Same as the old bawss: Obama continues to cling to Bush II intelligence policies, while The Times contradicts itself ad infinitum

Washington D.C.--The New York Times did an editorial on Sunday condemning President Obama for invoking the very same kinds of claims to national security as the administration of George W. Bush. On the face of it, they're right, but we're not a proactive culture, so they were nowhere to be seen in 2004. While the criticism is deserved, one should remember exactly who's stating it: The New York Times, the same people who bent over backwards for the Bush II administration's claims on national security again and again, depriving the American public of vital information, and they sat on this NSA wiretapping story for over a year that had been uncovered by journalists Eric Lichtblau and James Risen. We can assume there were others besides it and the Judith Miller doing the reverse for the same administration in the Plame scandal!

On Sunday, Sunday, Sunday, we got this anonymous editorial--so it can be assumed that the institution itself backs it--sternly titled "The Cover-up Continues," something that they're practiced hands at at the Times and would therefore know when they saw it:

...In that case [of the renditioned Ethiopian national Binyah Mohamed], the Obama administration has repeated a disreputable Bush-era argument that the executive branch is entitled to have lawsuits shut down whenever it makes a blanket claim of national security. The ruling rejected that argument and noted that the government’s theory would “effectively cordon off all secret actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the C.I.A. and its partners from the demands and limits of the law.” The Obama administration has aggressively pursued such immunity in numerous other cases beyond the ones involving Mr. Mohamed. We do not take seriously the government’s claim that it is trying to protect intelligence or avoid harm to national security.

Great, and again, they're right, but thanks to their practices surrounding the warrantless wiretapping program and other areas, they definitely affected existing lawsuits; it would be impossible for the suppression not to have. No, in 2004, the New York Times did just that--they took seriously the government's claim that it was trying to protect intelligence and that if they published, it would harm national security. Or, it's just their excuse and they conspired criminally or abetted or enabled them, or any number of unpleasant permutations.

Like most mainstream journalists, Risen and Lichtblau valued their careers and bank accounts over the common good when they should have held a press conference once it became clear that their editors were going to sit on the very explosive information of high crimes, and they kept quiet. The program itself was illegal under the 1978 FISA. The role of the Times couldn't be more crucial in this story since they bought criminals over a year to cover things up and to ready the legal obstacles to slow things even further. They say the wheels of justice grind slowly, especially when you put a wrench in the gears. There has been very little support in Congress to rein-in these practices or to hold anyone accountable for them, quite the opposite. Years passed as weak calls for investigations ensued and predictably went nowhere. Dueling court lawsuits went back-and-forth, and...

Then-Senator Barack Obama voted (as did the majority of the Senate) in the fall of 2008 in favor of granting the telecommunications corporations who aided-and-abetted the Bush II administration for a bill that granted them all retroactive immunity, a kind of oxymoron of the law. He was hardly alone in his "yes" vote, and it could be said with genuine shame that a Rockefeller was leading the charge. Lichtblau mischaracterized the behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Bush II administration last year at the expense of Salon, thankfully not me:

For 13 long months, we'd held off on publicizing one of the Bush administration's biggest secrets. Finally, one afternoon in December 2005, as my editors and I waited anxiously in an elegantly appointed sitting room at the White House, we were again about to let President Bush's top aides plead their case: why our newspaper shouldn't let the public know that the president had authorized the National Security Agency, in apparent contravention of federal wiretapping law, to eavesdrop on Americans without court warrants. ("The inside drama behind the Times warrantless wiretapping story, Salon, 03.28.2008)

Remember the wonderful national elections of 2004 and all the irregularities? No, not just the pandering to those who fear homosexuals and African-Americans, the problems at the polling places. Do I think that NYT journalist Eric Lichtblau is telling the whole truth here? Oh sure, I'd sit on a story for over a year, sit on the knowledge that high crimes had been committed by people under the color of authority. It's what all good apparatchiki do, both Lichtblau, Risen, and most of all, their editor, Bill Keller. The Times, Risen, and Lichtblau continue to be vague as to when exactly that first meeting occurred in 2004, but we can rest assured it was before the elections.

History isn't going to be kind to any of them in the intervening years, regardless of their lame attempts to paper over the pertinent questions of why exactly they sat on it. Another terrorist attack? A book deal? Give me a break, they were terrified in the editorial board that James Risen's book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, was going to expose that they decided to sit on the story for political purposes and ran it before it was published. They would have continued sitting on it had it not been the case. How much else of our history are they sitting on? We could be in real danger, and they wouldn't tell us. As a matter of fact, that's the case, and one has to assume that "the newspaper of record" is becoming about as reliable a source of information as a Wall Street banker. Somehow, I think they do lunch occasionally.

Licthblau's statements about the illegal program and his actions and attitudes surrounding it are a lie, a fabrication, and he's not a real journalist, and more like a stenographer. So is the Times' recent concern about being a government watchdog. It's a double-think like no other, as though they never sat on the story for over a year to help the Bush and the GOP through a tough election. That's what friends are for. Executive Bill Keller and the NYT showed considerably less concern about Bush over-reaching on national security than he does over Obama, and sat on the story for an incredible thirteen months.

But he's very careful in not being too specific as to how early they knew:

"A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security.

"Officials also assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions.

"As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time.

"We also continued reporting, and in the ensuing months two things happened that changed our thinking.

"First, we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program. ("N.Y. Times statement defends NSA reporting," CNN.com, 12.16.2005)

Right, it's the job of a free press to take elected officials and their appointees at their word. This is the behind-the-scenes line held by the New York Times during the administration of George W. Bush, but oddly, not so in the case under Barack Obama, even though he's essentially doing the very same things that Bush did and is attempting with considerable effort to continue these expansions of power in the executive branch in the areas of national security. What's it going to be, eh? Who are you guys? Really. Small wonder that neither Keller, Risen, or Lichtblau will speak with any specifics about 2004.

"The inside drama behind the Times warrantless wiretapping story, Salon, 03.28.2008: http://www.slate.com/id/2187498/

"N.Y. Times statement defends NSA reporting," CNN.com, 12.16.2005: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/12/16/nytimes.statement/

"The Scoop That Got Spiked-Times delay on wiretap story leaves questions unanswered," FAIR, 01.11.2006: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2798

The Cover-up Continues," New York Times, 10.25.2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26mon1.html?_r=2

The Right of Rule: "Drill baby, drill, and mine, baby, mine" and other yucks from the 2008 unelection

The GOP Campaign Trail of Tears--Those catch-phrases worked so well, didn't they? "Joe the plumber," "Bill Ayers," "pals around with terrorists," and all the rest we'll be happy to forget, didn't work so well this time. We know why.

The economy is a mess because the GOP held the White House and most of Congress for several years, and the Democrats stood down and let them run amok. They also won't hold the Bush administration truly accountable for what can only be described as the greatest political and corporate crime wave that this nation has ever seen.

It would more-than-behoove President-elect Obama to at least call for the creation of a massive independent investigation into the crimes committed by the Bush administration and her allies from 2000 to their last day in office. But there are a number of problems with this, namely logistical ones.

President Obama will have his hands-full in his first 100 days in office. Only FDR faced the kind of daunting challenges that the President-elect faces today. Is he up for it? We don't know this, but if he isn't, nobody is, and does he really have the will to do it? It doesn't matter. I personally don't think that President-elect Obama is going to have any choice on a whole swath of issues, except to address them directly and constructively. But it's also unlikely that he's going to have the time to go after Republican--and numerous Democratic--criminals who aided-and-abetted George W. Bush and his agenda. It's also not exactly his job, but that of Congress. There's another very specific problem.

Obama was one of these congressional enablers of the Bush White House, though as far as we know, not criminally. Obama voted for the FISA rewrite that now allows for widespread surveillance of the American public (and retroactive immunity for the telecoms that participated), essentially every major appropriations bill for the endless occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a lot of other issues that don't instill trust in those who want the public good addressed.

Cabinet picks like Rahm Emanuel (a man reminiscent of Dutch Schultz) don't bode well either, but it has to be stated again: what choice are they going to have but to drawdown in the Middle East, and what choice are they going to have except to mandate sweeping political and business reforms and social spending? Yes, they could just do nothing, the wrong thing, and even the opposite of what the electorate voted them in to do. But these aren't normal times. They could act--or not act at all--but there are consequences for "business-as-usual" during a major crisis. Besides, President-elect Obama has already given the GOP the ammunition they wanted in another form.

By breaking his promise and not taking anymore government funds for his election, Barack Obama decided against a grassroots election with transparency and threw in his lot with corporate America. Knowing this as more than a little of a mistake tactically, the GOP is already making their own narrative of this new era, and they're going to attempt to steal the Democratic Party's "outsider" card away from them. It won't be very difficult, sad to say. Propaganda has to have a kernal of truth to it, but this time, when the GOP accuses the future Obama administration of being backed by "special interests," they'll be almost entirely correct.

This isn't to say that they're any different, but this time they assiduously kept the McCain campaign on-track for the aforementioned reasons--it gives them a lifeline for their survival and a comeback. This back-and-forth between the two party system doesn't have a lot of milage left in it before a real collapse, and if the new Democratic majority doesn't deliver in a big way, we could see riots and general strikes across the nation.

It's very possible that our economy is going to go into a genuine free-fall, a depression. Without radical reforms and unprecedented government response, change is going to come from below anyway. You could bring back every single American solider, sailor, and pilot, to the continental United States, and it wouldn't quell the disorder.

The question is, will it be constructive or destructive uprising if things reach that point?

My feeling is that it's going to be constructive. Granted that if we have a tragedy, it's going to be all of our faults, but Congress and a future Obama administration will be shouldering a great share of the blame. They directly created this mess by abrogating their responsibility of oversight and checks and balances, and that's for starters.

Yes, "Drill, baby, drill," might sound like the title of a Russ Meyer movie, but equally empty rhetoric came out of the Obama campaign. None of this matters. There is a time when the same old lies don't work anymore, and that time is now. Without a total rollback of the last eight years, we may as well have voted McCain/Palin. Then--at least--we could get this collapse under our belt. Many of the same reforms would come anyway. Reality trumps hope.

Reality: They're only in there because we tolerate them.

This can end when they no longer have the ability to provide. That time is here, now.

From the Palfrey trial transcript, April 9th, 2008: The testimony of Treasury agent Troy Burrus

Washington D.C.--There's an interesting passage in here where IRS agent Troy Burrus and AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) Daniel P. Butler "misspoke," down towards the bottom hinting accidentally that there could be issues of Palfrey misreporting her income, a tax issue, not one of simple "money-laundering."

No worries, Judge Roberston let them off-the-hook, but he appears to be covering his ass as well...like when he quit the FISA court.

It's a potentially telling exchange, and could mean something about what Palfrey actually made, and what the government was actually able to find regarding all of her assets/money.


...435

1 (TROY BURRUS, GOVERNMENT witness, having been duly sworn,

2 testified as follows:)

3 DIRECT EXAMINATION

4 BY MR. BUTLER:

5 Q. Would you state your name please, and spell your last name?

6 A. Troy Burrus, B-U-R-R-U-S.

7 Q. And Mr. Burrus, what's your occupation?

8 A. I'm a special agent with the Internal Revenue Service.

9 Q. How long have you been an agent with the IRS?

10 A. For almost nine years.

11 Q. And what is your back ground for that job?

12 A. I have a bachelor's of science degree in accounting from

13 Auburn University, and I spent 10 years working as a public

14 accountant, and I'm a certified public accountant.

15 Q. And did you work in the field as a public accountant?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For you said how long?

18 A. Approximately 10 years.

19 Q. And after that you went to the IRS?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. As part of your duties with the IRS, were you involved in an

22 investigation of Pamela Martin & Associates?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And did there come a time when charges were brought in that

25 case?

436



1 A. Yes, they were.

2 Q. A case against Pamela Martin & Associates?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And were you involved in processing the defendant on that

5 case at that time?

6 A. Yes, I was.

7 Q. And the name of the defendant was what?

8 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

9 Q. And do you see Ms. Palfrey in the courtroom today?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. Would you identify --

12 MR. BURTON: We'll stipulate.

13 THE COURT: She's identified. Go ahead.

14 BY MR. BUTLER:

15 Q. How did you get involved in this case?

16 A. We received a call, my supervisor received a call from the

17 United States Postal Inspection Service in approximately March

18 of 2004. They said that they needed some assistance on an

19 investigation, some financial analysis assistance.

20 Q. After you became involved, what particularly did you do?

21 A. My role in this investigation was to analyze all the

22 financial records, whether they be bank records, brokerage

23 records, any records related to money and money transfers.

24 Q. And what financial records did you review, generally

25 speaking?

437



1 A. I reviewed bank records, I reviewed brokerage account

2 records, and all the different items that go into the bank

3 records themselves.

4 Q. And these were bank records for whom?

5 A. For Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

6 Q. And what type of financial documents did you review?

7 A. We also reviewed the tax return information, plus the

8 brokerage account information with Charles Schwab.

9 Q. And that was whose account?

10 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

11 Q. This jury has heard about money orders. Were money orders

12 reviewed in this case?

13 A. Yes. Postal money orders, money orders from other sources,

14 whether they be 7-11, Western Union. Those were all reviewed.

15 Q. Bank records?

16 A. Bank records, and not only the bank statements but the

17 deposit items, whether they be the postal money orders, whether

18 they be personal checks or traveler's checks. All the check

19 items -- in other words, checks that she wrote to pay for bills

20 or expenses, any kind of money transfers between accounts or to

21 other accounts.

22 Q. And from where did you get the bank records?

23 A. The bank records were subpoenaed from Wells Fargo Bank.

24 Q. And any other financial institutions?

25 A. Charles Schwab was also subpoenaed, and records were

438



1 received from them.

2 Q. And why Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo?

3 A. The postal money orders that the U.S. Postal Inspection

4 Service had identified, we traced those as being deposited into

5 both the Wells Fargo account, and some were deposited into the

6 Charles Schwab account.

7 Q. And in terms of the financial documents you reviewed, are

8 those documents here in court?

9 A. Yes, they are. They're on the table.

10 Q. And that's the binders that are in front of the jury here?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Which have been marked as BNK-17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.

13 Is that correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Did you review tax returns?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For which years?

18 A. We received tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service

19 through an ex parte order for the years 2000 through 2005.

20 We also reviewed tax returns from 1991 through 2005,

21 that were found at the defendant's home when we executed the

22 search warrant.

23 Q. Did you compare those two sets of tax returns in terms of

24 the ones that you obtained from the IRS versus the ones you

25 obtained from the search?

439



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And what did the comparisons show?

3 A. The comparisons showed that for the years 2000 through 2005

4 they were exactly the same.

5 Q. And did you take steps for the years that were prior to

6 those years, take steps to compare the tax returns that you

7 obtained during the search warrants?

8 A. Yes, but we were unable to get those older tax returns.

9 Q. Why is that?

10 A. The Internal Revenue Service only keeps tax returns going

11 back for a certain amount of years.

12 Q. So you reviewed the ones you did have?

13 And in terms of the Wells Fargo records, for what years

14 did you have those?

15 A. I looked at records starting approximately January 1st of

16 2000 through June of 2006.

17 Q. And again, why not before or after that?

18 A. Banks only keep records going back so many years. And due

19 to the statute of limitations on the various charges we were

20 looking at, we didn't go back further than 2000.

21 Q. And in terms of the money orders, you reviewed those; did

22 you add up the dollar figures over the years that you had?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And how much money was involved there?

25 A. For the time period 2000 through 2005, it was approximately

440



1 $880,000 or somewhere around there.

2 Q. And did you prepare a chart of those amounts?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And I would like to at this time -- can you see that?

5 A. Yes, I can see it.

6 Q. That's a chart you prepared, and that's BNK-23. Is that

7 correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. And just walk the jury through that document, please.

10 A. This spreadsheet --

11 THE COURT: You want the jury to see it?

12 MR. BUTLER: I'm sorry.

13 BY MR. BUTLER:

14 Q. This is from the review of your bank records, the bank

15 records -- I'm sorry, the money orders you reviewed in this

16 matter. Is that correct?

17 A. This spreadsheet shows not only money orders, but also

18 personal checks that were received, and traveler's checks

19 relating to the business activity of Pamela Martin & Associates.

20 MR. BUTLER: I would move to admit BNK-23, Your Honor.

21 MR. BURTON: No objection.

22 THE COURT: Received, and you may show it to the jury.

23 (Government Exhibit BNK-23 was moved into evidence.)

24 BY MR. BUTLER:

25 Q. Could you walk the jury through what that document shows,

441



1 please?

2 A. The document shows in the columns the years 2000 through

3 2005, with the final column being the total. And then the

4 receipts per the bank records, and the asterisk indicating it

5 includes all money orders, checks, traveler's checks deposited

6 into the accounts related to the business activity of PMA,

7 including both Wells Fargo Bank and Charles Schwab.

8 And then you have the individual amounts per year, to

9 total up to the $882,649.48.

10 Q. And just for the record, would you read off the years, the

11 individual years in terms of what the amounts are, please?

12 A. For 2000, it is $185,265.25; for 2001, it's $177,098.17;

13 2002, $124,605; 2003, $142,341.06; 2004, $158,835; and 2005,

14 $94,505.

15 Q. And in lay terms, what does this diagram show? What is the

16 purpose of this diagram?

17 A. This diagram just shows only the business receipts that were

18 deposited into her account. So it's an analysis of seeing how

19 much income she was receiving for the business over this period

20 of time.

21 Q. And when you say she, to whom are you referring?

22 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

23 Q. Did you do another diagram or another graph of that same

24 information, to show it in a different format?

25 A. Yes, I did a graphical column bar chart to show the same

442



1 amounts.

2 MR. BUTLER: I need to show this to the witness but not

3 the jury for one moment.

4 THE COURT: All right.

5 BY MR. BUTLER:

6 Q. This is BNK-24.

7 THE COURT: It's just the same numbers in a bar chart?

8 MR. BURTON: Yeah, it's just cumulative.

9 THE COURT: It's not very edifying. Why don't we move

10 on? I think the jury can handle those numbers.

11 MR. BUTLER: Is there any objection to its admission?

12 MR. BURTON: Objection.

13 THE COURT: It's been objected to as cumulative. The

14 objection is sustained.

15 BY MR. BUTLER:

16 Q. Would the chart that you already talked about show all

17 postal money orders, or just those that were deposited?

18 A. It would only show those that were deposited. If the postal

19 money order had been cashed, it would not be included on that

20 chart.

21 Q. You mentioned earlier a search warrant that was done at the

22 residence of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey?

23 A. That is correct. A search warrant was done on the 4th of

24 October 2006.

25 Q. And was there a search warrant obtained for that search?

443



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. From where?

3 A. It was obtained from the magistrate judge in Sacramento,

4 California.

5 Q. And when was that search?

6 A. The search was actually on October 4th, 2006.

7 Q. Were you involved in that search?

8 A. Yes, I was.

9 Q. What was recovered during that search generally,

10 category-wise?

11 A. The search of the defendant's residence in Vallejo, we

12 uncovered all types of financial records: Binders containing

13 information on the individuals who were working for the

14 organization, phone records, utility records, tax returns,

15 checks, appointment books. Just a lot of different

16 correspondence information.

17 Q. And those are the tax returns that you already testified

18 about, that went beyond the ones the IRS had. Is that correct?

19 A. That's correct. We found tax returns from 1991 through

20 2005.

21 Q. And did you review those earlier returns as well?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And did they show how far back Pamela Martin & Associates

24 went?

25 A. Yes. The 1993 tax return indicates that that is the

444



1 beginning year for Pamela Martin & Associates.

2 Q. I'm sorry, you said which year?

3 A. 1993.

4 Q. Let me also have you take a look at -- not to the jury at

5 the moment, but the --

6 I would like you to take a look at what's been marked

7 as TAX-310 through 334. You've reviewed these documents before.

8 Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. These are the ones you talked about?

11 A. Yes. I'm waiting for it to come up on the screen.

12 Q. And what is the first page of TAX-310? What is that?

13 A. It is a copy of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey's form 1040, page

14 one, for 1993.

15 Q. And in terms of the -- if we flip through the pages of that,

16 would the entire tax return be there?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And I would like to take a look at TAX-285 through 309.

19 What is that?

20 A. 285 is a copy of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey's form 1040 for

21 1994, page one.

22 Q. And if we flip through the pages, would we have the rest of

23 the tax return?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I would like to review TAX-271 through 284.

445



1 A. 271 --

2 THE COURT: I think I know where we're going with this,

3 counsel. Is there a stipulation?

