Outside counsel are worried. They believe someone has evidence of war crimes. Unfortuantely, they are not able to explain how that evidence was obtained, gleaned or developed.

This makes no comment if there is or is not admissible evidence the White House and FBI coordinated on the contacts with the Wecht Jury members; nor whether that evidence has or has not been lawfully suppressed.

Speculation Cannot Compel Evidence

Nor do we respond to any demand that any evidence that may exist is or is not something that must be provided. The government must prove that the evidence, which it does not know about, was or was not lawfully or unlawfully obtained. Defense counsel and the government cannot, on assertion alone, make the claim that it knows the evidence linking the White House to the Wecht Jury members was or was not illegally obtained, nor which war crimes prosecutor has that information under seal.

The American civilian population is not obliged to continue supporting this government. Our legal obligation is only to the US Constitution, not this reckless abuse of power. No American is required to meet an irrelevant burden to present evidence when the Attorney General has a stated policy not to provide evidence to Congress, much less enforce the law. If the Attorney General provides evidence to Congress, perhaps the American public might considering that information before deciding to change their mind over whether the United States government is or isn't implicated with illegal jury contacts.

FOIA reporting requirements mandate a response within days. The House Judiciary Committee has asked for, but not received a response from the Attorney General related to White House involvement with the Wecht Trial. The Attorney General has not provided an explanation why he has not complied with his statutory requirement. If the Attorney General had nothing to provide, he could say, as required by statute within 30 days, "I have nothing." He has a legal requirement. He has not met his burden.

Adverse Inferences

Where there is missing information, as is the case in re Wecht Jury-FBI contacts and the White House involvement, it is permissible to make adverse inferences: That there is an open question as to the White House involvement with those FBI agent contacts with Wecht Jury Members.

Appearance of Criminal Nexus

The Department of Defense information warfare documents clearly show at 119 White House and law enforcement on the same page when conducting information warfare. If this nexus of crime-fraud is proven to the court, that could deny the President and legal counsel of an attorney-client privilege. We leave for another day whether DoJ OLC or White House counsel are or are not the President's counsel or protected by any privilege.

Government Facilities Have No Standing To Claim Damages

The White House is a building, it is not a person. As a physical object, it has no legal standing to claim damages. Anyone may say, "The White House has committed war crimes." It is understood the White House, as a building, cannot wage war. The United States may not prosecute anyone for expressing their opinion, view, conclusion, or determination that the White House is involved with illegal domestic information warfare.

Plain Meaning

Implicate and incriminate are not conditioned upon evidence. They are associations.
implicate: to bring into intimate or incriminating connection; to involve in the nature or operation of something

Consider "incriminate," where the key word is "appear":

incriminate: "To cause to appear guilty of a crime or fault"

No standard of evidence applies to an appearance. There is no requirement that anyone have any tangible evidence for there to appear to be a connection, or for there to appear to be a connection between the White House, the FBI, and improper Jury contacts.

Admissible Evidence Only Required In Court

Evidence is only required at trial to prove the connection was real. However, anyone can, if close enough, be implicated. The question is whether there is a basis to charge that person with a crime. That is a separate issue, as are the claims of damages for a false accusation of a crime. This government has not met its burden showing it can be trusted. The White House, as a building or structure, is not the same as the United States, and has no legal standing.

Appearances Satisfy the Elements, Out of Court, to Implicate White House in Alleged Illegal FBI Wecht Jury Contacts

There is a difference between a legal standard linking someone with a crime; and a general appearance of a crime. The latter, by definition, is is opinion; the former, the is a burden of proof on the government. The latter is subjective and subject to opinion or public debate; the former is specific, concrete, provable or not provable in court.

Anyone near an alleged criminal enterprise can be implicated. The question turns on whether they are being formally charged with a crime with evidence; or whether they are believed to have the appearance of being involved. That latter would prompt an investigation; the former is the result of an investigation.

Before we can evaluate the degree to which there is admissible evidence linking by-name White House counsel with the Wecht Jury members and FBI agents, we must consider whther there is an open mind to answer that question: Is there evidence of what appears to be true. We're not there yet.

Closed Minded To Starting investigation of Alleged White House Counsel Connection To FBI Contacts With Wecht Juror Interviews

The government has the appearance of not acting in good faith. That is not a legal standard, but an appearance-standard linked with a fair comment about the White House being implicated with improper jury contacts.

Some would ask that we have a burden of evidence to justify considering the possibilty that the White House was involved. That defies reason. One must consider the appearance of something, then be open minded to evidence that may or may not support or refute that appearance.

It is curious, without evidence, some would argue that there is no reason to consider the possibility that the White House counsel was fully coordinating with the Department of Justice on these FBI contacts with homre jurors. Despite 119, some refuse to believe the White House staff names are on emails linking the White House with the Presidents information warfare against civilians through domestic propaganda. It makes little sense they'll have an open mind to the appearance of illegalities.

Why do some spend energy insulating the President from "undue" oversight, but they might subject those who observe the appearance of impropriety as something that warrants explanation. Arguably, those who make excuses to do nothing despite the appearances of impropriety have the problem.

Our job as oversight is not to explain our interest in gathering additional evidence; but to compel others to justify their lack of interest in the appearance. The excuses defy reason. 
Perhaps they have something more interesting to do other than defending the Constitution against reckless DOJ Staff counsel who are allegedly attached with war crimes. Perhaps the excuse of the day is that outside civilian counsel, not connected with the government, have a concern that information publicly available, but not understood, allegedly attaches those civilian counsel to those war crimes.

We have before us several lines of evidence substantially supporting the appearance of White House involvement. There are many lines of evidence supporting adverse inferences related to this nexus:

1. The information warfare guidance at III-4 showing the DOD, DoJ, local law enforcement, and White House highly coordinating the actions.

2. The DOJ OLC legal memoranda giving a green light to illegal activity

3. The DOJ's stated policy not to enforce the laws of war, US Constitution, or other legal requirements when DOJ OLC memoranda "permit" that activity.

4. The disclosed DOJ OLC memoranda used to justify war crimes, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and other war crimes.

5. The US Attorney Ethics Issues showing evidence of White House involvement with DoJ personnel who did not support the President's non-prosecutorial agenda

6. The Stated DoD policy to ensure there were convictions from Guantanamo, and no acquittals; substantially matching the appearance of a similar policy in re Wecht: Ensure no acquittal, through the FBI home interviews;

7. Inexplicable reasons for how the US Attorney obtained the juror names; creating the appearance of illegal activity, and White House awareness of an effort to transfer information from the Judicial Branch to the FBI and US Attorney;

8. DoD emails showing White House involvement with domestic information warfare at 119 creating the appearance the President views civilians as cattle to be milked of information;
9. FBI abuse of NSLS to contact people, collect information, and engage in fishing trips; creating the appearance they might do the same with Jurors, but fabricate a story should they get caught. 
The US Attorney's statements appear non-sensical, and appears as though the FBI did not anticipate the jurors might discuss these contacts the court did not intend.

10. DoD Emails showing at 82 a White House-connected contractor linked with DoD public affairs re CIFA, but this name was redacted; this creates the appearance the White House would like to hide its connection with domestic use of government resources to conduct intelligence gathering against American civilians;

11. The release of statements from the US Attorney saying she "authorized," the FBI to do something, yet the US Attorney has no legal authority over the FBI. She only has power to prosecute. 
The FBI falls under the direction of the FBI director, not the Office of US Attorneys; this creates the impression that she is taking responsibility for a decision made above her. 
Yet, once we include the court and the required access to court information, it appears the US Attorney alone would not have final authority to approve this data transfer from the Judicial Branch to the Executive Department. It appears, as with the US Attorney firings, the White House would have to be involved, aware, and coordinated as has been disclosed in the DOD emails in re military analysts.

12. The US Attorney Firing Emails showing white House and DOJ Staff involvement, communication, and discussion with the office of public affairs; creating the impression that anytime there is a significant legal issue, the DOJ OLC well coordinates this with the White House public affairs, legal, and political office. It appears the DOJ Staff decision to say "no comment" <i>after</i> the US Attorney made fatal assertions is related to a discussion DoJ OLC and white House counsel had about the problem with inconsistent statement attached to public issues.

13. The DOJ Staff counsel policy of "no comment" on the Wecht case, despite the US Attorney allegedly making reckless statements through others about the Jury deliberations. It appears they're not on the same sheet of music because the White House and FBI did not anticipate a public discussion or questions about the jury contacts.

14. DoJ-issued non-sense that post-trial contact with jurors is normal, while they knew or should have known that the juror names were sealed; and that post-trial contacts, after the jurors are released, is not permitted. It appears this is a hastily developed plan to explain away a legl issue because the US Attorney cannot adequately explain how it had the names of any juror members; and it appears the US Attorney has lied when they said, "We derived that name from the potential juorr." That defies reason and appears to be materially misleading, with the White House consent and coordination.

