You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

NEW Mystery Poster on CREW = "Anonymous" +++ Deep Modem's Mother Lode? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 09:51 PM
Original message
NEW Mystery Poster on CREW = "Anonymous" +++ Deep Modem's Mother Lode?
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 10:31 PM by L. Coyote
Google does it again, turning up a GOLD MINE of data. I'm researching the "Deep Modem" mystery posters keywords, and that led to a CREW comment. So, quite logically, I narrowed the search to: Submitted by Anonymous and VIOLA, this seems to be the Deep Modem mother lode.

This is spinning off of the thread: Mystery Poster "Deep Modem" (DM) = What is DM telling us? FORGET the MYSTERY part.

I've posted several of the Comments there already, but will repost here too.

Some of these focus on the Vice Resident. Here follows the first in a series of comments on this CREW post:


Gonzales has not investigated Cheney over ignoring classified info. order -- despite a complaint last January

Submitted by crew on 25 June 2007 - 8:56am. Alberto Gonzales Dick Cheney

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that, despite a request from the official in charge of Information Security Oversight at the National Archives, the Attorney General has never addressed Dick Cheney's failure to comply with the executive order on classified information. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for info. on this issue was denied on the ground there were "no documents" on this matter. There is something gravely wrong with this whole situation. Dick Cheney is not a fourth branch of government, but he's sure acting like one:

Cheney's hard-line chief of staff, David Addington, has made the novel argument that the veep doesn't have to comply on the ground that, because the vice president also serves as president of the Senate, his office is not really part of the executive branch.

Cheney's position so frustrated J. William Leonard, the chief of the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, which enforces the order, that he complained in January to Gonzales. In a letter, Leonard wrote that Cheney's position was inconsistent with the "plain text reading" of the executive order and asked the attorney general for an official ruling. But Gonzales never responded, thereby permitting Cheney to continue blocking Leonard from conducting even a routine inspection of how the veep's office was handling classified documents, according to correspondence released by House Government Reform Committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman.

Why didn't Gonzales act on Leonard's request? His aides assured reporters that Leonard's letter has been "under review" for the past five monthsby Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). But on June 4, an OLC lawyer denied a Freedom of Information Act request about the Cheney dispute asserting that OLC had "no documents" on the matter, according to a copy of the letter obtained by NEWSWEEK. Steve Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists researcher who filed the request, said he found the denial letter "puzzling and inexplicable"especially since Leonard had copied OLC chief Steve Bradbury on his original letter to Gonzales. The FOIA response has piqued the interest of congressional investigators, who note Bradbury is the same official in charge of vetting all document requests from Congress about the U.S. attorneys flap. Asked about the apparent discrepancy, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the OLC response "was and remains accurate" because Leonard's letter had generated no "substantive work product."


CFR Shows OVP Legal Counsel OK's Illegalities
Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 12:30pm.

Major problem for AG and VP Cheney in re classified information. Although the VP focuse on EOs, there's a major problem: CFR specifically addresses these requirements.


"All personnel of the Office of the Vice President are responsible individually for complying with the provisions of these regulations are in all respects. The provisions of these regulations applicable to all personnel assigned or detailed to the Office of the Vice President."

The Vice President is a "person" for purposes of 32 CFR 2800 enforcement. He shall comply with the CFR, which is the governing requirement; and shall be audited per Statement on Accounting Standard 74, to ensure compliance with the 32 CFR requirements applicable to the Vice President, OVP staff, and all OVP legal counsel

Recommend public read about soemthing called a compliance audit, under statement of Accounting standard 74. Review this: (Compliance Auditing Considerations in Audits of Governmental Entities) which outlines what the auditors should have done; and form a line of questions for DOJ OPR to review in re the Attorney General:

# When did AG learn OVP was not complying with the 32 CFR 2800?

# When did OVP and Potus agree to block DOJ OPR from reviewing AG "non review" of these 32 CFR 2800 violations by OVP personnel?

# When did OVP dissuade legal counsel from reporting violations of the law and requirements to DC Bar, per 1.16?

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington targets government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests through high-impact legal actions. Learn more.

You can support CREW here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC