evidence behind a claim of "state secrets," where that claim is linked with an effort to bypass the Constitution, oath of office, Supreme Law, or laws of war may be punishable by the death penalty.

F. All government data belongs to the People. Any legal counsel working for the US government shall ensure that the People's right to reliable information is protected. A failure to protect this information could be construed as a war crime.

IV. Prosecutorial Branch

A. All prosecutorial options are denied of the President.

B. The Prosecutorial branch has the power to raise independent combat power, support them, and may lawfully use that deadly combat force to confront Members of Congress, the Judicial Branch Officers, or the Presidents upon showing of probable cause for war crimes.

C. The prosecutorial power is the exclusive power of the prosecution branch. However, anyone may make a claim of illegal activity, and enforce the laws of the United States and States respectively. Any effort to block anyone from unilaterally attempting to enforce the laws of war through discovery, investigation, and open discussion of those alleged war crimes shall be construed as a possible subsequent offense under the laws of war.

D. Legal counsel are subject to public review, audit, and can be required, with fair notice, of a requirement to demonstrate before any court their compliance with the laws of war.

E. Legal counsel may be denied authority to conduct discovery during any investigation when that discovery is linked with efforts that would thwart war crimes investigation, enforcement of the Supreme law or Geneva Conventions.

V. Judicial Branch

A. The Judicial Branch is above the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch only in order of precedence. The Judicial Branch is a co-equal branch, and closest to the People and Constitution. It is least responsive, and most slow to the People's daily interests to enforce the Constitution and Supreme Law or Geneva Conventions.

B. Where the Judicial Branch does not timely enforce the Constitution, Supreme Law, or laws of war, the States ad People retain the power and right to investigate and prosecute allegations of US government illegal activity, war crimes, or violations of the Supreme law.

C. All precedents under the laws of war are binding on the Judicial Branch, US government, and the People through enforcement actions.

D. Any decision by any judicial officer not to fully enforce the laws of war, Supreme Law, or this Constitution may be construed as a war crime, subject to the death penalty.

VI. Legislative Branch

A. The Legislative Branch is listed after the Judicial Branch because it is less responsive to the People.

B. The Members of Congress may be stopped between sessions and held to account for their failure to enforce the laws of war.

C. Refusing to investigate or impeach the President, Judicial Officers, or any current or former US government official for alleged war crimes, maladministration, illegal warfare, or other crimes against the People, States, or US Government shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to not fully assert ones oath of office, and punishable by the death penalty under the laws of war.

D. There are three chambers to the Congress. The Senate and House have a legal duty to fully enforce the laws. Any decision to not timely review evidence of impeachable offenses, or not investigate war crimes or maladministration could be construed as subsequent offenses under the laws of war.

E. The Superior Chamber shall decide, before any debate, whether the proposed bill is or is not Constitutional. This determination is subject to approval, challenge, and rejection by the People, States, and Judicial Branch.

F. The Congress is denied the exclusive powr to make rules. Any rule which prohibits any investigation into alleged malfeasance in re the laws of war, Supreme Law, or oath of office is illegal, and may be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.

G. The Congress shall comply with public audits, and timely provide within 45 days of an audit report a statement of remedy, and outline a plan within 90 days to fully comply with all legal obligations under the Statute, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.

H. The Congress may raise and support an army, and independently order that army only against the President when the President refuses to enforce the laws of war, or comply with his legal obligations under this Constitution.

VII. Executive Branch

A. The Executive Branch is led by three Presidents, co-qual with non-overlapping jurisdictions. The Executive Branch has one power: Executive Power. All actions taken under that one power are lesser authorities not powers. The Executive Branch has no power to create new powers or assign itself broader power.

B. The Executive Branch is listed last because it is the least responsive to the People, and the greatest threat of tyranny to this Constitution. The President is a clerk, not a King or Emperor. The President only manages programs. The President has no power to ignore, rewrite, or refuse to enforce the law. Each of the three Presidents shall have an ongoing requirement to demonstrate to the People and States and Congress and Courts compliance with the COnstitution, Supreme Law, oath f office, and laws of war.

C. The Domestic Affairs President is responsive to the States and US Government on internal affairs.

D. The Foreign Affairs President shall have exclusive power to interact with foreign powers. The Foreign Affairs President is denied any power to violate the laws of war, or use covert activity against American citizens.

E. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs President are denied the power to thwart any lawful State action to organize with foreign powers and agents to defend the US Constitution, enforce the laws of war, or protect the rights and powers of the People and States against domestic encroachments by the US government, legal counsel, or other US government officials.

F. The Commander in Chief shall only have power to lead combat operations during war time. Congress shall conduct ongoing, public reviews whether the Commander in Chief is or is not competent in managing combat operations. The Presidents and Commander in Chief are denied the power to prohibit Congress from using electronic surveillance or use separately raised and supported armies to conduct this oversight during wartime and peacetime.

G. The Executive Branch is denied the power to block anyone from getting access to illegal activity related to the laws of war.

H. During Peacetime, the Commander in Chief shall periodically cooperate with ongoing Oversight of US combat forces to ensure they are combat ready, fully trained on the laws of war, and prepared to lawfully be used to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.

I. The Executive Branch and Presidents and officers, agents, contractors, and personnel are denied the power, right, or authority to order anyone to ignore any statute, law, legal requirement, or obligation under the Constitution.