It appears the US Attorney, FBI, and White House are lying. The FBI claims they only contacted one juror. It defies reason that DOJ, in contacting only one juror would get the wrong acquittal-conviction result. 
Contrary to the real hung jury result, where the majority were learning to acquit, the US Attorney would have us believe they contacted only one juror from this potential juror list, picked the wrong name, and got the wrong information, but never spoke to anyone else to corroborate any information. It appears that defies reason and normal FBI approaches to evaluate the credibility and reliability of a witness, before passing that information to others. It appears the White House decided the (wrong) jury conclusion, and approved the misstatement to the media.

If the White House would like to remove any speculation about this cloud hanging over it and the Office of Vice President, it may provide the information showing it is not involved. However, the US Attorney General has not responded. That failure to respond, when there is a legal requirement to respond, may be entered into evidence in the forum of public opinion as an appearance of corruption.

Appearances

It appears the same crew which coordinated the US Attorney firings, thought it could get away with getting access to a sealed juror list. How they obtained that list is less important than confronting the core problem: They knew or should have known that once that list was sealed, any effort to attempt to contact those jurors at home would require actions, complex coordination, and other things which the court did not intend. It appears they contacted jurors, got caught, then used non-sensical reasons to explain their actions, how they obtained the names. It appears this confusion could not be something the White House was unaware, especially on a high profile case.

It also appears the US Attorney has issued statements recklessly to the public with the knowlege that that information about jury polls was not accurate, and it appears the intent of the US Attorneys communication about the jury votes was not designed to serve a lawful purpose. Prosecutor may only issue statements along very narrow criteria. It appears the US Attorney knew it was impermissible to issue through others these statements because the statements were qualified.

However, those exceptions permitting post-trial contact do not apply in this case, as the Attorney Standards of Conduct show. It's not the job of the civilian population to justify to anyone why the United States has an appearance of incompetence: That incompetence is oozing from every pore of the Oval Office and DOJ OLC legal counsel staff. We have alleged war crimes, and the DOJ OLC staff acts as if nothing is going to happen. That has the appearance of incompetence, not to mention the failure to timely respond to the FOIAs on that alleged incompetence.

We need not speculate why there has been no lawful confrontation: There is the appearance the Department of Justice employees have thrown their hat into the ring of tyranny, and it appears they have put their loyalty to illegal war crimes before their legal obligation to the Constitution, Geneva, and Nuremberg precedents. They appear to be alleged war criminals, and appear to have no credible defense as was the case at Nuremberg.

Even if civilians did have evidence of any illegal activity, what good would it do to share that evidence of war crimes, or evidence of outside counsel complicity with illegal abuse of power in violation of Geneva? The American government is not inclined to listen, but retaliate. This is the burden of the defense to present in court; but their action, inaction, or evidentiary challenge cannot wipe clean the slate depicting the appearance the White House counsel well knows it has a problem: It no longer has credibility, nor is it immune to reasonable doubts.

It also appears the FBI agents were not taking direction from the US Attorney, as stated, but they were acting under authority of the FBI director. It remains to be understood who worked with the Attorney General and Office of US Attorneys office to coordinate the transfer of information from the FBI interviews to the US Attorney; and facilitated discussions between DOJ OLC and the US Attorney to ensure the FBI interviews were probing for the desired information. As the US Attorney firing emails show, it appears the White House staff was fully involved with this planning, transfer, and guidance within the Department of Justice.

Yet, despite the FBI interviews, the US Attorney got the vote backwards, incorrectly communicating a majority voted to support conviction. Putting aside this is in error, misleading, and irrelevant point, this defies reason. It appears the purpose of the FBI interview had nothing to do with providing anyone outside the Department of Justice reliable information, but to understand how they might affect juries.

There is no evidence required to form an adverse inference about whether the White House has or has not been implicated. The definition of an adverse inference is an unfavorable deduction, where there is no evidence. By definition, there is no evidence. To absurdly argue there "must" be evidence warranting an appearance of criminal activity defies reason. It cannot be argued the White House is not implicated in the alleged illegal jury tampering.
The narrow question is why the burden of proof has shifted from the Attorney General in re his lack of FOIA response to other parties. It is the lack of evidence, which the government will not provide, as they are legally required, that forms the basis for a reasonable conclusion that there is the appearance of a criminal enterprise. 
How this is or is not invoked by counsel to pierce the attorney-client privilege is one for defense counsel and Congress to wrestle. They have the power to start an investigation, but want overwhelming evidence before they might consider the possibility that an appearance of an impeachment might be warranted. That approach to starting an investigation defies reason. Fortunately for us, they cannot hide from public discourse.

There is no legal requirement for anyone to provide any evidence to assert that there is a nexus when the nexus is self-evident, nor prove that the White House appears to be connected to that Nexus. That is subjective. That evidence is not related to whether or not there is or is not an appearance.