4 MR. BURTON: That's why I'm taking a look at the hard

5 copy, judge. I think we'll be able to arrive at one pretty

6 quickly.

7 MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: Why don't you take a second and see if you

9 can? Because nobody can really see these things as they go by,

10 anyway.

11 (OFF THE RECORD.)

12 MR. BURTON: We don't object to these returns coming

13 in. We can expedite this.

14 THE COURT: Just give us the TAX numbers of the

15 earliest and latest, tell us briefly what they are, and they'll

16 all be offered in a lump.

17 Don't take this personally, Mr. Burrus.

18 MR. BURTON: I'm sure he gets it all the time.

19 MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, you want just the first number

20 of the different years of returns?

21 THE COURT: Just do it the fastest way you can.

22 MR. BUTLER: Okay. The numbers are all -- the first

23 number, it's in sort of a reverse order. Well, let me start it

24 this way, Your Honor:

25 TAX-9 through TAX-334 are the tax returns in reverse

446



1 order of the years; in other words, going 2005, 2004, 2003,

2 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 --

3 THE COURT: All the way back to 1993?

4 MR. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Offered into evidence?

6 MR. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Received. Thank you.

8 (Government Exhibits TAX-009 to TAX-334 were moved into

9 evidence.)

10 MR. BUTLER: And I would also like to offer the binders

11 as well, Your Honor, the ones I previously referred to.

12 THE COURT: 17 through 22?

13 MR. BUTLER: BNK-17 through 22, yes.

14 THE COURT: Now, are these going to be the subject of a

15 Rule 1006 summary?

16 MR. BURTON: Yes, Your Honor.

17 MS. CONNELLY: I have a stipulation.

18 THE COURT: I don't think all those documents have to

19 be in evidence if they're made available under Rule 1006.

20 There's no point in sending all that back to the jury room and

21 letting the jury think they have to go through all that if

22 they're just getting a summary.

23 MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor. I believe we

24 have a stipulation that will cover it.

25 MR. BURTON: We entered a stipulation that these are

447



1 financial documents, so...

2 THE COURT: Okay. Moving right on.

3 MR. BURTON: Your Honor, could I read this stipulation

4 at this time?

5 THE COURT: Yes.

6 MR. BUTLER: Thank you. "The United States and

7 defendant Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, after consultation with her

8 counsel, stipulate and agree that: The government has

9 established the authenticity and admissibility of the financial

10 business records, documents, records, reports, and data

11 compilation under Federal Rules of Evidence 803.6; and has

12 produced declarations conforming to Federal Rules of

13 Evidence 902.11 from a custodian of records for business records

14 relating to accounts maintained on behalf of the defendant by

15 the following businesses:

16 Wells Fargo & Company, and Charles Schwab & Company

17 Incorporated, a subsidiary of the Charles Schwab Corporation.

18 The parties agree that the defendant may still object

19 to such records on the basis of relevancy, Federal Rules of

20 Evidence 402, and any improper prejudice, Federal Rules of

21 Evidence 403."

22 THE COURT: Very well.

23 BY MR. BUTLER:

24 Q. If I could just pull out the -- and this might be easier,

25 Agent Burrus. I'll hand you TAX-0096 through 138. What is

448



1 that?

2 A. This is a copy of the 2002 form 1040 filed by Deborah Jeanne

3 Palfrey.

4 Q. And would you go to the Schedule C -- I'm sorry, the line C

5 on that document? Is that for an individual or for a business?

6 A. Form 1040 is for an individual filing.

7 Q. For what? I'm sorry --

8 A. The form 1040 is a U.S. individual income tax return.

9 Q. Would you go to line C on that document?

10 A. Line C of -- you mean Schedule C?

11 Q. I mean Schedule C. Thank you.

12 A. (Witness complies.) All right.

13 Q. What is a Schedule C in a tax return?

14 A. A Schedule C that's attached to the form 1040 is to report

15 profit or loss from a business of a sole proprietorship or a

16 single-member L.L.C.

17 Q. And was that Schedule C filed by Ms. Palfrey in this matter?

18 A. Yes, she did file a Schedule C.

19 Q. For what business?

20 A. For the business listed as Pamela Martin & Associates.

21 Q. And is there a Schedule A in there, too?

22 A. Yes, there is a Schedule A.

23 Q. And what is a Schedule A?

24 A. A Schedule A is where you report your itemized deductions,

25 which includes taxes you may have paid, interest on your home,

449



1 gifts to charity, casualty/theft losses, and other miscellaneous

2 expenses.

3 Q. And does the tax return say what type of business Pamela

4 Martin & Associates was?

5 A. It lists it as a "Service/Personal business."

6 Q. And what document within the tax return is that?

7 A. That is listed on Schedule C, line A.

8 Q. And does the tax return say the accounting method that was

9 used for that business?

10 A. Yes. On line F she selected or chose accounting method as

11 "cash."

12 Q. On the Schedule C?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. And what does that mean?

15 A. A cash basis method of accounting means that when you

16 receive income, you report it in the year that you actually

17 receive it. And when you incur expenses or actually pay the

18 expenses, you can take those as expenses.

19 Q. And is that on a gross receipt, net receipt? How was that

20 done?

21 A. I'm not sure I understand the question.

22 Q. Does Ms. Palfrey's return show gross receipts or net

23 receipts?

24 A. It shows gross receipts.

25 Q. And where does it show that?

450



1 A. On line one, under part one for the income, it shows the

2 gross receipts.

3 Q. And what is gross receipts, just to make sure?

4 A. Gross receipts in this instance would be all the income that

5 was received by the business during that year.

6 Q. So that would include Ms. Palfrey as well as her employees.

7 Is that correct?

8 A. Actually, it should include the monies that she actually

9 received, that was sent to her.

10 Q. And did you compare the tax returns to the bank records for

11 Ms. Palfrey? [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And what did that show?

14 A. The comparison of the bank records for this year, 2002, show

15 that there was a greater amount of gross receipts than was

16 reported on this line. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

17 MR. BURTON: Can we approach, Your Honor?

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 (BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)

20 MR. BURTON: I don't know where this is going.

21 MR. BUTLER: I'm not going to any tax discrepancy, or

22 anything to that effect. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

23 THE COURT: You just saddled her with basically what is

24 false reporting. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

25 MR. BUTLER: Well, I don't think it's gone that far

451



1 yet, Your Honor. I'm not going any further with this line of

2 inquiry.

3 THE COURT: Well, now you've put the defense in the

4 position where they have to respond to this. How are they going

5 to do that?

6 MR. BUTLER: Well, Your Honor, that was not the intent

7 of my question, but I appreciate what the Court is saying.

8 THE COURT: What was the intent of the question?

9 MR. BUTLER: My intent of the question, Your Honor, was

10 directed at the gross receipts that were deposited into this and

11 comparing it with the bank records that we have. It was a

12 poorly phrased question. That's all I can say about it. I

13 don't know anything more than that.

14 THE COURT: Well, where are you going next?

15 MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, I'm going next with -- can I

16 just have a moment, Your Honor?

17 Your Honor, there's another chart in terms of -- I just

18 need to grab it, just to answer the question more explicitly, if

19 I can have a moment.

20 THE COURT: How much more do you have with this guy?

21 MR. BUTLER: Not very much at all, Your Honor.

22 MS. CONNELLY: I think there's a bunch more documents.

23 MR. BUTLER: Well, there's other documents we need to

24 admit through him, yes.

25 THE COURT: Can he come back in the morning?

452



1 MR. BUTLER: We can do that, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: I think I want to instruct the jury that

3 there was no tax charge, no tax claim in this case.

4 MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Maybe I'll even instruct them they are to

6 disregard that last answer because it's not relevant to your

7 case. ...

Obama and FISA: Fallout

The Campaign Trail of Tears--As predicted by many, Sen. Barack Obama voted "yea"--in-favor--of passage of the FISA bill (H.R. 6304) that grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who aid and abet renegade administrations and a free pass to any president who authorizes surveillance of any American citizen without a warrant. Surprisingly, Sen. Hillary Clinton voted against the bill, but she no longer has the Democratic nomination for president in her sights, while Obama has it in-hand...for now.

Had Sen. Clinton won the nomination, she would have assuredly voted for passage of this unconstitutional legislation. How much will they use it and abuse it? That's assuming these programs are anything new. They are not. Passage of a bill without the Dodd, Feingold, and Specter amendments can be expected to open a Pandora's box.

The Bush administration was more-than-willing to travel down the rabbit hole, just as the Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and even the Reagan administrations did when they spied illegally on American citizens.

What we know about the passage of the bill today is that during the yearlong proceedings those who voted in-favor were receiving heavy donations from the very telecommunications companies who helped the president break the law.

Notably, John McCain did not vote for the bill, and his comments yesterday criticizing the rival candidate raises the question of whether Obama has walked right into another "Roveian" trap.

We all knew that the wiretap lawsuits were going to go nowhere, and that this legislation was never necessary. But what happens if there is another successful attack on the continental United States anyway? Ted Kennedy did not vote on the legislation either, which is not to his credit, but also predictable. John Kerry voted against the bill. Unbelievably, Arlen Specter voted "yea."

Here's a rundown, mark it well:

Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea DeMint (R-SC), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea

Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea

Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168

I want a Black president, just not this guy. It's time for a choice, a real one, and that choice is Ralph Nader. There are no long-shots in this political climate, no total wins for the public. What we must do is pressure the candidates. If they don't respond, we must take the responsible route and begin the work of creating third parties to apply pressure on our own terms.

You have to hand it to John McCain on this one, though it's even money that he supports H.R. 6304 wholeheartedly. Sen. Vitter voted "yea," but being the subject of wiretaps that were carefully suppressed for partisan reasons, he's just a tad biased. Of course the president "relishes" signing the legislation--he's not going to jail now. Wouldn't you? Barack Obama: he's probably already lost the race for the White House.

Ralph Nader had this--and much more--to say yesterday on the passage of H.R. 6304:

July 9, 2008 www.votenader.org www.officialnaderstore.com

Listen to Ralph Nader's audio message on the Senate vote on FISA - here. Good morning. This is Ralph Nader. Today is Wednesday July 9, 2008. And I'm listening now to the debate on the Senate floor over legislation that will give President Bush new warrantless eavesdropping powers. The bill will also grant immunity to telecom companies for cooperating with Mr. Bush in his illegal warrantless wiretapping on Americans - on any one of you. We were taught as young children that in our democracy, under our system of justice, nobody is above the law - nobody. But this bill puts the President and the telecom companies above the law. It also conveniently assures a coverup of Mr. Bush's past crimes in this area - of wiretapping and surveillance. On the Senate floor, Senator Feingold has just warned his colleagues that the Senate "will regret that we passed this legislation." As my home state Senator, Christopher Dodd, said: "If we pass this legislation, the Senate will ratify a domestic spying regime that has already concentrated far too much unaccountable power in the President's hands and will place the telecommunications companies above the law." What does it say that Senators Dodd, Feingold, Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy have led the valiant fight against this bill, but Senator Obama has said he will vote for it? Again, this bill gives the President vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and allows the government - for the first time ever - to tap into America's telecommunications networks with no judicial warrant requirement. President Bush and the Democrats who support him argue that the telecommunications companies were only doing what they were told by the President and were acting as "patriotic corporate citizens." This is pure hogwash. First of all, corporations aren't citizens. Second, the President can't order anyone - citizens or corporations - to break the law. This legislation, which the Senate is debating right now, sets up a double standard of justice. Break the law as a citizen, go to jail. Break the law as a corporation, go to Washington and get immunity. Remember, there were telecom companies, such as Qwest, that refused to follow President Bush's illegal wiretap orders and chose instead to obey the laws of the land. The Senate is now posed to bury the rule of law. What to do? Join Nader/Gonzalez - the candidacy that will shift the power from the corporations back into the hands of the people. We strongly oppose the wiretap surveillance legislation that Obama and McCain support. We stand strongly with the American people and for the Constitution. The Nader/Gonzalez campaign is now at six percent in the most recent CNN poll. We're in the middle of a fundraising drive right now to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in 45 states by September 20. Help us get there now. Go to votenader.org. Donate to your heart's content. For the Constitution. For liberty. For freedom. For justice. For shifting the power from the corporations, back into the hands of the American people. "We the people" are the first words of the Constitution - we should always remember. Thank you. PS: We invite your comments to the blog. Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250. Forward to a friend | Comment on our blog