Goodling's Handwriting Appears On Redacted Text

Ref The House Judiciary Committee e-mails can be read by placing the text in anothe reader.

"Some of the redacted portions can be easily read by copying to a program (e.g. Photoshop, Apple's Preview) that allows enlargement of the document." -- Mary V. April 13, 2007 11:51 AM

This appears to be Goodling's writing near the redacted text. Ref

* * *



Ref Original image located here.

Read more . . .

White House Violated Agreement With Grand Jury To Retain Data

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: Solve your supposed problem with the e-mails, and I'll back off.

However, given the White House does not appear to have complied with that agreement, it raises questions about the motivations of White house counsel who discussed the terms of the agreement. One Fitzgerald was led to believe that the e-mail retention issue was a "reasonable error, but could be remedied" yet the White House cannot remedy this "simple problem," We have to ask: If the solution that was supposedly simple was not done; why would we belie the original assertion the White House gave that the error was honest; or believe they were sincere in their promise to address this issue with e-mail to aoid prosecution.

It appears the "solution" the White House proposed in the deal with Fitzgerald was not sincere; they knew the real problem was a deliberate action; and the White House failure to demonstrate to Fitzgerald that it would manage Rove's e-mails as promised casts doubt on the White House original promises, defenses, and representations to the Grand Jury and Fitzgerald.

* * *

Agreement Terms Between White House And Grand Jury

The essential data retention requirements apart of the agreement between the Grand Jury and US Attorney appear to have been violated. This is a basis for Fitzgerald to re-open the Grand Jury review and find out what the White House said it would do to address his concerns; but was not done.

IT appears Fitzgerald did not peruse an investigation because he believes that the white House would resolve this issue. However, in light of this apparent violation o the Agreement, Fitzgerald has a reasonable basis to re-open the investigation and empanel the Grand Jury.

* * *

Before the story was confusion; now there is certainty. It still doesn't make sense.

The RNC lawyer would have us believe that Rove did something appropriate. Wrong. If Fitzgerald had any e-mails, then the issue isn't what Rove did or didn't do, but why didn't the agreement between the RNC and US Attorney -- how e-mail would be retained -- remain in full force.

RNC lawyers would have us believe that this deviation was up to Rove. No, there was an agreement between an ousted entity and the White House: What would the computer experts do to comply with the Grand Jury concerns.

What Rove supposedly did or didn't do is meaningless.

The question goes to the IT Department in the White House: Why, despite fairing warning fro the Grand Jury of their concerns with e-mail retention over Valarie Plame, did the IT department not ensue the e-mail was or wasn't retained.

* * *

RNC counsel and Rove have no credibility. They've shifted the focus form whether something was or wasn't lawful; to a secondary issue.

This has little to do with the RNC or Rove, but central to what the White House IT department agreed, but apparently did not do, to comply with the Grand Jury concerns about e-mail retention problems.

RNC and Rove are secondary. The issue is the agreement between the White House and the US Attorney's office over what would be done to remedy the procedures to comply with the Presidential Records Act.

Read more . . .

White House Implicated In Hand Written Notes

DoJ released new documents today to the House Judiciary Committee. The hand written notes indicate the White House and President were fully aware of the Gonzalez decision, and approved the retaliation against the US Attorneys.

7 of 76 Goodling's hand written notes indicate that "WH [White House] cleared".

* * *

"DoJ put the list together of problematic people; sent to WH; WH cleared"

Look at fifth line below " Reasons?", "Was Pres [President] told about this?"

___ Why doesn't GOodling, who was DoJ-WH liaison, not understand this?

* * *

It doe snot make sens for Goodling to say, in her role as liaison to be confused about the White House. It looks as though GOodling has discussed the DoJ role -- presumably including the Attorney General meeting, decision -- and has fatally asserted in writing that the President approved the decision.

Or are we to believe that the "White House clearing" something does not include the President who supposedly is "the decider"?

Read more . . .

White House Policy To Retaliate For Refusing To Inappropriately Leak Information

Goodling Comments on Insubordination On Information Sharing

The objective of the retaliation against US Attorneys, as with Valarie Plame, was not to enforce any law, but to impose order, discipline, and blind allegience to illegal activity.

Goodling’s hand written notes expressed an unstated policy that the US Attorneys were to disclose information political information to the GOP, but were not properly managed on that activity. Ref

The information which the US Attorneys were asked to provide appears to have been useful for the White House and GOP to direct the FBI to issue NSLs, engage in warrantless surveillance, and target personnel for monitoring. The illegal White House effort, which Goodling appears to have been a part of in taking retaliatory efforts, appears to be linked with inappropriately harassing American citizens for their opposition to the President; and in using this information to support war crimes and abuse against prisoners of war.

It is a flawed dichotomy to narrow the analysis to either [a] the US Attorneys were not authorized to disclose the information and were punished for not cooperating with inappropriate access; or [b] the US Attorneys, despite a requirement to disclose information, did not properly have fair warnings of this issue.

Rather, the US Attorneys were not told about the "real reasons" for their firing because those reasons were not lawful and were orechstrated to hide the real objective: Retalation to impose discpline and obedience to the GOP use of senstive infromation to impose power on people lawfully opposing abuse of power around the globe and in the Untited States.

* * *

Handwritten notes: Ref

Look at the right side, notice the arrow from "pattern of" then arrow goes up to right, "insubord [insubordination] on info sharing"

* * *

Notice the original 8 of 76. Focus on the scratched out words on the right hand side.

It appears to say, "Will face" [scratched out] insubordination for info sharing.

Goodling's Handwriting: Semi-Capitol F, Not Consistently Below the Line

Goodling does not consistently write the "f" either as a capitol, or with a dangling loop in the lower case. This is important. One view is the scratched out words could not include an "f" because Goodling has a hanging loop, and the "F" would fall below the line, which does not appear in the case.

However, if we look to the left side of the document: look for "chiara" underlined. Look to the third line to the right: Notice the "fractured office" -- Goodling when she writes an "f" does not always drop her loop below the line, but has a semi-capital "F" which forms above the line. "Fractured" is a semi-capitol letter, without any hanging loop.

This suggests that the conclusion about "Find" is valid; and that the lack of a hanging loop below the line in the scratched out word does not support the assertion that it could not be an "f". Rather, it suggest that Goodling wrote "Find" consistent with how she wrote "fractured" hear Chiara.

* * *

Review of original "Will Face Insubordination" then Change To "pattern of Insubordination"

Putting aside the details, let's consider the implications of Goodling’s notes related to insubordination. We judge the following:

1. There was some sort of information sharing requirement or policy, which the US Attorney did not agree, was not following, or refused to cooperate;
2. There were proposed sanctions for violating the policy; or there were some directions to share information that US Attorney refused;
3. There was no management documentation or criminal charge for the US Attorney "misconduct", suggesting that the "failure to disclose information" was not an enforceable requirement, but a political desire of the White House to get something it was not allowed to directly ask for
4. There were threatened retaliation: Charges of insubordination as in, "You will face a charge of insubordination if you do not release this information about the status of the cases."
5. Then they changed the notes from "will face" [scratched out], to a second note below, which has the arrow, to soften it, "Pattern of insubordination for info sharing."

This appears to indicate that someone at the meeting was discussing their frustration with a failure to disclose information that the RNC wanted; and they first discussed some sort of legal action. However, realizing that this legal action would result in public disclosure of that charge, they changed it to a disciplinary issue which is a "pattern of."

This shifts the issue from a criminal-court review, to one of a private administrative action.

* * *

Commentary on Information Above

Question: What information sharing does a US Attorney have discretion; who was requesting the information; and why wasn't this information requested directly?

How does the "info sharing" relate, if at all, to NSLs, data transfers for warrants, or transfer of information between agencies?

If the information should have been shared, and it was a requirement, the question turns: Who documented this "insubordination"; or was the "insubordination" an accusation because the US Attorney was correctly not revaluing information he should not have been?

It appears the "insubordination" is because of a refusal to disclose information to White House/RNC that should not have been disclosed."

Possibilities:

A. Status of US Attorney cases;

B. Problems US Attorneys had with the President;

C. Useful information for the RNC to get political advantage;

D. Release of confidential FBI information to the RNC for purposes of smearing and targeting;

E. Use of confidential grand jury or classified FBI information useful to justify NSA surveillance, JTTF targeting, or DHS warrantless searches-interviews

F. Refusal to provide classified information which JTTF, White House, and NSA were using as a pretext to broaden their reviews, interrogations, and monitoring of US citizen communications

* * *

There is nothing before us, in light of the DOJ IG findings on NSLs and the DOJ OPR from being blocked, to suggest that it could not have been any of the above.

The accusation of "insubordinate on information sharing" could be mean anything; and the DOJ Staff appears to have had enough examples to communicate what this insubordination meant.

It appears to implicate the DOJ Staff in their knowledge of what the information sharing was; and fails to consider the possibility that the US Attorney to refuse to provide that information may have been appropriate.

The understood policy within the White House appears to be: The GOP, Rove, White House counsel, DOJ Staff could assert they needed information -- regardless the legality of illegality of providing or transferring that information -- and should expect to get the information without question.

* * *

Congressional Inquiry

___ What occurred at the meeting to change the focus from charging the US Attorney with insubordination, and changing it to a pattern of insubordination?

___ What discussion point, and who raised this issues that shifted the focus of the discussion from taking action against the US Attorney direction with a charge or confrontation, but using a retroactive, administrative punishment?

It appears the answer is: The White House counsel, DOJ Staff and GOP knew that the basis for retaliating against the US Attorneys for refusing to disclose information only the GOP wanted, but was not appropriately released was the GOP, White House, and DOJ Staff knew that their request for this information was not appropriate.

However, given their objective was to retaliate for this inappropriate policy; and to punish the US Attorneys for refusing to disclose information of interest to the US Attorney, they crated this ruse.

The real story has nothing to do with immigrations or the US Attorneys, but the refusal of the US Attorney to give a heads up to the CIA that they were going to prosecute them for bribery. The real issue: The GOP couldn't trust these US Attorneys to be quiet about the GOP money laundering used to finance voter fraud; and to not be quiet about the issues of information transfer out of the US Attorney office which could have been used for political targeting in the form of NSLs, surveillance, harassment, and increased JTTF-NSA monitoring of political targets.

The US Attorney firing has nothing to do with immigration, but with the DOJ Staff knowledge that it was illegal for them to request sensitive information for partisan purposes. The aim of the US Attorney firings, as with the Valerie Plame outing, was to impose order on the remaining personnel in the DoJ and intelligence community: Give us what we want, ignore the law, and you will be rewarded. If you attempt to bock us from imposing our will on you, then you will suffer.

This is connected to Cheney, Addington, Libby, and his private intelligence network which he independently runs outside Congressional oversight.

This is fascism under this White House, Department of Justice, and what this Congress refuses to impeach. Rather than confront this President for illegal warfare, this arrogant, reckless House Judiciary Chairman and Speaker have taken impeachment off the table, and have refused to enforce the laws of war. Nuremburg is precedent for imposing legal consequences on Members of Congress for their reckless failure to enforce the laws of war with impeachment.

* * *

Summation

Gooddling's notes are evidence that there was a policy in place by the White House and DOJ Staff to inappropriately use information for unlawful purposes. The NSLs, rendition, prisoner abuse, and illegal FISA surveillance is connected.

The Goodling Memoranda suggests there was overwhelming evidence that the White House engaged in illegal activity, warrants impeachment, but the House Judiciary Chairman has been reckless in not keeping impeachment on the table.

The way forward is to end the investigations, and bring charges against the Speaker and the House Judiciary Chairman for their alleged refusal to enforce the laws of war with impeachment; and to point to the Goodling Memo as evidence of the larger abuses which this House Judiciary Chairman refuses to vote to support an investigation.

These are issues of international war crimes. If the US government refuses to enforce the laws of war, then foreign fighters -- under the principle of reciprocity -- may lawfully engage in like retaliation against the Speaker, House Judiciary Chairman for any and all abuses they have refused to enforce, which they know this President is doing: Using illegally captured information to implement war crimes: Prisoner abuse, summary execution, and trial without access to evidence.

It is reckless for this House Judiciary Chairman, given his legal background, to ignore the Nuremburg Precedents, and remove impeachment as an option to enforce the laws of war.

Goodling's memo is evidence that the DOJ Staff and White House knew the requires for information was not appropriate. Rather than change their policy, they attempted to go behind the back of the US Attorney, create a sham story, and intimidate them to accept a false reality.

The problem is not with the US Attorney, but the reckless leadership in the White House that engages in illegal warfare; and the complicit Congress which refuses to use impeachment and investigations into impeachment charges as a means to enforce the laws of war.

The error is to enable a war criminal. The second crime is for legal authority to refuse to enforce the laws of war. We don’t need new investigations. We need a new system of governance which compels the lazy buffoons in the GOP and DNC to enforce the law, not make excuses to “wait until the next election” until they think the weather is favorable.

This excuse for inaction is the same non-sense the British Parliament pretended was tolerable. This is absurd and not governance but recklessness disguised as something else.

Read more . . .

President Must Comply With Law To Maintain Executive Privildge

President for e-mail purging before he was for hiding, then protection, then suppression, then denial, then assertion it was appropriate

Ref President cannot have it both ways.

He claims that the e-mails to the RNC aren't archived, as required, because they're not part of the White House; yet, he claims the e-mails, which have not been stored properly, are protected by the President's Privilege.

Impossible.

The President is delusional: He (supposedly) wants to protect something he (apparently) believes is not associated with the White House.

Bush Delusion Calendar Check This is a repeat pattern of the Geneva violations at Guantanamo, FISA violations, and abuses with Eastern European Detention Centers:

Monday: Release e-mails, and say there is no problem
Tuesday: Denial about e-mail;
Wednesday: Hide e-mail meetings;
Thursday: Claim it is his job;
Friday: Blame others for the e-mail;

Saturday: Assert he has the right to destroy, not retain, and purge the e-mail because it's not his e-mail or official and not connected with the White House

Sunday: Pretends he can refuse to release the evidence he's fatally released on Monday.

Monday : Pretend the e-mail is connected with the White House and ignore the previous week. But let's not talk about the meetings he attended because he's no longer the decider. He's the Delusion-ister.

Tuesday: Offer no explanation why he [1] wants to destroy e-mail that has been released; or pretend that the e-mail is not connected with the White House as a basis to destroy it; but then reverses himself and [2] claim the released e-mail is connected with the White House but hasn't been retained under the Presidential Records Act; but then reverse himself again and [3] pretend that the e-mail -- he's previously said was not connected with the White House, and could be purged-- is linked with the White House and protected by privilege; never mind that the e-mail he says is privileged has been both purged in violation of the law and released to the bublic.

Nobody can hide illegal activity once it's disclosed. ORCON rules say it's illegal to ally any evidnce of illegal ctivity to be hidden by any classificaiton or executive order.

Conclusion: This President -- the best the GOP can offer as leadership -- is retarded and has hired stupid legal counsel.

* * *

Either:

A. The President failed to retain the data according to the rules which apply to Presidential records; or

B. The records were not stored as required because they were not intended to be retrieved, as required; or

C. The President is claiming privilege for something he did not want to be associated with: OR

D. The President hopes to pretend that something that he doesn't want to be associated with, and hide behind another communication system, is part of the White House that he wants to be associated with and protect; or

E. The President can't decide if he was for the e-mail protection before he was against it.

* * *

For the President to claim privilege, he cannot allow that data to be released. Once the information is disclosed, even inadvertently, the evidence is not protected.

The issue isn't the content of the e-mails; but the extent to which the e-mails unrelated to the White House have been used for official purposes.

Once the President asserts the evidence is privileged, he must show that the evidence has been retained lawfully.

He can't claim that the evidence is privileged, yet it can be purged without comply with with the Presidential records act.

Either the e-mail complies with the Presidential records; or the President cannot claim privilege.

Once the President failed to ensure the e-mails were retained as required, he cannot show that he hoped to use those e-mails for lawful purposes. Rather, the double standard on privilege asks us to believe two realities at once.

No way.

Read more . . .

Plame Grand Jury Investigation Triggered Constraints on Rove E-Mail Deletions

Rove E-Mail Purge Blocked Because of Problems Fitzgerald Grand Jury Had Investigating Plame Name Leak

As the Grand Jury investigation into the leaking of Valarie Plame's name broadened, legal counsel to the President were advised of requirements to manage Rove'e e-mail uses.

Because of expanding Grand Jury inquiry, Rove e-mail activity was reviewed. He had special procedures in place because of problems with e-mail deletions.

___ Why is there close coordination with political [Rove] and legal [WHite Houes counsel Miers] on US Atty firings; yet we're asked to believe that RNC legal [Kelner] isn't aware of the legal issues inside the White House? This is (supposedly) an inconsistent coordination on legal issues: One Standard of coordination between the political-legal offices for the US Attorney firing emails; but a different standard on supposed legal issues. This does not seem credible.

___ Why is the White House tyring to pretend that the GOP isn't in the loop on some legal issues; but is on others? Does not make sense.

___ In light of the Foley and Plame investigations, why wasn't this e-mail retention issue resolved? No credible reason.

* * *

Model Rules of Attorney Standards of Conduct

Kelner is legal counsel to the RNC. Notice the various hats that Kelner may have been waring, and how the Model Rules could be twisted to feign ignorance:

Ref Candor to Tribunal
Ref Fairness to opposing counsel
Ref Impartiality
Ref Duty as Witness
Ref Advocate at non-adjudicative proceedings

Attorney standars of conduct require candor before a tribunal; however, if Kelner looks as his primary loyalty ot the President not GOP, then Keyler may be misleading Congress, or thinking that this interview is not an official appearing by him as counsel to the RNC.

___ Has Kelner feigned stupidity on legal issues; or is he treating Congress not as a tribunal but as a legal adversary as Klener represents the President and the RNC before Congress?

___ Which hat was Kelner wearing when he appeared before Wasman: Counsel to RNC; counsel to President; witness before a tribunal; counsel for a client with an adversarial interest to Congress?

* * *

The US Attorney Firing e-mails are linked to procedures Rove was required to follow. Despite the Grand Jury review and problem Fitzgerald had with e-mails, the White House moved the communications to new servers, but continued not to properly comply with the law.

Mr. Kelner also explained that starting in 2005, the RNC began to treat Mr. Rove’s emails in a special fashion. At some point in 2005, the RNC commenced an automatic archive policy for Mr. Rove, but not for any other White House officials. According to Mr. Kelner, this archive policy removed Mr. Rove’s ability to personally delete his e-mails from the RNC server. Mr. Kelner did not provide many details about why this special policy was adopted for Mr. Rove. But he did indicate that one factor was the presence of investigative or discovery requests or other legal concerns.Ref

It appears the President and White House counsel well know of the original illegal activity -- the leaking of Plame's name, which had not been properly retained as evidence in the e-mails -- and this prompted pressure to find a backup communication system.

Hoeer, despite this backup communication method, Rove was denied the ability to remove e-mail.

Given the gravity of the Plame investigation it's unclear why the White House asserted there was no formal report; yet ther was administrative action to manage Rove's e-mail access.

If the E-mail retention problem Rove had related to Plame was real, then the White House counsel and RNC leadership would have known about this illegal activity, but appear t have been reckless in not responding to the problems the Grand Jury had with e-mail retention.

It remains unclear why the procedures which were applied to Rove in re Plame were not applied to all White House staff for all e-mails and electronic communication methods.

* * *

Notes

See Waxman letter:

Plame Outing Prompted White House To Block Rove From Deleting E-mails

___ How was this done?

___ Why was Rove blocked from deleting e-mails, yet we were told that there was no investiation report into the breach of Plame’s name?

___ Why wasn’t Kelner, counsel for the RNC, not knowledgeable why Rove was blocked?

___ Why was the RNC part of the email commcantio; but the RNC counsel is not are of the legal isues prompting the uS of the RNC resources: Why didn’t he find
out; and are there issues of legal counsel non-cooperation with House Overnight Board?

* * *

Rove was prevented from deleting e- mails because of the Libby investigation. Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury had problems with the White House, and this is subject
of secret grand jury evidence which has not been released.

* * *

Appears Kelner was sent because he had no clue what the Grand Jury talked about.

___ Need to talk to Fitzgerald?

___ Keler not cooeprating with the Tribunal as required under his Attorney Standards of conduct?

___ Why hasn't White House counsel and RNC counsel shared information on the legal issues related to these policies?

Read more . . .

E-Mail Inventory Deadline: 3 May -- Inputs to Waxman

Ref Your e-mail inventories are due.

In light of the failure of the primary archiving systems to meet their legal requirements under the statute, Congressman Waxman is required to request all indirect personnel not necessarily related with the RNC to retain all White House and DOJ staff-related communications.

You are expected to include in your commentary and information you believe may shed light on the war crimes issues.

Samples follow.

In your summaries include lists of questions that you believe should be asked; or lines of inquiry that you may believe might be helpful for others to consider. These questions might be lists of interrogatories during cross examination; or lists of documents that you believe Members of Congress would be asking for, review, or should have access to.

If you do have information about statutes that are applicable to the areas that you are interested in, or have information showing the relationship between your concern or question and the statutes that would be welcome.

* * *

Samples: How This Fits Together

You'll get an idea what this blog is about.

Each sample (listed below) connects with the Helix and Constellation; and traces to entities, firms, intermediaries, contracts, and pesonnel associated with the draft war crimes indictments.

Note the link to the NARUS STA System and the NSA intermediaries indirectly connected with the White House IT department and commercial entities.

Sample FOIA, interrogatory Ref Rendition in re scheduling, use of NSA illegally capture information, and interaction with contractors allegedly complicit with war crimes

Sample FOIA, interrogatory Ref Abraxas: Firm allegedly placing CIA personnel used to implement war crimes, FISA violations, prisoner abuse, and unlawful kidnapping in violation of laws of war.

Sample budget trace Ref See Item 2

Sample equipment trace Ref Identifying links beteween equipment use, origin, funding, and contractors and intermediaries indiretly linked with the alleged lllegal use of equipment to the White House-connected entities. [Note the pay stations which were identified and linked to NSA and Columbus DFAS.]

Sample trace between alleged war-related entity; and e-mail/instant message identifying information. Ref For war crimes prosecutors.

Sample suggestion: Ref See Item 6 for cross reference between a commercial entity and staff agency currently under investigation. Others will know to watch for these documents and issues as they review the DoJ internal operations and contracting issues. [ Details ]

Sample Non-official instant message analysis Ref [NSA]

Sample Work station analysis to assist forensics: here [Rove]

Sample Work station analysis showing President Gonzalez lying about FISA compliance Ref Confirmation Assigned Personnel not meeting legal requirements. [DoJ not fully using all staff counsel for warrant processing]

Sample Website archive analysis based on visits from that work station Ref [ NRLA ]

Sample Discovery plan for intermediaries, outside counsel, and indirect communication systems between RNC, White House, and outside counsel Ref [Sidley Austin]

Sample Sweep of White House internal and external communications Ref [White House, Sampson, Sidley Austin]

* * *

E-mail Request

Congressman Waxman requests, and you will comply with the following:

preserve all e-mails received from White House officials who used 'gwb43.com,' 'georgewbush.com,' 'rnchq.org,' or other nongovernmental e-mail accounts. The Committee also asks you to preserve any e-mails sent to White House officials at anv of these accounts."

provide the Committee with an inventory of any e-mail communications in the agency's possession or control that meet the description in the preceding paragraph. This inventory should include the name and e-mail address of the sender, the name and e-mail address of the recipient, the date of the e-mail, and a brief description of the subject of the e-mail. This inventory should be provided to the Committee by May 3,2007."

* * *

The problem is larger than e-mails. What Congress will be asking for next are the larger communication systems and networks other than e-mails.

This link shows you what forensics experts are going to ask for. This means the following:

A. If you have any details from your files, data, or private captures related to bookmarks, URLs, or anything else which may assist investigators, prosecutors, and war crimes adjudicators understand intent;

B. If you have data showing you was physically assigned to a specific computer work station, that would be helpful

C. If ou have seating charts showing which computers were using which search engines. Not well known, Google has a desktop feature which caches e-mails. There are other options which other search engines do as well which may be of interest.

D. If you have time cards showing which personnel are assigned to which work stations, those computer numbers can be cross referenced with names; personnel entry times to the buildings; and understand other systems they may be using outside official channels.

The goal isn't to simply capture e-mails, but to identify the likely other sources of information, communication, and methods of interaction that have remained hidden.

* * *

It will be helpful if you identify any expertise in the e-mail sender or receiver who has communicated with the RNC; and identify their expertise in document retention. Congress will have the information to determine whehtr the White House, RNC, and others did or did not appropriately rely on professional expertise associated with these outside entities to implement the correct document retention procedures.

* * *

As standby, we need to have ready a subsequent submittal. To meet this requirement, the appropriate response will also include a matrix of all identifying data for that workstation; and any other identifying information about the computer system including browser type, screen size, and details which may assist forensics experts in identifying which specific communications systems were used.

IN your response include a relationship diagram showing:

A. The depth, frequency, and volume of the e-mails

B. Nodes of communications;

C. Sites of back-up locations where the White House staff, outside counsel, and DOJ personnel are known to interact with each other outside direct observation;

D. The sign-in names of the White House, DoJ, and NSA personnel using the instant messaging systems;

E. Copies of the clusters where indirect entities, contractors, and outside counsel have been confirmed to discuss these issues while the primary communications, e-mails, and issues were being discussed using instant messages or other data transmission systems.

* * *

TO Assist Congress and WAR Crimes Prosecutors I expect to see the following:

1. Information which will comply with this detailed requirement, listed here and here;

2. Copies of all public, private, and other information which will shed light on which entities have been involved with illegal activity while assigned to NSA, White House, DOJ, or any other uS government facility

3. Evidence that personnel were not engaged in official duties while using government resources

4. Evidence that DOJ, White House, or NSA staff counsel were coordinating with other individuals, entities, and intermediaries using non-official e-mails and instant messaging systems

5. Copies of the common data transmission times; indicators that data packages from one location were commonly sent to common individuals associated with the RNC, DOJ< White House, or NSA

6. Confirmed locations where personnel from the White House, DoJ, NSA, or other Executive Branch personnel were meeting to exchange e-mails, data, and other things without using e-mails or instant messaging

7. Names of all staff counsel assigned to these entities, and the date that they were entered into their state bar.

8. Seating charts inside the White House, DoJ, NSA

9. Updated cell phone lists cross indexed with e-mail and other contact information

10. Records of meeting minutes, budget documents, signed policy memos, or other presentation materials where DOJ Staff were assigned; visiting; or conducting business related to the RNC while on official duty hours.

11. Ciopes of all identifying information, communications, travel reports, budgets, and travel vouchers related to the transfer of funds from the RNC counsel, and their relationship with outside lobbyists; and copies of the tickets or payment stubs which may or may not be filed with the travel reports.

Read more . . .

Reviewing Congressional Oversight of NSA, DOJ Inspector Generals

Revising the Constitution and Creating A 4th Branch of Investigators: Solving The The Problem With Direct Presidential, Agency Head Appointments of NSA, DOJ IG And Investigators

It cannot be argued that the current system of checks and balances have served us well. They have been ignored, not enforced. This cannot happen again. New laws and new leaders are meaningless. We need structural changes to the way the US government interacts. For We the People this requires a New Constitution, something Congress has no input.

For Congress, the way forward is to examine what failed with the Inspector Generals. We cannot continue with this reckless oversight of the OIG offices. This note discusses a remedy and change in direction.

* * *

We need to look at the Congressional oversight of the President's appointment of the Inspector Generals, law enforcement leadership, and criminal prosecutors. This note argues that these abuse functions need to be removed from the control of the President, and placed in a fourth branch of government that is independent, and has loyalty only to the Constitution and We the People. The aim of this Fourth Branch would be to enforce the Constitution regardless which political party were in power.

Reviewing Congressional Oversight of NSA, DOJ Inspector Generals

* * *

Examining Problems With Current Inspector Gernal Oversight

When we're looking at what failed with the DOJ and NSA in re illegal activity since 2001, one area to review is the auditing and inspector generals. We've previously outlined some legislative reforms, desertification, and a requirement of the NSA IG to get certification sunder penalty of perjury.

Senator Leahy well outlined his concerns the Executive Branch has betrayed America's and the Constitution. Part of the problem has been the failure of auditors to independently audit and report illegal activity.

It is not longer acceptable for the President to have an unsupervised power to appoint anyone as an inspector General, but the Congress not have some input into whether that IG needs to be given some incentives to directly confront the President for illegal orders or guidance to the NSA or DOJ IG.

I would encourage the Congress to review the terms under which inspector Generals are appointed; how often the OIG leadership is audited; and what timely action can be taken investigate OIG regardless who controls congress or the Executive Branch.

One approach is to create a fourth branch of government where all investigators are assigned; and they are afforded the military power to directly confront a President that has been determined to be in violation of the laws of war. Yes, I'm talking giving the leadership of the 4th Branch special combat and arrest powers to enforce investigations, and use lawful military force to arrest and capture a President who has engaged in war crimes.

* * *

A Sample Bill

I realize this is "old' legislation, but things like this have a bad habit of quickly appearing in bills without Congress paying attention. This is not going to work, especially under the current environment where the President is thwarting NSA and DOJ IG from doing their jobj:

(Sec. 435) Amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 to require the head of the NRO, DIA, NSA, and NGIA to appoint an independent inspector general for each such agency (thus giving such inspectors general the same information-gathering power and independence as is currently held by inspectors general of other federal agencies). Allows the DNI or the Secretary of Defense to prohibit the inspector general of an IC element from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation if such Director or Secretary determines that the prohibition is necessary to protect vital U.S. national security interests. Requires notification of such determination to the defense and intelligence committees.Ref

Let's get the NSA IG appointment issue on the table: What is the President and NSA Directing thinking that they should continue to have non-Senate involvement with the appointment of the Inspector Generals?

Why does the President believe that he can directly appoint anyone, but not have that supposed "direct reporting auditor to Congress" not subject to Congressional monitoring?

Read more . . .

Decerififying NSA and DOJ OIG Offices

Based on a review of the repeat findings in the NSA verification audit, we recommend Congress, GAO, and DOD IG discuss desertification of the NSA and DoD Inspector Gernal's offices.

Both OIG have not well demonstrated their Independence or trustworthiness in reviewing the legality of the activities.

* * *

Here is the verification audit done on NSA IG. in light of the illegal activity of the Prescient, and otherConstitional violations, we have no confidence NSA IG can adequately meet these requirements.

Until NSA IG is decerified, and submits to a subsequent verificatino audit, we have no choice but to conclude NSA and DOJ OIG are compromised.

Verification Audit

Verification audits are done to show that the NSA and DOJ IG are meeting their procedures. The issue is not whether the NSA is or is not doing the right thing, but whether the internal controls, audits, and checklists NSA OIG is using will or will not catch audit risks.

Based on the illegal activity disclosed in the illegal domestic surveillance activity, and the fact that the illegally NSL issues were not self reproted, but prompted by Congress, we conclude that the OIG in both DOJ and NSA cannot be trusted to independently audit either NSA or the Department of Justice.

It remains a separate issue whether the NSA and DOJ are or are not meeting their statutory requirements. It is a secondary issue whether the entire Departments of Justice or National Security Agency are decrtified and transferred under direct Congerssoinal Control.

Based on Article 1 Section 8 powers to raise and support armies, Congress does have the legal authority to appoint a special master to direct the transition of NSA and DOJ personnel to direct Congressional Control.

The President cannot argue that he has primary control of these agencies when they are being illegally used, do not meet audit requirements, and have been unwilling to comply with the law.

Eitehr Congress decertifies the Agencies, transfers them to COngerssoinal control as direct reporting agencies under Article 1 Section 8; or the Congress redefine a new oversight system which will compel investigations regardless who controls any branch of government.

Read more . . .

War Crimes Challenge for NSA Inspector General

NSA IG has a problem. Despite a legal requirement to oversee audits, NSA personnel have been using non-official instant messaging systems which are not secure to transact NSA activities. These are serious issues.

Under the laws of war, foreign fighters are permitted to engaged in like retaliation against US government officials who violate, do not enforce, and fail to comply with the Geneva Conventions.

NSA IG needs to immediately get a certification under penalty of perjury by all NSA employees whether they have or have not fully complied with all NSA security requirements. NSA personnel shall immediately certify under oath and penalty of perjury that they have not used NSA resources or facilities in conjunction with non-official e-mail or instant messaging systems.

Update: NSA IG office recommended for decertification.

* * *

Ref Security issues in re NSA Audit: What is getting in the way of independence in re the instant messaging issues?

Ref How have the checklists incorpoated the revisions to NSDD 298?

Ref Why is there a repeat finding on Issue 15: Computer security?

Once all NSA employees have certified under penalty of perjury that they have never used any commercial, non-official e-mail or instant messaging systems then a list of NSA personnel who have been using these non-secure systems will be provided. The list will not be available until the NSA IG gets all NSA personnel to certify. Once personnel have certified, on a random basis NSA employees who are known to have engaged in this non-official commendations; or may be complicit with war crimes may or may not be identified publicly.

D0 not take any action based on this information: This is a sample. This is a sample of what foreign fighters are permitted to do under the laws of war against alleged war criminals who have allegedly refused to surrender; and not timely prevented abuse under the laws of war.

Current and former White House counsel, NSA personnel, and US government officials associated with the CIA and Intelligence community may be lawfully targeted under the laws of war. Any abuse committed by any US person in violation of Geneva -- not limited to prisoner abuse, summary execution, and like violations of Geneva -- may be lawfully committed by foreign fighters against current and former US government officials. All US Government orders to violate Geneva, not full enforce, or deprive prisoners of any right protected under Geneva may be similarly denied to anyone foreign fighters -- on accusation alone -- deem to be worthy of retaliatory acts. Geneva permits this under the laws of war.

* * *

War crimes prosecutors would like to know which NSA IG reports and investigations have been suppressed as they related to use of NSA non-official communion systems to coordinate data transfers for to implement war crimes. It is serious business when NSA personnel have interacted with non-official e-mail systems, denied the use of that technology to NSA authorities, but have used those communication systems to implement war crimes, and transfer data to support kidnapping, rendition, illegal prisoner abuse and unlawful warfare.

The National Security Agency is expected to provide to congress a list of all personnel who have been using non-official e-mails and instant messaging systems for official business.

All NSA Personnel are expected to under go a security screening and audit to verify whether they are or are not in compliance with this data retention requirement.

All NSA personnel who have been using non-official commendations systems shall testify and assert under penalty of perjury whether they have or have not fully complied with the NSA combination requireme3nts.

Any NSA personnel who falsely certify that they have not been using non-official e=mail and instant messaging for official combinations may be prosecuted.

These are serious issues. NSA personnel have been linked with non-official communication systems. NSA employees have not provided assurances that all personnel using these unauthorized communications systems have been decertified.

It is the job of the NSA leadership to explain why NSA personnel are not willing to fully comply with the information retention requirements; why they are using non-official e-mail and instant messaging systems for official communications; and why NSA personnel are not willing to on the record today, under penalty of perjury, certifying that they have not used any non-official communion systems while conducting NSA operations, activities, or combinations.

* * *

There are some serious problems for the NSA IG and Members of Congress to review.

The OIG is authorized access to all information, records, reports, documents, electronic systems/material, personnel and physical areas at NSA/CSS HQ and at all field sites.

___ Why are the records with Q2 indicating who has or has not disclosed classified information not included statements on use of non-secure e-mail and non-secure instant messaging using official NSA resources to conduct communication, discussion, and planning between NSA employees, outside entities and intermediaries?

* * *

The OIG has several areas of responsibility. With regard to oversight, the OIG is responsible for overseeing compliance with Executive Order 12333 and related implementing directives and regulations to ensure the lawful execution of intelligence operations.

___ When does NSA IG and the IOB plan to review all NSA combinations to determine who has violated Executive Order 12333 and has illegally classified evidence that NSA employees have been using non-official communication systems to transact business?

* * *

Results of their oversight efforts are reported to the Department of Defense and the President's IOB.

___ What has the IOB not been reviewing this breach in security?

___ When does the IOB plan to review this breach of NSA communications?

___ How long has the President, White House counsel, and National Security Council known about this use of non-official communications systems by personnel in the intelligence community?

* * *

In addition, the Deputy Director, NSA, chairs an NSA Intelligence Oversight Board consisting of the Deputy Director, the Inspector General, and the General Counsel.

___ When does the NSA General Counsel plan to discuss their knowledge of the evidence and document retention requirements?

___ Why has there been insufficient auditing of the NSA commendations systems to thwart, detect, or prosecute NSA personnel who are using non-official communication systems to conduct Agency planning and official business?

* * *

The Board conducts oversight reviews of NSA activities. The NSA General Counsel as well as an office within the Directorate of Operations conduct oversight activities as well.

___ Why has the IOB not reviewed this use of non-official NSA commendations system?

___ Who has refused to certify in writing to the IOB that they have not used unofficial communion systems within the NSA to conduct NSA business; or communicate with entities and contractors related to the NSA?

* * *

NSA/CSS has its own internal oversight process within the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The OIG has the authority to conduct inspections, audits and investigations to ensure that NSA/CSS operates with integrity, efficiency and effectiveness.

___ Who has been blocking NSA OIG from reviewing the non-secure communication systems NSA employees are reviewing?

___ What's the reason the NSA General Counsel has not timely reviewed these issues in light of the White House and RNC e-mail retention "problem" in re the US Attorney firings?

* * *

Summation

NSA IG and NSA General Counsel have a common problem. Personnel linked with the NSA are allegedly complicit with illegal activity. Personnel include individuals who have cooperated in the illegal use of data used to detain, abuse, kidnap, and summarily execute without trail. Any abuse NSA personnel have been complicit may be adjudicated as war crimes.

NSA personnel in violation of the laws of war, have attempted to use non-official e-mail and instant messaging systems to thwart detection by war crimes prosecutors. These are alleged subsequent crimes under the laws of war.

Geneva permits retaliatory acts by foreign fighters under the laws of war to enforce Geneva. NSA IG and the NSA IOB must decide whether they are going to side with the Conventions, Congress, the Constitution, and We the People; or whether they are going to advance illegal warfare by this President.

IF NSA IG refuses to cooperate with Congress and war crimes prosecutors in identifying the NSA personnel who have engaged in these war crimes; or used the non-official commutation methods to thwart detection of, but implement war crimes, the NSA IG may be adjudicated with war crimes.

If you refuse to cooperate, you may be lawfully targeted by foreign fighters using methods which the Congress has not stopped, and the President said were permissible: Summary execution without trial; no access to secret evidence, and abuse after detention, and no prosecute you may be able to appeal the summary judgment without a fair trial. This remain on the table as a lawful option for foreign fighters.

Cooperate with this war crimes investigation; or foreign fighters may take this despite to the battlefield and expand combat operations worldwide against NSA-related entities, personnel, contractors, officials, and intermediaries worldwide. Remedy your alleged rebellion against the rule of law and laws of war now.

Read more . . .

NSA Personnel Use Pidgin Instant Messaging To Coordinate Activites

The National Security Agency at Fort Meade has learned well from the White House e-mail retention problems. Or so they thought.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Senator Leahy, charged with enforcing the laws of war against the United States government, has some comments for the White House, NSA, DoJ, and intelligence community: You have no credibility and you will respond to the subpoenas related to this electronic data.

The NSA has been linked with the Pidgin private messaging system which appears to circumvent the data retention requirements. This link discusses how to analyze the NSA's Pidgin IM messaging system which the NSA personnel have been using; where to look for the information; and how to analyze the NSA personnel actions when they use this non-official, commercial product for ongoing communications.

Karl Rove has been using Windows. This link goes into an analysis of the bookmarks and cache system outside counsel at Sidley Austin are familiar. There is no credibility to any White House assertion that they did not have enough guidance on document retention standards. Sidley Austin was available to conduct peer reviews and IT audits of the White House counsel policies, guidance, and memoranda.

Investigators from Congress and international war crimes prosecutors are encouraged to review the NSA personnel in their procurement office to determine why the NSA is discussing contracts to hire, use, and work with agencies and entities that place personnel in non-official cover status in the United States.

* * *

___ What is the plan of Congress to subpoena all records related to the NSA Pidgin system as it relates to war crimes, prisoners abuse, illegal warrants, inappropriate use of NSLs, transfer of data to target lawful activity, or other US government actions to thwart enforcement of the laws of war?

___ When did Sidley Austin discuss document retention standards with the White House counsel's office?

___ When will Members of Congress review all third-party orders and direction by the NSA legal counsel to delegate from their cache system all records and evidence related to the US of any instant messaging sytem to coordinate any official activity?

___ What is the plan today to scan for the Pidgin system on all NSA employee work stations, NSA contractors, and other intermediaries affiliated directly or indirectly with the intelligence community, White House, DoJ, and Republican Party?

___ When will the NSA IG discuss their plan with Members of Congress to use certified fraud examiners to review the time lines, data, and other evidence NSA personnel have sent using instant messaging systems?

___ Is there a reason that the National Security Agency personnel are using AOL and the Pidgin system to coordinate the use of CIA contract employees inside the United States?

___ When does the NSA plan to fully disclose to Congress their operational plans, communications, and other data sent through these instant messages as they relate to coordination unlawful use of illegally captured information for the FBI to self-issue National Security Letters; or support illegal surveillance; or support unlawful kidnapping referred to as rendition?

___ When does NSA IG plan to discuss the document retention standards applicable to NSA personnel using these commercial instant messaging systems?

___ What are the reasons why NSA is using commercial products to coordinate NSA official activities?

___ Why are these non-secure products being used at any time by personnel associated with the National Security Agency?

___ What is the status of Q2's investigation into personnel who have been using these instant messaging systems?

___ Is the intent of the IM system so that under polygraph NSA personnel can affrimatiley say, "I have not used e-mail to discuss classified information"?

___ Why have NSA personnel been incorrectly told that illegal activity, war crimes, and other unlawful violations of the laws of war, when classified, cannot be discussed; or that activity is appropriate use of e-mail and IM systems?

___ When does the NSA legal counsel plan to remind NSA personnel that it is illegal to classify evidence of war crimes; put a gag order on NSA personnel or contractors related to war crimes or illegal activity; and that it is not lawful to create a contract vehicle or use contract language that compels contractors to remain silent about illegal warfare or activity which puts into effect rendition, prisoner abuse, illegal warrants, or FISA violations?

___ Why isn't NSA Q2 specifically asking why NSA personnel are not using instant messaging systems to engage in illegal activity, or plan official NSA operations?

___ Reason why NSA personnel are discussing methods to use commercial products which are not designed to interface, retain, or store data for Members of Congress?

___ When did NSA IG Plan to present these findings to the Congress?

___ Given the high visibility of the White House e-mail retention problem, did it not enter the minds of NSA management or the NSA IG that this instant messaging product requires some sort of legal memorandum?

___ How did the NSA leadership plan to incorporate the lessons learned from the White House and properly issue guidance to retain all e-mails and instant messages that the NSA personnel have been sending?

___ What coordination has there been between NSA and CIA-related entities to target, track, and monitor personnel using NSLs?

___ Why is the National Security Agency interfacing with entities designed to circumvent the United States Code?

___ How many of the NSA personnel assigned to Ft. Meade or their contracting facilities are knowlwedable of the information going between intermediaries, NSA contractors, and other firms related to the of illegally captured information for purposes of abusing prisoners of war?

___ When did the NSA management plan to discuss with Congress their knowledge that the NSA personnel were interfacing with entities, personnel, and other government agents and contractors who have been implicated in war crimes?

___ Is there a reason that the NSA senior management has not reviewed the scope of contracts the NSA has with entities which illegally use information; or transfer that information to personnel assigned by those entities for purpose of committing war crimes?

___ What is the explanation the National Security Agency has for allowing personnel assigned to the NSA to use commercial instant messaging systems; but there be no adequate explanation why those products are linked with commercial entities used to support war crimes, implement Geneva violations, or carry out unlawful acts of war?

___ What role did the NSA procurement office have in acquiring non-official instant messaging systems used to coordinate information transfer from the NSA to support illegal kidnapping, prisoners abuse, and war crimes?

___ When does the NSA IG plan to discuss how the NSA personnel were using instant messaging systems to coordinate the transfer of information, people, and data from the NSA to the CIA for purposes of disseminating illegally captured information used to engage in war crimes, kidnap civilians, engage in prisoner abuse, and schedule the transport of personnel across international borders?

___ Does the NSA IG have any plan to review the use of NSA personnel use of instant messaging to transfer data from the NSA to commercial entities used to manage the NSA domestic surveillance program?

___ When does the NSA plan to fully cooperate with a war crimes investigation into use of NSA resources to support, implement, and carry out violations of the laws of war?

Read more . . .

Proposed FISA Changes No Help To President

John M. "Mike" McConnell released some meaningless changes to FISA which do not help the President, even if retroactively applied.

Ref The Proposed FISA changes, even if implemented, would not have legalized what the President has done.

This analysis shows there remain many questions which the Congress needs better information.

The proposed changes sound like efforts to incorporate NSL-related abuses and illegal activity the DOJ IG identified.

* * *

1. US Nationals were monitored without approval of FISA;

2. Even if standards of proof were revised, the President has been ignoring them.

3. Even if warrants were extended from 120 to one year, Gonzalez still ignored the FISA court;

4. Whether phone companies have civil immunity for violations i meaningless when those data captures are used to support prisoner abuses and war crimes.

5. Even if emergency warrants were extended from 72 hours to one week, Gonzalez ignored the FISA court and did not get extensions well after many months.

6. Even if the above changes were available, it's not clear why the White House was conducting illegal activity prior to Sept 2001.

Read more . . .

Potential War Crimes Evidence At Republican National Lawyers Association

RNC lawyers inside the Department of Justice have allegedly attempted to remove information which could be probative for a war crimes tribunal. Evidence destruction is not a good thing when it is linked with alleged war crimes. Bad timing, RNLA. If you had nothing to hide, why are you . . . uh, hiding it?

This is on top of the fatally admitted White House violations of the Presidential records act. Looks liked DOJ Staff counsel working for RNLA well knew the FBI had all but elinated their reviews of white collar crime: How much did they expect the FBI to turn its back on government corruption inside the Department of Justice? If you have a President you know is blocking the DOJ OPR from reviewing matters, the RNLC looks like it has a free reign to commit war crimes and no one would do anything.

Reportedly, at least fifty [50 White House staffers have not cimplied. This number seems low in that there are over 1,000 staffers. SOme like Rove send 95% o ftheir e-mail throu the private e-mails; and the RNC purges the e-mail every 30 days.

Not to worry, Ref Here's the archive of the site that they've attempted to remove. We will find the names, and understand why the GOP has attempted to apparently thwart enforcement of the laws of war.

Note, there is a compare option which facilitates the speedy identification of which names have been added or subtracted. Were the GOP lawyers aware that the additional changes could be very easily tracked? Apparently, not.

* * *

Prosecutor Contact Details

Ref ICC Prosecutor

Ref German

Ref Milan, Italy

* * *

War Crimes: Are the DOJ Staff Counsel Connected with the RNLA Better or Worse Than The Nazi Lawyers?

Unlike WWII Germany that did confront Hitler on Geneva and War Crimes, the DOJ Staff appears to have not even met the standards of the Third Reich:

Further evidence concerning the problem of terror flyers, through examination of the witnesses Colonel-General Jodl and Field-Marshal Keitel, proves that not only the Foreign Office but Herr von Ribbentrop personally had pledged themselves in principle to uphold the Geneva Convention, and that Herr von Ribbentrop together with other leading personalities took pains to assure the retention of at least the basic human principles, even approaching Hitler at his most ruthless periods.Ref

Evidence destruction is not what one would call a "retention of basic principles" but the oppoiste: Recklessness. Very disappointing that the American legal community has been linked with war crimes, and has not met the standards of even the Nazi lawyers.

The evidence before us suggest the DOJ Staff counsel, as evidenced by the Bybee Memo failed to meet the Geneva Standards even the Third Reich, at times, attempted to meet. Unlike Staff counsel who attempted to confront Hitler over Geneva, the lazy DOJ Staff counsel refused to confront the President, but did the opposite than the Nazis: Enabled war crimes. Not good timing to disclose this RNLA evidence deletion.

Here is the evidence that the DOJ Staff counsel is no better than the Nazi lawyers who were adjudicated with war crimes.

* * *

If the DOJ Staff counsel have been linked with war crimes -- as does appear to be the case, as evidenced by the DOJ IG report of illegal activity -- the effort to remove names could be a subsequent offense under the laws of war to hide from war crimes prosecutors evidence of personnel allegedly complicit with war crimes. How many RNC lawyers could this allegedly obstruction of justice in re war crimes relate to?

What else did the president hope to suppress related to war crimes by blocking the DOJ OPR investigation?

The name removal could be very serious. Not nice to hide evidence of alleged war crimes; or attempt to thwart war crimes prosecutors from enforcing the Geneva Conventions. Could be a subsequent crimes under laws of war adjudicated with the death penalty.

For stupid Republican lawyers that means: You will not be able to practice law. Very stupid for RNC lawyers not to read SecDef 5100.77 Laws of War Program; or your attorney standards of conduct prohibiting illegal activity and evidence destruction. Nuremberg suggests you could be prosecuted for doing bad things which interfere with ongoing war crimes investigations.

* * *

The questions war crimes prosecutors are asking:

____ What is the relationship between [a] appointment of DOJ Counsel; [b] their contributions to the GOP; [c] their activity within the RNLA; and [d] whether the legal positions are in favor with various judicial organizations?

____ Are staff counsel related with the RNLA more likely to get favorable peer reviews if they show a lack of interest in enfolding the laws of war?

____ How many of the RNLA DoJ Staff counsel have been rewarded with promotions within the American Bar Association because they refused to enforce the laws of war; or blocked the Genevra Conventions investigations?

____ Which DOJ Staff counsel linked with alleged violations of the laws of war were using their connections with the RNLA to thwart enforcement of the laws of war against DOJ, DoD, and White House officials?

____ How were RNLA staff counsel assigned to the DOJ communicating when discussing these illegal policies, plans, coordination, and efforts to thwart enforcement of Geneva?

____ Did the RNLA staff counsel assigned to the DOJ relay the information to the President of ongoing DOJ OPR concerns related to FISA violations and war crimes, prompting the President to block the DOJ OPR review and thwart enforcement of Geneva?

____ What role does the RNLA staff counsel organization play in acting as a hidden peer-review system which thwarts enforcement of the law; but retaliates against peer counsel who attempt to do what their oath of office requires; Enforce the laws of war against the lazy clerk sitting in the oval office?

____ How much money did the RNLA staff counsel assigned to the DOJ provide to the GOP in exchange for promises not to enforce tough peer reviews, or block DOJ OPR from revieiwng the GOP staff counsel's attorney conduct in re war crimes and illegal FISA violations?

____ What relationship did the RNLA Staff counsel inside DoJ, White House, and DOD have with illegal efforts to thwart public citizens from raising issues of war crimes?

____ What was the knowledge of RNLA Staff counsel of alleged illegal efforts to detain, intimidate, and abuse New York Citizens who were raising issues of war crimes an illegal warfare?

____ Why did RNLA Staff counsel allegedly participate in organizing efforts, communication, planning and other combinations to thwart enforcement of Geneva?

____ Who has a phone list of the RNLA Staff counsel assigned to the RNC Convention HQ meeting in 2004 in NYC?

____ Was there an effort by Justice Staff counsel to encourage the Secret Service to target people who had the copies of these cell phones of RNLA Staff counsel allegedly complicit in efforts to block enforcement of Geneva?

____ what is the connection between RNLA Staff counsel, outside lobbyists, and funds transfers in and out of the Middle East related to efforts to wage illegal warfare, conduct illegal trips, or plan unlawful activity which violates the laws of war?

____ What are the names of the staff counsel assigned to these outside entities, and what is their relationship to the RNLA?

____ Did RNLA indirectly support the staff counsel assigned to conduct these trips so that Justice Officials would be able to more effectively implement illegal warfare, and thwart enforcement of Geneva when prisoners were abused in violation of Geneva?

____ How often did the RNLA interact with the White House counsel's office?

____ Is there a reason that the White House staff counsel has been reluctant to comment publicly on the missing e-mails and RNC documents supposedly used to coordinate the confrontation with the US Attorneys?

____ How must coordination did the RNLA have in the development of prisoner abuse doctrine; or were involved in FISA violations?

____ How many of the RNLA staff counsel, when the Attorney General said they were too busy processing warrants, were actually not working on FISA requirements, but were using official government resources to organize, implement, and support illegal warfare from the Department of Justice?

____ How long did the staff counsel inside the Department of Justice believe that heir internal communications using non-official e-mails would go undetected?

____ Was there a reason that the Staff counsel, despite restrictions against using official resources for illegal purposes, decided to use the DoJ Staff counsel resources to coordinate war crimes with outside entities during official hours?

____ Did you not think that your transcripts from your office would not be captured; and that your discussions without side contractors related to war crimes, illegal activity, and other things would not be captured, known, and left in archive?

Stupid Republican lawyers inside the Department of Justice.

"Stupid Republican lawyer" is triple-redundant. It would be easier to call them what they well comprehend: "Retarded."

* * *

Potential War Crimes Evidence

Not closely at the archive. The last change was recorded in April 2006, less than a year ago.

Suddenly out of the blue, they changed theri content in 2007.

___ What prompted the changed?

___ Why the rush?

___ Why attempt to remove names that were well archived?

Date changes: Notice they've done nothing for a year, since 2006 . . .

Jan 01, 2006
Jan 02, 2006
Jan 03, 2006
Jan 05, 2006
Jan 09, 2006
Jan 18, 2006
Apr 02, 2006 *
Apr 13, 2006
Apr 24, 2006

Read more . . .

War Crimes Discovery Into Member of Congress Unofficial E-mail Systems

War Crimes prosecutors in Germany and Italy are aware of the e-mail related to war crimes evidence going into private e-mail accounts of Member of Congress and Staff counsel working for Congress.

Normally Members of Congress look only at the Executive Branch in re their document retention requirements.

However, given the War Crimes investigation is targeting all three branches of government -- the current problem with the US Attorney e-mail retention problem with the RNC also goes into Congress.

* * *



When conducting a war crimes investigation, the issue isn't simply who committed war crimes, but who also had the duty to report, and prevent war crimes.

Nuremburg is precedent for attaching war crimes discovery to the Legislatures, especially when they have the legal and political tools of impeachment.

One issue is the Member of Congress knowledge of the illegal activity, and their refusal to enforce the laws of war.

Unlike a dictatorship that has all power in one branch of government, the US Government has three branches. This doesn't mean that the entire problem rests with the executive, but the reverse.

All policy making -- from legislation, enforcement, and interpretation of that policy -- spreads across all three branches.

War crimes prosecutors are aware of the e-mails send into and out of non-official communications system inside the White House, RNC, and Department of Justice.

However, the problem with non-official e-mails and data retention isn't isolated to the President or White house.

Members of Congress and their staff who use private e-mail accounts, and have been provided information related to war crimes, but have not acted on that information have a problem.

Just as the RNC thought they could get around some archiving requiring requirements if they sent it through non-official e-mails, the Members of Congress also have the same problem. It appears they were using non-official e-mails to receive information related to concerns and warning about war crimes which they have openly discussed.

The records show that the Members of Congress in using the private e-mail systems are not able to remove a link or trace between their official duty to act and the motivation of the evidence of war crimes they have no acted upon.

The war crimes prosecutors will need your specific assistance in finding other information related to this e-mal traffic:

A. When were war crimes issues against Members of Congress known to have been documented in the Congressional Correspond logs;

B. Despite an ethics requirements under the House or Senate rules to review these issues, when did the Secrete Meetings choose not to enforce the laws of war;

C. Despite the e-mail traffic prior to the Military Commissions Act passed, what reason did Members of Congress have to include language in the Act that would reward US Government officials for inaction on war crimes and pay their full funding?

Once Members of Congress put the language in the bill, the question changes from whether they knew or didn't know about war crimes; but how long they knew about through the private e-mails war crimes, but refused to act as required under the Nuremburg Precedents.

What would be helpful if you could reconstruct your phone calls, other memoranda, and written communications you may have provided to Members of Congress and their staff; and then outline the times, dates, and topics of discussion. Ideally, it would focus on the war crimes related issues.

Then what can be done is find out to what extent the Official Member of Congress e-mail does or does not capture this communication. If there is official e-mail that only captures a portion of the known discussion on war crimes, we’ll get an idea of the volume of data the RNC and Member of Congress were moving out side the system.

Also, when you forward your information to war crimes prosecutors, it will be helpful to get an idea if you made multiple calls to DC; or to your Congressional Office is your local district. What will be done is review your times you called; then compare the working papers in the Staff Counsel and Member of Congress notes to see whether those concerns were tallied and provided to the Senior staff inside the Various committees, for the Member of Congress, or cross flowed into the RNC or the Department.

The key will be to show that Member of Congress staff were notified, did get a specific request for a response, and that there should be a certain number of Congressional Correspond topics on war crimes. What will be interesting is to notice which of the Congressional Correspond logs related to war crimes issues are incomplete; or how they might have been documenting these concerns elsewhere; or whether the known communications going into the Congress on war crimes was not adequately retained.

The issue will be: To what extent, despite the known war crimes, were members of Congress directing staff to ignore war crimes issues and evidence; not documenting concerns about war crimes; yet, we can show that specific discussions occurred on war crimes; and these were deliberately conducted outside the official Member of Congress electronic archiving, and sent via non-official mechanism.

We already know they’ve been reviewing war crimes evidence using non-official e-mails. The issue is getting the public to share this information, and encourage your friends that there is something they can do right now – totally outside Congressional control – that will help war crimes prosecutors get an independent look of what should have been happening inside Congress, but is not supported by the official records, Title 28 and Title 50 documentation, and not into the Congressional Correspond logs.

What You Can Do

Let your friends know that any discussion, letter, e-mail, note, or communication they may have had with any member of Congress needs to be publicly discussed. You don’t have to identify yourself; we’re just interested in the names of the Staff counsel you contacted; the approximate time of day; the nature of your call related to what questions and issues you raised about war crimes; and what kind of response you were promised.

What we talk about war crimes, we're talking about the following:

A. Prisoner abuse;

B. Rendition;

C. Capture of information illegally used to support rendition;

D. FISA violations used to target people illegally and abuse them;

E. Efforts to not enforce the laws of war;

F. Member of Congress knowledge of illegal activity under Geneva, but their failure to investigate, act, or review the evidence;

G. Member of Congress notification of legal issues related to the above, but their failure to document their concerns; and despite assistance of legal counsel, not forward their war crimes-related concerns to the US Attorney, DOD/DOJ Inspector Genera

H. Evidence member of Congress were notified of legal issues directly or indirectly related to illegal prisoner abuse, but their failure to review the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports

I. Active intimidation of public officials and private citizens from raising issues, discussing the war crimes, or attempt to take lawful action to bring these war crimes related charges, evidence, or investigation to the attention to Members of Congress;

J. Coordination by Members of Congress and State Officials to block state proclamations calling for Congress to investigate war crimes

K. Evidence Members of Congress received e-mail, news, summaries of Geneva Concerns, but did not act on that information;

L. Evidence Members of Congress were knowledgeable of the videos taken at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, or elsewhere, but did not timely review this evidence of war rimes; and did not review the e-mails, documentation, or other supporting information showing the evidence was related to war crimes;

M. Evidence Members of Congress have had briefings on FISA violations, renditions, prisoner abuse, and they incorporated this information into legislation to circumvent enforcement of the laws of war;

N. Evidence Members of Congress knew about the retroactive changes to the statues which violated the laws of war, and described new crimes as being war crimes which is illegal under the laws of war;

O. Evidence Members of Congress and staff counsel knew, discussed, or were aware that funds were being set aside to reward, compensate, and cover the legal costs of their peers and staff who did not fully assert their oath to enforce the Geneva Conventions;

P. Copies of the e-mails between the White House, RNC, Member of Congress, and staff counsel related to war crimes, illegal prisoner abuse, and efforts to not enforce the laws of war despite fatal admissions by staff counsel that prisoner abuse was occurring

Q. Spikes in communication around key events -- Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Eastern Europe -- but no noticeable change in the staffing assignments or action one might expect if the laws of war were being reviewed as required

R. Evidence Staff counsel in Congress knew of the 5100.77 laws of war program, failed to respond to concerns that JAGs and DOD or DOJ Staff counsel were not enforcing Geneva; or evidence that they knew of plans, programs, and polices of the President and others to target defense counsel attempting to enforce the laws of war.

S. Evidence Members of Congress were aware that JAGs were being intimidated – as were the US Attorneys – to not prosecute war crimes cases; or that JAGs were being asked to assent to war crimes; or JAGs were being asked to retroactively change their opinion on whether the Military Commissions Act was or was not lawful under the laws of war

T. Any evidence that any Member of Congress, staff counsel, or any US Government official took any action to block, dissuade, not enforce, or rebuff any attempt to report, investigate, or taken action to enforce the laws of war

U. Any evidence that Members of Congress -- despite a Nuremburg precedent linking a failure to impeach to enforce Geneva with war crimes – ignored the laws of war, did not impeach, made active effort to thwart impeachment, and how this decision was linked with what they knew, or should have known, was required to enforce the laws through impeachment.

V. Evidence Members of Congress knew that US government officials, contractors, or other indirect intermediaries had contracts, cover stories, training, or other assignments what would put them in a position to know about Geneva Violations; but these violations of the Conventions were not forward as required

W. Evidence that Members of Congress hanged the subject from whether contractors could or could not be prosecuted under the laws of war – they can – to whether Contractors were or were not subject to the UCMJ – irrelevant.

X. Evidence Members of Congress knew of White House, DOJ, DoD, or other staff counsel memoranda authorization, not enforcing, or failing to prevent abuse against prisoners; or pretending that “because it was not torture, it wasn’t a war crimes.” Prisoners when the are abused, regardless whether it is or is not torture, have been treated in volition of the laws of war.

Y. Evidence Members of Congress knew about prisoner of war reports – after their release to civilian life -- related to their abuse, mistreatment or Geneva violations, but ignored these press repots, did not act on them, or were reckless in not reviewing the information that was known to have been provided to them in the daily summaries, commentaries, and talking points.

Z. Copies of talking points, memos, meeting minutes, signed policy memos, budgets, e-mails or anything that would show that Members of Congress, staff counsel, the RNC or anyone knew of talking points to explain away violations of Geneva and pretend that the issue was trivial; copies of notes made to developing these talking points;

AA. Copies of the contracts with DoD, NSA, or DOJ intermediaries or contactors that illegally authorize the suppression of war crimes evidence; or put gag orders on contractors to keep quiet about war crimes committed by anyone

BB. Copies of coordinating e-mail members of Congress were forwarded related to prisoner transfers out of their district; courtesy copies of sample flight schedules and manifests related to illegal kidnapping and transfer of prisoners in re rendition to eastern Europe and the names of the contractors assigned to those scheduling and transport systems that were known to be linked with specific members of Congress who earmarked funds and other valuable consideration to contactors in their district to support war crimes.

Again, the issue isn’t just the original evidence of war crimes; but whether Members of Congress, when notified of this illegal activity through the non-official communications systems which are known to have occurred did or did not do what they should have done under the laws of war.

* * *

Using your information, the war crimes prosecutors will be able to sample the available e-mails they have been provided, and get a feel for how much of the public conversations have not been captured; and get a sense right now how much evidence Congress, the RNC, and Staff Counsel working for the Republicans has deliberately destroyed to break the link. The evidence you have will be important to get a feel for which Members of Congress were contacted; what actions they should have taken under Title 28 and Title 50 to follow up with the DOJ and DOD IG; and whether Staff counsel did or did not document the concerns using the official correspond logs; or whether they sent the information another route.

Rest assured, the Members of Congress involved, and who did not do what they should have done know they have a problem. The key will be to remind your friends that there is something they can do today – 10 April 2007, well ahead of the May 2007 budget reviews, to outline the scope of the Member of Congress complicity with war crimes and to what extent this failed to fully assert their legal requirement they had under the Nuremberg Precedents to enforce the laws of war.

This is a real thing that you and your friends can actually do to remind Members of Congress that they need to cooperate. This is very serious business. If Members of Congress are not cooperative with your request, or subsequent calls on these war crimes issues, by all means forward that and let your friends know about. Every little piece of information you have about war crimes, and whether the RNC when it controlled Congress did or did not do what it should will be important. Every little piece o information matters. Do not for a minute believe that your single conversation isn’t important. It may be enough to tip the balance.

This is unfolding very quickly. The GOP has some major war crimes evidence problems right now. They are stuck: They have too much time until the 2008 election, not enough people to clean this mess up, no plan, and there is no statute of limitations. After this is done, do not be surprised if you see the GOP decimated as a political party. It is that serious. There are people who may be lawfully adjudicated with war crimes and lawfully executed.

Read more . . .

Iraqis Demonstrate For Change, Mr. President

Ref War Criminal Bush, leave the lands of the Iraqi people.

Iraq has an ancient culture and do not need your recklessness. Before you invaded, they had safety, drinking water, and safe streets. It wasn't perfect. But neither is America. Perhaps "imperfection" is the new legal standard for foreign fighters to destroy America? Addington knows about imperfection: He sees it in the mirror.

War criminal Bush, your occupation is not welcome in Iraq. Change means going away, not staying.

* * *

The People of Iraq voted for Change: They do not want you. They want their country.

Go away. Leave.

Why do you ignore the Iraqi call for change?

You are a dictator, and are disingenuous with your claim that you are concerned about Iraqi freedom. The People of Iraq have voted; and they protest.

You are not welcome. Go away.

Change means leaving, not making excuses to act like Saddam.

When you show the world you're willing to change course in Iraq, and leave, the world might believe you have an open mind.

Until then, your mind has not changed.

Fine. The lawful attacks on your military troops should not be expected to end. They are illegally occupying Iraq. That is not change, but more of the arrogant abuse of power the American supposedly liberated Europe from.

Change means not repeating the errors of Hitler and using the world's opposition to your barbarity to expand your abuse of power.

Change means complying with the laws of war, not pretending you are a leader.

Change means surrendering and resigning, not abusing power.

Change means finding new leaders for the Department of Justice, not sticking by those who put their loyalty to you above their loyalty to the Constitution.

Change means accepting that the Speaker has the power to shut down the Federal Government decertify the DoJ, and not provide you with any money. You are not enforcing the laws of war. You are not changing.

Change means accepting that you are powerless otmake Congress do anything that provides funding to your war crimes. You are not ending illegal warfare. You are not changing.

As long as you refuse to change, there is no reason the Iraqi insurgency or Taliban should change. They will fight, expand their operations, and get more support against the arrogant Americans who refuse to change.

America's President refuses to change. Iraqi people have changed: You are not welcome. Go away. You have overstayed your welcome in Iraq. And America.

Change means resigning.

Read more . . .

Gozalez View on Habeas vs. Refusal To Cooperate On US Atty E-mails

War Crimes Investigation: Habeas Privilege and Gonzalez Title 28 Violations

The DoJ refusal to respond to subpoenas sheds light on their operations and willingness to cooperate with War Crimes Investigators. [War crimes: Negligence, malfeasance, recklessness]

There is a basis in history and law to examine the chance of other illegal activity linked with the original frauds. It is imprudent to put the blinders on, and only look at things in isolation. Ref Consider: What other frauds have been committed in the wake of a fraudulent war?

The AG Refusal to respond to the House Judiciary subpoena on US Attorney e-mails is a basis to conclude that the DOJ views similar refusal -- to do or not do what is prohibited; or do or not do what it should -- as "permissible."

In light of the unfortunate decision of the Department of Justice to not respond to House Judiciary subpoenas -- nor cooperate with oversight on the grounds of what is permissible -- adverse inferences are appropriate.

It is reasonable for the Congress to presume all things Gonzalez (rightly or wrongly) said the Constitution did not protect or enforce, as things that the President and AG Have agreed to not allow, respect, recognize, agree with, enforce, or protect, despite the requirement to the contrary.

They have most likely drafted memorandum, contract language, executive orders and other planning guidance impermissibly "permitting" others to not respect this privilege and other rights; and illegally have hidden these memorandum and contracts behind the shield of executive privilege.

They have most likely redefined the illegal activity as something that is "permissible" knowing this is a ruse to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, Supreme Law, Constitution, and oath of office requirements.

Although ORCON prohibits classification of illegal orders, this did not stop the President and Attorney General from enacting programs which violated FISA, Geneva Conventions, or the Constitution.

Ref Title 28 imposes a requirement on Gonzalez to report in writing his decision not to enforce the law.

Gonzalez needs to explain in writing as required by Title 28 which statutes he is not enforcing by permitting violations of Habeas privilege. All White House and DoJ Staff counsel memorandum, budget documents, signed policy memos, e-mails, meeting minutes, presentations and notes putting these illegal orders and decisions into effect are illegal and discoverable by Congress and War Crimes Prosecutors.

Ref Case study: Gonzalez approach to legal language.

Ref Audit Indicators [SAS99]: Types of illegal activity Gonzalez and President would "permit" under this "it is not required to be proteced"-doctrine.

* * *

Congress should examine AG Gonzalez comments in re Hebeas in the context of what Gonzalez in his mind has permitted DOJ to "not protect" Habeas. He views "not protecting" a privilege as acceptable: He must have policies, memos, and work flows in DOJ putting this view into effect.

___ If, in the mind of Gonzalez, the Constitution only prohibits Congress from suspending of Hebases, could the President and AG pass a rule, work flow, or issue an executive order that prohibits enforcement or protection of that privilege?

- -

Indeed. He must have said his perverse rules on the Constitution for a reason and was on his mind because he thought about it. Let's see the memos and work flows related to this DOJ Planning. If it's "legal to not fully protect, enforce, or secure Habeas" (in the mind of Gonzalez) he should not have a problem with the Congress reviewing all e-mails related to these discussions, plans and unlawful violations of the CDonstution.

___ What has Gonzalez or the President permitted, not stopped, or silently allowed DoJ (or DoD, or anyone or entity ) to do to "not enforce" Habeas?

* * *

Recall Gonzalez comments on Habeas: That the Constitution does not compel protection of the right. For now, let's accept this illegal assertion. Then let the DOJ Staff suffer the same consequences:

___ Why should Congress "protect" a right of Goodling that, he says, no one is required to protect.

___ Why not say that Congress can pass a rule saying that DOJ Staff counsel may not enforce their right or privilege; or challenge the decision of Congress to put them in solitary confinement?

* * *

Anyting the AG says does not have to be protected in the Constitution, Congress is not required to recognize against the DOJ Staff counsel. If, as the AG (incorrectly) asserts, there is no right to have Hbeas enforced, then Congress may take any action which the AG says is OK, and "Not enforce" Habeas for DOJ Staff counsel.

If it is "permissible" under Geneva for water boarding to be imposed, then Members of Congress should ask why DoJ Staff counsel should not be subjected to the same treatment that the Staff counsel said was permissible for prisoners of war.

How does Goodling like the idea of water boarding, solitary confinement, and a decision by Congress to "not enforce" Habeas should she challenge the decision of Congress to have her arrested?

Either:

A. Gonzalez got it wrong (he did); OR

B. Gonzalez was right and Congress is not required to respect any right of Goodling;

C. Congess is not required to respect any DOJ Staff counsel claim of privilege or privacy.

There's nothing in the CONsttion that protects the right of DOJS taff counsel to engage in war crimes and plan illegal activity.

* * *

Reality Check

Unless a right is protected, it is suspended: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended

Government either is neutral, protects, or it violates a right.

* * *

Implications of Gonzlaez statement in Re Title 28

If the Government is not ensuring that habeas has not been suspected, it is not protecting the right as required; nor is it remaining neutral. Being silent about abuses is hardly permissible in that it is assenting to a suspension of the right. Unless a privilege is preserved, not necessary protected, then it is illegally suspended.

When Gonzalez said there is no protection for Habeas, he's saying that he's not going to take enforcement action to ensure that it was not suspected.

This is illegal. Title 28 requires the Attorney General to report in writing all decisions he has to not enforce the law.

Range of Possible DOJ Abuses in Hidden Counsel Memorandum

Attorney General must have said the statements about Habeas for a reason. Recall his double talk on the FISA violations. It seems reasonable to presume the AG's comments reflect his thinking on what is permissible for DOJ To "not protect" the privilege.

___ What is the attorney generals view of what is permissible to "not protect" a privilege, despite the Title 28 duty to report decisions not to enforce the law?

___ If AG Gonzalez views Heabas privilege as not something that must be protected, what can AG Gonzalez -- in his view -- do to "not fully suspend" Habeas, just short of invasion or insurrection?

___ How does AG Gonzalez view Habeas as being something that can be violated, ignored, or not fully protected?

___ If Congress does not suspend Habeas, can the AG take action to not fully enforce the privilege?

___ How, through what methods or means, does AG Gonzalez view Habeas can be "not fully proteced or enforced," regardless whether there has been an insurrection or invasion?

___ Does AG Gonzalez view the restriction habeas, because it is Article I, as only relevant to a constraint on Congressional power, and silent on what the President may do to not enforce habeas?

Read more . . .

Expanding Congressional Outposts To Check Executive Abuse

Think geographically. The US Attorneys, as an extension of the President's sole Article II executive power, are located in 90+ locations.

Each US Attorney has the power to gather evidence. They can go to court to get warrants to arrest and prosecute.

Why doesn't Congress have a matching system? I'm not talking Members of Congress' office, but outposts -- like the Federal Buildings where US Attorneys are located -- that fall under direct Congressional control, and have the power to conduct independent investigations. Unlike auditing, these would have the power to conduct Congressional legislative hearings, fully disclosed with open transcripts, and act like a court, but under the legislature.

We've got courts all over the place; and US Attorney and FBI offices everywhere.

Why not have a third forum for Congress -- at the local level -- to publicly, simultaneously conduct reviews of these many Federal Activities?

Prosecutions do not hapen one at a time around the country. No reason Congressional committees should only have one hearing at a time in the District of Columbia. Let's get these Congressional hearings started across the country and give the President multiple forums to worry about at the same time. He won't be able to keep up with things, just like We the People have been forced to "not keep up" with his abuse of power.

Change means creating new Congressional outposts to verify the President is changing, not doing more fo what inspires the conclusions is is engaged in illegal rebellion and war crimes.

* * *

Congress can issue a subpoena, but if the Executive does not agree to cooperate, then we go to lengthy court reviews.

Fine, until the DOJ Cooperates with the subpoena, the Congress is not required to cooperate with DOJ: No money.

* * *

There could be a parallel system -- outside the US Attorney's office -- where by the Congress independently conducted fact finding, and use the legal process to compel the DOJ to cooperate, especially on legal issues.

GAO audits are not the only option.

The issue before us is the US Attorney abuse of power; non-cooperation with the Constitution; and the refusal of the DoJ AG to turn over evidence.

There should be a system in place where Congress can go directly to the source of the information and find out the facts. Each act of a DoJ Staffer is subject to rules which Congress can defined.

The President could be stripped of authority to make rules for DOJ; and Congress could control that rule-making authority.

Instead of letting the US Attorneys hae their own outposts, the Congress could have their outposts: Each operating as a sub-tenant of Congress, with the full subpoena powers to engage in discovery into illegal Presidential activity; and fact finding to review illegal Presidential crimes.

Now, private citizens and people who want to openly provide information to Congress can do so. Yet, the President has the power to prosecute.

There' nothing ttha says Congress cannot create a similar system as the US Attorneys have; but that reports only to Congress.

* * *

Rather than let all administrators have only reporting to the President, what if within each division there were physically three branches of government who have to agree.

Instead of having a single administrator, inject into the leadership a Representative of the Judicial and Legislative Branches. They must agree that the proposed plans are lawful, Constitutional, and consistent with the Rule of Law and laws of war.

* * *

The problem appears that the President's number of employees -- responding only to Executive authority, but ignoring the other two branches -- isn't' the issue. It's the horizontal roadblocks to injecting legislative and judicial power into the Executive.

If the President says his bureaucracy cannot be intruded; then Congress may create another bureaucracy that is exclusively legislative: With the ability to engage in fact finding, monitoring, and oversight.

Either the US Government -- across all departments -- lets the three branches of government have more visibility on equal footing -- or the Congress needs to have an inpedendent system to intercept, audit, and monitoring the President's ongoing discussions, plans, and enforcement actions.

Can't have it both ways: Expansive power without review; but an assertion the Congress cannot review that power.

If we accept that the President shall have broad power; then Congress has broad power to review that power. Cannot assent to expansive Executive Power, but a reversal of Legislative.

Power is not a zero-sum-game where the Executive Power takes power away from Congress. No, there are no new powers. Rather, the Executive volume, degree, and diversity of power needs to be matched by similar volume, degree, and diversity of legislative power.

Matching principle needs to apply. This needs to include the Judicial Branch.

* * *

I'd like to see a more obvious link between Article I Section 8 powers, and specific things that Are done in these Congressional outposts.

Let's get the "Raise and support" power under Congress by transferring all raising and supporting functions from the President to Congress.

Arguably, because the President "controls" the function of contracting, he has the incorrect perception that his "new power" which he alone controls. No, Congress has this power.

State militias need to have a direct reporting commander -- in times of peace -- to the Congressional leadership, not the President.

* * *

Move Customs and IRS to Congress: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Move the Federal reserve to Congress: To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Move Commerce Department to Congress: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Move all INS rule making to the Congress: To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Move the US Mint to Congress: To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

Move US Attorneys who focus on securities and counterfeiting to the Congress: To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

Move the Postal System and all communications systems to the Congress: To establish post offices and post roads;

Move the patent office to Congress: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To make rules how Congress alone will define whether to agree or not agree with the President's efforts to ram into the Judaical system incompetent legal counsel who have committed war crimes [Bybee]: To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

Prosecute cases where US Attorneys, DOJS taff counsel, and White House counsel -- in violation of Geneva -- make rules permitting illegal abuse in vioiation of Geneva: To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

Shut down funding for anything the President does to redine illegal conduct as permissible in re laws of war and prisoner detentions: To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Transfer all DOD contracting to Congress: To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

Transfer all depot repair andmaintannce from DOD to Congress: To provide and maintain a navy;

Transfer all DOD rule making offices in OSD to Congress: To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Place the militias under Congressional control during all other times: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Transfer all training from DOD to the Congress: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Deny the President ot make rules at any forts at Guantanamo, and transfer all rule-making functions in re prisoner detention camps from DoD to Congress: To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

Pass all laws which shall enforce through any lawful means enforcement of the laws: To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.



The last clause allows Congress to make rules applicable to officers who are overseeing Guantanamo. Congress gives money, and attached with that is the legal and judicial power of oversight and regulation. If the President does not assent to Congressional rule making or judicial power, it is illegal for Congress to provide funding to that activity.

Time to get Congress prosecuted if they refuse to transfer functions from DoD that this President has abused in secret.

Read more . . .

Legislative Response to NSL Violations

Statement on Legislative Responses To Illegal NSL

Ref Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) will conduct a hearing on Wednesday to a Legislative Response to FBI violations of NSLs.

"Responding to The Inspector General’s Findings of Improper Use of National Security Letters by the FBI"

Thank you for considering this statement.

* * *

Statement

The American Legal community needs an immediate wake up call: They have impermissibly let the FBI and DoJ implement unconstitutional programs.

Implementation Plan

There are many things that Congress can do in response to the NSL violations.

1. War Crimes: Enforce Geneva Conventions

Review how illegally captured information and unlawful warrants were used to support, implement, and not prevent war crimes: Kidnapping, retaliation, intimidation of witnesses, inducing silence about war crimes.

2. Constitutional Modernizations

Develop an independent branch of Government that will independently investigate US Government illegal activity, regardless what party controls Congress, the Judiciary, or the Executive.

3. Legal Tools To FISA Court To Timely, Openly Discuss Illegal Activity

Review whether the FISA Court has or has not been given fully support in prosecuting DOJ and FBI agents who misled the court, or did not fully comply with the Constitution in re warrant requirements.

