May 25, 2008

WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Part I: The DoD email linked to Rove's Legal Team Caught: Involved With DoD Military Analyst Program

Rove's Legal Team Caught: Involved With DoD Military Analyst Program


Part I: The DoD Email Linked To Rove's Legal Team and Correspondence to Congress

Page 107 and 111 show the same law firm as listed on the letter to Congressman Conyers.

Legal counsel with the firm are reported to have disclosed Rove's involvement with specific meetings, not just those in conjunction with the military analysts. The White House, NSC, State Department, and other White House-connected personnel are also involved at 120.

The name of the law firm is on the letter head to the Judiciary
Committee; and he email format and address match those provided through
the DoD FOIA. The Major General listed on page 111
has contact information matching the same Rove's law firm counsel wrote
to Conyers. The firm's name also matches contact information on page 107 of the
DoD emails.

These issues may or may not relate to war crimes issues, punishable by the death penalty. The DoD emails show the interaction between counsel and the government was not a narrow legal-advisory role.

Not all attorney communications are protected. In this case, some of the law firms communications appear to have been sent to non-represented parties, falling outside this exception. Counsel is foreseeably subject to discovery on all communications between counsel-affiliated persons, the US government, DoD and the White House.

Questions About Legal Counsel Motivations

Legal counsel to the President's chief political strategist appeared to feign confusion about various Judiciary Committee actions. Rove's legal team is connected with the DoD military analyst program. Counsel is prohibited from engaging in frivolous action which might delay a tribunal. Karl Rove's legal counsel should first ask the questions raised in the letter to their inhouse experts.

Telecommunications Connection

The law firm is one of the "Capital Club sponsors" for the inaugural National, hosted by Tiger Woods. The telecommunications company connected with that golfing activity is none other than the firm connected alleged FISA violations.

With the law firm is a relative of a former Chairman of a major political party, not the DNC.


It is beyond dispute Rove was involved with the military analyst
program. The question turns on what information outside counsel have,
how they intend to use this information. The connection between Rove's law firm and the DoD military analyst activity raises many issues:

- A. What role did the military analysts play in providing information to legal counsel to advise on which documents to prevent war crimes prosecutors and State AGs from reviewing?

- B. Are outside counsel asking through the White House and FBI questions of jury member to gather information from jury members because they do not want to spend funds conducting mock juries for war crimes cases?

- C. To what extent are law firms invoking "executive privilege" to shield communications between their clients and contractors allegedly involved with war crimes, FISA violations, and illegal activity?

- D. To what extent are counsels claims (at C) trumped by the fraud crime exception? 445 F.3d 266

Law Firm Has Government-Recognized Experts Which Can Answer Counsel Questions of Congress

Rove's legal counsel in a letter to Congressman Conyers raised several questions. The DoD emails show the names of people connected with the firm who have experience in government. Counsel has not provided adequate assurances that they have exhausted in house experience before documenting their supposed confusion in writing to Congress.

Counsel states (repeatedly) in the letter:

"I do not understand why"
"It was hard to see"

One of the law firm-connected names in the DoD emails represents
themselves as an expert on federal grants. Yet counsel's letter to the
judiciary would ask that we believe their assertion they are confused
about why Congress is or isn't asking questions. Usually when someone
provides assistance to a law firm about federal government funding,
they know why that same government would do things. This appears to be
lost on counsel.

Counsel should internally review the comments of the military analysts who can explain to counsel how Congress works, why Congress does things, and the motivation of the President to spread information from the US government to the Congress.

When counsel learns to answer their own questions using available resources, perhaps the American public might take seriously their readiness to provide a f ull and complete defense to clients for alleged war crimes policy making, propaganda, and other illegal activity.

FOIA On Outside Counsel

Counsel's name is on the DoD list. This could mean that counsel is not an independent legal advisor, but might be a defendant. Because the DoD emails show the name of the law firm, it is forseeable counsel could be subject to discovery. It cannot be argued these emails
from the law firm are related to attorney-client privilege.

The emails in question are not about legal representation, but in
disclosed communications between the law firm and the DoD military
analyst program. We have no record that the law firm represents any of
the media our public information outlets. However, if counsel would
like to invoke a claim of attorney-client privilege on DoD-related
emails to the media, counsel will have to explain why they are
providing "independent" assessments but shielding all communications
behind those supposedly "independent" views.

Counsel cannot have it both ways: Either:

A. They are independent of the media and the
emails -- between client-connected person and the US government and media -- can be subject to discovery for public disclosure; or

B. The analysts connected with this
firm are not independent, and their communications are related to legal
discussions connected with the White House and other matters of public interest, possibly falling under the crime-fraud exception, 445 F.3d 266.

Part II: Reconsidering Counsel's Letter To Judiciary Chairman

The letter fails to justify confidence that any assertion of a "false
accusation" should be taken seriously. Because the client was never an
attorney, the client was never a party to any legally recognized claim
of privilege. The Constitution grants immunity to Members of Congress
to be absolutely immune to anything they say. This delegation of
immunity does not exist on issues of alleged jury tampering, malicious
prosecution, retaliation against prosecutors, or war crimes policy

The question turns on whether legal counsel has or has not engaged in any frivolous or dilatory action or material misrepresentations before the tribunal. That remains on the table. The above information suggests counsel has a motivation in delaying Congressional action on many fronts: FISA, POW abuse, attorney firings, and the DoD analyst program. A reasonable accommodation would be for outside counsel to come clean:
Do you intend to defend your client, but not explain why your law firm
is connected with the alleged propaganda connected with your client?

The "gratuitous confrontation" (counsel's words) started when the client and others connected with outside counsel allegedly agreed to put the Constitution, FISA, and Geneva Conventions second to Presidential orders.

Perhaps counsel's outside military advisers may wish to remind the law firm the House and Senate are separate chambers, not connected, nor are they obliged to wait for one before acting. As the framers intended, this understandably complicates counsel's legal strategies.

The only obligation on the table is for the Congress to show a good
faith effort to work with the President. That legal obligation does not
exist in re your client. The Judiciary does not like to mediate between
Congress and the President: The branches are co-equal. Counsel's
assertion that Congress should or should not do anything is not a power
the People delegated to any legal counsel. Your letter has no force.

The President may not invoke "executive privilege" through a former adviser. That assertion must be invoked by the President, not outside counsel working for a different client. Until you provide a document showing you do represent the President, your assertions about one client are unrelated to the sole Article II power delegated to the Executive Branch. That branch, as you well know, is headed by a single clerk the Constitution calls, "President."

The question is not whether the client was or was not a former employee of the United States government, nor whether he was an adviser to the President -- he was -- but whether that association would shield him absolutely. It does not. The client was not hired to provide legal advice to the President in an official or private capacity.

No comments: