Mystery Poster "Deep Modem"

Is mystery poster "Deep Modem" spilling inside info? Or creating chaos?

It has been about a month now since this issue appeared on DU:
kpete Tue Jul-31-07 12:05 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1479959
CLUES? - Bushco Already Caught? - Is This "Mystery Poster" Another "DeepThroat"?

kpete wrote: The depth of knowledge is stunning…this is really incredible reading guys, go there and spend some time ...

To those who have spent time, as advised, how productive has that time been?
And, kpete, please tell us what you have learned, if you took your own advice.

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

Let's back up a bit. I'm one of the Mystery Posters. That's right. Anyone who posts without placing something in the name field at TPM will be a mystery poster too.

So the first question is, "How many Mystery Posters are there?"

And the second question is, "How do we know which posts belong to the so-called "Deep Modem"?"

My first reaction to the first purported "Deep Modem" post I read was "free association disorder" frankly.

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

OBJECT OF THIS THREAD: To identify/assemble the Deep Modem posts.
Please place post links (DM Link) and quote as fair use allows.

And, of course, to address the wider issue in light of the assembled posts, "What is going on here?"

This thread is spinning off of:
Buttercup McToots Mon Aug-20-07 07:49 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1622835
Kpete...BlackHatJack...anon is back, Can you explain this to me?

B McT wrote, "I can't wrap my brain around it...can either of you explain?"

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003805.php

STUDY MUELLER'S HESITATION

I would encourage a "fresh look" at not just the transcript, but the _audio_:

<"Mueller: The discussion was on a National -- uh, NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.">

It appears he _almost_ mentioned "national security council" program. . . NSC is not the same as NSA. Another way to read between the lines . . ."National security program": Something that is _outside_ FISA; and _outside_ what the FISA current covers. . .although it was intended to cover _all_ things.

Listen closely to the pauses, spacing, and hemming and hawing. Mueller is dancing around something that -- it appears -- President and AG have said falls "outside" the FISA-coverage: This might be a Canadian-Australian-NZ-UK data transfer program: Whereby non-US interception methods are used, but the data is forwarded to the NSA through non-direct US means.

. . . .

Also, if the Senate's Leahy/Specter do not trust Gonzalez ..........

Further down the comments, again a no name poster says:

NSC-RUN PROGRAM, LIKE IRAN-CONTRA, OUTSIDE CONGRESSIONAL-LEGAL OVERSIGHT

An "NSA/NSC" supporting function/unit does not necessarily mean intelligence gathering or intercepts. NSA-NSC-related units can be assigned anywhere; and their intelligence gathering is not isolated to electronic methods. It could involve civilian contractors assigned to commercial entities not obviously connected with the US government; and not obviously involved with verification of Signals intelligence. The personnel may or may not have any idea that they are assigned to a group that relies on NSA-collect information or that they are involved with verifying information the NSA/NSC has an interest.

........

======================
And goes on to comment on drational's comment.

Follow on down for others:

Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:09 PM

Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:32 PM

The other was getting burdensome...

But noone is biting that bait. Why is it that DUers are not interested in the Content of the posts?

Mystery Poster "Deep Modem" (DM) = What is DM telling us? FORGET the MYSTERY part.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1655390

FISA Court to Gov't: Why Shouldn't We Disclose Surveillance Rulings?
By Spencer Ackerman - August 17, 2007, 2:16 PM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003948.php

Any thought to the idea: "third party data capture" = wiki IP data?

In the wiki summary logs now published, check the Washington Post-listed IP numbers posted for the White House. As an example, then, in 2005, look for the CIA-related updates in the special division; the White House personnel appear, based on the Wiki-IP data, to have received some specific briefing related to the CIA special projects near those dates in December 2005; or they accessed a specific document. Each disclosure by WH-EOP related to any issue is a key word you can enter into the RNC e-mails; if there are gaps, then you have to ask: Why are they searching for things "indepedently"? The answer relates to the other communcation going on inside EOP-NSA: They have non-official IM-systems which you have not been specifically made aware or requested. It's an error to only focuse on the RNC e-mails to fill in the gaps for the EOP-WH communcations on the US Atty firings.

....................

Posted by:
Date: August 19, 2007 7:07 PM

to not just assume that the White House Conspiracy
was just done with emails, whether EOP or GOP,
But that they probably have used private Wiki-like software such as Sharepoint
as well as some type of private IM system

So just going after the emails may not get us there.
We need to look further.

Looking at the IP's associated with the white house
and what sites they connected with
may help us to identify some of these Sharepoint sites

Thanks to Senator Tue Aug-21-07 06:20 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1622835#1629803
105. To kibbitz and kick -- a couple of things

===================================================
This series of posts is very useful and informative.
But, the writing seems to indicate a distinct writer. Comments on that take?

"Googling" has a long series of posts here regarding government officials using government computers to edit Wikipedia,
apparent violations of the Hatch Act that could result in their removal from government service:

CROOKS AND LIARS: FOX News Caught Re-Writing Wikipedia History
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/15/fox-news-caught-re-writing-wikipedia-history/

This is egregious even by FOX standards. Some diligent detective work by dKos diarist Democrashield has revealed that someone at FOX has been editing the Wikipedia pages of Brit Hume, Shepherd Smith, and Keith Olbermann (and most likely many others), removing substantially information provided by Media Matters.......

========
Just scroll down to the comments, beginning with #95 (or Ctrl+F "Googling").

Googling Says:

What’s the plan of the Congress to look at the IP updates of agencies supposedly “too busy” to respond to Congress?

It would be tragic to learn that the DOJ Staff and NSA personnel, while they were ignoring the FISA requirements, were spending time on the wiki-updates. Anyone in Congress interested in reviewing the DOJ-NSA Staff IP numbers; and seeing what they were really doing while the AG said they were “too busy” to process FISA warrants?

:kick: and 5th r

glc

Deep Modem's Blog Located? (breaking!)
by Freudian Slipper
Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:38:44 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/12/13246/2847

Over at TPM Cafe, reader "mtg" has just located what appears to be Deep Modem's blog. (http://constantpated.blogspot.com/) There is a HUGE amount of data on this blog, which, inexplicably, stops on April 13, 2007. Look particularly at posts from 2006, where the writer "Constant's Pations" gives far more detail about topics posted at TPM Muckraker last month and before.

All of this is happening as a big controversy has broken out over whether Deep Modem is a computer geek or computer "crackpot" and whether there is any process that Deep Modem has provided - for others to follow "step-by-step" as Mrs Panstreppon would like. TheraP at TPM Cafe is asking for your assistance in following up on these new writings and making a determination about whether it is possible to glean from them a process others can make use of: legal; technical; auditing; or activist. ......

with kpete's 1st thread...Lots of stuff but I think he might be
different like the anon over at CREW...or perhaps part of a group.
I wound up some where that he was posting and had been trying to
get info out on FDL and was kicked off. He said he was somebody...
LC I will pm you and you decide...
Constant...google him
B.
I gotta go make dinner...later

Digging Deeper into the new DEEPTHROAT
by free speech zone
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/1/101840/7097

.... I wanted to provide this as an archive of sorts of all of the comments being made by this person, as it can be quite time consuming to sort them out.

This is a long diary so sorry for that. Before you get to the end please give this a rec. if you want more to see this, since it will take a while to read.

Lets start of with a quote from out mystery poster:

..........

ACTION: Deepthroat (now Deep Modem) Research Team needs more volunteers
by B12love - Aug 02, 2007
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/2/2023/16425

Deepthroat is now know as Deep Modem (DM)

Yesterday’s diary got us a core group of volunteers to help begin pursuing DM’s leads. This diary will detail further action as we get organized and begin to put citizen action to practice.

For those of you catching up, DM leads are posted here (http://algaeawards.dbc3.com/reflib/) courtesy of Dkos member frogcycle. I do not know if this is an exhaustive compilation (yet), but it can start as our intial reference library. (I will contact frogcycle to let them know about our effort.)

============================
We have yet to see any product, TTBOMK, from this "team" and I suspect that they have nothing new to offer.
Deep Modem falls off the dKos radar soon after this.

Gonzales: Mr. Popularity
By Will Thomas - July 31, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003820.php


President Bush has confidence in his Attorney General. But only one in four Americans who follow Gonzales' exploits these days would agree, ....

Posted by:
Date: July 31, 2007 2:31 PM

The President, even if money is cancelled, might illegally transfer funds, as was done with Iran-Contra: That becomes evidence. Time to force his hand now and accelerate his timeline.

1. The Oath

Again, the _oath_ is to compel Members of Congress to do things that they would not _voluntarily_ do; their oath is not to the DNC, President, or GOP, but to one thing: The Constitution. If the Congress refuses to end funding for illegal things -- or things the President will not prove are lawful, as he can be required to do by cutting his budget pending a compliance audit -- then _Members of Congress_ are creating evidence of _malfeasance_ in re their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

2. Polls Aren't Relevant to 5 USC 3331, Oath of Office ...........

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

Scroll down for more DM posts. Look for the use of underscoring, a specific identifying style employed by this poster.

DoJ Responds to Senate Subpoena
By Paul Kiel - May 16, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003235.php

Nothing like an angry letter (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003231.php) from two senior senators to get results. Late this afternoon, the Justice Department responded to the Senate Judiciary Committee's subpoena for any of Karl Rove's emails in the Department's possession that might be relevant to the U.S. attorney firings. And the results? (pdf http://www.realcities.com/multimedia/nationalchannel/archive/mcw/pdf/usattorneys/DOJ-Leahy_response.pdf) Underwhelming. .....

Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 5:44 PM

This is very frustrating: I would ask that the Committee review their request. The issue is not just with the non-official e-mail accounts. The issue is . . . attached to the IP ADDRESS numbers.

For those who have no idea what this means, reconsider this: The entire focus has been on the RNC-emails. These are accounts.

However, there is a separate line of evidence that is public: Common IP numbers are linked PUBLICLY to the other websites that were used to transfer information, meet in cyberspace, and use instant messaging systems.

To reiterate: Rather than just focus on the e-mails -- and get distracted by whether there were or were not responses to the subpoena -- the Committee staff can look at the open records on the Internet of the IP number associated with the White House; then directly request -- without going to the White House -- the time sheets, work flows, and other taskings associated with those IP numbers.

For example, a given IP number in the White House at a specific time and location in cyberspace can be linked with other activity, comments, and views. .....

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

Again, scroll down for more. And note, no underscoring at this early date, May 16. Is this the same poster?

This was around the time I became aware of his postings -- in fact, I was posting to him in that thread and he was replying. I was bothered that so few were even taking him seriously, and some (fuzz) were even disparaging his posts.

I think it could be confusing to many who don't know the "catch phrase handle" for "anonymous" is Deep Modem.

Just a suggestion....

has posted a series of (to quote Residentcynic at dKos = http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/1/42635/43285)
"... around a dozen entries of profound insight to the inner workings of the Total Surveillance Program (TSP) and the FISA investigation happening now in Congress. The depth and detail in the blogger's posts suggest he/she is in a high level cabinet position. His/her intent is to expose the WH and its cronies, and to shine the light of day on the ongoing deception within the Executive Branch.

Further, he/she discusses the fact that the TSP began earlier than had been reported. .... "

FROM:
Blogosphere's "Deepthroat" Emerges
by Residentcynic
Wed Aug 01, 2007
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/1/42635/43285

This is not a very eloquent diary, but it seems to be molto importante.

Found on Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1479959) a reference to a blogger on TPMMuckrakers that is deep-throat-esque, and has sensitive information regarding Bush and Co.'s lies and obfuscation of FISA, TSP, NSA, and warrantless wiretapping investigation.

......

=========================
It is important to realize there are tons of "anonymous" posters, and some use that avatat or "anon" or some such name. Also, some people commenting at TPM who do not use a pseudonym, just leaving the name field blank. I am one of those and we are all, therefore, "mystery posters" as is "Deep Modem." And the mystery is identifying who is who, of course. There are many mystery posters and only one of them has been dubbed "Deep Modem." Possibly, more than one posters posts are considered posts by Deep Modem. Maybe there are even copy cats at work!

the Deep Modem could be confusing to those who might help you but aren't familiar with it all.

Peace,
koko

http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/big_brother_talons_on_you.html

discussing the thread of continuity of various domestic surveillance programs since Operation CHAOS in the 60s.

"Operation MUSIC" (supposedly top secret) sounds particularly interesting:

"Bush and Cheney have initiated a society of pretense of "business as usual,"..." Rove's Sunday morning round epitomized this. Everyone pretended he was not in contempt of Congress. It was as if we no longer had a Congress.

I've only just started the read.

Aaah, yes, and some of us know "MUSIC" all too well!
This is going to be an interesting read hereforth too.

Another Surveillance Program or a Lie?
By Laura McGann - May 22, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003268.php


Either James Comey was talking about a new, secret surveillance program in his testimony last week, or Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress in 2006 about the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program. .....

Posted by:
Date: May 22, 2007 7:26 PM

NARUS STA 6400: Comey apparently said that there was some illegal stuff going on. Wow, all this US Attorney prosecutor "inside information" suddenly shows up inside the GOP offices.

A. How many NSA contractors were providing domestic surveillance information through AT&T/Verizon/NARUS and providing this directly or indirectly through intermediaries to the GOP; what were the conditions of the contract and agreed to "immunity" despite Comey's assertions taht the activity was not lawful?

B. How did the GOP/WH leadership "know" about something that was supposedly classified inside the US Attorneys office; how many of the WH acdtions against US Attorneys are related to NSA contractors illegally providing through intermediaries this GOP-interest-data, in violation of FISA?

C. Is there some explanation how the WH staff -- which supposedly only reads things in the newspapers -- can get access to classified DOJ/FBI investigations related to GOP?

D. How many contractors have been assigned to conduct domestic surveillance; and have been threatened with NSLs/gag orders to keep quiet about the domestic monitoring that GOP relies on to get access to US Attorney confidential information?

......

================
WOW, the list of questions is long.
================

Y. How does Berenson "know" that his client Ralston has these e-mails unless he's reviewed them; when did Berenson review the e-mails; how many e-mails did Ralston get that Bereson was CC:copied on while he was WH counsel?


Posted by:
Date: May 22, 2007 9:30 PM

Why would AG Gonzalez suggest there was "another program" that was not under DOJ? Perhaps he knows more about the NSA and other program activities, but hasn't discussed how they STILL fall OUTSIDE the FISA Court, as is required.

Posted by:
Date: May 22, 2007 9:33 PM

Correction, < May 22, 2007 09:30 PM > "hasn't discussed how they STILL fall OUTSIDE the FISA Court, as is required."

Should read, "hasn't discussed how they STILL fall OUTSIDE the FISA Court, _despite the FISA/Court/legal requirements to the contrary_."

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

Here we see use of the underscoring! Scroll down and you will see more postings.

FreedomCrowsNest Forum Index :: Out In The Cosmos :: DEEPTHROAT 2.0

Where to start?

I am a bit flabbergasted by the appearance of an anonymous poster ......

So it took several days to find all his LONG posts and read them and re-read them. It's time to share. It finally hit the recommended list at KOS and so we'll start with that (though it isn't quite as clear as reading the actual posts were somehow. I think it is what the diarists feels is important and for such a massive amount of info, it's a good start.:

http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=61547&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=5c8723c2efa5a00f39a54a41b11e5a62

Logical Cosmic Rat = Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007
Post subject: DEEPTHROAT 2.0
Description: is this the pony?
http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=61547&start=15

Is it a goose chase to throw us off?

Well if it is I believe the cooperative effort of many, many netizen patriots will make short work of this voluminous material. .....

I'm beginning to believe that "Anonymous" is a team of lawyers and forensic technologists who have been digging away for quite a while, have accumulated evidence, and outlined a case or several cases for wrongdoing by BushCo. ........

Google Advanced search = "deep modem" site:democraticunderground.com
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=deep+modem&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&as_rights=&safe=images

=================
shraby Wed Aug-01-07 11:38 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1512525
Blogosphere's "Deepthroat" Emerges

This was discussed on Du last night, Dailykos picked it up this morning .....

=================
Buttercup McToots Aug-04-07 12:45 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1512525
Mystery Poster over at TP...Deep Modem

... I too am trying to absorb Anon’s messages to understand the big picture ....
The big picture seems to be that war crimes have been committed abroad.

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

Am I missing a major threads?

Is this additional Deep Modem information?
by braadkris
Tue Aug 07, 2007
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/7/22365/83796

I've spent most of my evening doing a variety of searches, in a variety of engines and I came across this site and the questions-to-the-reader type of writings from the poster made me think about the Deep Modem comments. The information is, if anything, superbly interesting, at least to me which doesn't say much. A particular entry caught my eye...more over the edge. ...

Iran: Cheney pushed in 1970 for Iranian Nuclear Power (http://constantpated.blogspot.com/2006/03/iran-cheney-pushed-in-1970-for-iranian.html) I performed a search on this site

The reason I am posting this information here is get feedback from other readers re: the posted links above and in light of the expansion of warrant less wiretapping, how this all might play together. ....

Daily Headlines
August 22, 2007
This MySpace for Spooks. This December, the U.S. intelligence community will unveil a new peer-to-peer social networking site modeled off of MySpace.com for its intelligence analysts and spies, according to MSNBC.

Thomas Fingar, the deputy director of national intelligence for analysis, believes the common workspace - a kind of "MySpace for analysts" - will generate better analysis by breaking down firewalls across the traditionally stove-piped intelligence community. He says the technology can also help process increasing amounts of information where the number of analysts is limited.
"A-Space," as the site is called, will be voluntary, because spies in the field are frightened any insecurity in the site may blow their cover and put them in danger or leak information damaging to U.S. national security.

A-Space will pack some other novel ideas that ordinary workers use everyday to be more productive including Web based e-mail; software that identifies areas of interest for analysts, much like Amazon.com does for books; and a document tool modeled off of Google Documents, which allows "users to create and modify documents and determine user privileges."

http://www.securitymanagement.com/today.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20379182/

my hero...

excellent!

Have led me to two conclusions:

1. He either has had extraordinary access to content from the EOP and other agencies or he has access to the logs of some deep packet scanning scheme that has captured content that has been flying around the Intertubes.

2. He is either a lawyer, as some have said, a group of lawyers, or a computer/networks forensics expert. He is writing briefs.

Whatever he knows, he is playing "finger pointing at the moon", likely to protect his identity(ies). The problem is the quality of his data seems so good that developing a similar quality of data outside of his circle(s) is going to be nigh onto impossible.

DM: If you read this(and something tells me you might), please, get yourself up to speed on onion routers, if you are not already. Then use them. Also chaining proxies. Also: Bittorrent, but that will take some REAL planning.

The poster(s) seem to have had experience with forensic investigations and the standards of legal compliance required in responding to subpoenoes and audits.

OF course if the poster(s) were responsible for implementing programs that generated or received the information, then they would be in a position to know this about the programs and disseminate the crucial information here.

Even so, the style of writing and presentation, and the organization of material, points more to a technical bureaucrat than a practicing attorney.

Forensic Expert. And come to think of it, his style is more like "findings of fact" than a brief.

Attorneys gather evidence and make arguments based on the law for the court to adopt the client's position as to the how the law should be applied to the facts of the particular case.

Judges listen to the various arguments of opposing counsel, make findings of fact to undergird the basis for applying the law, conduct a review of the existing and applicable law, and issue an opinion as to the application of the law as it applies to the factual case before them.

In that sense, attorneys act as advocates engaged in the art of legal persuasion. I believe the poster(s) here are more closely associated with factual decisionmakers. In that sense, the writing style and manner of information presentment tends to match the competence, independence and impartiality of an auditor or compliance director reviewing department policies or programs.

Because the material disclosed is related in more of a factual and conclusive manner than a persuasive manner I believe our posters(s) are likely not practicing attorneys --but may have law degrees.

My attempt at clarifying the 'big picture' in all this is that one or more 'insiders' are providing the rest of us with pointers to incriminating evidence that is in the public domain.

Knowing how and where the evidence was created gives them a leg up, and now they are sharing how that evidence may be located and exposed.

One theme that resonates over and over is that the Administration has already been caught and the evidence that will put them away is out there and cannot be hidden.

As Leahy asks, if they have nothing to hide, why the stonewalling?
I think the music is plain enough to them, and they are totally on the defensive.

Regarding the "big picture" in the world of us puzzlers, it seems to big for any one puzzler to get it.
It is as if we are working on a spherical jig-saw puzzle, with no way to see it all, at least not all at once.

I had a difficult time just trying to list the Bush scandals,
and that thread closed before I could do a bang-up complete job of it:

Yesterday was a GREAT DAY for Falwell TO DIE. Or, the Buffalo Jump to Hell.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x899312

But something else is going on. There is a pretend world afloat in the MSM.
Has the MSM reality become a religion, a mere belief system, totally ungrounded?
If one watched the Sunday shows, Rove pranced about as if nothing happened.
And, the MSM is letting him get away with that, instead of confronting the subpoena issue.
HELLO, Karl Rove, contemptous of our democracy, failed to appear before a Congressional Comm. when subpoenaed.
So, how can we not conclude that the MSM is completely orchestrated, excepting a few brave patriots?

In this midst of such a difficult uphill struggle, in that context,
perhaps we have some explanation for Deep Modem's voice.

Yes, they have been caught. But, like with victors and history, they are also still writing the scripts.

taken just before Congress gave them their wiretap crap

Makes me wonder what was flushed outta the brush that they were so worried about.



They are in survival mode. A desperate dick is a dangerous thing, unless he keeps feeling as bad as he looks in this picture.

IS it to protect the poster(s) identity and maintain their position 'inside' the Administration?

Is there some other motive here?

Surely there are people in other arenas who could accomplish more with this information than a bunch of bloggers. And I say that with no disrespect for bloggers, but only that disclosure of this material and additional material to make it more coherent ought to be made to someone who can DO something. A latter-day Woodward or Ellsberg. Palast, perhaps? John Dean?

The fact that it's all out in the open but totally incomprehensible makes me extremely cautious in accepting ANY explanation or extrapolation. Give me facts, don't give me teasers.

Edited to add: If the leftwing bloggers have this information (such as it is), we know the rightwing has it, too. While they may not have bloggers the caliber of ours, they do have various levels of operatives who could not only take this information several more steps but who also have the same or even better "inside" access.

Tansy Gold

The real coded message is intended for a few individuals only. The rest is just filler, albeit interesting filler, that allows prrivate communication without doing anything more incrriminating than reading the same online news source.

Another possibility is that someone is legally constrained from revealing known information, like some patriotic person forced to serve on a certain Grand Jurry. The person cannot discuss facts known from thar service.

So, with the help of a good atorney friend, contrives a way of doing as much as possible without violating theirr oath.

1: Several people using the Internet as a "drop" for information. We would have to assume, then, that these people are not capable -- or constrained -- from actually meeting or talking to each other directly. Could be in different locations, even different parts of the world. Could be legally constrained, as grand jurors, members of the administration, whatever.

Okay, I can buy that scenario. _But_ why would they then choose such a public forum as dKos, TPM, DU? If the information is so sensitive, why not hide it where few prying outside eyes would probably see it? Especially if the chance of the _wrong_ outside eyes seeing it is higher? I mean, if I had sensitive, even coded information, I sure as hell wouldn't be posting it where I _know_ the opposition is 99.44% likely to be lurking.

Also, if there's a _code_, these individuals have to have had some opportunity to establish the _keys_ to that code somewhere other than the current dumping ground. From what I can determine, no one in the present discussion has that key, and the "code" remains unbroken. Well, doesn't that suggest that they don't want any ol' blogger to figure it out? If they want the information to get out, wouldn't they make it reasonably accessible to the proper individuals?

If, on the other hand, the posters are individuals who are talking in _code_, maybe no one is supposed to know what they're talking about. And if the rest of the stuff is just filler, we're like dogs chasing our own tails. There's no there there.


2: A patriotic person _forced_ to serve on a grand jury. Is that reasonable to imagine? Wouldn't it be more likely a patriotic person _fortunate enough_ to be sitting on a grand jury? I've never been on a grand jury, but is it usual that people are _forced_ to do so?

So if we amend that to just a patriotic person serving on a grand jury who is leaking information from testimony presented there to a lawyer . . . . whoa! Aren't there legal ethics that would require that lawyer to say, "Hey, wait a minute, friend, I don't want to hear any more. You're not supposed to be talking about this, not even to me."

Okay, even so, let's go on the assumption that for some reason or other, this grand juror is hearing crucial testimony and fears, again for some reason or other, that there won't be an indictment or whatever. I'm not familiar enough with the workings of that segment of the "judicial" system to get the terminology right, but I think you know what I'm talking about. Let's assume our patriotic grand juror feels that the system will fail in this particular case and wants the information being presented to reach the public. Or maybe she/he wants _additional_ information that she/he fears is _not_ being presented in testimony. Putting such a request in an uncrackable code is not the best way to obtain the information! "Hey, folks, I want information (or my friend wants information) on a certain subject, information crucial to the future of our country and the world, but I'm not going to tell you what that subject is! You have to guess!"

Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe I'm completely out in left field on this. I don't understand any of the technical end, and it quite possible that my lack of understanding keeps me from seeing the essential picture clearly.

We already know there have been edits to various wikis made from WH computers. That information has been presented. We have the IPs and dates and so on. Okay, and what does this mean? What else are we supposed to be looking for -- and yes, that's a kind of editorial/rhetorical "we" because I readily admit I'm not tech-savvy enough to participate in the research. If there's software out there that permits anyone (or almost anyone) to hack into a server and find out who's been doing what where, why hasn't that been done?

(Note: When I saw the comment about capturing the opposition's email or whatever it was, the first thing I thought was, "Gee, maybe the Dems have already obtained ALL the email records and the rest of the business with the subpoenas is all for show?????") (And edited to add that it's in posts #54 and 60 in this thread.)

This is beginning to feel like an Umberto Eco novel. In a sense, I think the whole thing has resulted not in the intended results -- if there even are any -- but in a heightened sense of our own power. Again, that's a rhetorical "our," because I'm not directly involved. But there seems to be a sense of empowerment, a sense of urgency that's made us think we can solve this riddle, we can make a difference, we can find the unknown and crack the crucial code before the clock ticks down to the final explosion. And yet, while we're doing that, the real powers are rigging up the final detonators, knowing we're on a wild goose chase.

It's almost as if the little man behind the curtain is on the throne and saying, "Pay no attention to that great and powerful wizard. . . . ."


Tansy Gold

His postings led me to this http://www.abraxascorp.com/default.asp
and this http://constantpated.blogspot.com/2006/09/abraxas-corp-allegedly-engaged-in-war.html

but WHAT???!!!???

Links, links, and more links. Allegations, allegations, rumors and beliefs. Go to the Abraxas site and read up how Tom Ridge has joined their board. SO WHAT????

WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH. . . . . . ANYTHING?

Has anyone who followed these links and hints uncovered one shred of actual evidence that any named individual has done . . . .anything? Has anyone uncovered one shred of actual evidence of a crime, let alone a perpetrator?

I'm not saying it's not possible that there's something :tinfoilhat: going on here. I like a good mystery as well as the next DUer. But this is a mystery with no body, no suspects, no nothing. ANYTHING -- or should I say _anything_ -- can be a "clue" if you label it as such. "Exibit 2,567: A Wikipedia entry that was edited on August 5, 2006, just a few days before another Wikipedia entry was edited by . . . . ." Where's the connection? Where's the causality? Where's the result, or even the potential result?

Okay, so Abraxas may have committed war crimes. Why not put the allegations on the blog? Why all the effing _secrecy_ about something that's not secret?

As I said, I like a good mystery as well as the next person, and that's probably why I keep reading this. But I *don't* like soap operas that go on and on and on and on, world without end, amen.


Tansy Gold, fascinated, tantalized, but unsatisfied

is setting a trap.Or was.Shaking the bushes so to speak.