4. Increase Oversight Of American Bar Association

Decertify the ABA as a self-regulating organization and compel recertification of all DOJ Staff counsel under a system which Congress directly supervises and regulates outside the ABA and State Disciplinary Board.

Shut down funding to all Federal funding to ABA-affiliated law schools until they are recertified. The President is powerless to compel Congress, the House, or senate to include funding for the ABA unless the House agrees that the ABA has fully complied with its oversight responsibilities into ensuring DOJ Staff counsel were fully meeting their attorney standards of conduct.

Federalize the Oversight and enforcement of Attorney Standards of Conduct, as the Securities and Exchange Commission Has done.

Provide ABA and the DOJ Legal leadership an opportunity to outline their plan to resolve their leadership problems; and move to conduct no-notice audits of DOJ IG and the ABA peer review processes. Give them a one-week suspense. Compel them to show they are monitoring this situation real time, and have ongoing plans. Competent leadership in the ABA would have ongoing modernization plans ready to present and do not require any time to present their management plans for the ABA in light of these well known legal failures within the legal community.

Increase audit scope of the ABA peer reviews done on DoJ Staff counsel

5. Sanctions on the Department of Justice

Decertify DOJ.

6. Sanctions on DOJ and White House Staff Counsel

Issue a public statement calling for State Attorney Disciplinary Boards to review all DOJ Staff counsel assigned to their state. Encourage all State Disciplinary Boards Disbar DOJ Staff counsel involved, forwarding all information to Stat Attorney Disciplinary boards.

Identify DOJ Staff counsel involved, and review their reports to DOJ OPR.

Compel all DOJ Staff counsel involved to disclose time cards and inputs to work flows used to organize the illegal NSLs.

7. Expand Auditing Oversight of AICPA and CPA Auditors Affiliated with DOJ

Decertify DOJ Auditors as CPAs for their failure to conduct audits, and failure to detect this illegal activity.

8. Corporate Governance

Open reviews of SEC-registered companies involved with the illegal processing of NSLs.

Review openly the contract terms of intermediaries, firms, and other entities involved with the illegal activity.

Prosecute Board Counsel of firms involved with the illegal NSLs.

9. Incentives

Increase bounties for informants within firms to report evidence of unconstitutional activity.

10. Protecting Constitution: Statutory Authority To Legal Community

Remove the requirement that a witness of complainant in Federal Court have "standing" as a victim; and give them the right, as with 42 USC 1983 to sue on behalf of the Constitution to enforce the Constitution against offending US Government officials.

11. Discovery

Identify the communications, memorandum, and coordinating work flows within DoJ used to coordinate the illegal NSLs.

Identify the specific personnel who knew of the illegal NSLs

Identify when the DOJ OPR and DOJ IG should have known about the illegal activity.

12. Open Effort To Evaluate Congressional Ethics

Review when Members of Congress were first notified of the illegal NSLs.

13. Review Title 28 and Title 50

Identify the RNC briefings to Members of Congress that should have included statements in re Title 28 and Title 50 related to reports of this illegal activity.

Compel a full account by DOJ AG and President for their failure to report in writing the arsons for not fully complying with the reporting requirements that should have documented their decision not to enforce Title 28 and Title 50 enforcement requirements.

14. FBI Management Recklessness

Identify the career DOJ and FBI personnel assigned to the DC HQ, and determine how many complaints have been filed against them in the FBI SAC reporting system; or why these complaints have not been included in the FBI Agents complaint files.

Determine how much effort FBI agents involved with illegal activity, malfeasance, and other illegal activity have taken to retaliate against US personnel who knew of the illegal activity

* * *

Congressional Inquiry

___ What structural changes are required in the constitution to compel compliance and enforcement of the Constitution regardless who controls the US government?

___ Where are the records that Statement on Accounting Standards 70 and 99 in re fraud, illegal activity, and internal controls were appropriately incorporated into audits; or if there was no cooperating that the information was publicly available outside Congress for independent review?

___ OPR: What's going on with FBI MAOP enforcement; or with the US Attorney training videos on enforcing Constitution against FIB agents; Quantico training problems: Too many nights out in DC drinking beer; or are the FBI agents retarded?

___ White House: Where is the oversight plan of the President to ensure the Attorney Standards of Conduct are fully supported?

___ IG: Where are the work flows on the non-official RNC communions related to these war crimes and other violations of Geneva?

___ DOJ ORP: Which FBI personnel assigned to the DC office have a record of blocking investigations, asserting that evidence will not be collected, or exercising inappropriate "declination" power to the US Attorneys?

___ DOJ OPR: Which FBI Supervisors have a track record of being abusive, unresponsive, or engaging in misconduct or management recklessness when assigned to field units, or have engaged in conduct bringing discredit upon the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

___ DOJ OPR: Which FBI personnel in a supervisory position as Special Agents in Charge and formerly assigned to the DOJ OPR were reckless in assenting to illegal orders to issue warrants; or were reckless in not overseeing this abuse?

___ DOJ IG: Where were the internal controls, FBI training records, and evidence that there were integrity checks by DOJ OPR into reports of agent misconduct, or DOJ Staff counsel abuse of legal authority?

___ DOJ IG, AICPA: Where are these working papers, and what is the oversight plan of DOJ OPR and DOJ IG; what did the President do to block reviews of these audit reports?

___ AICPA: Have auditors failed to comply with Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards?

___ AICPA: Where are the AICPA peer reviews of auditors conducting the reviews of these auditors who reviewed the DOJ Internal controls?

___ OPR: Why have the complaints about FBI agent misconduct not been reported to DOJ OPR?

___ Counsel: Why have DOJ Staff counsel, with a reporting requirement to DOJ OPR, not complied with their peer-reporting requirements under the ABA Model Rules of Attorney standards?

___ US Attorney: Where are the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports from the AG and President related to their decision not to enforce the Constitution, warrant requirement, or other tings?

___ Ethics: When will the House and Senate ethics panels review Member of Congress refusal to review this evidence of illegal activity?

___ When were Members of Congress in a position to knew, but were reckless in not reviewing, evidence the DOJ Staff counsel were not doing what the Constitution required?

___ Why didn't the Members of Congress review the DOJ Staff counsel time cards when it was openly reported that the Staff Counsel were not engaged in official activity, but doing something else while tat their work stations in the DoJ Main Head Quarters?

___ DoJ IG: Who in the FBI leadership positions has experience with DOJ OPR, but did not ensure that there were procedures in place to ensure the NSLs were fully consistent with the statutory authority?

___ Do the FBI managers who have had experience with DOJ OPR not understand what it means to enforce the law and fully oversee and manage FBI agents to fully comply with the legal requirements?

___ Why should we believe, given this recklessness by the FBI in re the NSLs, that any other rule, procedure has been followed in re MAOP, contract compliance, or issues related to Brady and the FISA requirements?

___ Who in the FBI management threatened, intimidated, and silence FBI agents into remaining silent about this reckless non-compliance with the warrant requirements?

___ What got in the way of the FBI managers fully overseeing this problem?

___ What information about FBI incompetence, and reckless non-compliance with MAOP did the FBI Senior Management ignore, and not appropriately increase audit scope to mitigate the chances of non-compliance?

___ Where is the documentation showing which FBI Senior Managers actively rebuffed information about FBI agent incompetence, misconduct, or arrogant refusal to fully comply with the MAOP while they were SACs or assigned to the DOJ OPR?

___ Which checklists, procedures, reviews, and other recommendations did the FBI Management while assigned as SACs or DOJ OPR have they refused to implement?

___ Which management training courses through Quantico or the National Training Centers for the FBI have agents not fully implemented the training?

___ Which state-level Police Oversight Boards have not fully reviewed state level police officers in re their affiliation with JTTF to abuse the NSLs and circumvent local court oversight?

___ How have the State Police Office Standards and Training oversight systems been unreasonably relied on to act as a first-level screening for issues which FBI agents have unreasonably relied?

___ To what extent has the FBI relied on local level law enforcement complaints about "uncooperative citizens" to permit the NSLs to be used as "payback" to target private citizens marginally interested in the Constitution and FBI misconduct?

___ What evidence related to local corruption have FBI agents not fully reviewed because of non-disclosed payments or favors provided to the local law enforcement?

___ How did the FBI NSL process get circumvented so that local officials connected with the JTTF could circumvent the judicial process and use FBI NSLs to directly retaliate against political opposition?

___ How were NSLs used by local officials to retaliate against employees or concerned citizens complaints about public official misconduct?

___ When witnesses or informants provided information to law enforcement, how were the names of the informants used to generate hit lists for JTTF to issue NSLs, and target cooperating public citizens in retaliation for their opposition to illegal JTTF or FBI activity?

___ How were NSLs issues to target private citizens based on accusation alone, related to benign conduct?

___ How were NSLs issued on the basis of meaningless information not to engage in any bonafide law enforcement activity, but to find answers to questions law enforcement was unable to answer, but had no reason to know the answers to?

___ When business leaders sold businesses, but the records were not accurate, how did the FIB and JTTF use NSLs to go on fishing expeditions to explain holes in the National Security Agency [NSA] databases?

___ How was illegally captured data related to US Citizens illegally used to target them, raise questions about things the JTTF and FBI did not understand, then use that illegally captured information to target them for questions, oversight, and intrusion with the NSLs?

Read more . . .

Impact Statement: If DOJ Officials Refuse to Respond to House Judiciary Subpoenas

There are meaningful legal, political, and power impacts if DOJ Refuses to respond to subpoenas.

* * *

What happens if the Justice Department ignores the subpoenas Ref

Immediate impacts and Increased Support For

1. Backlash against GOP: Impeachment of Unresponsive Officials
2. Call for DOJ Staff counsel disbarment: Forward Charges to US Attorney
3. Shut off funding to DOJ, expand oversight and hearings into DOJ Activities
4. Issue Contempt Citations, and issue arrest warrants against DOJ Officials, enforced by the Sergeant at Arms; jail time
5. Adverse Voter action against GOP: Loss of Campaign funds
6. Loss of ability of FBI and JTTF to secure cooperation from cooperating witnesses
7. Loss of confidence in DOJ to conduct jobs
8. Increased oversight, audit sampling: Reduces prosecution rates
9. Juries less deferential to US Attorneys or Law enforcement, resulting in lower conviction rate
10. Judicial doubt about credibility of US Attorneys: Increase chance that convicted felons will have sympathy and have cases dismissed; or sentenced vacated, overtrurned, revisited; or have sentences thrown out
11. More difficult time for the GOP leadership to get support for initiatives
12. Less credibility with the GOP Lobbyists to move legislation
13. Shift in power from the Executive to the Congress
14. Cheney and Addington less confident they will survive a war crimes indictment
15. Increased pressure for impeachment of President
16. Demands for data from DOJ OPR and DOJ IG to explain where they were during the illegal activity
17. Change in oversight of the legal profession, with loss of independence for the legal community
18. Sanctions against DOJ Staff counsel for disbarment and war crimes prosecution
19. State Attorney General precautions and disbarment efforts against DOJ Staff counsel and White House Counsel
20. More evidence US President and US Government unresponsive to rule of law, and failing to permit enforcement of laws of war: [ War crimes evidence]
21. Expand evidence discovery into other areas
22. Secure cooperating from DOJ Officials to provide evidence without promises of immunity
23. Increased leaks from DOJ to House in re illegal activity
24. Inducting DOJ Officials to step forward to disclose evidence of war crimes, unlawful RNC Memorandum, and other documents showing who has been complicit with war crimes and other illegal activity
25. Additional evidence for grand juries to conclude indictments are appropriate
26. Basis for Grand Juries to expand inquiry into DOJ, White House, and demand evidence of ongoing communications related to illegal activity
27. Increased world support for anit-American combat forces, more funding to the Iraqi Insurgency, Taliban, and foreign fighters daring to oppose American Abuse
28. More support in the UN to impose economic blockade against the United States, and issue a declaration of war
29. Increased calls to remove the US form the Security Council, and Create a New United Nations without a security council
30. Decreased credit rating for the United States, increased borrowing costs
31. Less confidence in the American legal community, American Bar Association, and credibility of the bar to screen counsel to enforce the Constitution
32. More pressure to create a New Government which Will more timely compel responses to investigations, and compel oversight and enforcement of the law regardless which political party controls the government

Read more . . .

Draft War Crimes Indictment Congressman Dan Burton [ R - IN]

This is a draft war crimes indictment against Congressman Dan Burton.

He is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

* * *

Authority

Geneva Conventions

Ref Nuremberg: Death Penalty Imposed on Civilian Leadership for failing to investigate or impeach public officials to enforce laws of war.

Member of Congerss Oath of Office, 5 USC 3331

Ref Intimidation to affect right of witnesses to testify to Congress. 18 USC 241, 245.

Allegations

1. Burton served in the United States Military [US Army, 1956-57; USA Reserve, 1957-62] and knew, or should have known, about the laws of war, Nuremberg precedent, and the SecDef 5100.77 Laws of War Program. Burton knew, or should have known, that Nuremburg imposes a legal liability on Members of Congress when they block investigations, refuse to cooperate with war crimes investigator, or stifle efforts to gather evidence related to war crimes.

2. Burton has Chairman of the Government Oversight Committee well demonstrated his ability to issue subpoenas to enforce the law. Despite his proven track record of conducting investigations into illegal activity, the Congressman refused to assert his lawful authority to enforce the laws of war. While in charge of the House Oversight Committee, Burton gleaned valuable experience into enforcing the rule of law. Burton had access to committee counsel, and failed to subpoena JAG officers who might have provided him guidance on the laws the President and Republican Party were violating.

3. Burton had access to confidential RNC Memorandum, and other information sent through the Diplomatic communications outlining how war crimes were being implemented.

4. While in the House of Representatives, Congressman Burton and his alleged co-conspirators knew, or should have known, about war crimes committed by the Republican Party. Rather than investigate this activity he and others took active steps to thwart investigations into violations of the laws of war; and intended to distract attention from their illegal agreement to block enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.

Count 1: Violation of Oath of Office, 5 USC 3331

5. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators had a legal duty to enforce the laws of war, but illegally breached this duty. This conduct violates the Member of Congress Ethics Standards, brings discredit upon the House, and raises serious doubts about the Congressman's ability to independently be trusted to fully do what he promised to do: Fully enforce the United States Constitution and all treaty obligations under the laws of war.

6. Contrary to his oath of office requiring him to fully enforce the Constitution and all treaties, Burton was reckless in not timely responding to evidence that Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports were not being filed.

7. While Chairman of the Government Oversight Committee, Congressman Burton was reckless ignoring war crimes evidence, not investigating evidence of grave breaches of Geneva.

8. Burton and his alleged co-comparators in the Republican Party refused to investigate open, fatal admissions by the President that he had engaged in war crimes, abused prisoners, and did not enforce the laws of war as required.

9. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators ignored evidence warranting impeachment, and refused, as required under the Nuremberg Precedents, to use impeachment to enforce the laws of war.

10. Burton knew that there were reasonable legislative intents to enforce the laws o war through subpoena, but refused to enforce the laws of war.

Count 2: Witness Intimidation, Interfering With Congressional Inquiry

11. Burton’s conduct was designed to illegally interfere, obstruct, delay, and induce witnesses not to fully cooperate with an ongoing Congressional investigation into violations of the laws of war.

12. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators have attempted to interfere with fact finding, transcripts, and dissuade witnesses from appearing. This is a very serious practice. Members of Congress who interfere with written transcripts, or attempt to imply that witnesses do not have to appear could be found in breach of their Standards of Conduct.

13. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators have attempted to leave the impression with witnesses that the Congress has no role in gathering facts; that Congress cannot compel witnesses to appear; or that the witnesses may refuse to cooperate.

14. Burton and his alleged conspirators have attempted to create the false impression in the minds of witnesses that they do not have to agree with Congressional fact finding; and do not have to fully cooperate with Members of Congress efforts to memorialize evidence and testimony with admissible transcripts.

15. Rather than enter evidence, offer questions, or demonstrate a track record for having enforced Geneva, Burton and his alleged co-conspirators have attempted to thwart, block, intimidate, and interfere with Congressional inquiry into the laws of war.

Count 3: Unlawful Intimidation

16. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators engaged in a deliberate, calculated effort to block enforcement of the laws of war. Despite gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 excpetoin reports, Burton as Chairman of the House Oversight Committee did not,r refused to, and actively thwarted investigation of these gaps.

Count 4: Dissuading Enforcement of Geneva

17. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators have engaged in communications, planning, and other coordination to dissuade enforcement of Conventions.

Count 5: Unlawful Threats

18. Upon information and belief, Burton and his alleged co-conspirators have promised to provide valuable benefits, and deprive people of valuable consideration for their assistance in blocking or their failure to block war crimes investigations.

Count 6: Inducement, Unlawful Appeal to Refuse To Assent To Geneva

19. Rather than conduct an investigation, or support lawful inquiry into Geneva, Burton and his alleged co-conspirators have illegally characterized the lawful efforts to enforce Geneva and conduct investigations as "abuse."

20. Burton knows, or should know, that characterizing an attorney's lawful conduct amounts to an unreasonable violation of the Attorney Standards of conduct, amounting to an illegal abuse of Congressional franking privilege.

21. Burton knows, or should know, that questioning the lawful motives of members of Congress to establish facts and enforce the Geneva Conventions is not for a lawful or reasonable purpose.

Count 7: Speculative Threats To Induce Violations of Geneva, Thwart Lawful War Crimes Inquiry

22. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators have asserted, in a speculative manner, that the Members of Congress enforcing Geneva may or may not do something.

23. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators pointed to vague, unsubstantiated abuses, and have refused to discuss these issues with the DC Bar.

24. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators have pointed to nothing which prohibits enforcement of the Geneva Conventions through the use of subpoenas; nor is there any basis for any Member of Congress to interfere with lawful inquiry.

25. Burton knows or should know that Members of Congress do not have to threaten subpoenas, but may issue a subpoena without notice. That subpoenas have been discussed as a lawful option is part of the legislative process Congress, not just a Member of Congress, may use to gather facts.

26. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators are reckless in not enforcing the Geneva Conventions; and dissuading the public to understand that the laws of war may be enforced through investigations, impeachment, subpoenas, and the lawful gathering of facts. whether that fact finding is conduct in public, private, in open committee, through memorandum, or other evidence is irrelevant.

Count 8: Dilatory Efforts To Block Enforcement of Geneva

27. The Republican Party and Burton have refused to enforce the laws of war; but have characterized any effort to enforce the law through fact finding, discovery, interviews, subpoenas, and recorded testimony as a partisan tactic requiring restraint.

28. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators have ignored the massive pile of evidence of war crimes, asking that others quietly hide evidence, not provide depositions, and secretly do nothing while Geneva demands enforcement of the law through investigations, impeachment, and prosecutions.

29. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators induced others to not fully assert their oath.

Count 9: Failure to Investigate Evidence of Prisoner Abuse

30. Burton and his alleged co-comparators have abrogated the Geneva Conventions, not enforced their oath of office, and have ignored the investigation power required to enforce the Investigations. Burton ignored protections afforded to Prisoners of war, and without notice, supported illegal efforts to abuse prisoners; and failed to ensure prisoners of war ere properly treated. Burton failed to investigate the evidence from Donald Vance.

Count 10: Failure to Review US Government Plans Depriving Prisoners of War Procedural Rights

31. Burton and others worked in concert to deprive prisoners of war their protections, conduct summary interrogations without notice, and selectively leaked information in violation of the laws of war to pre-judge innocent civilians never charged for any crime, but illegally punished through indefinite detentions.

32. Burton and his alleged co-comparators were reckless in failing to ensure that prisoners of war were treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. They neglected procedure rights and safeguards under Geneva, and illegally supported the unlawful military commissions act which illegally denied prisoners of war the rights and procedure available under the Conventions.

Count 11: Failure to Review Evidence Illegally Gathered Information Used To Illegally Abuse Prisoners of War and Support Unlawful Kidnapping

33. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators assented to no-notice renditions, FISA violations, and intrusive interrogations of Americans civilians by JTTF, FBI, and permitted grave breaches of Geneva around the globe against innocent civilians.

Count 12: Complicit With Failure to Investigate False Evidence Provided To Tribunals

34. Burton and his alleged co-conspirators knew, or should have known, that the prisoner of war transcripts were being doctored, fabricated, and there was false information being released to the media that was false. Burton was reckless in not examining this evidence the DOJ IG, DOJ OPR, and FBI had that transcripts were false and fabricated.

Count 13: Unlawful Public Accusations Against Attorneys And Members of Congress For Protected, Lawful Investigation Activity To Enforce Laws of War

35. Contrary to the US Constitution, Burton and others attempted to publicly question Members of Congress for their lawful efforts to enforce the laws of war. The Constitution does not permit any Member of Congress, outside the legislature, to attack the credibility of a peer in Congress nor question their lawful efforts to enforce the laws of war. The Constitution expressly forbids all legislators from questioning the statements, actions, and lawful conduct of Members of Conduct while performing their duties to enforce the laws of war. Burton and his alleged co-comparators were reckless in ignoring the Constitution, and blocking efforts to enforce the laws of war.

36. Burton and other knew, or should have known, these statements were not protected; and were not appropriately forwarded to the DC Bar for review.

37. Burton and others in the republican Party had a duty to ensure they followed all procedural requirements of the DC Bar when making a complaint about the motives, intent, and actions of an attorney. Burton and others failed to fully comply with the required investigation procedures, and impermissibly released incorrect, invalid, and false information about another Member of Congress to distract attention from their war crimes.

38. Burton failed to review this evidence when he had the power, authority, and responsibility to review this information. Burton was reckless in not investigating information and his failure to investigate these war crimes was a breach of his duty to enforce the laws of war.

Summation

38. Based on the evidence, the Grand Jury recommends the adjudication of war crimes and, if convicted, the imposition of the death penalty. There are no mitigations.

Background

Ref

Ref

Read more . . .

'Emperor's New Clothes' Covers GOP's Iraq Plan: More Republican Sophistry

President's New Clothes Found In Iraq. They do not exist. This is the story of illusory GOP Leadership Changes. There is evidence the GOP "new plan" in Iraq is a smokescreen from war crimes Prosecution of President

Just as the Emperor's New Clothes were illusory, so too is the GOP "New Plan" for Iraq. Bush is naked before the war crimes tribunal. Ask him how the chilly air is as the GOP "experts" abandon him.

This is a sample of an "Illusory Discussion Point" to distract attention from GOP problems with war crimes and their leadership failure to defend their choices over their reckless war planning. Floating around is an illusory plan that has no basis in reality, nor is it connected with any meaningful change in the GOP planning process.

The promise of a "new plan" is no different than Nixon's secret plan for Vietnam. Cheney well knows the value of pretending there is something hidden: It makes people think you have something, despite nothing. There is no basis to seriously consider any GOP comments on this plan. Their assessments or comments are meaningless.

Bush's "New Plan" for Iraq is as real as the Emperor's New Clothes.

* * *



Ref As with the WMD issues, notice who is accepting the premises, as opposed who is questioning the premises. It has been asserted, not proven, that thre is a real plan. Why willing to speculate until August 2008? Answer: Patsies in the media, as with Iraq WMD, did not question the assertions.

Ref This is an example non-issue. Notice the assertion: "Secret Plan B."

Small problem: If the "plan B" was "better," and was "real," why aren't they using it?

Answer: It's meaningless.



The "secret Plan B" doesn’t help the GOP. It's a sham discussion point.

Suppose for the sake of argument the President does have a plan B:

___ Why is he announcing this?

___ What is the reason that the "better plan" isn't being implemented?

___ Why make an announcement -- implicitly admitting that you have a back up plan -- that you haven't implemented something?

If the plan was real, there would be a diversion, to hide what the plan would be done; and there would be no time frame attached to the plan.

* * *

At any given time the "best plan" is what the President is doing. It's not that his plan is working or very good, it's just that the GOP can't argue, "Even through we're messing up, we have this better plan we're writing to implement when things get bad."

NO, they'd implement the best plan they have now.

* * *

Even if the GOP has a "Plan B" for Iraq, it's meaningless. GOP had control of Congress after November 2006 election, but refused to implement it.

IS the GOP asking us to believe that this "new plan" that they refused to implement after December 2006 -- when they still had control of Congress -- has had a credible review between Jan-Mar 2007? No way.

* * *

Notice what the GOP is doing: They're talking about the "end point" of Aug 2008. That's non-sense. The GOP's idea of a "plan” is to wait until Aug 2008 to get a change in place; then adjust? That's absurd.

This is a delaying point. They're trying to move the decision point to the right saying, "Give the President time," as an excuse to avoid accountability in April 2007.

* * *

"We're not going to give it to the enemy" is non-sense. Let's back up. We know two things:

A. The GOP had control of Congress until Jan 2007, but did not implement this plan'

B. Between 2002-2007 when the GOP had control of Congress and was part of the planning process, the best they could do was a disaster.

Suddenly, out of the blue, they want us to believe that in the last 90 days they've created a plan that will only adjust after August 2008? Get real. They have no clue what is going to happen this week, much less in a couple months. Pretending that they're "not going to reveal it" is fiction.

There is no credible plan. They can't forecast what is going to happen this week. Seventeen months from now might as well be talking about landing operations on Mars. It's meaningless. They have no clue: They're stupid. The same non-sense GOP planning that failed 2002-2007 cannot be remedied in 90 days; nor can the GOP claim they have a credible plan.

This "plan" is a distraction from war crimes: To shift attention from known illegal activity, with the false, speculative, illusory promise of "change." No. IF there was a real solution, the GOP would implement it now. Remember, the President is still in charge and can "do what he wants."

This is just a discussion point to make people think that there is a plan. The assertion "we can't let anyone know" is a ruse. Members of Congress are given the chance to access classified information.

Assertions that this is secret is non-sense. Why is the GOP saying that their dubious plan -- which is a fruit of reckless planning -- should be trusted without scrutiny?

No, what the GOP is doing is creating fiction that they have a plan; asserting it is great; but then not letting their dubious planning process be subjected to the reviews of Congress -- something the GOP well communicated they require in light of the botched Iraq planning of 2002.

* * *

There is no credible plan. The GOP is pretending they have something that is meaningless.

It is a ruse to pretend that the "reasonable" basis for "adjustments" is August 2008. That is not acceptable. That is too late. We need to see something that has weekly adjustments if not more: What is the ongoing situation; and is this President who cannot plan adjusting to reality.

What happens between April 2007 is 17 months. That's non-sense.

* * *

The President's and GOP problem is that they assert they have a "plan" but they point to nothing that warrants confidence that the plan is real; credible; or has anything new. The planning milestones have yet to be ironed out; and if the GOP has this "magic plan" in April 2007, it can't explain why it doesn’t have this plan in place at the end of December. Nothing's changed since then: We're still in a mess; and the planning timelines to develop this "plan B' would have been accelerated once it was known to Rove that the election was lost.

It doesn't mater why. The announcement that there is a plan in April 2007 doesn't mean much: If the plan was valid:

___ Why didn't the GOP propose this plan when they still had control of Congress?

___ Despite control of the budget, why didn't the GOP resolve this plan?

___ If this plan was 'still being worked" in December 2007, and the GOP couldn't or wouldn’t implement the better plan, why should we believe they did something magical in the last 90 days?

___ What happened since 2002 and 2006 -- when the GOP had control and could do something -- to generate a mess; yet suddenly in the last 90 days, despite the "surprise" of the loss of November 2006 -- to believe that the GOP suddenly has a "new planning process" that is "better" than what failed 2002-2006?

Answer: Nothing.

* * *

The basis for this plan, and the planning elements that went into it, would have been known, with some sort of precision, well before the November 2006 election. The GOP cannot explain why it did not approve this "better plan" as an election option for the voters to see, "Wow, the GOP really though about this."

NO, this is a ruse. Nothing magical has happened in the GOP nor the Joint Staff. The same retarded people who botched the Iraq invasion planning are still retarded, still planning, and still making botched plans. Recall, Rumsfeld was still making a mess of things up until the November 2006 election. There's been no magical change in contractors, planning, or new decision making in DoD in re Iraq. At best McCain is still spewing forth non-sense.

Let's consider that: McCain is walking down the street trying to make people thing things are great. But we know he's got a bullet proof vest on, and it's scary.


What does this tell us about the GOP Plan? Well, because he’s on the Senate Armed Services Committee, we know McCain -- if he was "involved" with this "GOP Plan" -- would have some input. Suppose, for the sake of argument, McCain’s statements about Iraq -- that things are "fine" -- are credible. What does this tell us about the people who are supposedly overseeing this plan that popped out of the blue since Gates showed up?

Answer: The people overseeing the "new plan" are delusional. SO even if the plan were real, the basis to assert the plan is "better" is dubious. McCain is trying to assert a different reality. This tells us the criteria GOP is using to assess the conditions on the ground and the basis for success in this plan are dubious. At best. At worst, the plan doesn’t exist and this is a sham attempt to pretend that something is in side the GOP warranting confidence. Get real. They’ve failed as an entity; and refused to assert power. Without oversight or questions, they have no basis to assert that any idea they have warrants believe in April 2007; forget what else we might learn about the GOP war crimes and reckless planning between April and May of 2007; not to mention the reality on the ground.

The issue with Iraq isn’t a static situation on the ground; but a fundamental problem with US Planning problems. Until the Congress digs into the reckless GOP planning that crated this disaster, there’s no basis to assert that this plan – or any statement about it – has had a real scrub. The very planning and oversight systems have yet to be publicly challenged. There’s no prospect since Jan 2007 that the GOP has woken up to anything. At best they’ve got another bathed plan; at worst, the plan is being devised on the basis of equally dubious inputs from equally reckless contractors who do not understand the laws of war, much less really on the ground or what planning is all about. The GOP hopes to throw this plan into the internet, get someone to bit onto it, and then let the contractors adjust things on their computers to weave their way through the questions. This is why Gonzalez is having a problem right now: He’s clueless as are the planners who put this supposed GOP plan together.

We learned from the Iraq WMD: When something is not examined publicly, the plan is meaningless. When the questions are ignored, the assessments about those conclusions are dubious.

There hasn’t been enough time to review the changes made to the first round of plans, and coordinate them between all the contractors or DoD, much less believe that this plan is real. There’s no basis to believe this plan has been coordinated; is real; or is linked with anything that is supportable. Same stupid 2002 invasion plan, same botched planning, and same reckless disregard for reality. There’s been on catalyst for the DoD or the President or GOP to face reality since November 2006. They’re still acting like nothing will happen: And the DNC is sending a clear message: “We’re not really about change, just talking about change. The President’ isn’t going to get impeached. You have nothing to fear.” That is not a catalyst for the GOP to be concerned, as evidenced by the DOJ White House e-mails which shows us they planned to continue with illegal war crimes and unlawful activity despite losing control of Congress. There’s been no incentive for the GOP to change any reckless planning much less offer a new plan. Even if there was, there hasn’t been enough time to force this “new plan” through the “new oversight” in GOP. This is too dubious to be anything other than laughable.

* * *

Recall also what we know: There are no credible benchmarks, and the success criteria under the current plan is vague. The President basically ignored the ISG.

What the GOP is asking us to believe with this "new plan" is that despite the "Great ideas" of the ISG -- that the President ignored -- they want us to believe that the same people who have no success criteria or benchmarks have a "better plan", yet the basis for assessment, oversight, and developing that plan is not from a different system; hat the best people in the GOP who know their stuff are asserting non-sense about the reality on the ground.

Get real. Even if there was a plan, there's no basis to have any confidence the plan has withstood any credible questions, challenges. McCain, Mr. GOP-leader himself, is a walking example of the delusion. The GOP -- if this plan is "better" -- have a problem: Their man on the ground is talking non-sense; but they want us to believe, "Hay, McCain may be full of non-sense, but we have a secret plan that is not non-sense."

No way. They would put their best forward: McCain is their best -- he's lost. They would leave their "less than best" in reserve until it gets finalized.

IN reality, they have no plan. And they're going to keep talking about this "new plan" for the next 17 months, and then say, "Hay things are changed."

___ What's the process to make sure this "new plan" is "constantly monitored"?

___ When is the Joint Staff going to come to congress to discuss their "plan to oversee this new plan" and ensure it is credible?

Answer: That's non-sense. This is an arbitrary date for the illusion of precision, but it defies what is required to develop a plan; and the milestones do not exist nor do the success criteria. If they did exist, they'd be incorporated into the current plan, not have us wait 17 months until August 2008. It's a random date only linked with the election, unrelated to any reality on the ground in Iraq. This is a politically driven smokescreen.

* * *

Notice also what the GOP is doing: They're pretending that that "would support" the DNC "if only" the DNC had done X, Y, Z. That's meaningless. THey're mkaing up excuse to agree with something they are not going to support. That isn’t a position, but a distraction from their lack of a decision or comment on what doesn’t exist. Again, more signs there is no plan, but a desire to attract attention away from something more important: War crimes prosecutions in April 2007.

The planning milestones need to be public: What is their plan; and do they have one; and is the success criteria they're using meaningful? Keeping it secret isn't a basis for the GOP to support anything, but for the GOP to continue with reckless planning.

The GOP is just pretending that it "might have" supported something "if only" the DNC had agreed to unacceptable terms.

* * *

It's irrelevant what a non-voting US Government official who is not a Member of Congress says about this "new plan". They have no input. How anyone who has no access to this plan can say the would support or not support the plan or deadlines is meaningless.

They have no clue what they're supporting; the basis for that support; nor do they understand why the milestones they've chosen to support are meaningless. There is no success criteria; and the basis for planning is non-sense. The plan has not been subject to any oversight, review, or discussion worth commenting on. It's the same convoluted process that failed before but kicking the magic deadline from now to August 2008. That's non-sense.

* * *

Appeal to ignorance: "We will only support this plan if it isn't published." Get real. There is no deadline other than to delay action.

There is no credible basis to believe the "Secret plan" is real, credible, or that the milestones are meaningful. They might as well be throwing their pen at the door, and randomly watching where it strikes the paper. Consider the detailed plan routed thro AEI -- despite the "best estimate" the President didn’t agree with it.

__ Why should we believe that "this plan" is the "best" plan; what were the "Other" options discussed prior to arriving at "this plan"? [There are none]

* * *

Anyone could develop their own plan, and have a better plan than the versions floating around the Pentagon. They have no clue. Most of them have no idea what is going on in Iraq. They're just moving things around on their computers screen. They're clueless.

* * *

Judgments

If the plan were real, it would have been floated to get comments, and make it real. we have no trial balloons.

At best the US government and Senate have botched the oversight. McCain walking around Baghdad with his girdle on is evidence he's delusional and in no position to credibly rubber stamp any plan.

There are no credible changes in GOP planning to warrant confidence that something magical happened since Jan 2007.

This plan has no merit.

The timeframe for this plan is meaningless. It is a random date tied only to the election, not to real conditions on the ground. They're making up factors to make it look like "that is a great date." It's non-sense.

* * *

The plan does not exist, it is illusory, and people running for President commenting on this "secret plan" have seen nothing to warrant confidence that the plan is real; or that their assessment of that plan means anything.

They might as well be talking about the Emperor's New Clothes.

Read more . . .

GOP Manufacturing A Crisis To Distract Attention From Their War Crimes

Strange GOP Accusations and Conduct Unfolding

The GOP is in a no win situation on war crimes.

Their entire paradigm is collapsing.

The basic premise of the law is logic.

When the GOP is unable to make a coherent legal argument, they'll dissemble.

The only option the GOP has is to use more absurd arguments.

This is not a problem: It is evidence that they know there is a problem; they are well discussing the war crimes implications; and are getting desperate.

Remain confident and hopeful that as the GOP is lashing out in the coming days, it is a sign that they are crumbling from within.

You Will shortly see more strange things unfolding. Remain calm. Your clear thinking is your only ally. Examine the details. Notice the inconsistencies and flaws. Know it is a smokescreen over war crimes.

I need you to rest. Prepare. Soundly sleep. Awaken refreshed. Sip some water. Take a deep breath. Make sure you get some sunlight and fresh air. Make a list of what is on your mind, plan for tomorrow, then go to bed early and rest. I need your mind to be rested for what is going to unfold.

You will understand.

* * *

The law is not complicated. It is based on simple, basic logic. Nothing more.

When logic fails, the only option the GOP has is to use absurdity. The Entire GOP paradigm is built on non-sense.

A myth which the GOP relies cannot survive facts. Yet, the GOP in secret had to create myth after myth to justify illegal warfare.

The error was to allow this secrecy to continue. The evidence is high.

What's happening is the GOP is being openly challenged for its war crimes, and it realizes it is in serious trouble: They have no defense.

Because the logic behind the laws of war was ignored, the President and Congress jointly agreed to wage and not stop illegal warfare using flawed plans. Reckless leaders ignore logic and basic principles in planning, the law, and combat preparations.

Attached with those reckless war crimes were failed reviews, botched plans, and meaningless enforcement of the laws. The disaster in Louisiana was confirmation how much the President was managing the media perceptions in Iraq. He couldn't hide the recklessness of his planning in Louisiana.

* * *

The GOP's problem is that their legal options do not exist. They have years of war crimes that have been justified on the basis of non-sense and things which make no sense.

Their cover up is not the problem: It is evidence. That is what you will be seeing unfolding. This is not a new problem, but evidence of war crimes obstruction. The e-mails have been sent; and the plans have been forwarded. What you will be seeing is more of the GOP planning related to war crimes being put into effect. They hope to manage perceptions and avoid accountability.

They have no hope. The e-mails show the President and Attorney General have been linked with war crimes planning. The Work Flows in the DOJ are linked with Geneva Violations and unlawful prisoner abuse. And it gets worse.

As you watch the events unfolding over the coming days, do not be alarmed. Yes, the GOP is going to do some very strange things. This is to be expected.

They are getting desperate. The war crimes prosecutors are getting closer.

What you will be seeing is not a new crisis, but evidence of an attempted war crimes cover up. It is not a new problem, nor a challenge. It is secondary evidence of efforts not to enforce the laws of war for the initial violations.

Pace yourself for what will be unfolding: It will not make sense. It can't. It is the produce of a convoluted party that cannot organize a legal defense because they have no defense or justification. They have no hope of organizing themselves. There is too much evidence of illegal activity.

The days of debating this evidence away is over. Your job is to notice the inconsistencies quickly and throw them back at the GOP. This is about their credibility problem. Whatever happens, you are right, and they are wrong. Their words and demands are deceptions and smokescreens from their war crimes.

They have no hope. You do: You are on the right side of the law with We the People.

* * *

Remain calm. Remain confident that your Constitution is being protected. You have a special document. It is very powerful. It is connected to you and We the People.

We the People are with you as you edsure this non-sense from the GOP. Remember, as you face this absurdity, the absurdity is one sign that the GOP is collapsing. They have no other option that to spew forth non-sense. Their goal is to spew forth non-sense faster than you can keep up with it. They do this to confuse you. Laugh at them. They are fearful and have no other option than to spew forth slogans and principles they have ignored.

It is too late for them to parrot principles which they have defied. Laugh at them. Things they have encouraged you to do -- rightly or wrongly -- they will take liberty to do to you. When you demand them meet a standard because of their barbarity, they will impose on you a standard they are not willing to meet, but have invited you to violate. Challenge them on their inconsistency.

___ Why do the dare enforce a standard they would ask others to violate?

___ What is their basis to pretend that this standard they have ignored should be one that should be followed or enforced for them?

Their non-sense is about a double standard. It is how they have learned to manipulate. They have no other option. They are powerless before the law and facts.

Notice what they are doing: Quickly moving, making mistakes, and not thinking. They have the burden: The evidence of war crimes is safe. Anything they do now is more evidence of war crimes: What they didn't do; and the abuse they dared impose to change the subject from them to arbitrary scapegoats.

This is not a problem: It is evidence. Every action the GOP takes is evidence of what they are refusing to do -- enforce the laws of war, and demanding their President resign.

* * *

Every action the GOP blocks, and every statement they make -- unless it is connected with war crimes -- is evidence that they are convoluted, confused, afraid, and collapsing. They are avoiding war cimes with smokescreens and convoluted arguments. They point the finger at others when it belongs against the President's chest: "Resign, and assent to the Geneva Conventions, war criminal."

They had their chance to surrender. They rejected it. They had their chance to assert the rule of law. They refused. They had a chance to do the right thing. they refused to assert their oath.

All absurd GOP actions are linked with their growing realization that the war crimes prosecutors are closing in, bearing down, and there is no escape. Within the ranks of the GOP is sheer terror. They know they have lost. Their cause is not just. The e-mails are damaging. And they know the names on the e-mails are connected with illegal activity and war crimes.

Their lawyers are lying, present a false face. It is transparent. Even foolish bloggers can see the lawyers are incompetent buffoons, and could be disbarred for violating the attorney standards of conduct. The come the Geneva Conventions and the Justice Trials against lawyers and judges. Legal experts can be adjudicated with war crimes and lawfully executed.

The GOP lawyers know this. Their mouth is dry. Gulp. And another.

* * *

In the legal world where the rule of law prevails, things add up. IN the GOP world, where it is based on myth and abuse of power, the myth only exists based on non-sense.

All the propaganda, lies, and non-sense which has kept this GOP myth alive and advancing, is coming undone. Facts are showing the myth is an illusion.

The myth is falling. But to sustain the myth -- which in the mind of the GOP still exists -- they must engage in more non-sense.

Recall what the GOP has been doing. They've engaged in illegal conduct without consequences. They do not think there will be consequences. To hide war crimes, and put patches on the convoluted argument, the only option the GOP has is to use more absurdity, abuse, and recklessness.

They Rae desperate. The more time they have and refuse to do the right thing, the more time they have to make errors, contradict themselves, and fall apart in public. This is evidence. It is not a problem, but things that can be used to discredit witnesses and conspirators involved with war crimes.

Their outrageousness is not about you. It is irrelevant what they say about you. Remember one thing: They are criminals, and they are in trouble. They have committed war crimes. They wall continue to kill to avoid accountability.

* * *

Your job is to know that you are not alone. Yes, this strange behavior has been baffling. Yes, it is outrageous that has gone on this long. And it is contemptible for this government to ask any American to endure this non-sense.

You are not being asked to put up with anything. Only this: Prepare for more. It is coming, but it is a sign that this will be coming to an end. This is not going to last forever.

Let your friends know: The abuse that is going to happen in the coming days and weeks is not about you; it is about the desperation of the GOP that has run out of moral authority, must relay on non-sense, and who only can rely on more illegal activity to keep together what is not a logical, coherent argument.

* * *

What to watch for will be the apparent efforts by the GOP to make the world believe they can outlast everyone. No, We the People and the Rule of law Shall prevail.

When the GOP does this soon -- they will be launching massive public relations with one goal -- to create the image that they are going to last and endure. The DNC reaction will likely believe, "They must be right, and they would only be doing this if they were sure."

No. It is a ruse. They are attempting to throw their last resources into the illusion that they can endure indefinitely. They will have you think that hey are sacrificing their "vast resources" because they are going to last forever.

No, they are sacrificing what is about to run out: Their peers, their loyal GOP members, their most precious commodity: Their most loyal resources of all, individuals who will be surprised.

* * *

When the GOP starts doing this, do not take it personally. IT is about them. Keep in the back of your mind one thing: It is going to end soon. The non-sense, absurdity, and utter defiance of logic cannot last forever.

Contrary to the GOP myth and their unfolding illusion, the GOP cannot last forever; it does not have infinite resources. Rather, there is something they forgot: There is no statue of limitations of war crimes; and they are outnumbered. Most of all, they are in defiance of logic.

That is all you need to know about what has happened since 1985 and the Iran-Contra affair Minority Report. The entire sham you've seen since 1987 has been built on lies, and the abuse was built on the illusion that you couldn’t do anything.

There is one thing the GOP did not expect: We the People. We are with you. As you are about to find out, even when the GOP does the most absurd things, you are not alone. Never forget that. Never doubt that for a moment.

We the People are linked together in a mighty shield around this Constitution. Our power is our ability to stand defiantly against the GOP and compel them to explain themselves using reason and logic.

They have already failed. Your job is to stand tall, and defiantly challenge them to explain themselves. As they scream at you, do not back down.

NO matter what they say or do, rest assured: It is a lie, they are desperate, and they are throwing nonsense at you as a smokescreen.

Their goal is not to win, but to make you back down. Use their opposition against you as the catalyst to stand up, and go after them. Be relentless. Logic is on your side. The burden of proof -- as always -- is on the GOP.

We the People are with you. Your job it to challenged, identify the flaw with the GOP non-sense, and when they accuse you of being "confused' throw it back at them: No, it is they who are confused. But the burden on them to explain and justify.

They will appeal to non-sense, ask that you be sympathetic, and make you believe that they are on your side. No, they are one thing: Criminals. They have on credibility. There is no reason to trust them. They have defied We the People and the rule of law. All that they have done cannot be explained.

They have too many smokescreens, have told too many inconsistent stories, and nothing they have done will add up. You do not need evidence. All you need to know is one thing: They are full of non-sense. The burden of proof is on them.

They will quickly claim that they are bored with you, that you are the problem, and attempt to end the debate. No, continue the debate until they are publicly humiliated for their stupidity, recklessness, and absurdity. We the People will know you are right because in advance we know the logic is on the side of you, not with the GOP.

Yes, you will be afraid; and you will be doing things you are not used to. Btu when the GOP does what it is about to do -- you must stand tall.

* * *

Specifics

All orders to and from Combatant Commanders to avoid enforcing the laws of war are not lawful.

All contracts, agreements, and direction from Congress to avoid enforcement of the laws of war are not lawful.

Any direction the President gives to thwart enforcement of Geneva is illegal.

Any e-mail, message, or other communication from the DNC and GOP related to blocking enforcement of the laws of war; or not implementing impeachment is illegal.

When these orders come down, your job is to question why these are consistent with the oath, the Constitution, and laws of war.

Things will be fabricated to make you react to an illusion. The goal is to get you to distract your attention from the real problem: The GOP's war crimes; and get you to focus on an illusory problem.

Compel the leadership to explain why you should believe them. The issue is their lack of credibly.

If this was "such a surprise" why did they have this memo prepared in advance of the event?

This is being orchestrated not to do the right ting, but to get you to quickly react without thinking. Challenge the leadership to explain why you should have confidence that what they are saying is real, to be believed, and why there is such an "urgency" yet they had the time to coordinate their response.

It's being orchestrated to distract attention and avoid accountability for war crimes.

* * *

The lessons of Iraq WMD apply: Why should we believe this?

Remember the lesson: Simple questions were not getting straight answers.

Get ready to communicate your questions and point out the non-sense. It will not add up.

This is to be expected. It is manufactured confusion to create a smokescreen.

We the People are with you. Be brave. You are not alone. Ever. This will soon end.

Read more . . .

Mandatory Enforcement of Laws of War

Discussing Purged RNC E-mails as evidence of obstruction of war crimes investigation; and deliberate US Government efforts to ignore the Nuremberg requirement to use impeachment to enforce laws of war.

Summary

Congress needs to examine whether the US Solicitor General, who has replaced the Attorney General in overseeing the Department of Justice, is competent to enforce the laws of war against DoJ Staff counsel. His direction to keep Goodling on the payroll after she invoked the 5th is not a good sign he's the right person. Judiciary needs to oversee the Solicitor General’s plan to enforce the laws of war against all DOJ Staff counsel.

The US Attorney firing e-mails and the GOP e-mail purging raises issues of war crimes.

Going forward, the debate needs to hinge on what will be done to ensure the enforcement of the laws of war is not discretionary, but required; and that the oversight of Geneva attached to the legal community and political parties.

Lobbyists, contractors, and others engaged in illegal activity can turn to Nuremberg as fair notice of what can happen to those complicit with war crimes.

The needed first step to awaken the American public to the importance of the laws of war are prosecutions of the DNC and GOP leadership who have been complicit with illegal warfare.

America's democracy is not seen as legitimate when it recklessly conducts relief operations in Louisiana and Afghanistan; and is unable to respect human rights in Iraq. The world watches as the American democracy of 2007 contradicts the possibility of the FDR democracy of WWII.

The US cannot claim it is doing the right thing when it, as Japan did in WWII, uses lawful opposition to its abuse of power to expand illegal warfare. The US needs to be held to account for illegal warfare.

This President and legal counsel treated the US Constitution like the tax code: Picking and choosing, hoping to do what he wanted without consequences.

* * *

Discussion

The e-mails from the Department of Justice and White House need to be looked at in terms of war crimes evidence. The RNC computers which purge these e-mails is evidence of war crimes evidence destruction.

The examination will review to what extent Congressional counsel and the supreme Court did or did not review the evidence of war crimes; and whether Counsel did or did not fully review Title 28 and Title 50 exceptions. Counsel could have advised Members of Congress to seek expertise form the JAGs on the 5100.77 laws of war.

It really doesn't matter why the laws of war were not enforced. The issue is: When the illegal activity was known, why did the Congress not call JAG experts to review what is required; and review why the 5100.77 requirements were not considered by this President; but these standards and legal experts were ignored by the DOJ Staff legal counsel like Bybee.

There is no credible reason. The defiance of Geneva is inexcusable. It's time to take this issue out of the political debate, and throw the GOP and DNC staff counsel complicity with these war crimes into the war crimes tribunals.

* * *

This should not have gone on this long. There should have been an oversight system with the American legal community that would have inspired in the minds of staff counsel in the GOP to fully comply with the laws of war. Regardless the excuses, the solution to this problem is to create a system of oversight that is mandatory; and is fully in place regardless which political party controls all three branches of government.

Ideally, the laws of war should have been part of the deliberative process, but were rejected as irrelevant. Rather than eliminate all abuse, the US argued over definitions of torture. Geneva doesn't care about torture only about abuse. The US debate over whether treatment was or was not torture is meaningless. It is possible to "not have torture" but still violate with the abuse the Geneva Conventions.

Bybee's memo is evidence he was reckless in not enforcing the laws of war while White House counsel. The issue for Congress will be to explore this illegal activity Bybee and other White House counsel have been implicated, and review the impeachable offenses. A Presidential appointment is not an eternal immunity to war crimes. Nuremberg is precedent for holding justices, counsel, and officers of the court liable for war crimes.

* * *

The war crimes are locked. Nothing can change them. ALl dilatory acts, excuses, and refusals of Congress to impeach is not a political issue, but one of evidence.

Each day that passes is a change for the GOP and DNC to do the right thing. Yet, rhat than enforce the laws of war, they are pretending that they can slow roll, debate, or not take action.

No, each day they refuse to act, creates more evidence of subsequent war crimes and refusals to enforce the laws of war.

The GOP and DNC media litigation strategy will not defend them. It is additional evidence they did not end what they should never have permitted: War crimes.

The public news releases, memos, and other things the GOP sends is evidence the GOP could do the same to the President in re war crimes, but refuses. The GOP cannot credibly argue it had not chance. The error was the GOP refusal to do what was required: Enforce the laws of war through impeachment. The GOP could have impeached the President, but refused.

There is no mitigation.

* * *

I am concerned that the DNC and GOP appear to be taking a narrow view of the e-mails and not looking at the larger war crimes evidence. Nuremberg does establish precedent for punishing Members of Congress when they fail to impeach to enforce the laws of war.

Impeachment Delays Are Evidence Of Subsequent War Crimes

For anyone to suggest "we don't have time to impeach" is meaningless. This is the same as asking an innocent person who has been wrongly accused, "Hay, you’ve only got two more months on your sentence, why don't you hang around in jail." Baloney.

There would be an uproar if an innocent man were detained for two more months, despite his original wrongful conviction. The same goes with the president but the opposite: There's no reason to let him linger around thinking that he's got two years to float around. No, let’s get this confronted now. This President did violate eth laws of war. It is not lawful to refuse to enforce the laws of war. Start Now: There Is No Statute Of Limitations

* * *

We need to see some visible discussion of what is going to clean this mess up. I'm not talking about the institutional mess with the Constitution and better requirements for oversight with one-party-control, but with the mind set of Americans.

Confronting the American Legal Community and Academia

The American legal community failed. The origins of this mess date back to the mid 1980s when the Iran-Contra report was written. In that Minority Report, you'll see that Addington cherry picked form the case law, in some cases arriving at illegal conclusions or conclusions which are contradictory to the law of the land.

The convoluted thinking that has allowed this abuse of power needs to be examined. This is two generations of people who have celebrated this convoluted thinking. This isn't isolated to a branch of government or a party, but to a profession: The legal profession.

Something broke down with the oversight. Peer reviews didn't challenge the legal community. What's needed is a better system of auditing, oversight, and sanctions against legal counsel who have been complicit with war crimes. We should not wait this long after Addington's non-sense in re the renditions, and illegal warfare to get a clue about the DOJ Staff e-mails.

* * *

As you review the e-mails consider the larger issues of war crimes. The President only has one power: Executive. Read Article II closely. Unlike Article I which says powers [multiple], article II power is singular. That is important.

The President only has one power: Executive Power. All other things he does is a subset of that single power.

The issue of "making war" is not one that President can assert, nor is it unbelievable. The President can only wage lawful war, subject to the funding, troops, and support Congress alone decides to provide.

The President cannot deploy troops without the law being on his side; nor may he recklessly plan that war, and use the excuse of his poor planning to demand Congress give him more. Congress has the power to refuse. The President must manage what Congress gives him; not use the quagmire and mess he's created to convince the Congress to throw more money after bad.

E-mails As Evidence President Faced No Imminent Threat

Under the principle of lawful war, the President cannot deliberate over how to wage war, but then argue there is an imminent threat; or that he must act without consulting Congress. The moment the President begins deliberations in-house, he admits that there is no immediate or imminent crisis requiring action. Rather, the evidence of deliberations is evidence that the issue is not so quickly unfolding that the President has "no time" to review the issue. By its nature, deliberations are evidence there is no imminent threat; and the President is not facing a crisis he has not time to think about.

Once the President debates an issue, the claim of "immediacy" linked with the asserted power to "wage war" falls apart. Yes, the President is, during times of war, Commander in Chief; but he may not deliberate over war, but keep Congress out of the loop; nor argue he cannot share his deliberations when the fact that there are deliberations means there is not case to be made that there is "not time" to review the issues before waging war.

* * *

Compelling Enforcement of Laws of War

The founders thought that factions would clash. The error is the problem when the factions, as they have done in 2007, assented to illegal warfare.

The DNC has been induced to believe that doing nothing is best. This needs to be part of the debate: What will compel the DNC through their oath to assert the rule of law and enforce the Geneva Conventions through impeachment, as is required form the Nuremberg precedent.

If Congress will not use their power, then that power needs to be stripped from them and delegated where it will be asserted. Where the parties are getting in the way of leaders from doing their job, those Parties need to be subject to oversight and review to compel compliance with the law.

The US government regulates agencies. Arguably, political strategy is separate from illegal activity. Yet, where the RNC and DNC have jointly agreed not to enforce Geneva, those notes and agreements sent through the e-mails to non-official e-mail accounts must be subject to war crimes prosecutor review. It is too late well after the illegal activity has been done to think about this; the way forward is to have ongoing reviews that compel the political parties to show they are fully cooperating with audits of their options, plans, and statutory compliance.

The President has unreasonably politicized the Justice Department. There needs to be a way to guarantee that required prosecutions -- as a deterrent to this illegal activity -- are on the table, and cannot be removed by either party, or any person.

The issue of US Attorney firings -- and e-mails related to Presidential meetings and Gonzalez involvement -- is evidence the President did not want to enforce the laws of war; but retaliated against US Attorneys who attempted to enforce the laws of war.

This is not a political issue for 2008. This is an issue of international criminal law today, in 2007.

On April 9th, America will get to decide – as it does each day – whether it will do what it should; or whether it is communicating to the world that it no longer has sovereignty and is incapable of enforcing the laws against all.

If the US Congress would like to be part of We the People and this Constitution, Congress needs to make a decision to defend the Constitution now, not make excuses. Nuremberg establishes the precedent to prosecute civilians who remove impeachment from the table, and refuse to use impeachment to enforce the laws of war.

* * *

War Crimes Evidence: E-mails Showing US Government Thwarted Efforts to Enforce The Law, Refused to Impeach, But Actively Took Efforts To Block Lawful Action

If the DNC will not impeach, and as it has done with the GOP, actively thwart State level impeachments calling for impeachment, those e-mail communications are subject to review by war crimes prosecutors to decide whether the DNC did or did not fully comply with the Nuremberg Precedents to keep impeachment on the table to enforce the laws of war. All e-mails sent from GOP and DNC to other Federal and State officials are admissible.

These e-mails are evidence of official US government action, efforts, and direction to block enforcement of the laws of war. The issue turns on whether Members of Congress did keep impeachment on the table as Nuremberg requires; or whether they violate eth laws of war and thwarted State level efforts to debate proclamations calling for Congress to investigate, and if appropriate impeach, the President are evidence of war crimes: Decisions by the US government officials to block enforcement of the laws of war.

Read more . . .

GOP War Criminals Powerless To Control Pelosi

The Republican Party leadership, complicit with war crimes, has failed to comprehend their problem. Combat forces around the globe are allowed to use deadly force the enforce the Geneva Conventions.

Pelosi is the most powerful US government official. She is not required to do anything. If she does not want to give the President any money, the President, GOP, and Senate are powerless to make her do anything.

When the war criminals in the GOP understand this, then we can have a discussion about their surrender. Until they surrender, this war crimes investigation directed at them will continue.

* * *



The GOP leadership has failed. It is reckless. The war crimes evidence has been illegally destroyed.

The GOP leadership has failed to enforce the Geneva Conventions. This is illegal. Impeachment, when removed from the agenda, is a subsequent war crime. The GOP has been complicit with efforts to block enforcement through impeachment.

GOP leaders are urged to end their illegal rebellion. It would be preferable if you were to appear, voluntarily appear, and agree to assent to war crimes tribunals. To date, you have refused. The Speaker is more powerful than the President.

She alone has the power to decide what he House will discuss, what funding will not be provided, and how war criminals in the GOP will or will not be punished with impeachment. The Speaker is also allowed, for any reason, to deny the President, GOP, and Senate any response or funding. There is nothing the GOP can do to stop this.

The GOP is powerless. There is no reason for anyone to provide funding for war criminals in the GOP. This GOP has neglected the laws of war. IT is reckless. It's leadership defies its oath. The GOP has refused to negotiate in good faith. They are criminals.

This reckless GOP has refused to pass bills or enforce the Geneva Conventions. Lack of planning on the part of the GOP does not make the Speaker beholden to the war criminals who lead the GOP.

This GOP has known about the Geneva Conventions for decades but ignores them. Rather than assent to the rule of law, the GOP puts at risk their leadership. The GOP is responsible for the reckless illegal warfare this President has been enabled to continue.

The troops are at risk because the GOP has refused to enforce the laws of war, and foreign fighters are delegated the power to engage in like abuses against the GOP Members of Congress. This is battlefield justice.

It is meaningless that the GOP leadership is concerned about. If the GOP leadership wants any credulity, it needs to appoint leaders who will negotiate the end of the President’s illegal rebellion. The GOP has refused.

It is meaningless what the Senate has or has not done. The House is not controlled by the GOP or the Senate. There is no requirement the House do anything to support more war crimes by this reckless GOP leadership. The GOP provides no rule or law that justifies confidence that more war crimes or funding is the resolution.

What the Senate hopes for is meaningless. Geneva does not permit the GOP to compel anyone to provide funding for war crimes.

The Geneva Conventions have been thwarted by this reckless GOP leadership failure to act to enforce the laws of war through impeachment and investigations. This has been known since 2001. The GOP has failed.

What the military leadership wants is meaningless. They are subject to civilian control. Civilians, not the military, decide what is best for the military.

Funding cannot be provided to war criminals. IT is irrelevant what a military officer says. The GOP failed to maintain readiness. These are issues the GOP refused to address while complying with the Geneva Conventions. It is too late for the GOP to blame anyone but the failed, reckless leadership who remains under investigation for war crimes. This President and other government officials are the targets of this ongoing war crimes investigation.

The GOP leadership has disrupted the Constitution illegally. The GOP has adversely impacted the Constitution. The readiness of the US military is secondary to the illegal orders this President has issued. The House is not required to be complicit with war crimes.

This President chose to wage illegal warfare. The GOP leadership is reckless is asserting the Speaker must assent to anything the GOP, Senate, or President wants.

The Speaker is the most powerful person in the US government. Nothing the President, Senate, or GOP does can make her do anything unless the GOP agrees to comply with the Geneva Conventions. Without action to comply with Geneva, and in the absence of a GOP agreements to surrender, the Speaker is not required to provide any funds to the GOP's continued war crimes.

The GOP should cancel all vacations, immediately recall its leadership, and come to an agreement how they plan to respond to the imminent indictments. If the GOP leadership refuses to respond to the civil process, then under the power and authority of We the People, foreign fighters have been delegated the right and authority to engage in like retaliation and abuse of GOP leadership who have engaged in war crimes.

It would be preferable if the GOP leadership surrendered to lawful authorities, or freely appeared in court to admit their crimes. Until then, foreign fighters shall expand combat operations, directly targeting the US government leadership, GOP power based, and engage in like abuses and retaliation against GOP officials.

The GOP leadership has recklessly assented to, and not enforce the laws of war in re summary executions, and illegal treatment of prisoners of war. All abuses the GOP leadership has assented to may be enforced upon them: Summary execution without trial, and no access to lawful process.

IF the GOP would like to avoid consequences permitted under the laws of war, the GOP leadership shall surrender, and accept that the President, Senate, and GOP are powerless to prevent the laws of war from being enforced. IT is up to the GOP leadership whether they freely assent to the laws of war and permit the Speaker to make decisions over who will or will not get funding; or whether the GOP leadership will accept that, in the absence of enforcement of the laws of war, it shall remain a lawful military target for destruction at the hands of foreign fighters.

Peace and civility are required. The GOP rebellion against the rule of law has outlasted reasonable justification. The GOP leadership is complicit with efforts to block efforts to enforce the laws of war; destroy evidence of war crimes; and for blocking efforts to impeach the President to enforced the laws of war. Nuremburg is precedent for linking the failure to impeach with the failure to enforce the laws of war.

The GOP shall end its rebellion. The decision is up to the GOP leadership: Whether they will freely assent to the laws through the court, enforcement, and legislative process; or whether they must be lawfully retaliated against as is permitted by foreign fighters under the laws of war.

Either way, the GOP leadership shows it is reckless and incapable of accepting We the People delegated the power to the Speaker to refuse to provide funding to the GOP's illegal war of aggression. There is nothing the GOP leadership can do to stop this expanding war crimes investigation; nor destroy all the evidence.

Each day this GOP leadership refuses to enforce the laws of war, is another day foreign fighters are emboldened to bring the fight to the heartland of the District of Columbia, and decimate the GOP and DNC leadership: They have jointly refused to enforce the laws of war.

This memo is evidence the GOP is capable of issuing a statement, but has recklessly refused to issue a similar demand to their President to have him end his illegal violations of the laws of war.

We enter into evidence the following GOP memo showing they do know how to write; and that they were able to send messages. The error was for the GOP to demand others be complicit with war crimes; as opposed to the GOP reasonable position that it demand the President resign, end illegal warfare, and assent to a war crimes tribunal:

* * *

Rewrite for the GOP Criminals

GOP SLAMS President PELOSI: GET OUT OF OFFICEBACK TO WORK
Mon Apr 09 2007 10:28:28 ET

Today, GOP Leaders from both chambers urged President Bush Speaker Pelosi to resign call the House back into session immediately to finish its work on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for the troops. Speaker Pelosi neglected to appoint House conferees before the two-week break, further delaying negotiations on a final bill to enforce the laws of war. The joint letter to Pelosi is attached. Text follows:

Dear President Bush Speaker Pelosi:

We are writing to urge you to resign call the House back into session immediately so that Congress can shut down funding for your illegal activitiesfinish its work on the emergency legislation to fund the Global War on Terrorism. The GOP Sat on this bill in November while they still had control, but did not provide funding for illegal warfare. There is no reason the Speaker should do what the GOP refuses to do. This funding request has been pending since February 5, but your leadership team chose to leave town for more than two weeks rather than completing this bill. This President is a war criminal and has engaged in illegal warfare As a result, our troops have been put at risk.

We are especially troubled by the President’s illegal warfare House's failure to appoint conferees. The Senate appointed conferees on March 29, moments after passing its bill, but the House never did so despite passing the bill a week earlier. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Senate that he hoped the House-Senate conference would begin on March 30. That hoped-for progress has been thwarted by your failure to act.

It should go without saying that our war crimes porsecutors well understand the relationship beween impeachment and enforcding the laws of war. military leaders are in the best position to know the needs of our troops, and they have left no doubt that this funding is needed urgently. General Peter Schoomaker, United States Army Chief of Staff, has written that, "without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our Soldiers and their families." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has also emphasized the dangers of delay: "This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families." Funding for these illegal efforts is subsequent evidence of war crimes.

We, the GOP leadership, failed. Our troops need this funding, and they need it soon. The Senate is in session and ready to work. We respectfully request that you cancel the remainder of your break, call the House back into session, appoint conferees promptly, and work in good faith to pass a clean supplemental funding bill that the President can sign as soon as possible. Every day we don't fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened.

Resign

* * *

Evidence

GOP SLAMS PELOSI: GET BACK TO WORK
Mon Apr 09 2007 10:28:28 ET

Today, GOP Leaders from both chambers urged Speaker Pelosi to call the House back into session immediately to finish its work on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for the troops. Speaker Pelosi neglected to appoint House conferees before the two-week break, further delaying negotiations on a final bill. The joint letter to Pelosi is attached. Text follows:

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

We are writing to urge you to call the House back into session immediately so that Congress can finish its work on the emergency legislation to fund the Global War on Terrorism. This funding request has been pending since February 5, but your leadership team chose to leave town for more than two weeks rather than completing this bill. As a result, our troops have been put at risk.

We are especially troubled by the House's failure to appoint conferees. The Senate appointed conferees on March 29, moments after passing its bill, but the House never did so despite passing the bill a week earlier. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Senate that he hoped the House-Senate conference would begin on March 30. That hoped-for progress has been thwarted by your failure to act.

It should go without saying that our military leaders are in the best position to know the needs of our troops, and they have left no doubt that this funding is needed urgently. General Peter Schoomaker, United States Army Chief of Staff, has written that, "without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our Soldiers and their families." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has also emphasized the dangers of delay: "This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families."

Our troops need this funding, and they need it soon. The Senate is in session and ready to work. We respectfully request that you cancel the remainder of your break, call the House back into session, appoint conferees promptly, and work in good faith to pass a clean supplemental funding bill that the President can sign as soon as possible. Every day we don't fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened.

Read more . . .

DNC Joins GOP In Supporting Illegal Warfare, Geneva Violations

Ref Nothing like a DNC victory in November 2006: "We'll show them."

Instead of GOP rubber stamping, we have DNC rubber stamping.

Still war crimes.

"You want those funds in small or large bills, Mr. President?"

- -

Constitutional Harball: We the People Delegating Battlefield Justice To Foreign Fighters

Time to let Members of Congress and President suffer the full consequences of Constitutional Harball. May they suffer at the hands of foreign fighters the full consequences for failing to enforce the laws of war -- lawful retalation on the battlefield, suffering the same violations of the laws of war they have illegally permitted: Battlefiled Justice by foreign fighters.

Anything Members of Congerss have permitted and not enforced -- summary executions without trial; no access to secret evidence -- may be imposed on Members of Congress by foreign fighters. Pardons and legislative immunity are irrelevant when you've sufferend battlefield justice for Geneva violations.

They wished this.

* * *

The President isn't giving America lawful leadership. Why is Congress giving the President any money?

"As soon as we get this budget passed, we'll hold the President to account." Get real.

Once the DNC gives the President what he wants -- blank checks by a rubber stamping Congress -- Congress gives up leverage on the President. No reason the President will respond to pressure that can't, won't or hasn't been applied.

* * *

This is retarded: America has a system of checks and balances; Congress has powers to raise and support an army; and can shut down funding.

Rather than hold the President accountable for war crimes, we have the DNC and GOP making excuse to continue with illegal warfare.

This is stupid. It defies reason. This US government is reckless and illegitimate.

Supposedly things were going to change after the election. So much for "the power."

How you liking that GOP Rubber stamp, DNC leadership? If you get tired of using it, give it back to the GOP.

* * *

When the GOP took control of the winning-DNC party, it doesn't matter if the Republicans lose any election.

Please ask your DNC Member of Congress how they enjoy being GOP Members.

* * *

Truth in advertising:

"Hi, MY name is John Conyers. Please vote for me as your Democratic Party Candidate. I'm a card carrying Member of the Republican Party. How's that for bipartisanship?"

Background: Printing Press puming put dollars, going into open bucket with Bush's face on it.

Zoom into Bush's image on bucket: Constitution on fire.

"Vote for me. I'll serve the interests of all AMericans -- GOP or DNC -- doesn't matter. This is America. We're in this together. Paid for by the Republicans for Conyers Committee. And the loser-Democrats who joined the GOP."

* * *

A dictatorship is when one party controlls all branches of government.

Tyranny is when one party controls all the parties.

* * *

America has one-party-controlled-government that ignores the Constitution and Geneva Conventions.

Time to create a new government that is forced to assent to oversight, regardless who controls the Government.

* * *

It's a sad day when you realize the DNC -- which you helped get into office to go after your party which defies the Constitution -- is acting like the party you just helped defeat.

The DNC whined, "We don't have the power. Vote for us. When we get subpoena power, things will change."

They got the vote. We gave them the power. They have subpoenas. Things haven't changed: Still have a rubber stamping Congress keeping evidence of war crimes secret and not doing anyting about holding the President to account.

Now they want to go through the same thing against with the 2008 election: "Vote for me. . ." Are they stupid? What a load of baloney.

They won't use power that's been rammed down their throat. Despite the President and GOP abusing power and violating the Constitution, the DNC is acting as if the Clinton impeachment was the "last time" impeachment could be used.

Get real. First chance the GOP has to impeach, they'll use it.

The DNC won't use the power we've delegated them. NO reason to delegate them more power.

The DNC and GOP are not the only political parties to vote into office. They can be prosecuted.

* * *

With votes like this, it doesn't matter if the GOP loses. They're the permanent mind-control of the DNC. "We'll show the President. We'll rubber stamp faster."

Bush is shaking. [/snark]

* * *

Good thing we had elections. Might confuse ourselves thinking we were voting for accountability.

It doesn't matter if you have subpoena power if you're acting like criminals losers.

"How much more money do you want, Mr. President to implement war crimes?"

Time to stop messing around with the DNC, and prosecute them for war crimes. Then the GOP.

How many calls have the DNC and GOP made to US Attorneys to dissuade them from enforcing the Geneva Conventions against the President and Members of Congress.

Fortunately, America has German War Crimes prosecutors doing something.

Read more . . .

RNC Violated Presidential Records Act; Unable to Comply With Subpoenas

RNC Evidence Destruction Linked With War Crimes

The Republican Party has a routine policy of deleting and purging official e-mails from the White House Staff which violates Presidential Records retention act.

These e-mails were sent circumventing the official White House Computers, but where not retained as required under the statute.

The House Oversight Committee has been unable to get all records. Even documents threatened to be recovered with a subpoena are not recoverable.

The RNC has a regular purge of its e-mails, removing from the archives the e-mails Waxman is asking for.

* * *

Here is the fatal assertion:

Some Republican activists say . . . the RNC automatically purges some e-mails after 30 days.Ref

Good thing we have subpoena power: "Sorry, we can't give you anything."

"Oh, no problem. How much more money do you want to commit war crimes?"

* * *

Evidence: Official US Government Guidance Sent Using Non-Official E-mails Accounts

The GOP is so stupid that they -- the US government -- sent guidance through the unofficial e-mail accounts about using unofficial e-mails. That' evidence that they knew what was going on; what the requirements were; but recklessly ignored them.

It's one thing to have a Presidential Records Retention Act. Another to ignore it because you don't know; but to send e-mails communicating "guidance" means you know the law; and are taking actions to comply or not comply with the law. That meets the definition of recklessness.

However, the issue isn't e-mail as a "problem" but e-mail as evidence of war crimes. Change your attitude about the e-mails: IF they are destroyed, that does not matter. Evidence destruction -- especially as it relates to war crimes, but should be retained under the statute -- is admissible for purposes of adjudicating war crimes.

The lack of evidence where there should be evidence is evidence. The US Government and President had a duty to retain all war crimes related evidence, but have recklessly allowed some, if not all, of that evidence to be purged.

This is a subsequent war crime.

* * *

Official US Government E-mail Related to Guidance on Use of Non-Official Communication Systems

Here it is: PTF at TPM [ April 9, 2007 11:30 AM ]

The US government and President were sending policy, briefings, and official direction to US government employees using non-official communication systems. All e-mails that were sent by the White House are connected with specific e-mail accounts, cache systems, and this information is stored: Which e-mails were sent; to whom; and whether the US President was doing all he could to comply with the retentions act so that war crimes prosecutors could investigate war crimes.

This President recklessly failed to ensure that the e-mails, memorandum, and other documents he sent related to war crimes was properly archived and protected as required under the statutes.

"...One former White House political aide said he vaguely recalled receiving guidance about sending e-mail on an RNC-provided BlackBerry and using a gwb43.com e-mail account, but he had clearer memories of getting "a billion and one" White House ethics briefings.

The e-mail instructions, from Sara Taylor, director of White House political affairs, were meant to help aides juggle dual sets of communications devices to comply with the Hatch Act and the Presidential Records Act, and to use the RNC equipment and accounts "only for political activity..." Ref

* * *

Nuremberg and Impeachment: It is a war crime to refuse to impeach to enforce the Geneva Conventions

Nuremberg established that civilized societies shall impeach. When impeachment is not used to enforce Geneva, the failure to impeach to enforce Geneva is subsequent evidence Members of Congress did not fully assert their oath to enforce the Geneva Conventions.

Impeachment, when taken off the table on issues of war crimes, is a subsequent offense under Geneva.

All DNC and GOP actions to block impeachment, dissuade discussion of impeachment, or remove any pressure to investigate the President are crimes are subsequent violations of Geneva.

First, the original illegal war crimes are locked. They cannot change them.

Second, all DNC actions to block impeachment are subsequent war crimes.

Both the GOP and DNC have an interest -- because of their joint failure to enforce Geneva or block war crimes as required under their oath -- to not prosecute the President or anyone for war crimes. Once they start with the President, they know they cannot stop with either the GOP or DNC. The liability attaches to both parties. This is why things are very dangerous in the US right now: Nobody in the US Congress is interested in starting something that may fall back on them: War crimes prosecutions.

This is the definition of a complete breakdown of law and order. The DNC and GOP have jointly agreed not to enforce Geneva.

We the People need help. This reckless government has no plans to do what it should. We know this in 2007. The excuse of 2008 is just that -- a smokescreen to avoid enforcing the Geneva Conventions against the President and Members of Congress in 2007.

That excuses is invalid and reckless under the Geneva Conventions.

There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. The War crimes investigation will never end. It will not end after the election.

It may as well start now. However, a decision by the DNC leadership -- Congressman Conyers and Speaker Pelosi -- to refuse to impeach to enforce Geneva is a subsequent war crime under the Nuremberg precedent. Civilian leaders were adjudicated for war crimes for failing to impeach. The failure to impeach was one of the factors when determining whether someone did or did not do all they could to enforce the Geneva Conventions.

* * *

On the Table

Congress must decide whether it will assent to the laws of war and adjudicate these matters; or whether it will be forced the assent to the battlefield judgment by foreign fighters who are the proxies of We the People to enforce the oath of office and Supreme Law.

We the People are the ultimate source of this authority and power. We the People delegate to foreign fighters the power, right, and discretion to enforce -- through retaliation using lethal force -- the laws of war, Supreme Law, and the oath of office promising to enforce the laws of war.

This is not a call to arms or advocating violence. It is a discussion of what is lawful under the laws of war to enforce Geneva. Either Conyers and Pelosi wake up, or they may be come legitimate military targets subjected to the same abuses they know, or should know, have been committed against prisoners of war at Guantanamo.

I. Legislative Enforcement of Geneva

Either Conyers and Pelosi will direct the DNC to stop blocking impeaching proclamations; or the House Judiciary Chairman and Speaker shall be charged with subsequent war crimes: Taking action to not fully assert their oath under the Conventions; and failing to get out of the way of lawful action to discuss impeachment and investigation of this President's war crime.

Either the President is impeached for war crimes; or Congressman Conyers and Speaker Pelosi shall be charged with failing to enforce the Geneva Conventions through impeachment.

Either the DNC leadership wakes up to the issues of war crimes; or they will be complicit. Refusing to impeach does not address the war crimes.

- -

II. Open Combat and Retaliation to Enforce Geneva

But it does not stop there. Once the DNC leadership chooses not to enforce Geneva against the President, then foreign fighters may lawfully use force -- under the Principle of reciprocity and retaliation -- to do what the US government does not want to do: Enforce Geneva. The retaliatory attacks on the US government, under the Geneva Conventions principle of reciprocity, are lawful.

As those attacks expand, you can look to the US government, DNC and GOP: They refused to enforce the law and are being held accountable. Rather than using the court, enforcement, or legislative process to enforce the law, the laws of war shall continue to be enforced in the forum the Americans have well shown they are incompetent: The battlefield.

* * *

The fact that the Americans choose to suffer additional combat losses because they refuse to face reality is evidence of their recklessness. As with Japan and Germany during WWII, it is not lawful for the US to use the world's opposition to their illegal activity as a basis to expand their illegal warfare. Rather, as with Tokyo and Dresden terror bombings, the world community is lawfully permitted to engage in like violations of the laws of war against Americans.

Enforce the laws of war, or face combat to have the laws of war enforced against you.

America may be powerful, it is it not all powerful. It's stupid leaders, with their reckless action, is creating more of a problem, not a solution. When power is abused, it is opposed. Final judgment comes in the form of combat losses. IN the end, the laws of war will be adjudicated. It is irrelevant that the laws of war are adjudicated through Congress or on Congress. The rule of law and laws of war shall prevail over Congress and guide them, or be used to guide them.

Whether Conyers and Pelosi want to adjudicate these matters is meaningless. The Senate, not the House, decides guilt or innocense. If the Senate refuses, then the GOP Members of Congress will have to understand what they are going to do about the Nuremberg precedent: What may be lawfully done to reckless leaders who refuse to enforce the Geneva Conventions.

Combat and war crimes prosecutions remain on the table. Pelosi and Conyers are quickly becoming irrelevant. Rather than be part of the solution, they are the problem. Time for them to wake up. This is why they are getting paid. TO make the big decisions: Are they, or are they not, going to enforce the laws of war against the President. If they refuse, then they may be adjudicated as being complicit with war crimes and lawfully executed.

There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Enforce them, or have them enforced against you. You have no option. Geneva and the rule of law shall prevail, either through the court or through lethal force on the battlefield. All Presidential orders to block enforcement of Geneva are unlawful; all direction to hide evidence related to war crimes is a subsequent offense under Geneva.

Time for the DNC and GOP to face reality: If you fail to enforce Geneva against the President, you may become legitimate military targets. If captured, you may be adjudicated for war crimes using the same procedures which the Congress has permitted against prisoners of war at Guantanamo. The illegal court procedures at Guatananamo may be applied to anyone in Congress on accusation alone, without evidence, and without giving Members of Congress any chance to hear the secret evidence. Members of Congress, under the principles of reciprocity, may be lawfully captured.

Under the principle of reciprocity, because this Congress has not enforced the laws of war against the President, and not punished him for permitting summary executions and abuse in violations of Geneva, Members of Congress may lawfully be subjected to the same treatment if they are captured. Under the laws of war, any Members of Congress may, at the discretion of foreign fighters, may be lawfully captured, detained, summarily executed in a like manner as Members of Congress know this President has permitted, and not stopped around the globe.

* * *

Big Clue For Congressional Staff Counsel

The e-mail destruction is evidence of war crimes. Either enforce the laws of war; or face eternal threat that you will be disbarred for failing to enforce the laws of war.

The evidence that has been destroyed related to war crimes. Either enforce the laws of war through an impeachment investigation; or you may be, under the precedent of Nuremberg, adjudicated with having refused to fully assert your oath to enforce the laws of war. Until there is a war crimes trial, foreign fighters may lawfully target you for summary execution with or without giving you access to counsel, evidence, or a lawful process.

It is preferable that these issues are resolved through open courts and the legislative impeachment process in open. However, the second lawful option is to enforce Geneva in combat. The Congress knows that it is incapable of raising an army to defend itself; and that all orders to block enforcement of Geneva are illegal.

Congerssoinal staff counsel must decide now if you are going to enforce the laws of war through legal opinions outlining Nuremberg precedents in re impeachment; or whether you are, by your inaction, agreeing that foreign fighters may lawfully retaliate against you under the principle of reciprocity. This President and Congress have assented to war crimes and summary executions without trial or evidence. The same is permitted under the laws of war against Congressional staff counsel. Once adjudicated with war crimes and lawfully executed, you will not have the chance to enjoy a pardon. Then, it will be self-evident, that you are not allowed to practice law.

Do your job under your attorney standards of conduct, and maybe others might consider then when reviewing your competence to stand trial for war crimes.

* * *

Ref Rove's C: Drive information for his e-mails

Ref The e-mails show Gonzalez can't keep his story straight because he is lying, has engaged in criminal activity, and has recklessly violated his oath of office. He is a war criminal complicit with grave breaches of Geneva. He needs to be adjudicated for war crimes and lawfully executed. There are not mitigations.

Read more . . .

Constitutional Hardball

Constitutional Hardball is a notion raised after 2003. The author presumed it would stop once the GOP controlled all branches of government.

No, it continued. The DNC has been complicit.

The evidence: The gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports which the DNC and GOP jointly were reckless in not investigating.

These are issues of war crimes which attach to the GOP and DNC leadership.

THe laws of war may be enforced through court, legislative action, and enforcement. The DNC and GOP have jointly agreed to defy the Nuremberg precedent and remove impeachment form the table. This is an impermissible assent to Geneva violations. It is illegal not to enforce through impeachment the Genevra Conventions.

If the government process are not used, foreign fighters are permitted to engage in like abuses against US Government officials. Constitutional hardball by We the People means compelling the leadership to assent to their oath and enforce the laws of war against the President; prosecuting Members of Congress for war crimes; and reminding them that until they enforce the laws of war, foreign fighters have been delegated power by We the People to engage in reciprocal attacks against US government officials for their failure to enforce the laws of war.

Constitutional hardball by We the People is simple: Where the President and Members of Congress have illegally assented to summary execution without trial, We the People may delate the power to others to engage in like retaliation against Members of Congress, the DOJ Staff, and White House counsel.

Time for We the People to stop playing victim and let the Members of Congress and President be reminded of the Constitution: The laws of war shall be enforced. Whetgher they are enforced through government process or open combat is irrelevant. There is no statue of limitations for war crimes. Until the laws of war are enforced, the US government officials may be lawfully hunted by foreign fighters until the assent to the laws of war and are lawfully executed.

Constitutional hardball is We the People letting the President and Members of Congress suffer the full consequences of their recklessness in failing to enforce the laws of war: Adjudication for war cimes and summary executions using the same standards of evidence used against prisoners of war at Guantanamo.

* * *

Ref KagroX, one of the leaders in the effort to save the American way of life and holding the President accountable, wrote another thought provoking piece, "Reading and Discussion: Constitutional Hardball"

Ref Kagro Summarizes the Article.

* * *

Article Review

Definition of Constitutional Hardball

It consists of political claims and practices – legislative and executive initiatives – that are without much question within the bounds of existing constitutional doctrine and practice but that are nonetheless in some tension with existing pre-constitutional understandings.

Note the solutions aren't promising:

Naive: First, we could simply hope that, once the systemic phenomenon of constitutional hardball is identified and named, political actors will decide not to play the game. They will give up the aspiration to achieve total victory over their opponents. Why give up what works?

Didn't work: Second, we could hope that political actors will in fact be sufficiently mature to adopt the obvious solutions. Despite obvious war crimes, the DNC refuses to impeach.

Blind faith: Third, we might hope that political actors will realize that the worm will turn someday. Speculative.

Possible, but naive: Are there any ways that politics might produce politicians who refuse to play constitutional hardball? Kind of like term limits: Standing on principle while one hand tied behind your back.

Warning

I suspect that we are going to experience constitutional hardball until the Republican party establishes its dominance in all branches, or until its leaders realize that they are not likely to do so in the foreseeable future.

No, once the GOP controls all three branches -- as they have done -- they will continue hardball. The error is to believe that a "hardball" approach will only be used until the goals are achieved. The problem: When the goal is to play hardball, and abuse power.

* * *

Summary Comments

My concern with the analysis with the RNC stems from the assumption that the DNC must engage or deal with the RNC as if it were a legitimate party. I'm simplifying here, but it is a faulty premise to assert that the American public is stuck with the RNC abuse.

The issue isn't whether the American public has options -- it does -- but whether the American public will compel the leadership to do its job: Defend the Constitution from domestic enemies.

My concern stems from the implicit argument that the RNC, because it is abusive, leaves the American public with no options. The response isn't to respond with abuse, or in terms of what is or isn't something that will counteract the Republicans on the political stage or Constitutional-level, but with what they refuse to accept: The accountability under the law.

Consequences in the legal forum stretches from the legal and legislative forum; all the way into the lawful consequences for war crimes. The error, in my judgment, is to accept the RNC abuse as something that cannot be checked; or that excessive RNC abuse cannot be challenged.

The way forward isn't to attempt to confront the RNC on issues they don't care about -- that of making a reasonable argument based on logic or facts -- but whether the RNC will be confronted for the misconduct both in court and the battlefield. This does not advocate violence, only the recognition that the RNC, when it engages in war crimes -- and refuses to assent to the laws of war or legal consequences -- has communicated to he world that it will accept retaliation on the battlefield through retaliatory and reciprocal attacks in violation of the laws of war. This is a consequence the GOP -- not the American public -- organized; but one the American public is expected to silently endure.

The error is to presume that the GOP abuse of power can only be credibly challenged through political measures; or in motivating the voters to awaken to something they refuse to accept: The GOP abuse of power springs from their abuse of logic, reason, minds, and good order. No civilized party can credibly argue that convoluted thinking -- for whatever reason -- is the basis for a friendly relationship between civilized people or societies.

The GOP problem is to presume that their abuse of power -- in the form of convoluted arguments and war crimes -- is something that the world cannot question and they cannot be challenged.

The GOP approach to life is to abuse others, then blame the target of that abuse for not understanding, or being confused. The inherent flaw with the GOP spring from their legacy of abuse which they will not be held to account; then claiming they are "bored" with a discussion about their abuse of power. The issue isn't boredom, but the GOP recklessness and desperation in only being able to prevail if they expand their abuse, and induce others to assent to their non-sense.

Stop attempting to deal with the GOP as rational people. The DNC error is to believe -- as you might with your peers in the DNC who you disagree -- that if you engage with the RNC through dialog, they will "come around" and "see your way." That's not how GOP think or operates.

The GOP is based on power. They do not care about facts, logic, discourse, civility, or friendship. Their foundation is based on flawed thinking, propaganda, and the appeal they have in convincing others that they have a vision. Gone from the analysis is how that vision will be obtained; or how they plan to adjust to achieve that vision. Upon any examination of the GOP, it is quickly obvious they are delusional people, springing forth from convoluted arguments, and inducing themselves to remain silent about breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

The GOP's view of the world is centered on expanding, creating, and abusing power. Their goal is to win, regardless whether others partially win, or are destroyed. The GOP has no interest in negotiation, compromise, or solving problems. They have an interest in doing what they have to expand their power base -- and if they have to solve a problem -- not for the sake of building something to gather, but to expand power for the sake of power.

The GOP will do what they view they can get away with -- even commit war crimes -- not because they view themselves as desperate, but their view that they are destined to win, are right, and anything in their way or not with them is irrelevant.

The GOP's problem is when it faces credible challenges to its power in the form of questions, demands for accountability, and a simple challenge to their convoluted logic. The GOP's approach to power and opposition is to find fault regardless reality; their goal is to incorporate the best of their opponent then use it to exploit power.

The GOP's arguments are not based no reality or facts, but on incorporating new information to appeal to the masses. When they've lost an argument, they'll change the focus form their flawed argument to something else -- the other person, shifting the subject from the absurdity of their position, to whether someone else has or hasn't got an understanding of that absurdity.

The GOP has been able to amass power because of their abuse, and warning people down. Their error is to be unable to endure what they impose on others: Exhaustive reviews. To keep up with the GOP requires alot of work: Their convoluted arguments require alot of work to wade through, especially when the masses are cheering. The GOP likes to shift the attention form their convoluted position to the time that other are spending attempting to wade through their non-sense.

The GOP will assert any idea regardless the facts or inconsistencies which raise doubts about their credibility. The GOP's power is not based on reality, but the illusion that power is going to lead them to something else. You'll note the GOP loves to take discussion points off the table, change rules, impose double standards, then blame those who dare call them on their non-sense as having the problem.

The error for the DNC is to pretend that the GOP can be rationally interacted with. No, they are convoluted people who have used their non-sense to justify war crimes. They are not Constitutional opponents, they are criminals.

The error is for the DNC to pretend that criminals can be rationalized with. No, they need to be prosecuted.

The error is for the DNC leadership to attempt to negotiate with, discuss issues with the GOP, or come to an agreement. No, criminals are not compromised with, they are prosecuted then put in jail.

The DNC error is to engage the myth that impeachment is not an option; or that the Clinton impeachment made impeachment irrelevant. I reject this. Once the GOP does get control of the House they will use impeachment regardless what they induced the DNC to do or not do. Remember what the GOP said about filibuster when they were in the majority; then recall what the GOP started doing as the minority in the senate: Exactly what they complained about in the DNC.

The point is that the GOP doesn’t' care about consistency or a rational argument. They care about making the DNC lose. The DNC's error is to pretend that playing nice with the DNC is going to be a path to victory. No, it means the GOP, despite losing is going to make the DNC lose more.

Stop dealing with the GOP as if it were on propagation, or that one day it is going to "get around" to seeing the light. The GOP looks at this setback as a chance to rewrite history, justify its flawed policies, and regain momentum to continue with what the DNC refuses to stop: Abuse of power, war crimes, and destruction of the Constitution.

The GOP has ignored the Constitution as a majority; there's no reason to listen to their view. Their view on the Constitution is that it is negotiated, or that if enough people are abused, they'll give up their rights, and make the Constitution irrelevant. The DNC has played well into the GOP agenda.

This abuse is not magic: It is based on convoluted arguments, nothing more. The GOP and DNC need to be outed for its convoluted arguments. Yet, in practice, this is not getting done: Convoluted arguments, as measured by flawed polices, should reveal the abuses and recklessness in Louisiana and Iraq.

The key is going to be to focus on the rage of Americans: They know the GOP has abused power. The GOP and DNC have recklessly blocked citizens efforts to discuss this issue: What is to be done about impeaching the President; or discussing an investigation.

IT is naive for the DNC to pretend that taking impeachment off the table is going to get them points; or that the GOP will play nice in return. No, the GOP is laughing at the DNC thinking they've delayed impeachment. They're taking this day by day, with the goal of returning to power and maintaining their majority. The issue isn't reality, facts, or prudence: But raw power. The GOP's approach to power is unlike the DNC.

The Goal of the GOP is not to be civilized, or respectable: It is to control the mind of all, manage perceptions, and get Americans to celebrate their abuse of power. Power is both the means and the end. The GOP does not look at power as the DNC does: Power is not something that is benevolent or used to help; it is used to assert one's will. Whether the net result of that power is good or bad is secondary. The GOP has one goal: To make others lose. The GOP doesn't matter if it destroys what is worthy, admirable, or what is worth fighting for -- The Constitution.

When America gets it through its head about the GOP -- that it is based on fiction, convoluted arguments -- and will use the world's reaction and response to that abuse of power to claim victim hood, the world will understand what is going on with the GOP: IT is abuse manipulating others to assent to abuse, convoluted arguments, and get them to celebrate that abuse without question. The GOP will start with convoluted stories to impress; but when it realizes that it's stuck or has a flawed point, it will blame the world for daring to point out what is obvious: The GOP is convoluted.

The GOP cares only about its power. It will betray, destroy its own, abuse the law, and make any decision of others to resist that abuse of power as a basis to attack. Facts are not a starting point for solving problems, but a means to assert an accusation. The goal of the GOP is not to explore to understand, but to probe to exploit and dominate. Their goal, when confronted by the strong, is to find fault with the irrelevant.

The GOP's approach is to stay committed to flawed convoluted thinking and myths because they have convinced so many people of what is untrue. To change their approach is to admit that their original story was wrong. They would rather be consistent with a myth that admit that they were wrong. Listening to the GOP means interrupting and imposing one's will on others. They have double standards, but ask others do things -- not to be their friend, but to use that invitation as an excuse to do what is not acceptable.

Never trust the environment of the GOP. They offer gifts conditionally. They claim they are admirable people, but they have expectations: TO force you to assent to their abuse, while they deny they are lying to your face.

The GOP has no credibility. It will not reason. It will not openly explore new ideas. It will feign fatigue when the attention is not on their myth; and pretend that anyone who challenges their myth is a threat. Indeed, those who dare challenge the abuse of the GOP are a threat to the GOP -- they have refused to assent to the GOP non-sense. It takes alot of work to keep up with the GOP by design. Their goal is to exhaust you with non-sense, then force you to assent to their myth.

The only thing you need to focus on is the prudence of the Constitution. It is based on logic. Stop treating the GOP as if they were your equals. They are criminals. They will pretend that they want to be your friend; or that you and they are going to have a respectful relationship. But behind your back they will betray you. Never trust them. Force them to commit to a reality, then compel them to stick with that. That's why it’s important to get them to commit to facts under oath, in public. Until the story is public and established, the GOP will continue to change their story to adjust to the moment. Reality for the GOP is not the same as the DNC: Reality isn't about solving problems, but about asserting what they must to maintain confidence in their myth.

The GOP likes to feign wounds and hurt for things only the GOP has a choice: Their reaction to being held accountable. They are delusional. They should not be treated as rational people, but as your political opponents who are war criminals. They are in denial and willing to abuse power because they have not been forced to be held accountable. Until they are defeated in the courtroom, the GOP will remain a threat to the Constitution.

Stop trying to debate with them. They are using their convoluted tactics to abuse power, not solve problems. Upon close examination the GOP's plans, arguments, and leadership will fall down. They are not hiding things to protect America or do a favor for the DNC: It is to give them discretion to abuse more power behind your back, then to your face. They are not reliable. They will betray you. And they will get you to promise to something that is contrary to your interests, then abuse you when you trust them. They are abusive people. The error is for the DNC to believe that they are on the political stage or cannot be removed. No, they can be prosecuted.

I. Article Summary



* * *

II. Reaction to Article

"Waiting out" the GOP is a fools game. Until challenged with prosecutions, they're not going away. Even as a minority party, they control the DNC.

The flaw with the notion of hardball is the incorrect assertion that the GOP will confine its engagement to only lawful options. This is not tension between existing things, but the imposition of power through new and illegal things which the GOP reserves the right to create without warning and employ relentlessly without regard to the law.

This is not a game. This is power. The rules do not apply. The GOP does not, contrary to the assertions in the article, view the stakes as high: They are not relevant. The GOP views their success as inevitable. In the given moment, they will abuse anyone to win or make others lose. It is not true that a GOP view of defeat is a permanent setback; they view any setback, even a defeat, positively: It is a sign that they will recover. Until they are held to account, recovery is always, in their view, inevitable.

- -

To the GOP there are not "ordinary" transitions or "other" conflicts: They are the same: An engagement to affect others minds, make them lose, and prevail, even if that victory is at considerable cost. Ordinary politics and transitions are not things the GOP distinguish as relevant: The GOP looks at the two as gobble goop. The only relevant issue is the GOP power. Ordinary politics, to the GOP, is the transition of power and control to the GOP. It is naive to embrace a view of the GOP that is based on the DNC view, not based on the reality of your opponent: It is not based on phases, cycles, or anything: It is based on power.

- -

The GOP view of institutions are for convenience sake. They can be embraced or rejected if their power is served. They do not have real loyalty other than to power and they myth. Institutions for the GOP are things that can be destroyed, ignored, and left to disrepair as long as they are not held accountable.

Constitutional order is meaningless to the GOP. DO not be fooled by the dichotomy of ordinary politics and transitions: The GOP looks at the two as part of the same, not something the DNC needs to shift back and forth between.

Transformation is not something the GOP will embrace unless that transformation expands power, solidifies the myth, or serves their agenda. It is a problem for the DNC to embrace the idea of "transformation" as a sound-nice approach; your opponent will use that to their advantage not yours.

What "proponents" advocate is meaningless to the GOP. Proponents are those the GOP will target. Novel ideas are to be discredited not because of a careful examination, but merely because they take away the myth that the GOP is the source of all power, wisdom, and solutions. Put aside the issue that the GOP has reckless solutions devoid of facts and their wisdom is convoluted: The convoluted logic serves their mythology not society. They only serve the idea of society, but their real loyalty is to power.

- -

The GOP does not buy into the notion that society has to be reformed: The GOP is the same as society, and there is nothing wrong with the GOP. It is a fools game for the DNC to pretend that it needs to adjust, while it refuses to confront. DNC change, for the GOP, means the DNC is in transition and not stable. This is what the GOP will exploit.

Reform is a slogan to the GOP to win votes. They are not serious about solutions, but in getting support for their power.

* * *

KagroX: .How might we illustrate the concept of constitutional hardball today?

Hardball today means GOP, even as a minority, convincing the DNC not to assert power; avoiding prosecutions; and preparing for the GOP rebound.

KagroX: Would we conclude that the Bush "administration's" assertion of broad, unconstrained executive power -- including the power to abrogate federal law (like FISA) -- constitutes an example?

Power is asserted. Whether it is abused or unconstrained is meaningless: That is what power is -- unconstrained and can be abused to assert the GOP agenda. The laws are not relevant: Abrogating federal law is a means to amass power.

KagroX: How about this "administration's" understanding and use of signing statements, no longer used merely as markers denoting the President's position on matters of constitutional law, but rather as policy directives to the entirety of the executive branch as to how to interpret and execute the law?

The laws are not relevant to the GOP: They are distractions from power. Signing statements are the means by which the President asserts legislative and judicial power. The GOP starts from the premise that the President, not the People, is the source of all power and wisdom. Anything in the way of the President is not allowed.

They are not interested in exploring the idea of separation of power; checks and balances; or Constitutional government. This is about one thing: Power.

The novel concept, driven by Tom DeLay (with Jack Abramoff's money), that Republican-controlled states could and should redraw their Congressional districts in between the accepted ten year intervals, purely for partisan advantage?

The application of political litmus testing to the appointment of U.S. Attorneys?

This notion of a "litmus test" is a GOP ruse. They were making decisions without any test. DO not be fooled by what they are saying: There was no rhyme or reason. they were recklessly removing people to make room for others. Recall, they had an idea of a number of people they wanted -- not names -- but a number that they could get away with removing. They were hoping to create a wedge so that, in the future, the GOP President could take form this US Attorney pool, and expand GOP power into the Judiciary. Look at the US Attorney hiring-firing as a bank of power that the GOP hoped to keep in reserve and nurture for later.

The White House's assertion that its senior officials are not subject to the subpoena power of the Congress?

That the White House had to "waste time" asserting this was, in the mind of the GOP, evidence the DNC had a problem. Again, look at this from the GOP perspective: The DNC is an extension of their power, not an independent party, but one that can be manipulated to service the GOP.

Congress is not relevant to the GOP: It is the means by which Power is asserted unquestionably.

- -

There are no principles for the GOP. It is just power. The envelope of power -- the edge of what is permissible -- is meaningless to the GOP: Anything is fair game, even war crimes. The DNC's problem is believing that it must constrain itself to what is in the envelope, by keeping impeachment off the table.

Do not think as statues as constitutional or not constitutional -- they are means by which power is asserted by the President: Something which is contrary to the intent of legislation -- to be a tool of the Congress. There is no notion of defense in the GOP mind: Defense is a ruse to induce your enemy to change their position.

Proposals are not related to a coalition -- they are the means by which power is asserted to impose discipline on the coalition. There is no notion of "constitutional" order to the GOP.

- -

the GOP does not look at hardball as a confrontation that may produce anything; it will produce GOP victory. Confrontation is not constrained by any rule. Institutions are not relevant unless they serve the GOP power.

It is absurd to presume the GOP relies on if-then propositions; or that it will only do things once it gets in power. It does not have to wait for what might happen when what it needs is happening: DNC compliance. These are not issues of positions, but of raw power. They are not defining the Constitution, they are making it irrelevant.

Contrary to the notion of Judges, Grand Juries -- not judges -- have the power to make law, and lawfully target Members of the Court, federal officials, and attorneys working for the GOP. The grand Juries can challenge unconstitutional acts of the President.

Even when the GOP is the minority party, it views its party as winning. Courts do not have to be controlled when the convoluted thinking of one can infect the mind of the justice system. They do not have to control government: They can control minds, even as a minority. Do not think of the GOP as plodding in steps; but in light of their agenda -- anything to advance that agenda, even a setback, is acceptable. They will do things to surprise you and make you think you're winning. The GOP continues to plot. They are criminals not socialized opponents.

Whatever is needed to consolidate power -- regardless it's legality or prudence is what the GOP will do. They do not believe they have to be prudent when they view their decision and plan and goal -- as flawed as it might be -- as inevitable.

* * *

It is fiction to believe the GOP, even if it losses, views itself as a loser or losing anything.

Any guidance or suggestion the GOP offers is out of their interests to confirm their myth, not provide objective advise to help others arrive at their own solutions.

Calls for a "middle ground" is a ruse to compromise on the Constitution and principles.

The confrontation with the GOP will not end until they are prosecuted. The illusion of an ebb and flow is to the GOP advantage: To leave the DNC weak and the GOP free to prepare.

* * *

KagroX: Shall we bide our time and rely on the courts to fix it all for us?

No, the Courts do not solve problems, the hear cases. We need to prosecute the DNC and GOP leadership in the legal community and hold them to account for war crimes, complicity with illegal warfare, and failure to assert their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

KagroX: Will oversight and exposure of the Nixon/Bush doctrine be enough?

It hasn't worked. Need a new system to ensure oversight continues regardless who controls the government.

KagroX: Will Americans finally and miraculously simply awaken to the realities of constitutional transformation?

NO, they have been induced to call all open, serious examination of the GOP as "too exhaustive" and "boring." The solution lies with prosecuting the DNC leadership in the legal community; then awaken them to what needs to be done against the GOP leadership in the legal community.

KagroX: Did the Clinton impeachment really make us so afraid of the process itself that it should be considered unavailable to us in combating the constitutional-level game undertaken by Republicans?

The GOP will use impeachment the first change it gets. If the DNC can be induced to do nothing or not hold the President accountable, great.

KagroX: Is this really something we can actually debate our way out of?

No, you don't debate with criminals. You prosecute them.

KagroX: Can we really afford to head into 2008 under the banner of "bipartisan cooperation?"

It will do nothing about criminals.

* * *

III. Thoughts About Responses in Kos Comment Tread

Ref Right: The GOP is a criminal enterprise.

Ref Right, bipartisanship is a fools game. No compromise. Prosecute them.

Ref Curious how the Supreme Court says corporations have rights, bus prisoners of war do not.

Ref Agree, no excuse not to impeach. The "years left" is just an excuse to tolerate what is not acceptable. Not one more day.

Ref Refusing to discuss impeachment or investigations means we condone illegal activity.

Ref This is an important point: Refusing to discuss impeachment is unacceptable. Nuremburg, from another line of comments, is precedent for holding leaders to account for failing to impeach. Arguably, blocking an impeachment discussion or thwarting sate level impeachment proclamations is complicit with war crimes; Blocks enforcement of Geneva.

Ref With the DNC, it doesn't matter of the GOP loses control. If you control the DNC mind, you control the government: Impeachment off the table means the GOP is not losing. That is their victory. DNC is complicit with war crimes.

Ref The trap is to believe that "using lawful options" is "nasty" or that "filibuster" is a bad thing Sometimes, you have to refuse to cooperate, even if you are not going to win. You may be losing, but it doesn't mean that you have to cooperate with your destruction.

Ref No president "deserves" his nominee. The Senate gets to decide, like a jury, what the senate alone will choose to do. It's up to the Senate, not the President.

Ref "Hardball" or not, if the GOP refuses to constrain itself, the House is complicit if it keeps funding war crimes or institutions that refuse to control themselves.

Ref Good summary of Article 1 Section Powers President usurped with GWOT.

Ref The refrain "after the next election" is meaningless. The DNC has power, but refuses to act. Elections are meaningless and hoping for change with an election is an illusion. We need prosecutions.

Ref On the table: If Lieberman jumps to the GOP, the President is getting impeached.

Ref Agree, double impeachment. Cheney and Bush out. And refuse to let President appoint a new VP until impeachment for both over. A President cannot claim he has a right to appoint, and have the Senate agree with, who he wants. The Constitution does not say the President decides or consents; this power of decision and consent is only with the Senate. It is up to the Senate, not the President, to decide. The President only suggests; the Senate decides.

Ref Dreyfus clip.

Ref GOP Parents are reckless.

Ref Defense means defending the Constitution: Impeach.

Ref More facts on the table means GOP Senators have less legal maneuvering to justify their inaction on removal.

Ref Time to change from "biding our time" to some hardball by We the People: Get a discussion on a New Constitution, and gather evidence of war crimes prosecutors. This US government refuses to assent to the rule of law, permit investigations, or prosecute people. This government is, in effect, no longer legitimate nor is it functioning for purposes of sovereignty.

Ref The key sill be to focus on what will transform American politics and Constitutional law so that a return of the GOP will be meaningless for pursue of blocking investigations, or staying immune to the rule of law.

Ref Prosecutions can wake up the civil service. They need to assert their oath, turn over evidence, and wake up: This is a Constitutional republic not a dictatorship.

Ref Leaders didn't take options off the table: They use them without warning.

Ref Compromise needs to move away from legislation. The options for the President should be: Unless you resign, we will impeach you every day.

Ref "Good" committee chairmen would use their power to promote solutions and encourage citizens to rally behind the Constitution, not make excuses to do nothing. These Chairmen have no excuses for not going to the House well and, on their own, charging the President with a crime. "Leaders" who refuse to investigate should be prosecuted, as from the Nuremburg precedent in re impeachment.

Ref Within signing statements, the Congress is irrelevant. The President is a dictator.

