This information does not relate to any person posting at TPM. For discussion related to Italian War Crimes prosecution in re rendition.
1. Released DoD emails show the President and others have been caught misleading the public and being unresponsive about information warfare and other programs he directed through the Attorney General and FBI against Wecht Jury Members and other court officials.

2. It is of interest to  war crimes prosecutors the President of the United States has been caught conducting illegal information warfare against the Wecht Jury Members. These issues have war crimes implications, and may be subject to review by the Italian War Crimes prosecutors.

3. The Italian war crimes prosecutor continues their work, and the war crimes trial continues against American personnel. War crimes prosecutors in Italy are encouraged to work with allied counsel to secure the documents confirming these planning activities from within the Department of Justice's JCON database.

EVIDENCE

4. The DoD doctrine fully shows how FBI and law enforcement would be used to conduct information gathering iii

5. The President's link with the CIFA information warfare was established in the DoD memoranda at 82

6. American citizens with access to this information are believed to be at risk of continued intimidation, with threats of prosecution for discussing this illegal activity. The President working through outside counsel identified specific persons who accessed databases containing this information. The outside counsel alleged the information on this illegal activity was illegal obtained. This was a ruse to obtain access to electronic records.

7. Allegedly involved with this illegal efforts are the data mining and translation contractors connected with the Department of Justice. It remains to be understood when the Attorney General will testify about this DoJ-connected information warfare against the Wecht Jury members.

8. The DOD documents show at 119 the White House was involved with information warfare against civilians. The President and others disagreed how that information warfare would be couched.

9. At least one attorney from the State of Texas is allegedly involved. Their name is linked with what appears to be a front organization whose members on the surface appear DNC Lawyers. However, the organization appears to be connected with the Republican Party.

10. The President's legal advisors are in a panic. They did not anticipate this effort would be linked with the DOD information warfare program, one of many expanded after the Sept 11 attacks.

11. Chart 1

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

President

FBI

USA

DoD

Information warfare

Wecht Jury

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

12. Originally, the President denied any link between the White House and the FBI interviews.

13. Chart 2

This shows the original ruses to break the link between the FBI and improper conduct.

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

White House  - -  Deny

FBI Interview

 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14. What the President did not anticipate was the FBI would be linked to him through the DoD information warfare documents. 

15. Chart 3

This shows the White House is connected with information warfare.

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

White House  -- DoD Documents

Information Warfare

- - - -- - -

16. The President was forced to admit the DOD email substantially confirmed not just the DoD-White House connection, but the White House-FBI connection on information warfare.

17. Chart 4

This shows the implications of the DoD-released Email: FBI is part of information warfare, and connected with the White House.

- -- - - - - - -

White House            - admitted, failed to deny

FBI Information Warfare

-  - - - - - - - - - - -

19. To recover, the President made an inconsistent denial. By failing to deny the White House connection with the FBI information warfare, the President was unable to reconcile his previous statements.

20. Chart 5

- - - - - - - - - -

This shows two groups:

A. White House and FBI

B. FBI and Wecht

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

White House           - Did not deny

...............................................--------------

FBI Information Warfare

----------------------------------........................

Wecht Jurors           - Accepted Qualification

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

21. Note Charts 2 and 5 do not reconcile. There is no way to deny a link between the FBI and President (Chart 2); but then substantially confirm a connection (Chart 4), but not explain the basis for the original opposition at (Chart 2)

22. His original responses in Chart 2 were made without considering Chart 3.

23. The President and the United States government has been discredited.

24. Outside counsel affiliated with the White House suspect their in-house legal communications have been monitored. They fear these transcripts are available to war crimes prosecutors. In response, counsel have transitioned some electronic efforts to computer platforms not obviously linked with the law firm. This change in work location is not to protect bonafide, lawful communications, but to thwart legal oversight of the war crimes related message traffic.

25. It is unknown whether these lawyers are directly working for the White House and have provided misleading information about their partisan status to create this front organization, or what information warfare training they received in Virginia. One of the contracts appears to be linked with information warfare activity out of Quantico, and other domestic intelligence activities arranged in New Mexico.

26. Information warfare does not narrowly include only media messages, but also unreliable legal information given to other branches of government. The President viewed as lawful information warfare against the Judicial Branch when FBI agents misled the FISA court, and the President provided Congress with legal argument to ignore the Judicial Branch of government. The aim is to provide legal arguments, information, and other data to Congress, deny the Congress a fair chance to independently review that data, but accelerate timelines to force Congress to comply with illegal activity.

27. One of many fatal errors was agreeing with the original assertion of the White House connection, without substantially expanding their opposition to that reporting, nor demanding the original information be redacted. Their demands were misdirection. Their original opposition evaporated for an illusory reason, showing the entire argument was a House of Cards, waiting to fall over.

28. Counsel associated with the White House participating in this effort are also allegedly linked with the ongoing investigation in Italy, subject to subpoena or arrest for alleged rendition-related war crimes. It is unclear what plans combat forces have to enforce these arrest warrants against named US legal counsel.

29. Legal counsel have materially changed their position, originally asserting the alleged war crimes were issues which could not be discussed. However, they then went on the record to discuss in detail the information gleaned through these programs.  Outside counsel has been linked with alleged financial fraud on major stock exchanges, providing financial services to the commercial entities involved with supporting POW movements.

30. Part of the information warfare against American civilians has been managed within the Department of Defense, NSA, and Department of Justice. What is not well understood is how non-US government entities do wage this illegal warfare against their fellow citizens. Their public loyalty is to one set of laws. Their real loyalty is to hide evidence of war crimes, create the illusion of investigations, and delay public awareness of government inaction.

31. The contractors allegedly complicit with this illegal information warfare are not just located in the United States, nor narrowly related to the telecoms. Overseas entities, which appear to be in opposition to the United States, work hand in glove with domestic, non-government contractors to support this information warfare against American citizens. These entities operate independently, and do not appear connected with the United States government. These entities are known to Members of Congress to have been created, but are not adequately overseen.

32. The evidence behind the President's illegal plan to affect a jury outcome hinged on many fatal errors, spanning the country and circling the globe. The evidence linking the President, DoD, and outside counsel to these efforts did not just surface. These connections have been developed over the years through various DoD installations, conferences, and telecom relationships between private industry and the telecommunications industry.

33. There was some discussion about the White House involvement with war crimes planning. There were concerns the White House was involved with the FBI Wecht Interviews.

34. Legal counsel and close advisors to the President are worried about war crimes implications. The jury members of the Wecht Trial were contacted at home. These home contacts raise substantial questions about the Untied States' ability or interest to conduct independent judicial review on issues of Geneva.

35. Key players failed to adequately explain their connection with outside counsel, or their involvement with contractors not directly or obviously tied to the Republican Party or President.

Contradictions

36. Originally, the dispute was over whether the FBI interviews were or were not proper. They were not. (Chart 2)

The Inconsistency

37. The White House changed the basis for their opposition from (a) whether the White House was or wasn't involved; to (b) whether they did or didn't agree the FBI interviews were or were not information warfare.  That misdirection failed. (Chart 5)

38. The President, not just the White House got caught on this narrow point.

Attached To Evidence, Original Denials

39. When the White House connection was established through the DOD emails, the White House could not change its position. It attempted to plant the seed that the opposition continued.

Media Relations

40. There was no dispute the FBI had been involved with the interviews, improper contacts, or the post-trial home visits.

Inconsistency

41. There are several different lines of evidence, from different conversations showing the White House approved an apparent change of position, while they privately worked to strengthen their position.

42. The evidence of the White House involvement relates to the subsequent communication with legal counsel.

43. The original concern was the White House was portrayed as being involved with this indisputable, improper conduct. (chart 2)

44. Yet, based on no new information, the White House reversed its position, belying their assertions and original concerns. (Chart 5)

Other Communications

45. Subsequent communications confirm those original disagreements (chart 2) were illusory and unrelated to the real concerns.

Inadequate Denial

46. The White House and legal advisors connected with outside counsel did not adequately include a full denial. (Chart 5)

47. The White House, by refusing to adequately deny, substantially agrees it was involved with the FBI interviews. (Chart 5)

48. In error, they failed to continue their original opposition to the points they supposedly had a concern. (Chart 2)

Failure To Deny

49. The ruse surfaced when the White House and outside counsel agreed with the change in reporting (Chart 5), but failed to continue their denial of the original White House connection to the FBI interviews (Chart 2)

50. Once the White House and outside counsel voiced their approval to what appeared to be an illusory change in reporting (Chart 5), they did not adequately explain the basis for their original opposition (Chart 2).

51. If their concerns were true, the White House should have consistently pressed with original concerns (Chart 2), but it did not.

Media Ruse

52. As long as there was no direct mention of the President's link with the information warfare against the Wecht Jurors, the challenge evaporated (Chart 5).

53. However, they reworded their opposition making it appear as though they've agreed to the change in the reporting. There was no change, only the illusion of a change (Chart 5).

54. The change has nothing to do with whether the reporting was or wasn't accurate, but how the reporting framed the White House connection.

Expectations

55. Looking back, the White House opposition to the connection should have continued, not yielded, and demanded answers.

Inadequate Explanations

56. Despite winning a an apparent qualification in the characterization (Chart 5), the White House was unable to explain why it was no longer concerned with the original information it requested or points of disagreement (Chart 2).

57. The President cannot explain why he and others originally opposed any suggestion the White House was involved with the FBI interviews (Chart 1, 2), but then reversed the basis of their opposition to the reporting of that White House connection (Chart 3,5).

58. The White House was unable to explain why there were concerned with reporting which casually mentioned the White House DoD effort (Chart 3).

59. The President's Press advisors have not adequately explained their original denials of their connection with this illegal information warfare effort against American civilians (Chart 2), not just jury members.