However, the White House is beyond merely "appearing" to be connected to this nexus. It is the nexus. The DoD documents show, as depicted at 119 the White House and law enforcement are engaged in domestic information warfare. The White House spokesman, State Department, NSC, and other senior Administration officials are known to have been highly involved with this planning.

There is no disputing there is a White House email showing the White House involvement with the US Attorney firings or the DoD information warfare against American civilians. See 119

The Department of Justice has not responded to simple requests for information. They have a legal requirement to respond, but refuse. They have not met their burden. An adverse inference is warranted about the White House and DOJ involvement with the Wecht Jury: There is the appearance of improper White House and DOJ involvement with the Wecht Jury members. That appearance satisifies the definition to implicate the White House, and argue there is the appearance the White House actively orchestrated the interviews, managed the media messages, and was involved with information warfare against the Wecht Jurors. Whether the White House can be proven to be conneced with that activity is unrelated to the issue of an appearance of a connection.
We have well met the burden showing there is a reasonable basis to assert there is more than an appearance of criminal activity, and have gone well beyond what would be expected to show there is the appearance the White House and DOJ have allegedly illegally tampered with this jury. We have met the plain meaning rule showing it is reasonable to forcefully argue the White House has been implicated in the alleged illegal Wecht Jury tampering. It is irrelevant whether there is or is not admissible evidence supporting or refuting that appearance.
Adverse Inferences For Failure To Understand Jury Tampering

Juries and fact finders reviewing war crimes issues must be free from threat. The US must show its judicial system is independent. Without that showing, other nations may prosecute these alleged war crimes. The White House must be investigated to examine the appearance of its involvement in information warfare against the Wecht Jury members.
There is an ongoing war crimes investigation through the Italian war crimes prosecutor. These prosecutors have issued arrest warrants for senior US government officials in the Department of Defense and CIA.

The President has abused NSLs, FISA, and the US Constitution. He has a known interest in meddling with DoJ-connected affairs using NLS, blocking DOJ OPR. That appears to satisfy the connection between the FBI, White House, and contacts with civilians.

The personnel on these DoD emails link to the intelligence community, CIFA, and White House email contractors. That appears to satisfy the connection between information warfare, the FBI, and the White House.

The President sent the signal to FBI agents that they can lie to the FISA court. There is an adversarial relationship between the courts and the President. That would tend to satisfy the appearance of a connection between the White House and efforts to do things the court has not permitted, or expressly denied.

The issue isn't that there's "no evidence," but the opposite: It appears to be an easier job to list those who might not be connected with this expansive nexus of information warfare directed at American civilians, jury members, and passive observers of these alleged war crimes.

The burden is on the Attorney General to provide the response to Congress. He is not responsive. The House Judiciary has issued contempt citations against Miers. Also, Barlet's name at 119 was on the list of people who received information warfare emails.

The public has no requirement to outline a discovery plan of the DOJ JCON database. Nor does the public have to gather any information, evidence, nor provide information how they are able to track information between two different computers. If the Attorney General would like to respond and provide confidence that there is no problem, that is his choice.

In the meantime, we've well met the burden required to form the conclusion that there is an appearance (implication) that the White House was involved with the FBI contacts with Wecht Jurors at their home. The government has provided no reasonable assurances that the contact was proper; or that the President was out of the loop on information transfers, nor unaware of how the FBI was or was not being used for information warfare involving citizens working with the Judicial branch.

The President has openly admitted that he ignored the FISA court, established new legal procedures, relied on defective DOJ OLC memoranda, blocked the DOJ OPR from reviewing the NSA violations. This President does not have a stellar record. His Attorney General resigned in disgrace, partly over allegations he lied to the Senate. This President's legal counsel are alleged to have issued unlawful memoranda, more than simply implicating them in war crimes, but potentially exposing them to war crimes adjudication. That is not an appearance, that is an alleged war crimes problem staring this Attorney General and DOJ OLC in the face for eternity.

This President celebrates data mining, prisoner abuse, aggressive interrogations. It means nothing for him to gag someone, pour water on their head, and make them believe they are drowning. The AG refuses to investigate.

This President enjoys the idea that he can invade a country, not adequately plan for the reconstruction, and then pretend it is the local government's problem for not timely recovering from the disaster this President created. The Congress will not challenge this President. 
This President believes tampering with civilians is permissible to achieve his information warfare objectives. It means nothing for this President to direct an attorney to lie, support war crimes, or draft memoranda that would "legalize" war crimes. It is absurd to believe that he would restrain himself on other issues involving civilians.

