Said blogger, one who is anonymous, can be found here. He/she has posted 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.

When you get to TPMM's, scroll down till the first anonymous poster. There will be several posts, all dealing with incredibly detailed information that leads to the WH. He/she doesn't disclose everything, and invites the reader to work certain things out, certainly to protect himself/herself. Then there will be an anymous poster who is not the same. The one we are discussing is obvious--lots of links to google information, lots of technical jargon.

I sent several of the longest posts to representatives, and other bloggers have forwarded it on to Keith Olbermann and Amy Goodman.

In short, this is amazing stuff.

Here are a few of his/her entries, for your reading pleasure:

Also, if the Senate's Leahy/Specter do not trust Gonzalez, why would they trust him on this AG-certifications under FISA? If he's been lying to the Senate, then his AG-certifications on "OK to do this without a warrant" are also in doubt. He could define anything -- rightly or wrongly -- as being under that umbrella.

Question becomes: What certification has the AG made on things that not even the Gang of 8 was told about; and how was the NSC (not NSA) involved with the oversight of this, outside FISA-Gang of 8 review?

"National security" could mean: "Maintaining morale" or "maintaining confidence": That could mean providing false information to the public; or, based on data mining, issuing public news releases to justify public support for illegal activity; or maintain confidence in something that was an illegal contract. This would involve capture through NSA of meta-language; then stripping out identifying information;; then transferring that data to a firm like Flieshman Hilliard which would examine it, and issue public news releases on various government "public oversight" and "media messaging issues": Smith Act issues in re domestic propaganda: Possibly a "public service" announcement to maintain loyalty in non-sense. Something for AT&T to discuss.

And, in response to our drational: (partial quote)

Recall, it's CIA that was sharing info with the EU on the rendition; and Plame was retaliated against by OVP: and the OVP blocking the archivist audit. Addington knew about the European Detention centers.Not getting info on the naval-based detention centers. Recall, Iran-Contra was an NSC-run operation: Cheney was involved. Could be the same kid of thing -- something run out of NSC, not the DoJ or NSA. Not clear that the "NSA" vs "NSC" is a typo: Suspect its different: NSC, not NSA, appears to be running these things. Recall DoJ met with the intelligence personnel at various sports facilitates in DC. Keep thinking Plame and Cheney were about sending a message to Cheney' private intelligence network -- likely linked through Halliburton -- to send a message: "Plame outing" is what will happen if you crosss the VP. Seems to simplistic to say this is only about oil, and retaliating against others who spill the beans. Libby's name was mentioned in the context of "basketball," another program -- that came up during the Grand Jury reviews; his counsel was worried Fitzgerald had access to NSA-GCHQ-intercepted information of legal counsel.

And,

SUMMARY

Mueller appears to be referring to a sub-contracted effort which indirectly supports the NSC with a special domestic security unit. These units engage in direct engagement with state-side personnel and civilians. Contractors, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel are assigned under non-direct-NSC-NSA units, but are hidden inside commercial entities. The groups appear capable of moving quickly, with no direct supervision, but act as internal security forces, completely outside FISA oversight. They appear to be entities unrelated to FISA, but are front line units which verify information, gather intelligence domestically, and help NSC pinpoint targets which NSC contractors are assigned. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Congress examine the Operation Falcon; determine which NSA/NSC personnel were assigned to oversee.

B. Examine the budget lines inside the DOD foreign entities support accounts; and determine which banks are used to challenge those funds. Determine how the DOD funds are funnelled overseas through the NSC entities, then back to the US to these individual groups.

C. Review the "investigative leads" and ground rules JTTF and local law enforcement use to dissuade detection of the domestic intelligence gathering efforts.

D. Review the destruction logs of the CIFA; and determine who was supposed to keep the logs related to these classified documents.

Determine which signalling systems, monitoring, and other intelligence gathering the JTTF are using; and where this information is sent. Ultimately, it winds up somewhere: Which contractors, NSC staffers have access to these reports.

E. Examine with Congressional Counsel whether it is the intent that these domestic security services operate this way; and whether, as FISA is written, this type of activity would fall outside what the FISA Court can engage.

F. Review the DHS domestic interrogation facilities. Look at the gas mileage for the DHS pick up teams. Review the files they've had access to; and the basis for detaining someone. Review the complaints of citizens being forcibly removed from their cars, engines running, or being taken from their homes while school children are present in the early morning. Evidence includes car impound fees.

G. Discuss with POST and local LE efforts used to dissuade public awareness of intelligence gathering: Excuses given to hide pre-textual stops; and examine whether local officials do or do not keep adequate records related to officer complaints and requests for civilian oversight to examine officer misconduct.

H. Examine problems during audits: To what extent officers in LE, FBI, and DHS are concerned when reports of officer misconduct arise; and what methods auditors are aware to segregate complaints about officer misconduct from auditors: Have they been asked to leave the room; were concerns explained away; were officers complaining they were "short manned" an unable to supervise; and how do these explanations square with the officer conduct. How often are these units employed to provoke innocent civilians to respond to abuse? To what extent are these domestic units used to harass civilians based on a "hunch"? Would these units put the children of minors at risk to entrap a suspected target? Is there no report of any of these personnel ever exposing a minor to a potentially unsafe situation to engage a target? Has the FISA court, Congress, and Judiciary been fully apprised of how these units operate; their procedures; and oversight requirement to ensure 42 USC 1983 claims are minimized? What insurance do these units have if they are engaged in liable action? Posted by:

Date: July 27, 2007 5:37 PM

These are just a few of his/her posts. Some of them are very long; took me almost an hour and a half to parse through it all.