Failure To Deny

60. The White House and outside counsel failure to adequately continue with the original demands shows those demands were illusory (chart 2), but an excuse to intimidate and dissuade reporting of the White House connection to the illegal White House effort.

61. Personnel involved with the information warfare did not adequately deny their connection with non-US government entities or work centers not directly connected with the Department of Justice.

White House Information Warfare

62. The White House persisted with opposition to public reporting. As with excuses to retroactively explain the FISA violations, the White House sought new reasons to explain away the White House connection with that illegal information warfare against the Jury Members.

63. The original opposition was not over the suggestion the White House was connected, but whether jury contact was or wasn’t permissible. (Chart 1) Yet, unable to convince the public the FBI interviews were valid (Chart 2), the focus shifted to whether the White House was or was not directly linked to that illegal activity.

64. The error was when the White House shifted its opposition, but received no new information (Chart 5). The White House originally opposed to any suggestion the White House was involved (Chart 2). Once the DoD data mining was disclosed (Chart 3), and the White House connection proven, the White House appeared to score points, despite failing to understand its defeat (Chart 5).

65. The White House failed (Chart 5) to adequately continue the original opposition (Chart 2).

66. With the changes (Chart 5), he White House failed to satisfactorily explain why it originally objected to reporting about the White House connection to the FBI interviews. (Chart 2)

67. Subsequent reporting shows the opposition continued, despite an apparent change in position. The change was not real (Chart 5), as were the original points of disagreement (Chart 2). The goal was not to gather information, or clarify any issue, but to dissuade examination of war crimes evidence, and the role of the President and outside counsel in information warfare against American civilians and jury members.

DoD Email Problem

68. The White House was connected to DoD information warfare (Chart 3) immediately before they failed to adequately deny (Chart 5). Once the DoD emails were released, nobody could credibly argue the President was not involved with information warfare (Chart 3, 4).

69. The President was stuck with a problem. He and others had originally argued there was no connection between the President, White House, and FBI agents conducting interviews (Chart 2).

70. The DoD email reversed the problem. Suddenly the President was stuck with a problem. He had disputed the wrong assertion (Chart 2). He should have disputed, originally, that there was no FBI role in information warfare, But he couldn’t do that because he knew the public documents showed the FBI had a role in domestic information warfare (Chart 3).

71. The President had originally argued that there was no connection between him and the FBI (Chart 2). The DoD planning guidance shows this to be false (Chart 3). Information warfare guidance expressly includes the FBI under the umbrella of the President.

72. The President was stuck with several problems:

A.  He had agreed to a disinformation effort that sought to explain away the concerns about the FBI contacts.

73. Subsequent reporting shows the FBI contact was illegal, not permitted by the court, and known to the US Attorney to be outside what the US Attorney Ethics standards permitted.

B.   He agreed to disinformation that sought to break the link between him and the FBI (Chart 2)

74. Subsequent reporting shows the DoD information warfare guidance destroys this argument (Chart 3). The guidance expressly includes the FBI, establishing the link the White House wanted to sever.

C.  He failed to explain why he and others did not adequately oppose any suggestion that the White House had been implicated with this information warfare (Chart 5)

75. They thought they won a victory by qualifying the reporting, but this qualification only changed how the FBI interviews were or were not characterized as information warfare (Chart 5).

76. The President and others thought they scored a victory, but failed to realize they failed to deny something, nor continue with opposition on their original, illusory concerns.

77. The White House is stuck with a pile of inconsistent arguments, denials, and agreements. These statements fall apart because the White House did not anticipate the timing of the DoD disclosures relative to the information warfare discussion, FBI interviews, and collapsing Wecht Trial.

Fatal Problems

78. There were several fatal problems in the White House plan. The US Attorney assigned to the case first asserted she was directing the FBI, yet did not adequately explain where she received that authority to direct non-US Attorney Office personnel. The authority for the FBI to interact with judicial branch sealed information did not come from the Attorney General, but the President.

Confirmations

79. Non-US government connected personnel, linked with this information warfare effort also substantially confirmed electronic connections, discussions, and coordination. The public disclosures in the DoD FOIA substantially undermine the Presidents original assertions he knew nothing about the military analyst planning.

Information Warfare

80. Information warfare uses many people to attempt to discredit those with information about the President's connection with this illegal activity.

81. Multiple people were involved. This information warfare was highly organized. The DoD doctrine well explains how the Attorney General, President, and DoD warfighters planned information warfare.

Illusory Fact Finding

82. One ruse was to create the impression that there were active investigations. These have not started and were unrelated to any bonafide oversight. The Attorney General has not responded to these information requests.

Ruses In Official US Government Explanations

83. Another ruse was to pretend that court documents disclosed the ingoing investigations against the US Attorney. These court documents did not adequately demonstrate the Pennsylvania Bar with any investigation.

Inconsistent Opposition

84. They changed their opposition to whether or not they would agree the FBI interviews were or were not part of a later information warfare effort.