Did you read what else abraxas is up to?
http://www.abraxascorp.com/about.asp This sounds like how they are getting around the FISA courts.Private corps are not bound by Constitutional protections.
Then there is this http://www.abraxascorp.com/deception.asp
Why does this make me think Abu Ghraib?

http://www.abraxascorp.com/applications.asp

http://www.abraxascorp.com/global.asp
As a global private intelligence gathering company they buy and sell to anyone with the dough.If so,is info they gain from working with the us gov available to the highest bidder?Is info marketed with a winkwinknudgenudge from people in our gov?

So many questions.So many.
Stay tuned for another episode of As The World Turns

As a global private intelligence gathering company they buy and sell to anyone with the dough.If so,is info they gain from working with the us gov available to the highest bidder?Is info marketed with a winkwinknudgenudge from people in our gov?

What the hell has happened to this country...?

corporate interests. We are in political competition with BILLIONS of dollars in lobbying.
Why is your health care (hence your new GM car and other American products) so expensive?

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/

Top Spenders, 1998-2007

US Chamber of Commerce - $338,324,680
American Medical Assn - $156,695,500
General Electric - $138,540,000
American Hospital Assn - $129,982,035

It is noteworthy how diversions get interjected into investigatory threads.

Also, how significant questions are simply ignored.

"Who is Deep Modem?" is nowhere near as important as the material DM discusses!

Is there a concerted effort to focus attention away from the most insignificant aspect of those postsd?

I'm fishing in many ponds at once, and threw out some ideas in response to the question.

The underscore markup is just one more mystery, albeit only possibly.

The real focus needs to remain on the major issues, not the mysteries, would be my bottom line. Hopefully, another 2,000 people have read the comments and are getting exposed to Deep Modem's perspective on Bushco w/o too much distraction about the mystery.

It sure seems like "constantpated" could be Deep Modem! The music could be to loud in his domain to come forward.

TPM Cafe: TheraP's Blog
Constitutional Non-Compliance: One Nation Under Bushlegal
http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/therap/2007/aug/08/constitutional_compliance_the_problem_explained


Anon (Deep Modem) sets the stage:

"“They say, 'We need secrecy, but the reason we need secrecy is also secret, so we can't tell you.'”

Has this administration ever done anything to make you mistrust it? Maybe...but I can't tell you about it. It's a secret.

Posted by:
Date: August 7, 2007 4:31 PM

.....

Hi Josh, I would appreciate any feedback or editing on this letter before I send it.

Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Specter,

Thank you for your dedication and work as United States Senators. For years I have been concerned about the behavior of the current Bush administration and the Justice Dept. Your recent interviews with the Attorney General have only heightened my fears.

Before this administration, there was a commonly held belief that the United States believed in and followed the rule of law. ........

TheraP's Blog
Bragging About Spying? ... Information Warfare? ... (Project for Constitutional Compliance Wonders)
http://housebrew.tpmcafe.com/blog/therap/2007/aug/10/bragging_about_spying_project_for_c_c_wants_to_know_more

SCROLL down to:
On August 11, 2007 - 3:36am The Facilitatrix said:

This is what Deep Modem has been writing about:

Telephone Toll Analysis

This issue's link chart shows a process for analyzing telephone toll records, subscriber data, and other phone-related interdependencies. Generally, telecommunication (telco) companies provide some of the most consistent data because it is generated electronically - meaning that any subsequent analyses will prove accurate and reliable. ...

... It's right there in the first passage, but it bears repeating:

... basic telephone toll analysis concepts can also be applied to instant messaging, e-mail logs, and other electronic types of correspondence.

But isn't it a little bit funny that in some ways, we are doing to Anon exactly what he is proposing we do to the WH folks? (that is, follow the cyber trails)

He's sort of providing us a test case I guess.

I can't resist a good treasure hunt though.

Just thought you would like to know.

He's not a DC insider.

He seems to either be an attorney, or a teacher, in Southern California. West coast would fit with him not typically posting before 6pm.

He's somehow associated with the Harvard Westlake school in LA -- teacher? alumni?

I have zero doubt that he is the blogger known as Constant Pated.

To wit, check out these posts:

http://constantpated.blogspot.com/2005/07/conyers-blog-spiraling-despite.html


Hmmm... talking about posting to liberal blogs, not registering.... there's a theme here....

Or, how about this one:

http://constantpated.blogspot.com/2005/08/school-website-authentication-how-to.html

Doesn't that sound familiar too?

Eh, Mr. Mystery doesn't seem so mysterious anymore!

I don't think so. I could be wrong --but he/she/they seem to have enough 'inside information' that would make that highly unlikely.

And I'm beginning to think it's a she.

:rofl: But, maybe!

understands clearly what she/he can legally reveal.

This, I think, might be a good assumption to work from.

TT and friends?

No...they stopped him...
but some of his elves?

This was from two years ago. If you read the whole post, you will recognize the same thought process and strategy.

http://constantpated.blogspot.com/2005/06/deep-throat-apply-your-skills-to.html

Paragraphs are way too short in this example, and the rhythm of Anon's writing, including his use of syntax and idiom, is much more complex.

_strategy_ is a game, right?

What is with the underlining, and who does it? The underlining is first done by JNagarya, who is conversing with Deep Modem (him/her self?) later.

=============
Posted by: JNagarya
Date: May 16, 2007 1:16 PM

.... making sure the public _knows_ there is no "rush to judgment"?

Ever hear the word _strategy_? .....

Do the math:

Third in line for the presidency is Speaker of the House. If Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed, PELOSI gets the job.

Is it simply over your heads that Pelosi is exactly the WRONG person to be pushing for impeachment!?

Were you people born circa noon _yesterday_!?

=================
Is the underscoring some form of markup ???
=================

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003820.php
Posted by:
Date: August 1, 2007 10:56 PM

Perhaps, I am missing something: Are we sure that was an "amendment", not a direct markup? I thought the whole point of Murtha's "committee markup" was that it was done _in_ committee, _without_ a markup, and _not_ requiring an Amendment.

In my view, a "markup" means that _before_ the bill leaves the committee, the Chiar has adjusted a budget, and that budget is then in final form for debate. _After_ markups, amendments are added; before markups, those dollars are still moving around.

class Structure( *args, **kw)
Abstract base class for structures in native byte order.

Concrete structure and union types must be created by subclassing one of these types, and at least define a _fields_ class variable. .....

Here is an example type (Windows):

class _U(Union):
_fields_ = .....

http://docs.python.org/lib/ctypes-structured-data-types.html

I think you have gone deeper...
:donut:

I wish I knew more to determine if the underscores are significant by emphasizing certain words that are worth spending more time on, or just an unusual way of typing.

I could be totally wrong, but I just figured they were there in place of using bold tags or italics tags, much the way we use the **asteriks** to stress a word. I hadn't really paid attention to any HTML formatting on the original site. Are posters *able* to use HTML tags in their posts??

Just a thought...

When you post a coment on TPM, it is plain text.
No options for formatting.
I think the underscores on either side of a word are just to add emphasis to that word. Think bold for those words.

Try a web search in Google for the terms he uses. One of the results will be the State of Indiana web logs!! Yes, the same place he sent us to.

Why? Because the _field_ is used in a QL request, and when that field request turned up nothing was reported in the not found stats.

This seems to be a programmer would understand better than anyone. We may be dealing with an IT specialist in database query code.

.... and you would have to ask 'who' is the code maker trying to communicate with by posting at DU?

Not being a computer techie, I have no idea how common this style of using underscores is in the community.

But use of a code indicates there is a message of significance hidden inside the post, and that message is intended to be limited to certain recipients and withheld from all others. I doubt that is the case here.

BHJ ...

Waaaaay back, when there was nothing available but ascii text for messages, the standard for underlining a book title was to use an underscore as an underline. I think that just an underscore at the beginning of a book title in a citation, for example, was sufficient.
Example: _Blind Ambition; Dean, John W.

Using underscores at the beginning and end of a word in a sentence would be similar except that I would say that using them in that way is more like italicizing the word, rather than underlining. (I do this all the time and think of it as italicizing.)

So, when a word is underscored, Deep Modem seems to be trying to underline or even italicize it, but bottom line: He's adding emphasis to that word. Example: guilty of _war crimes_

hth,

glc

It could be that simple, a form of emphasis in a noformat text box. However, in the context of databases and queries, considering the more complicated _field_ definition possibility seems logical.

we may be seeing the definition of fields.

The markup is used in specific languages for that purpose, in the definition of fields.
This is more advanced than what I have taught, but is used in a language I have worked with.

Are these query terms that should be used? See this link for more:

http://spoon.gforge.inria.fr/mvnsites/spoon-examples/xref/spoon/examples/fieldaccess/template/FieldAccessTemplate.html

for providing others here (like me) a way to follow along on the questions.

:yourock:

Takes a lot of time to gather the threads together and your work is a big help!

It's taking a tremendous amount of time and energy for these incredibly dedicated patriots to sift through and organize this information during the middle of the week when they certainly have other commitments.

All of us owe them a BIG THANKS for their hard work and sacrifices.

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

lead to discovering even more, so thanks back as ever!

#15 & 16

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/22/maj-general-paul-eaton-on-bush-viet-nam-comparison-an-unfortunate-trip-back-into-history/#comments

August 22nd, 2007 at 6:38 PM - PDT 15 mister mix Says: does the administration read wikipedia? it seems this quote from bush’s speech was inserted into there. it’s almost verbatim and it’s marked “citation needed”

“Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese officials, particularly ARVN officers, were imprisoned in reeducation camps after the Communist takeover. Tens of thousands died and many fled the country after being released. Up to two million civilians left the country, and as many as half of these boat people perished at sea.”