There is a nexus of abuse, illegal activity, and war crimes swirling around this President. That cloud is something Scooter Libby helped perpetuate, and was prosecuted for. Lying to a grand jury means nothing to these people. Refusing to comply with lawful requests for data means nothing. Threats of arrest for war crimes mean nothing.

There is no requirement for a civilian population to remain loyal nor assent to further abuses by this President. However, when the Congress refuses to challenge that abuse of power, it is reasonable for the public to discuss whether that government is supportable. This government has failed.

We must discuss how the US government should be denied power, stripped of authority, and have specific powers delegated to other entities. On the table is the required debate to ensure this abuse of power does not happen again. The burden is on the government to justify a reason why the public should continue supporting it. This government has not met that burden. Therefore, the public cannot be compelled to help this government perpetuate war crimes, or additional illegal assaults on civilians.

The burden is on the government. They have not met their burden. The Constitution does not delegate any power to the President to compel anyone to provide evidence of war crimes before making the adverse inference that this is an illegal, illegitimate government founded on tyranny. The government's burden has not been met. The people are not obliged to support this government, only the US Constitution.

There is the appearance of tyranny disguised as freedom. We do not need to see any more of the appearances of tyranny. We have only the requirement to rid this land of this tyranny. Those who demand overwhelming evidence of tyranny before acting shall be better led by those marginally competent to open their eyes to the appearance of tyranny.

This President has abused power. It appears he has abused civilian jurors who refused to be swayed by reckless legal counsel. This is not surprising given the White House connection at 119 with information warfare against American civilians. This President doesn't like the result. His answer is to abuse people until they agree with their abuse. Wrong answer, wrong decision, wrong civilians.

Either the civilian population will wake up, or they won't. The goal of this President has been to shift the attention from his abuse, to force others to prove something which this President will not admit: That his staff has orchestrated domestic information warfare campaigns against American civilians through jury tampering, NSL abuse, gag orders, home invasions, wiretapping, and direct efforts to intimidate people engaging in constitutionally protected speech.

If you want the appearance of anything, go to the DOJ JCON database, and make the DOJ AG explain why the US is not fully cooperating with the Italian war crimes prosecutor. Make them provide you the answer. When they refuse (again), don't come back here wondering why people aren't cooperating.

These people appear intent on killing others who dare to oppose their view. They've allegedly already done it. They've allegedly invaded illegally a sovereign country that posed no imminent threat to the United States; they have allegedly destroyed war crimes evidence; they have allegedly used the wires to violate our rights; they have allegedly used illegally captured information to justify war crimes.

Time for the American public to decide whether they want to continue down this road with this reckless, failed government; or discuss a new system of oversight that will protect rights, and will prevent the abuse of power. Here is a sample of what that government structure might look like.

The issue isn't whether there is an appearance of a narrow problem of jury tampering, but the larger appearance of unchallenged tyranny. What level of abuse would you like to ensure before you accept there is an appearance of anything. The public is not obliged to cooperate with the government's illegal activity, nor provide any evidence. The evidence of impropriety overshadows any demonstrated plan to confront these issues.

There is the appearance the government has a problem with war crimes and jury tampering, but is attempting to shift the burden to others. Wrong answer. The right answer is to discuss the lawful, non-violent solutions to this problem. It appears many would like to pretend there is no problem, or that we must have a foregone conclusion before we consider there might be an appearance of a problem.

It appears you are defective in your ability to reason. We need not consider seriously your request for overwhelming evidence. We have no legal obligation to justify our view why there appears to be a group of incompetent people, afraid of accountability, and expanding their information warfare against civilians. That is the wrong answer.

The right answer is to turn your inquiry to the Attorney General, and compel him to cooperate. The Congress is not inclined. We are not obliged to pretend the Attorney General is something other than what he appears: Allegedly complicit with efforts to intimidate civilians through information warfare, improper home jury contacts, and other alleged excuses not enforce the laws of war.

It appears you are looking in the wrong direction for evidence. We have no legal obligation, nor is there any requirement, to justify our view why there is the appearance (implied connection) between the White House counsel, FBI agents, and their alleged illegal post-trial visit to jurors whose names were sealed, and not available outside the Judicial Branch. The White House appears to know how the names were really obtained. Until they disclose that knowledge, it appears the Congress has no plan to challenge the White House. That is backwards. The plan must start first, regardless whether the White House agrees to disclose the evidence supporting or refuting the appearance of impropriety.
First we investigate. We will learn whether the White House implicit involvement with the FBI jury tampering is supported by admissible evidence. The White House, because it is the nexus of this abuse, has well established itself as more than the appearance of involvement. It appears there is no reasonable excuse to delay proceeding on that assumption. Our job is to show the White House that decision is no longer relevant.