J. The Executive Branch has no power or authority to directly contact the Legislative Branch by name. The President may only request, not order other branches of government. All Communications between the Executive and Legislative Branch shall pass through the Prosecutorial Branch, and retained in the National Archives. Those records are available for public inspection at any time. The People have the enforceable right to compel the Executive Branch, Legislature, and Judicial Branch to produce documents.

K. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judicial Branch, and Prosecutorial Branch, and States are denied the power to wage warfare, information warfare, or harass American civilians through his agents, combat troops, or third parties in the United states or from overseas. Any funds used for this illegal purpose belong to the People and States. Contracts used to enforce, compel, or organize this illegal activity are not enforceable, and contrary to public policy.

L. The Presidents are denied a presumption of competence until proven. The President shall always have the burden of proof, and is expressly denied a presumption of good faith until demonstrated with overwhelming evidence in public. An election result is not proof of competence nor does it satisfy a presumption of good faith, only of mastery to win an election through legal or illegal methods and deception.

M. The Executive Branch and Presidents and subordinate agency head, contractor, and employees are expressly denied any assurance any conversation he has related to illegal activity, war crimes, unlawful acts, or other threats to the US Constitution shall remain secret behind any shield, scheme, agreement, or technology. Any order a President or anyone gives to anyone to hide, destroy,not provide, or conceal evidence of illegal activity may be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty. This restriction against following illegal orders may not be bypassed by claiming the order was from a non-person, electronic device, or other non-Constitutionally recognized entity, database, policy, guide, or other document.

N. The Presidents are denied the power to use any combat force, technology, or other military weapon or plan against American civilians, except in cases of internal rebellion which only the Congress shall approve in writing. When the Congress fails to act, or abuses its authority, the State Governors may lawfully use deadly combat force to detain and enforce the laws of war prohibiting illegal use of force against American civilians.

O. The Presidents are denied the power to induce any civilian to take any action that might deny them on any Geneva protections as a civilian. Any order, ruse, scheme, propaganda, or unreliable information to induce anyone to wage war, information warfare, or any action to harass civilians is punishable by the death penalty, and may be enforced as a violation of the laws of war.

P. The President, when delegating any power to any agency head, agrees that that agency shall be organized as if it were a separate, lesser, and not coequal branch. Those agencies shall fully cooperate with the other branches of government to ensure power within the branch or department is divided. There is no single agency, division, or office in the Executive Branch that is beyond ongoing oversight by the other four branches.

Q. The President shall have no power to block the Congress, States, Judiciary, Prosecutorial, and Independent Branch from a having co-equal status to oversee, manage, and organize that lesser branch. If the President refuses to substantially comply with that requirement, Congress may not lawfully provide funding for that agency, and the funds return to the States and People.


avatar

You are certifiably obsessive. Take a valium and go get some sunshine.

avatar

What the hell did I just walk into?

I do not know but it is verbose and self refrential.

Mmmmm... Donuts....

...you have to read it to get "why TPM was denied access...".

You have to get the basic facts.

avatar

Simon,

I understand you wish to defend this poster, yet you must understand and hopefully realize that he does not address the request to provide evidence for his assertions.

In the issue I have raised, I have asked repeatedly for this poster to either post or provide the evidence to Wecht's lawyers in relation to the proof that the White House was involved in the contact of the Wecht jurors. This poster has refused to do this request.

It is a simple request of put up or shit up and guess what has occurred. If this blogger has such evidence he should provide it to use and Wecht's lawyers as soon as possible. Why I would hope that such evidence exists, I am coming to the opinion that it does not after reading the multiple blogs by this poster over the past few days.

The "basic facts" of this poster is that he has offered nothing. NO external links to evidence. The poster also offers nothing in relation to his links except to link to his other references to his other postings which offer no evidence. This fact has been noted by other commentors that appear to be disturbed and aggregated by what has occurred.


avatar

"We should all be as disapointed as Hunter S Thompson was at being left off of Nixon's 'Enemies List' if Bushco does not consider us un-American.

Posted by Larry Geater"

I was disappointed before Thompson was.

Calling Walter Winchell! --

"The "basic facts" of this poster is that he has offered nothing. NO external links to evidence. The poster also offers nothing in relation to his links except to link to his other references to his other postings which offer no evidence. This fact has been noted by other commentors that appear to be disturbed and aggregated by what has occurred."

He's a blow-hard who falsely imagines himself an "investigative journalist," and even that he has expertise in law. As concerns the first, hyping tidbits of rumor, and unievidenced this-and-that into conspirabunk is not journalism; and as concerns the latter, he doesn't have the basics -- an education in law -- by means of which to know how to view, organize, and contextualize the legal materials, let alone get his nomenclature right.

He falsely believes his giving it all the appearance of technical expertise by peppering it with technicalisms (however misued and or mistated) will fool the reader into believing his mental masturbations have some -- dire/politics of fear -- objective validity and application.

What he lacks in evidence he makes up for with over-the-top feverishness.

Post a Comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

This Week

Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, Leonard Zeskind

Next Week

Henry Waxman, The Waxman Report: How Congress Really Works

July 13-17

Justin Fox, The Myth of the Rational Market: A History of Risk, Reward, and Delusion on Wall Street

July 27-31

Plenty Enough Suck To Go Around, Cheryl Wagner

« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Versha Sharma



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address