Quote This Comment August 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 PM - PDT

Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Total_U.S._withdrawal

This page was last modified 17:37, 21 August 2007.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/08/mcconnell-kills.html#comments

When you are using things like this

http://constantpated.blogspot.com/2006/04/narus-sta-6400.html

which was assumed to be in the "room" in san fransisco for the 9th circuit case.

The other cool things in use are the IP deep packet inspectors. These guys are pretty impressive on what they can do with the major connection oriented (tcp) internet protocols http, ftp, nntp, smtp, pop3, etc... A big Lucent 5E switch does a million simultaneous calls. One specialized DPI box can apply rules to 6 million simultaneous bi directional tcp connectons.

Its pretty cool when you capture all the email of your political opponents, the DC madams list was probably old news to these guys. Plus the had the Billing to connect numbers to people.

Posted by: BillE | August 22, 2007 at 23:10

and that Query Language (QL) must define the _field_ you want to find in the text.
So you declare fields like _Bush_ and _Cheney_ to find all mentions of those text strings in the e-mails you captured.

The volume of material that Anonymous has posted made me think that he/she was cutting and pasting from several sources.

You may be onto to something here -- Anon may be pulling from email or doc searches to create these posts.

It does not start with Deep Modem, but he seems to have picked it up from the poster DM is interacting with on TPM.

JNagarya

This is the first instance in the four TPM links:

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: May 17, 2007 8:21 AM

At the same time, it is a useful "cover" issue, while behind it Congress continues confidential investigations about which We the people -- and, ore imostrant, the WH -- know nothing.

"For those who have no idea what this means, reconsider this: The entire focus has been on the RNC-emails. These are accounts."

As far as We the people -- and the WH -- _know_ the "entire" focus has been on the emails. Do you know for a fact that that is the only fact?

================
Here is the next instance:

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: May 17, 2007 8:27 AM

"If the Congress is serious about finding out about thie e-mail and the IP that is attached, why no subpoenas to private telecoms to get the information?"

"Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 05:57 PM"

Do you know everything Congress does in its pursuit of investigation? I'll bet you don't. So how do you _know_ there haven't been such subpoenas?

=================
Then we are given the BIG CLUE:

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: May 17, 2007 8:34 AM

_THIS Summer will be sizzling hot! Congress aready has sufficient hard evidence to begin the "show cuase" phase of the impeachment effort.

================
Here is the next instance in the same message:

The impeachment effort is further along than most realize. Meanwhile, most have been attacking the Democrats over the superficial public _impression_ they've been giving.

I just wonder if that is going on here.

snip
I looked at the TPM thread and a few points. *** has it right-that stuff reads from the Paranoid Style pretty well (sorry I was so charged up earlier, but some of those posts really have a NWO edge to them). Second comment would be: those posts seem to be clips from a converted document (especially with the misplaced underscores and funky puncuations). Third, that thread seemed too mechanical-like everyone in the thread was in on it (someone worked from a document and others were fed the leading questions earlier).

This is starting to have a "Downing Street Memo" or "TANG memos" feel to it, but I'll take a look at the comments carefully

?

Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 4:45 PM

STUDY MUELLER'S HESITATION

I would encourage a "fresh look" at not just the transcript, but the _audio_: ......

_audio_
_almost_
_outside_
_outside_
_all_

==========
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 5:37 PM

_use_
_support_
_look_

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:09 PM

_according to whom_
_are_
_is_
_overseas_
_not_
_poison_

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:17 PM

_far too scary_

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:32 PM

_outside_


=========
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 9:49 PM

_before_

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 9:54 PM

_illegal_
_before_
_true_
_that_

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 9:59 PM

_before_
_not_
_that_
_that_
_appears_

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 28, 2007 6:53 PM

_do_
_despite_
_someone else_
_Someone else_
_will_
_find_
_do_
_their_
_them_

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 2:04 PM

_known_
_illegal_
_alot_
_multiple_
_many_
_make_

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 5:19 PM

_cheaper_
_cancel_
_lawful_
_keep funding_
_illegal_
_absense_
_option_
_Q&A_

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 6:20 PM

_absent_
_should exist_
_Q&A_
_not_
_before_
_appropriate_
_procedures_
_classified information_
_not_
_auditor_
_audit target_
_does_
_Congress_
_follow-up to test whether the implemented solutions solve the _
_ problem identified. Either the program/solution is _

(Note: A slight problem with usage of underscoring here. See text of comment and you decide.)

_he_
_outside his control_
_president's auditors_
_observe_
_bait_
_required_
_time_
_designed_
_preparing_
_only related to this dummy audit_
_only_
_knowing_
_time_
_known_
_false_
_identify_
_is_
_line of evidence_
_of their responses, messages, communications, and documentation_
_outside their control_
_Your Points_
_they_
_known_
_despite_
_That's_

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 11:56 PM

_EO_
_32 CFR 2800_
_does_
_do_
_standards listed_
_legally enforceable_
_must_
_known_
_claims_
_fail_
_existence_
_expectation_
_destroy_
_claim_
_court_
_about missing data_
_illegally destroyed_
_not required_
_court_
_court recognized_
_claim_
_not_
_undermine_
_really_
_while_
_assertions_
_believed_
_retroactively_
_dubious belief_
_dubious assertion of what was a belief_
_for the Grand Jury_
_then_
_claim_
_time_
_what_
_When_
_after_
_after_
_previously_
_for some time_
_problematic data_
_destroyed_
_while_
_responding to_
_discrete events_
_leaks_
_publicly_
_after_
_did_
_were_
_war crimes prosecution obstruction_
_war crimes evidence_
_transferring_
_real_
_their complicity_

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 30, 2007 5:58 PM

Reading the coed message now.

ALSO, I thin I found a second encryption,
one far _more_ complex to decode.
One I have used _before_ mysekf.

no doubt, the email of political opponents was/is being captured

This is how billions of e-mails and phone calls can be spied on. Computers do the search functions and humans monitor the results.

Billions and billions of transmissions are searched for keywords and phrases using this "technique."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_office_that_handles_freedom_0823.html

There is a valuable source of information. It is about this subject. There is a way to bypass this obstacle. If you visit the "White House Office of Administration"-wiki entry, look at all the IP updates.

One of the law firms listed as making updates to this wiki entry is staffed by personnel who formely worked in the White House General Counsel's office; and they also know something about FISA, NSA, and various allegations of Geneva vilations.

Why is this relevant? Once the law firm making this wiki-update is identified, this becomes irrelevant:{"not subject to the Freedom of Information Act as part of its effort to fend off a civil lawsuit seeking the release of internal documents about a large number of e-mails missing from White House servers"}

The e-mails into/out of WH Info office are not only related to the WH; but are also related to the firms outside the WH which have made updates to the wiki. Ask the firms who have made updates to the wiki to provide a copy of all RNC-emails sent into the RNC, WH IT office, and EOP.

Then consider the EOP wiki updates, and find those IP numbers that match the e-mails on the memoranda/e-mails sent to these firms. Once disclosed, the legal counsel who have made updates to the wiki cannot claim that it is protected or privilged. No, it's been disclosed.

Other clients of this law firm will have to ask: How much has this law firm disclosed in other formats which are not protected, and also publicly avaiable as is the case with these wiki updates. Lawyers cannot claim attorney-client privilge when that law firm has pubilcly disclosed information on the wiki.

Use the recently disclosed software related to wikis that will help you identfy the IP numbers related to the formely assigned WH counsel; identify those law firms making wiki updates to WH-EOP-RNC related content; then ask those law firms to disclose all e-mails which related to content they hae disclosed on the wiki.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 08.23.07 - 11:57 am
Direct link to this comment

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

Even accidental and limited disclosures of client confidences takes the shield of the attorney/client privilege off the table. Once public, no privilege.

THat is why lawyers have to guard client confidences zealously.

... however, the scope of Executive Privilege could cover this, but most Courts consider information that has found its way into the public domain to no longer be privileged --even if the disclosure was inadvertant, accidental or intentional.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003805.php

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 30, 2007 5:58 PM

_state_
_failed to deny_
_changed their position_
_date_
_subset_
_right now_

==========
Posted by:
Date: July 30, 2007 6:24 PM

_could not defend_
_concern_
_did_
_despite_

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 30, 2007 7:08 PM

_BEFORE_
_end_
_left_
_# left to right]:
- Col_
_4: DocTYpe: Initial Filing
- Col_
_contractors_
_contractor_
_contradict_
_oustide_

=============================
Fishing. Maybe the _two_ encryption techniques must be used together forr a cypher _???_

Link corrrected on edit :-)

they are some kind of word format left over
from converting a doc from one style to another?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003820.php

While it is an interesting word list, a particular meaning is not immediately evident in the markup.

=========
Posted by:
Date: July 31, 2007 2:31 PM

_oath_
_voluntarily_
_Members of Congress_
_malfeasance_
_might_
_hole_
_real_
_illegal_
_president's_
_evidence_
_budget power_
_DNC and GOP_
_The Constitution_

=========
Posted by:
Date: August 1, 2007 10:56 PM
(This comment discusses 'markups' in legislation.)

BY Scott Horton - August 23, 2007
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000989

....sources within the administration have now repeatedly suggested that this is why Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card made their nighttime visit to the hospital bedside of John Ashcroft: to get his signature on a document intended to pacify service providers who were cooperating with the Administration in its surveillance programs and who recognized that in doing so they were almost certainly violating both FISA and several state statutes which make warrantless surveillance a serious felony. ....

.... Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has confirmed a significant part of these suspicions. And he made a simply astonishing number of further statements—all reaching into areas which, up to this point, the Administration has insisted were highly classified national security information which could not be shared with the public, nor indeed with many members of Congress. .....

.......the Administration has insisted that all specifics about these rulings are strictly secret and cannot be disclosed. Then, of course, a prominent G.O.P. politician did just that. So by discussing them himself, McConnell is letting Rep. Pete Hoekstra, who leaked this information in an interview with the Bush-friendly New York Post off the hook. This is same-old, same-old: namely in the Bush Administration, secrets exist and evaporate as it suits the partisan political needs of the Administration on any particular day. ....

================
Spy chief reveals classified details about surveillance
By Katherine Shrader AP - 08/22/2007
http://www.elpasotimes.com/rds_archivesearch/ci_6689723?IADID=Search-www.elpasotimes.com-www.elpasotimes.com

WASHINGTON -- National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell pulled the curtain back on previously classified details of government surveillance and of a secretive court whose recent rulings created new hurdles for the Bush administration as it tries to prevent terrorism.

During an interview with the El Paso Times last week, McConnell made comments that raised eyebrows for their frank discussion of previously classified eavesdropping work conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA.

A transcript was posted online on Wednesday: http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci-6685679

# McConnell confirmed for the first time .........

Is McConnell all of a sudden, stepping in front of the headlights?

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-many-americans-might-be-under.html


notice the dm

I read this blog alot and I never noticed
dm /4...
BHJ? LC?

The DNI (in the recent interview) said: "Now the second part of the issue was under the president's program, the terrorist surveillance program, the private sector had assisted us. Because if you're going to get access you've got to have a partner and they were being sued. Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies. So my position was we have to provide liability protection to these private sector entities. So that was part of the request."

Does anyone want to comment on how this comment will effect the state secrets privilege claims in Hepting (issue recently argued before the 9th Cir.) and in the consolidated state cases (summary judgement in N.D. Cal. recently deferred pending outcome of Hepting)?

It seems likely that the state secrets claim will be weakened by an admission by a government official that not only did some private companies assist with the surveillance, but apparantly some of the specific defendants in these suits assisted. Even before this disclosure, the panel in the 9th Cir. oral argument already seemed to be leaning toward a conclusion that public disclosures about this program had limited the applicability of the state secrets or Totten docrines. In fact, one could argue that the Totten docrine (subject of suit is secret espionage agreement) is now totally inapplicable.

Is the DNI perhaps trying to force Congress to grant retroactive immunity by sabotaging the ongoing suits?

# posted by dm : 10:01 AM





Sorry for the typos. Please read as "doctrine".

# posted by dm : 10:06 AM

dm = Blogger Since August 2007
Would than not be an unexpected irony, hidden in plain sight?

Sorry for the typos. Please read as "doctrine".

Therre are for typos: judgement, apparantly, docrines, docrines

?? ======================== ??
DTIC http://www.dtic.mil/

Joint Doctrine Division
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/index.html

Joint Doctrine Branch: -=- Promote joint doctrine awareness and manage the development of joint doctrine
to improve joint, interagency, and multinational Interoperability and to enhance CINC warfighting capabilities.

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

Isn't CINC "Commander-in-Chief"?

There is more there, I just grabbed a bit...not being sure that it might be the same things he posted everywhere he went.

He has got to be a lawyer...



http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/shall.html

There is a major problem: Executive Orders passed after Sept 2001, specifically defined the Vice President as an Executive Officer.

b) The Council shall have as its members the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Transportation, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, and such other officers of the executive branch as the President may from time to time designate.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13228.htm

It's very interesting what Addington and Cheney are pointing to, but irrelevant: At best evidence of their denial; at worst, evidence of their aim to hide illegal activity they were personally involved. Their problem is the President has defined them as being what they would have us believe they are not: Executive Officers.

Adverse Inferences

Once the smokescreen lifts, it's more likely Addington's memo was not a bonafide effort to protect a secret, or assert a credible legal position with respect to audit compliance, but to hide evidence of illegal activity which Addington, himself, was complicit.

This invokes DC Bar Rule 1.16, compelling counsel to resign when their legal services are, as it appears the case here, to e used for illegal activity.

I reject any notion that there is "confusion" in any EO about where the OVP sits; or that Addington does not know about the EOs passed. The above EO was passed in the post 9-11 era, which Addington knew, or should have known. These are issues of disbarment for the DC bar; if the Congress refuses to impeach -- as they have done -- the question goes back to the 50 state legislatures: When are you going to document your proclamation calling for the Congress to impeach Addington; and work with your state attorney general to prosecute Addington and Cheney outside impeachment?

Either State officials assert their oath, call for impeachment, and provide leadership to prosecute this sitting President and Addington outside Congress; or they too may be subject to prosecution for failing to assert all lawful options to defend this Constitution.

Prosecute, or be prosecuted.

Posted by: Anon | June 27, 2007 at 17:30

Anon

I kind of like that argument, even me with my sick fascination and belief that Addington recognizes the rule of law.

Neil

I've asked the powers that be to watch for good clips--thanks for that heads up and the earlier one.

Posted by: emptywheel | June 27, 2007 at 17:33

Anon,

Thanks for your arguement. Can you give more details on "how" you would guide one to approach an Attourney of State to prosecute? Ohio's has been quite active in "looking back" and addressing illegal activity of the past Gov's administration in Ohio. She may be a good place to start such a move. However, didn't the state of Vermont start this process? And on June 20th didn't word come out on DailyKos that Dennis Kucinich has 8 sponsors for a vote to investigate Cheney for impeachment?

Posted by: KLynn | June 27, 2007 at 17:59


BMaz, I hear you. Than you. However, look at the date of the EO: 2001; the same time when Gonzalez was WH Counsel. The Conyers/Waxman letter of today asks what happened: Did AG not have a view of OVP in re Executive Branch?

Here's the EO from 2001, which AG and Addington have not addressed, but are stuck with:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/shall.html#comments

If we assume Gonzalez as WH Counsel in 2001 had something to do with this other EO; and that EO did include guidance -- which has not changed -- that identify VP as an executive officer, the question is: Why is AG enforcement, and OVP interpretation not consistent with what WH Counsel in 2001 agreed with the EO: That VP was an executive Officer?

Looking at 32 CFR 2800 throws the issue into the air: OVP never addresses whyit blocked auditors from reviewing the CFR requirements which related to the same issues in the EO: Security. OVP has not addressed the CFR requirements which remain in force.

All EOP Memoranda for the 2001 EO would support the opposite conclusion, and compel AG to answer: Why despite the EO in 2001 that found OVP was an executive officer, was the statute not enforced; and why no enforcement of 32 CFR 2800 in re OVP security requirements?

AG cannot answer: Because he's part of the destruction of evidence which OVP is orchestrating, at the heart of the refusal to block the archivist.

I see no other explanation; and AG cannot explain why he's delayed responding to something that has not changed since 2001 -- EO language which defines the VP As being an Executive Officer. AG cannot explain why 32 CFR 2800 was not enforced by this AG while Gonzalez was in place.

AG would have had to create memos in WH Counsel's office supporting the 2001 EO. That's the subject of the current subpoena, or should be. Keep at it!

Broader Security Obligation of OVP

Whether the EO or CFR applies is a red herring: They both do; and the AG and Addington have not addressed why the 32 CFR 2800 requirements were not subject of the audits. They're essentially the same requirements, but in a different rule: Not an EO, but the CFR, which, by the way, reference EOs which OVP says they're not subject....

Anyway, whether Addington does or does not focus on "this" EO; or "another EO" is meaningless. Consider 32 CFR 2800 which imposes a legal duty. We're not trying to argue whether Addington is right or wrong; but whether the security requirements within any rules, including 32 CFR 2800, are or are not applicable. Indeed, Addington is silent on the same requirements in 32 CFR 2800 which exist in the disputed EO; but this does not mean that the "non disputed" 32 CFR 2800 requirements do not exist; only that OVP has not explained why they did not permit the audits of these security requirements.

Think of an expanding circle of problems which OVP is attempting to explain away with non-sense. When one argument breaks down, the circle of problems expands, especially when there are other requirements in the CFR that are never addressed as they should.

Posted by: Anon | June 27, 2007 at 18:06

KLynn,

Yes, there is guidance on prosecuting a sitting vice President. Jonathan Turley at Georgetown Wrote on this. He's still there.

Jonathan Turley, “From Pillar to Post”: The Prosecution of Sitting Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049-1106 (2000)
The issue: Impeachment is assumed to be used as the primary means to enforce the law. Even Ashcroft mentioned that, when impeachment was an option, it shall be used first.

However, today's situation, with impeachment off the table, prosecution remains an option.

1. Approach

KLynn "Can you give more details on "how" you would guide one to approach an Attorney of State to prosecute?"

Encourage the pubic to review the Turley Article; discuss the issue with Turley; and see if the AGs and other legal counsel in your state are interested in doing what Members of Congress refuse: Fully assert their oath.

The basis for the States to act is on the grounds of ensuring there is an enforcement mechanism, as guaranteed under the Constitution.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section4
A republican form of government is one that has an enforcement mechanism. When Congress refuses to impeach, blocks state proclamations, and will not respond to State AG efforts to prosecute the VP or Members of Congress, the Members of Congress have violated their oath of office, 5 USC 3331 in not seeing that all lawful options are used to defend the Constitution. Inaction in Congress is not a problem, but evidence that prosecutions must be used outside Congress and outside impeachment.

Focus on the AGs in the states that are serious about the privacy issues in re NSA litigation. Those AGs show independence, and are willing to act.

Encourage members of the community to discuss the issues at an open forum with legal counsel; and ask legal counsel about their oath; and their views on the impeachment-prosecution tradeoff. If they balk, ask them why Ashcroft talked about prosecution, but hoping impeachment was used instead.

Today, it's clear there is no impeachment plan; and it has not support. the question goes to the State legal community-- are we going to defend this Constitution against the US government that refuses to use all lawful options? Those who refuse could be prosecuted, per 5 USC 3331.

2. House Rule 603 Is Different That State Prosecutions

KLynn: "However, didn't the state of Vermont start this process?"

You are correct Vermont is involved with House Rule 603 -- a rule permitting state proclamations calling for impeachment. This is different. rather than a state legislature passing a proclamation, the Vermont AG would have to lead this prosecution, if the VT AG wanted to act.

3. Congressional Inaction On Impeachment Means Prosecutions Must Continue

KLynn: "And on June 20th didn't word come out on DailyKos that Dennis Kucinich has 8 sponsors for a vote to investigate Cheney for impeachment?"

True, but if the Congress will not impeach, then prosecution must be used outside Congress. Inaction on impeachment isn't an excuse, but evidence of members of Congress not fully asserting their oath. Two options: Impeach or prosecute. Congress is blocking both. that is illegal; and they're thwarting State efforts to pass proclamations. Evidence of them defying their oath.

Summary

House Rule 603 is a rule allowing the congress to review state proclamations calling for impeachment. There are two options to compel the vice President to assent to the rule of law: First is through impeachment, which then-Senator Ashcroft in re Clinton support; or prosecution, if impeachment is not an option, as is the case.

However, the problem is wider: Once Members of Congress refuse to impeach, and they block states from passing impeachment proclamations, that is not a problem: But evidence that the only option is to prosecute. Congress cannot have it both ways: Arguing "we'll take care of it, and do nothing," but then block State efforts to compel Congress to act.

The State Proclamation effort through House Rule 603, because it has been thwarted, is sufficient evidence for the State AG's to conclude that prosecutions of this VP outside impeachment must commence. To not act would send a clear signal: Despite them knowing, or should knowing their duty to protected the Constitution, they refused. That is a basis to prosecute the State AG's for their oath of office violations.

Posted by: Anon | June 27, 2007 at 18:33

Anon - For the sake of argument (and pretty much overall anyway) I agree with your last. These clucks have not done anything proper or in keeping with their duties whatsoever. And, yes, you can absolutely throw abu Gonzales in there too. My only point was that you aren't going to make any headway on the basis of Addington's letter; it was complete BS, but plenty slippery enough that it would not serve as a basis for action on ethical rules or otherwise. These guys may not have a leg to stand on; but they are still dancing pretty fast, and Addington is a master rug cutter.

Posted by: bmaz | June 27, 2007 at 18:39


OVP Security Requiremnts: EO vs CFR -- The Coffee Analogy

One clarification on 32 CFR 2800. Think of this standard as one of many. Just because OVP says that the EO does or does not apply, this does not mean the 32 CFR 2800 requirement goes away. Here's an analogy. Suppose there are inspection rules for trucks which say that a specific rule shall be enforced on a particular kind of coffee; however, suppose there is a second set of rules -- unrelated -- related to the types of bags and packaging.

We have two rules. They related to coffee: The coffee itself; and the packaging. Just because the President might say, "I will not follow the rules on the coffee," it doesn't mean the rules about the packaging go away. Rather, auditors, even if they are blocked from inspecting the coffee itself, are still required to do the audits on the packaging.

Even if we consider Bush's rejection of the coffee rules, and not allow inspections of coffee, the rules abut the packaging remain in place and still apply. The problem is when Bush attempts to use his blocking of the inspection of coffee -- which is illegal -- as the basis to block inspection of the packaging. Even if we were to accept the premise that the President can block enforcement of coffee inspections, he's done nothing to explain why the packaging inspections, the rules, and the reports do not exist.

Narrowly Blocking Coffee Inspections Does Not Block Broader, Separate, Required Packaging Audits or Applicablity of Other Standards Unrelated to Coffee Grounds

32 CFR 2800 is like a different way of looking at the OVP. Yes, the President may say that an EO does or doesn't apply; but his narrow assertion that a given EO does or does not apply does not mean other rules, in this case the CFR, go away. Rather, the issue is: Even through Bush has rejected the EO as a basis to assent to regulation, his narrow focus on the EO fails to respond to the existing security requirements within 32 CFR 2800.

Even if Bush blocks an inspection of the coffee by saying an EO doesn't apply, but hasn't addressed why the packaging was not inspected; or why the 32 CFR 2800 was not reviewed. Indeed, the way to find out if we have good coffee isn't to just look at the coffee, but we can use the inspections of the packaging to then get access to the coffee and conduct the inspections separately on the grounds. What Bush did was block only part of the oversight; but he hasn't negated all laws and all avenues from Congress looking at the same things: The coffee, the packaging, and whether the President, VP, and OVP has or has not met all legal standards.

The OVP problem is that they've only attempted to block an inspection of the coffee; but have not addressed why the coffee is bad; and have not responded to issues related to the packaging inspections; or the blocked inspections of the packaging. The OVP claim of immunity to security requirements as it relates to any EO is narrow, incomplete, and in no way addresses the other legal requirements outside the EO found within the CFR.

The President's problem is the security requirements he pretends do not exist or apply in the EO are mentioned in the CFR. Denying he EO does not deny the CFR, or the responsibility of the President/OVP to permit inspections of the documents through the CFR.

Posted by: Anon | June 28, 2007 at 17:34

What are the hallmarks of Deep Modem?

Googling the markup _text strings_ produced this:

================
Don't know what to make of this, but...
Wednesday, August 01 2007
http://www.blah3.com/article.php?story=20070801005604262


... been noticing an anonymous poster .. at TPMmuckraker over the past couple of weeks ... could mildly be called intriguing - a sprawling outline of (maybe) how to proceed with prosecution of the Bush administration ....

Well, other people are noticing. There is a long thread about this poster over at the DU (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1479959), and people there are claiming that it may be proof that there has been some sort of sting in place to catch Bush's thugs red-handed in illegality - and they fell into it.

The Cannonfire blog has reprinted all of the poster's output in one spot (http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/07/mystery-poster-on-gonzales-rnc-emails.html), and I think that's a damned good idea ...

Here are the 'Mystery Poster's post, reproduced in full: ...............

Mr. Blank - From Everything Shii Knows, the only reliable source
http://shii.org/knows/Mr._Blank

Someone with a very strong knowledge of Bush administration history is posting anonymously to TPMmuckraker and causing a lot of heads to turn ...

I have archived all of "Mr. Blank" (alias: Constant)'s posts here from his most explosive thread.
His other threads can be found and read through below, but beware-- he knows his stuff, and his posts are LONG and SCARY!

...

All comment threads he's posted in, in chronological order: ..........

about going to State AG...looks like he posted on Hurrah same time as TP...
I thought he had gone under...but the dm post on Balkan blog has me chuckling...
dm? He is observing. I'm not going to dig deep anymore...I'll just cruise...
If he has more to say, ways to guide us, I figure he will show up again.
And I think he will because he is angry at what the * Admin have done
and he knows exactly what they have done. And he knows what is at stake.
And he needs to speak.
:patriot:

Constant's pations
If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.
http://constantpated.blogspot.com/

This blog stopped in April. Bloggers have noted similarities w/ the DM posts.

WONKETTE Caustic Warning!! Brace yourselves "libtards" :rofl:

================================
Everything's Just a Lame Online Diversion These Days, Including the 'New Deep Throat'
http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-time-person-of-the-year%7C-you/everythings-just-a-lame-online-diversion-these-days-including-the-new-deep-throat-284993.php


In the Watergate era, “Deep Throat” was supposedly a government insider who met Bob Woodward in a parking garage ....

Today, there are no brave reporters or editors at the Washington Post who would even think about trying to take down an administration, and the only Post guy really hammering away at the White House is an online guy, Dan Froomkin, and there is no brave Congress to impeach everybody, so people just bitch about it online. So obviously, the new Deep Throat is just some anonymous commenter on a blog.

The libtard blogs are all worked up about the mysterious “new Deep Throat” whistleblower who is revealing dark secrets of the NSA/NSC/OVP/DoJ domestic spying scandal that should’ve already seen everybody impeached and locked in a dungeon forever but nothing happens because ....

Discussion of DM posts:

=============
TheraP's Blog - "The Better to Eat you, my Dear"
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/therap/2007/jul/30/the_better_to_eat_you_my_dear

The bush malfeasance society: It's like the wolf in bed, dressed as gramma. We stand by the bed asking questions. The answers dissemble.

It's all a gigantic scam, a criminal conspiracy. It's a transfer of the treasury to the wealthy, through tax shifting, through outsourcing of government activities, where the profit motive comes first and public service comes last. It's a transfer of power to the executive branch, where an impotent fool plays king .......

Just did a Google search of DU for constantpated the blogger name. constantpated site:democraticunderground.com
How is it that such a topical poster escaped the attention of DU all this while?

Previous Posts

* White House Implicated In Hand Written Notes
* White House Policy To Retaliate For Refusing To In...
* President Must Comply With Law To Maintain Executi...
* Plame Grand Jury Investigation Triggered Constrain...
* E-Mail Inventory Deadline: 3 May -- Inputs to Waxm...
* Reviewing Congressional Oversight of NSA, DOJ Insp...
* Decerififying (sic) NSA and DOJ OIG Offices
* War Crimes Challenge for NSA Inspector General
* NSA Personnel Use Pidgin Instant Messaging To Coor...
* Proposed FISA Changes No Help To President

I have been doing searchs of all these topics ad nauseum.
Why didn't any of these turn up before?

They certainly fit the Deep Modem mould!

ALSO, searching the term Web-wide:
Stool Pigeons Wire Message Board > Stool World > Political Stool http://www.capitalstool.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t7331.html
user constantpated noted and linking to the blog.


======================
Friday, April 13, 2007
White House Violated Agreement With Grand Jury To Retain Data
http://constantpated.blogspot.com/2007/04/white-house-violated-agreement-with.html

White House Agreement With Fitzgerald Violated; Opens Possibility Fitzgerald May Ignore Agreement Not To Prosecute Rove

Ref RNC Lawyer reverses himself.

It's meaningless to talk about what e-mail Rove supposedly thought Fitzgerald had; or what Rove through the Grand Jury looked at.

The real question: What agreement terms did the White House have with the Grand Jury and US Attorney's office to avoid prosecution. Fitzgerald appears to have had concerns with the e-mail prompting questions of Libby. It appears Fitzgerald made a deal with the White House ....

=======
ON EDIT:

Here is a search of constantpated posts at Stool Pigeons
Wire Message Board > Search Form > Search Engine http://www.capitalstool.com/forums/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=1190bc4ab56ddfbe0524516e2c0fdd5d&search_in=posts&result_type=topics&highlite=

Check this Nov 2004 post on Gonzalez: http://www.capitalstool.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6591&hl=

Yet...

"There is a valuable source of information. It is about this subject. There is a way to bypass this obstacle. If you visit the "White House Office of Administration"-wiki entry, look at all the IP updates."

Wikipedia is either jammed or down right now. I can't get through to see who made any changes/updates.

But this should serve as a mid-morning :kick:

glc

Perhaps it is time to spin-off again, with a thread focused on "What Deep Modem has to say."

This is an interesting comment, one I made as soon as I saw who was representing whom before the Committee.

Bradford A. Berenson, Ralston's USA firings lawyer, defends Bush spying.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x995236

• Memo: Ex-aide has "useful information" about Abramoff, White House officials
• Client has info on outside White House e-mail accounts, too, attorney says
• Ralston quit after revelations she was conduit between Abramoff, White House
• Attorney says Ralston will be "comfortable going forward" if granted immunity

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Susan Ralston, a former top assistant to President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, is willing to tell Congress what she knows about contacts between White House officials and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- but only if she's granted immunity from prosecution, her lawyer has told congressional investigators. .....

==========================================
I'm not alone in focusing on the attorneys:


Constant's pations = http://constantpated.blogspot.com/search?q=berenson
Friday, April 06, 2007
Gonzalez and President Approved Work Flow Documents Implementing War Crimes

Gonzalez Signature Implicates Him For War Crimes < Evidence >

The Attorney General and President's signatures are on coordinating documents linking them to direction, orders, and approval to commit specific war crimes and Geneva violations.

Work flow documents are used to coordinate staff coordination packages, reviews, and working papers for the Department of Justice; and coordinate information between the Attorney General and President.

Brad Berenson's home address, along with the names of other DoJ and White House legal counsel implicated for alleged war crimes, has been forwarded to the German War Crimes prosecutor. Geneva permits foreign powers and war fighters to engage in lawful retaliation against the United States, US government officials, and attorneys for their failure to enforce the laws of war.

Berenson and other GOP legal counsel allegedly complicit war crimes are believed to be actively involved with preparing Attorney General for his upcoming hearings. Sidley Austin staff counsel and associates have been busily coordinating between their DC and Chicago Offices, and Berenson's name has appeared in White House memorandum. Sidley Austin is a firm of over 1500 attorneys, recently denied cert before the Supreme Court for age discrimination complaints when counsel were fired after clients complained that Sidley Austin work products were inadequate.

=================
Has anyone else noticed that certain domains are not available on certain networks. I know of a Peacer and Justice center that cannot be accessed from fed computers because it is on a terrorist list, for example. My domain has been blocked on certain networks, including one that is operated by a State educational system, another providing hotspots at cyber cafes. This leads to the question, why hasn't anyone noticed Constant's pations blog? I have done uncountable searches for thew many words found concentrated in that blog. It does not show up in DU with almost no exceptions. Is Constant's pations one of the web sites being suppressed? Is that why it does not turn up? Is that why DM has turned up in comments on major blogger news portals?

Mystery Poster "Deep Modem" (DM) = What is DM telling us? FORGET the MYSTERY part.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1655390


THIS THREAD = Focus on the CONTENT of the Mystery Poster. ..................

cause it's the right thing to do...

b/c there is so much stupid crap that people talk about and threads like these get dropped.

"It is the object of enemy propaganda to create chaos and confusion, to destroy the national unity, to initiate rumors which will play on the nerves of the people, to inflame political, religious, ideological, social, and racial hatreds, to undermine the morals of the nation's youth, and so bring about, through socialism, the most perfect society the world has ever known."

-- adaptation of a famous forged quotation, forged by the John Birch society in the 60's, deliberately misattributed to Kruschev

"It is the object of Republican propaganda to create chaos and confusion, to destroy Democratic unity, to initiate rumors which will play on the nerves of the people, to inflame political, religious, ideological, social, and racial hatreds with wedge issues, to undermine the critical reasoning of the nation's youth, and so bring about, through a permanent right-wing, elitist government, the most perfect religious state the world has ever been dominated by."

:rofl:

where the real posts are located. Follow this link:

NEW Mystery Poster on CREW = "Anonymous" +++ Deep Modem's Mother Lode?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1669387&mesg_id=1669387

While some questions and speculations may remain, there is no doubt that these are authentic posts by the "Anonymous" poster. Now, what to name her/him?

How about "Deep Lawyer"?

NEW Mystery Poster on CREW = "Anonymous" +++ Deep Modem's Mother Lode?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1669387&mesg_id=1669387

FOUND: Deep Modem's source. FORTY original "Anonymous Lawyer" posts at CREW with links:

Here they are, in chronological order. I thank the other members of the Research Squad for compiling all the anonymous posts under discussion.
All I did was attach the links to the list, which made chronological sorting possible, and add a few missing posts by our "Anonymous Lawyer."
There are another dozen or so posts on CREW that I do not include yet, most that I know of being shorter and on the linked pages.

As you will see, this material represents a series of legal opinions and suggestions directed to the staff at CREW.
When reading the copied and pasted versions elsewhere on line, knowing where they come from and that context will
provide greater sense of who is addressing whom.

27 Sept 2006 2:55pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/26669#comment-10
11 April 2007 7:06pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27374#comment-4816
31 May 2007 1:43am	http://citizensforethics.org/node/28567#comment-5967
31 May 2007 1:39am	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28576#comment-5966
31 May 2007 1:52am	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28590#comment-5968
31 May 2007 2:38am	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28590#comment-5969
31 May 2007 7:03pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28616#comment-5990
2 June 2007 7:27pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28670#comment-6056
2 June 2007 9:53pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28670#comment-6058
4 June 2007 6:16pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28670#comment-6105
9 June 2007 4:08pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28744#comment-6184
11 June 2007 7:26pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28744#comment-6231
13 June 2007 7:36pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28786#comment-6271
19 June 2007 7:42pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29131#comment-6429
20 June 2007 5:37pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29149#comment-6459
23 June 2007 4:35pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29170#comment-6570
23 June 2007 8:18pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29170#comment-6581
24 June 2007 5:18pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29170#comment-6693
25 June 2007 2:56pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6729
25 June 2007 3:53pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6818
25 June 2007 6:11pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29193#comment-6937
25 June 2007 6:35pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6938
25 June 2007 6:55pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29193#comment-6939
26 June 2007 12:28pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29195#comment-7242
26 June 2007 3:37pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198#comment-7255
26 June 2007 4:56pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198#comment-7258
27 June 2007 3:59pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29207#comment-7297
30 June 2007 8:11pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198#comment-7258
2 July 2007 12:37pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-8701
2 July 2007 1:10pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29237#comment-8703
2 July 2007 2:35pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-8720
2 July 2007 4:47pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29242#comment-8908
3 July 2007 12:53pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29256#comment-8925
3 July 2007 1:35pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29256#comment-8926
3 July 2007 3:23pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29256#comment-8941
3 July 2007 3:31pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29260#comment-8942
3 July 2007 4:11pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29260#comment-8949
8 July 2007 6:59pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29348#comment-9579
14 July 2007 4:33pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29370#comment-10343
12 July 2007 1:43pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29408#comment-10056
21 August 2007 3:23pm	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29947#comment-12502

No doubt, CREW can use our support. You can help here: http://www.citizensforethics.org /

"Mystery Poster" DEEP MODEM Demystified. SOURCE Found at CREW
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1692772