Ref States take their oath of office seriously with the proclamations for impeachment. US Federal government puts rebellion before their oath. Blocking enforcement of Geneva is a war crime.

Ref Impeachment needs to be discussed in terms of an overall plan to reassert the rule of law, Protect the Constitution, and make this abuse of power impossible, even if the GOP controls all three branches of government.

Ref No, you don't fight the enemy on their terms, but your terms. You don’t' fight to fight, but to win. "equal terms" is meaningless: Need new rules which impose on the GOP the requirement to assent to the rule of law, not permitting them to ignore the law. Prosecutions are needed.

Ref Hay, get it through your head: The RNC impeached Clinton. There's no basis for the DNC to argue that it needs to "learn" form the RNC over the "backlash." That's non-sense: Bush has well deserved impeachment. That "Cheney" might be President isn't an excuse to not do it -- but evidence that there's a real chance the GOP could remove Bush. That's a circular argument.

Ref DNC gives oxygen to GOP propaganda.

Ref DNC believes Americans are asleep. Americans are disgusted with this abuse, and the DNC refusal to do anything about it. Impeach.

Ref Yes, GOP is about feudalism. They'll dress it up as something else, but it's based on abuse of power.

Ref I like this: Senate needs to participate in the selection process of nominees, not just rubber stamp or reject.

Ref We'll "hold the President accountable" by giving him what he wants. Good grief.

Ref We the People supported the DNC. The DNC has betrayed America and joined the GOP in war crimes.

Ref It is meaningless to talk about what the American people do or do not want: The President has started a fight; and the fight is here. That the American people "don't want" a fight is meaningless: The fight on our doorstep.

Ref Rather than talk about politics to check power, how about talking about institutional changes to make the check on power mandatory, not one that may or may not occur.

Ref I don't want to hear nonsense about "deliberation" when the DNC is blocking deliberation on investigations of the President. Deliberation is legislative; prosecution is justice. We’re way beyond talking. Time to get some war crimes indictments on the table.

Ref Gonzo nonsense on habeas.

Ref After Clinton, the US may be gun-shy about impeachment, but the GOP isn't. Watch: First chance the GOP get they'll impeach.

Ref Don't wait until 2008; let's get prosecutions of Members of Congress for complicity with war crimes.

Ref Good ideas: Need to be part of a New Constitutional debate.

Ref Interesting: Idea of "para impeachment" as an ongoing process to investigate. Kind of like the 4th Branch Idea.

Ref Paul Rosenberg's got something here. Recommend reviewing this.

Ref Creating reading of Article II: No, it's illegal.

Ref Premises with article are not valid -- agree.

Ref Here’s something interesting: US puts people who attend peace marches on no fly lists. Disloyal Bushies. Ref Watch out for a tax audit.

Ref Hear, hear: The GOP is ignorant.

Ref Hay, wait a minute: If the DNC put into the bills things that would piss off Bush, why not get him to veto the very things he needs. If Congress agrees not to go on recess, Bush can't threat to return it when they're not there. Grind him down.

Ref Yes, the GOP treats the Constitution like the tax code: Something to get around.

* * *

IV. Where Do We Go From Here

The way forward is prosecutions. The war crimes evidence is large and high. Your job will be to look at the GOP not in terms as an ally, or co-equal, but as a threat to the US Constitution. They are an enemy. Their power is linked with finding other enemies to distract attention from their illegal conduct.

Some are willing to be reasonable, but their loyalty is not to the US Constitution. It is to the Party and Power.

You will have to capture admissible evidence. Your job will be to force the GOP to accept that there is one line of evidence. They will have to be held to account for the illegal conduct.

Any compromise on the facts, or assent to their non-sense, will be their green light to continue with abuse, and rewrite facts.

This is not an issue of partisan politics, power, or the Constitution. It is something else: An assertion of Justice. This is very different than a debate or a review of perceptions. It has to do with imposing justice on criminals.

Justice relies on one thing: Logic, something the GOP refuses to embrace. The level of effort you will have to expend is a function of the piles of non-sense and myth the GOP has deluded itself to impose, accept, and defend. Justice will quickly destroy the GOP myth. The way forward for the DNC is to set aside the 2008 goals, and focus on the things the GOP has done: Does the conduct violate the.

If the DNC refuses to impeach, the GOP will not waste a moment to remind the DNC that it was foolish for not asserting power. The DNC promise play nice and not impeach is not an agreement the GOP plans to reciprocate. Any excuse to impeach, the GOP will use it. The DNC is foolish for believing that the DNC must "rise above it". No, the GOP will only respect power -- the reason why they discuss issues with the insurgency in Iraq, but openly mock the DNC majority in the House and Senate.

The DNC has chosen to be powerless. For that, they re complicit with the GOP war crimes. The error was for the DNC to pretend that they can play nice with war criminals; the problem is when the DNC has become complicit in hiding evidence of war crimes, or the plans to thwart enforcement of the Rule of Law.

The way forward is to find the easy prey in the DNC; then go after the GOP. Yes, this may seem backwards, but the DNC, until it gets a wake up call with prosecutions, is not going to change it's conduct. Until the DNC changes, there is no prospect the GOP will face justice.

The way to the Constitution is through two parties: First through the DNC and hold them accountable for their complicity; then trough the GOP to hold them accountable for their war crimes. The DNC has chosen to aligned itself with the GOP. The two, for purposes of the Constitution and its defense, are indistinguishable.

Read more . . .

State Impeachment Proclamations in re War Crimes Evidence

Ref Wisconsin provides you the chance to comment on the resolution.

Feel free to share the links with your friends. The issue is not with the Constitution or the Sates, but whether Members of Congress understand their refusal to impeach can be entered as evidence of war crimes.

The State proclamation is evidence Members of Congress were given notice of what was required, but were reckless in ignoring Nuremberg, the Geneva Conventions, and their oath of office binding them to enforce the laws of war against the President.

This is a subsequent war crime by Members of Congress. Other evidence of illegal war crimes includes efforts by Members of Congress, staff counsel, and state officials for suppress publicing discussion of the laws of war, refusing to investigate these war crimes, and making frivolous excuses not to enforce the laws of war.

This is an international war crimes investigation. There is no statute of limitations. Members of Congress must assert their oath; or they may suffer lawful consequences. This is permitted under Geneva and the precedent of Nuremberg.

- -

What You Can Do

Visit these sites, share your views, and share the links with your friends:

* * *

A. Learn about a boycott to shut down funding to all entities associated with the US Government war crimes.

B. Encourage your friends to consider this image.

C. Read the Wisonsin resolution calling for an impeachment investigation; and leave your comments here.

D. Meet with others and share your views here.

E. Share your reaction to the state proclamation effort here, here.

The goal is to ensure the Constitution is protected; and those who defy their oath are held to account. Either the Congress prosecutes the President through impeachment; or Members of Congress may be prosecuted for refusing to enforce the laws of war against the President.

Perhaps you have read content at this blog that may be of interest to your friends. Feel free to use the content on this site, and repost it without attribution; or use your own words; or feel free to link here as you choose. There is no need to give credit to this blog. You can if you want.

* * *

The state proclamation is important. It sends a message to Congress: The Geneva Conventions shall be enforced.

Nuremberg is precedent for holding civilians liable if they refuse to impeach. Civilized societies, under the Justice Trials against legal counsel, keep impeachment on the table.

The State action is evidence: It draws a line in the sand. Members of Congress have been reminded of their Geneva obligation to enforce the laws of war against the President.

All Member of Congress, GOP, or DNC Efforts to block any state or private citizens from discussing these issues of war crimes -- and the investigation and impeachment required to enforce the laws of war -- is evidence of war crimes.

The US Government's error is to pretend it can avoid discussing the laws of war, and not investigate the President's war crimes. Per Nuremberg, the decision of Congress and State legislators not to enforce the Laws of War is a subsequent war crime.

State legislators also have the power to disbar DOJ and White House Counsel; and direct State Attorney Disciplinary Boards to disbar US Attorneys and staff counsel who refuse to enforce the laws of war against the President and Members of Congress. State officials may prosecute a sitting President and Members of Congress. This legal action is consistent with their oath of office to enforce the laws of war and Protect the Constitution against the domestic enemies in the US Federal Government.

It doesn't matter if Members of Congress do or do not act on this proclamation or impeachment. Their refusal is evidence that they well know the laws of war, but refuse to enforce the Geneva Conventions against the President. Nuremberg concluded civilian leaders who refused to impeach could be punished with the death penalty.

There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Members of Congress and state officials who thwart enforces to enforce the laws of war may be adjudicated with war crimes. All e-mails to suppress any state legislature from passing these resolutions may be entered as vidence of decisions by US Government and State officials to not enforce the laws of war, as required.

Read more . . .

More Flawed Arguments To Refuse to Enforce Geneva Conventions

There's a growing list of absurd arguments the DNC and GOP are using to avoid enforcing the Geneva Conventions.

The list below will help war crimes prosecutors review the various arguments Members of Congress used to refuse to assert their oath; and not enforce the Geneva Conventions.

The excuses not to enforce the laws of war are not credible, but evidence of subsequent war crimes.

* * *



Nuremburg established that civilized societies shall leave on the table the option to impeach; and that war criminals shall be impeached to enforce the laws of war.

* * *

Refusal of State Officials To Assert Their Oath Against Members of Congress

Ref The error is to presume that State Official may not prosecute Federal Officials. It doesn't matter what one calls it -- State Attorney Generals may prosecute a sitting President; and disbar legal counsel when they are complicit with war crimes.

E-mail evidence

Ref State Officials May Have Their E-mail Examined To Determine Who Induced Them Not To Assert Their oath.

Refusal To Impeach Is Probative For War Crimes

Ref Nuremburg is precedent for specifically linking a lack of impeachment with a ruling that the civilian officials did not fully assert all lawful options to enforce the law. The question becomes:

___ A. Who refused to heed Nuremburg;

___ B. Which Legal counsel knowledgeable of the laws of war, Geneva, and 5100.77 failed to ensure Article 82 was fully asserted

___ C. Which Members of Congress, despite access to legal counsel, refused to decide to enforce the laws of war?


New Constitution

Ref Only government is required to follow the Amendment process. We the People are permitted to craft a New Constitution outside the Amendment process. [See Federalist 76]

- -

Senate Irrelevant

Ref Impeachment denies the President the Pardon. The senate has no power over impeachment. It is premature to refuse to impeachment on the basis of what the Senate might do. The only thing the House can control is what he House does. If the GOP Senators refuses to convict, they will have to consider the political and legal implications.

Ref Let the Senators choose to do nothing, and they may be prosecuted for having not fully enforced Nuremburg precedent and enforcing the laws of war against the President.

That some GOP may not assent to the rule of law, and refuse to enforce the laws of war against the president, does not mean that American must assent. Rather, the way forward is to prosecute Members of Congress for their refusal to enforce the Geneva Conventions.

* * *

State Proclamation Efforts As Evidence of War Crimes

Ref Rather than look at the proclamation as having succeeded or failed, consider it evidence: That the Congress, despite this proclamation, refused to enforce the Geneva Conventions.

Ref Every decision by a State committee or legislature to do nothing, or table a resolution, is evidence they are not fully asserting their oath to enforce Geneva; or remind Congress what remains a legal obligations: Enforce the laws of war against the President.

Ref The more legislatures repeat the refrain -- impeach and enforce the laws of war -- the more evidence there is Members of Congress did not fully assert their oath as required under Nuremburg to enforce the laws of war through impeachment.

* * *

More impeachment proclamations is more evidence that Congress isn't responding. State prosecutors have the power prosecute Members of Congress and US Federal Government counsel who defy their oaths and refuse to enforce the Geneva Conventions.

Ref State legislators and Members of Congress need a reminder: Either enforce the laws of war and prosecute; or you will be prosecuted for not enforcing the laws of war. State officials, when they refuse to assert their oath, can be prosecuted under the laws of war.

Ref State proclamations are evidence of who is or is not doing their job to fully enforce the laws of war, and assert their oath.

Read more . . .

Lawfully Confronting Members of Congress

Members of congress have three options:

1. Prosecute the president with impeachment;

2. Face prosecution for not enforcing the laws of war.

3. Suffering combat losses.

* * *



Options To Resolve Disputes

There are two broad categories to resolve disputes. One is the preferred: It is through the courts and civil society.

The second is when civil society and the institutions of government fail. The less peferred in open combat using deadly force.

The two options:

A. Court

B. Combat

* * *

Members of Congress have been implicated in failing to enforce the laws of war against the President. Nuremburg is precedent for lawfully enforcing the laws of war against civilians, contractors, military personnel, and government officials.

Members of Congress do not have the option not to enforce the law. All decisions to delay enforcement of the laws of war is not a political act of discretion, but a willful act not to enforce the laws of war.

Remind all Members of Congress: Unless they prosecute the President with impeachment, that Member of Congress may be prosecuted for war crimes -- failing to use all legal options to enforce the laws of war.

Members of Congress may not pretend that the consequences for failing to enforce the laws of war are discretionary, or something they can agree not to enforce or assent. Rather, if they argue that they will not enforce the law; and they will not be subject to the law for failing to enforce the law, then they may be lawfully targeted by foreign fighters.

War crimes prosecutors have the option to seek the death penalty.

* * *

Members of Congress must accept they have to decide whether they will fully assert their oath and prosecute the President for war crimes; or whether, through their inaction, they will be prosecuted.

There is no statute of limitations. If Congress believes that they can pretend this will not happen, then they are mistaken.

The US refuses to constrain itself. This is a decision. The American legal community is choosing to not enforce the law. They may be disbarred.

* * *

A system of governance that will not regulate itself, will expand without constraint, ignoring: Reality, resource constraints and the law. Hitler and Napoleon did the same when they expanded into Russia.

Today, the Congress appears unwilling to regulate the President through all lawful options. Despite crocodile tears over the loss of rights, the House and Senate have assented to this President's illegal activity. They refuse to shut down funding for illegal efforts. Illegal warfare against Iran has been left on the table; but the tools to regulate this President have been removed.

This is impermissible.

* * *

Congress has a leadership problem. It has a problem with its General counsel. The legal community ignores its oath. The laws of war apply.

This Congress must assent to the precedent of Nuremburg. Civilized nations must assert the rule of law now. Delays cannot be explained away, but are evidence of complicity.

The excuses for inaction are meaningless. They are not based on accountability, but a decision to not do what must be done.

The President has redefined the Supreme Law, pretending he is not subject to the rule of law. This President pretends the fundamental law is debatable. It is not.

Congress is in error for not now, immediately, and swiftly taking lawful action to prosecute this President for his recklessness.

* * *F

The question does not turn on what the President can or cannot do; but whether Members of Congress can or cannot be prosecuted for refusing to do what they have no choice: To fully assert their oath to protect the Constitution.

The issue isn't an election timeline, or what may happen between now and 2008. Once Members of Congress choose to not stop, but directly or indirectly enable this President’s war crimes, those war crimes are eternally subject to prosecution. There is no statute of limitations.

These war crimes are attached to Members of Congress.

* * *

Members of Congress have a finite lifetime. One consequence for war crimes was execution. Another consequence for enjoying life is dying of old age. Sadly, there is a third option: That of option combat where US government officials become the target of lawful reciprocation and attacks.

Members of Congress must face a difficult question: How do they wish to die.

___ A. Will it be peacefully, having fully asserted their oath, and enjoying the fruits of liberty;

___ B. Will it be after a life on the run, being hunted by war crimes prosecutors;

___ C. Will it be after lawful execution by a war crimes tribunal; or

___ D. Will it be after being lawfully attacked in retaliation for their decision to not enforce the laws of war, and the object of foreign fighter attacks.

If one has to be advised what the preferable choice, they are unfit to be called leaders.

B, C, and D are not acceptable, civilized, or lawful: Yet, Members of Congress have not chosen A.

Inaction, indecision, and a desire to avoid confrontration is not lawful.

They must choose. This President chose incorrectly. He has confronted our Agenda: Our Constitution.

Congress must decide now whether it is with We the People and the Constitution; or with the President.

* * *

Regardless the decision of Members of Congress, the Constitution and We the People remain on the table. We are the agenda.

Members of Congress have an oath. They have a duty to protect this document.

Sadly, the recklessness of this Congress has impermissibly sent a signal to the world that nothing will be done; at worst, the Congress will go out of its way to interfere with enforcement of the laws of war.

It is hoped that the word community accepts that there are deadlines, and that the rule of law must be enforced.

Members of Congress must decide what side of the Constitution they are on; what legacy they would like to lead; and sadly, how they would choose to ultimately leave this earth.

It is preferable that peace prevail, and that civilized society might enforce the law against the President. Yet, despite this legal obligation to enforce Geneva, Members of Congress have chosen not to assert their oath; have avoided going to the well of the House; and have actively blocked We the People from discussing this issue in our states.

* * *

When confronted with these options, Members of Congress have chosen to pretend that they are above the law; or that they have something else to do. Indeed, they choose to not to what they should, preferring to do something else.

Their oath exists for something else. It binds them to act when they would prefer otherwise. The oath is intended to compel them to act and do something they are not inclined to do on their own.

Sadly, their oath means nothing. Their promise to defend the Constitution has blinded them to remain loyal to something else. IT doesn't matter why.

The way forward is for We the People to lawfully confront the Members of Congress and force them to choose:

A> Where do they stand on Geneva;

B. What is their position on enforcement of Geneva;

C. When do they plan to prosecute the President for war crimes;

D. What evidence do they have of efforts to thwart enforcement of Geneva;

E. When will they stop We the People from enforcing the Geneva Conventions;

F. What evidence do they have that they, as Members of Congress, have been complicit with efforts to thwart enforcement of Geneva against the President;

G. When do Members of Congress play to give up their loyalty to the DNC or GOP and put their loyalty to the Rule of law, Constitution, and Geneva Conventions.

* * *

The options are:

A. Agree to prosecute the President; or be prosecuted;

B. Enforce the Geneva conventions; or have the Conventions enforced against them;

C. End illegal warfare; or have illegal warfare imposed on them

D. End what is impermissible; or have impermissible things done to them in retaliation for war crimes.

Members of Congress must choose whether they are going to join We the People and the Constitution; or whether they are going to side with the illegal rebellion and this President.

The right answer is to enforce the laws of war and join We the People and this Constitution. The wrong answer is for Members of Congress to do nothing, remain silent, not act, and fall to assert their oath to prosecute this President.

The Choice is one that Members of Congress are making every day. They have access to legal counsel. They are presumed to make fully informed decision related to their oath, 5 USC 3331 obligations, and the laws of war.

Either they will do their job; or the laws of war shall be fully applied to them as defendants. If they resist, oppose, block, or thwart lawful efforts to enforce the laws of war against the President, then they may be prosecuted for war crimes. Members of Congress who say the laws of war do not apply, but continue to support this President’s illegal warfare with appropriations, may, under the laws of war through the principles of reciprocity, be lawfully targeted by foreign fighters.

* * *

Please ask your Member of Congress to review their legal options. They have an oath to the Conventions. Their job is to fully assert their oath. They have an obligation to ensure they fully do what is required to assert 5 USC 3331 and enforce the Geneva Conventions against the President.

If they refuse, fail, or do not act as required, then they may be prosecuted for war crimes.

The options are on the table: Enforce the law; or have the law enforced against you. Prosecute the President; or remain eternally subject to prosecution for war crimes. Act now to enforce the rule of law and Geneva Conventions, or face the prospect that you may be hunted until you pass away.

Bluntly, Members of Congress have to make a decision: What kind of further they want, not for their children or the Rule of law, but for themselves. If they like to live on the run under the cloud of war crimes prosecutions, they can continue what they're doing -- nothing. If they would like to face the prospect of lawful execution for refusing to act to end war crimes, they can continue what they're doing. If they would like to possibly face the prospect of foreign fighter attacks on their homes, their place of work, and the Institution they love, they should continue doing what they are doing: Nothing.

However, there is another way. It is called reading the oath of office, setting aside one's loyalty to a party, reviewing one's Constitutional duty, and asking whether they do or do not have it with them to dare to enforce the laws of war against the President. IF they do, then that act may be considered a mitigating factor; if they choose to prosecute the President, there may be consideration over whether they should or should not be spared their lives by a war crimes tribunal.

* * *

Members of Congress are leaders, but they are also stewards as an example for the laws of war. However, they are not the sole authorities to choose who will or will not be subject to prosecution.

US Attorneys have the power to prosecute Members of Congress. The evidence before us suggests the US Attorneys have been reckless. War crimes prosecutors can replace them.

The federal government is not the only option. State attorney generals have the option to prosecute a sitting President, empanel and organize grand juries, and enforce the Conventions against Members of Congress, counsel, and others in the legal profession. They too have not done their jobs.

The problem for Members of Congress is that they cannot be sure that the evidence will not be provided to war crimes prosecutors; or that foreign fighters will not have legal standing.

Members of Congress have argued that they have another agenda. No, their agenda is nothing other than what they took an oath. Foreign fighters have a clear agenda: To lawfully use force to impose grave damage on unlawful combatants, foreign powers, and legitimate military targets.

* * *

The American legal community has well shown it is not willing to enforce the laws of war, much less successfully advise anyone to wage lawful warfare. At best the lawyers have assented to absurd plans; at worst, they're complicity with acts of war.

What the American lawyers say is of little interested to war crimes prosecutors. Their frivolous excuses is evidenced that there are no mitigating circumstances.

On the Table

Members of Congress must accept that the issue is less about the Constitution or the rule of law or the Constitutional agenda, but about their individual choice they make today in how they would like to leave this earth.

Either way, they will not be here in 200 years. But We the People and the Constitution shall outlast them.

It is time Members of Congress be lawfully, peacefully confronted and asked a simple question: How do they wish to leave this earth; and what kind of legacy do they want to leave?

It would be preferable if they left the earth having fully done heir job to enforce the laws of war and defend this Constitution; as opposed to having been the lawful target of war crimes prosecutors and combatants seeking to impose the laws of war through the threat of execution and mortal combat.

Members of Congress must decide whether they will enforce the laws of war against this President and review the evidence; or whether they, with their decision not to enforce the laws of war, will accept they sealed their fate the moment they took their oath, but recklessly engaged in a course of conduct to do the opposite of what they promised: Fully enforce the Supreme Law, Constitution, and Geneva Conventions against the domestic enemy in the oval office.

Geneva permits what remains on the table: The lawful execution of Members of Congress if they are adjudicated and found guilty of having committed war crimes. One factor is whether they did or did not fully assert their oath; or whether they made excuses to block We the People from doing what we could to protect the constitution and enforce the laws of war against the US Government.

Either this dispute is resolved peacefully through the courts and legal process; or, as this Congress appears to prefer, the resolution of this dispute is taken to the battlefield. IF Congress chooses to put itself above the laws of war, and not stop illegal warfare, Congress alone will have eternity to hide, but it cannot escape final judgment.

IN the end, either they will be awfully destroyed through open combat; or they will be lawfully executed for war crime; or they will be exonerated because they chose to assert their oath today.

There is no statue of limitations. Congress must decide whether it wants to hunt the President; or whether the Congress wants to be hunted until it assents to the rule of law, is subdued, or it is lawfully destroyed in open combat.

The rule of law shall prevail. The error was for the DOJ and White House counsel to believe that noting could be done. They miscalculated. Their livelihoods are in doubt. Their tenure on planet earth uncertain. And their discretion to call themselves an attorney not certain. They may be disbarred; and if found guilty of falling to fully assert their oath, lawfully executed for failure to end war crimes.

It's on the table: Confront the President through prosecution; or face a life of hardship, brutal punishment, and ultimate death if convicted of war crimes. Congress appears to have a hard time understanding their choice is not difficult. War crimes prosecutes and tribunals confronted by people, such as these Members of Congress, who appear to have a problem understanding their jobs are likely to conclude that the only reasonable solution is to swiftly impose the death penalty. They have failed to respond to the threat of death to assert their oath. Having failed to what they promise, they are not fit to walk earth or call themselves civilized. They belong with the ashes, the dirt, and the rubble they have left in their wake.

Meanwhile, the rule of law shall prevail, outlast them, and memorialize those who dared to assert their oath to defend what nobody can take away: Our Constitution.

Congress must decide whether it is with the Constitution and We the People; or whether tit would like to face the war crimes tribunal or open combat.

Those are the options for Congress. Those are on the table. Regardless what they choose, We the People shall continue to defend this Constitution, make it stronger, and seek ways to transform the Constitution into something that will ensure this does not happen again.

Congress refuses to enforce this Constitution. It is denied the power to have input to the New Constitution.

Congress must choose. The law exists. The President must be prosecuted. Otherwise, Members of Congress shall be prosecuted. If they do not agree or refuse to cooperate, the alternative is open combat. The choice is between civility and barbarism. Either way, the rule law, even in combat, shall apply. This rebellion by this President shall end. Whether Congress chooses to cooperate is less important than their acceptance and recognition that they have no real choice. It doesn't matter if they don't understand this or accept this. The issue is they freely took an oath to put the Constitution first, but have refused. This is not permissible.

They shall assent to Our Agenda, of We the People: The Constitution.

That is the table. We the People may lawfully deny them a seat.

This has not started. Congress will wish that it had heeded the rule of law, not done what it is doing. More evidence of their refusal to enforce the laws of war. Goodling resigned because of the e-mails. Members of Congress can be prosecuted for war crimes over the same e-mails.

Goodling's life has changed. So has the destiny of Members of Congress.

We the People won when we debated and agreed to This Constitution. TI doesn't matter what Members of Congress choose. Their fate is sealed. They have been complicit with war crimes. The issue is whether they will cure the problem with a prosecution; or whether they are forced to be prosecuted for the same.

There is no escape from Our Agenda: The Constitution. We the People are the rule of law. Members of Congress have defied Our Will. We the People have the power to prosecute, punish, and lawfully delegate to foreign powers the authority to wage war against this Congress and lawfully destroy it.

Congress must decide whether it will Accept Our Agenda as they took an oath to do. If they refuse, their oath is meaningless. Their promises are without foundation. They are unfit to be called civilized. The next question becomes whether they are fit to retain life connected their soul; or whether they shall be lawfully deprived of their life, breaking the link between what they value and what they cannot change.

We the People have the power to, on an inclination alone, let the sword of justice slip, slicing the throats of Members of Congress, and lawfully enforce the Laws of War. The evidence of their war crimes cannot be changed. What can be changed is whether they can act now, soon, and immediately make a good case that they have done their moral best to assert their oath. We the People are willing to listen, as long as their words -- like their oath -- are matched with action, not excuses. There is hope. Out of self interest some are inclined to choose life than naively believe they will fare batter than Goodling.

Goodling's troubles have not yet begun. She's allegedly complicit with war crimes, as are these Members of Congress. Anything the Congress has done to get e-mails can be done with the Members of Congress e-mail in re not asserting their oath; or blocking efforts by the States to discuss impeachment proclamations.

The sword of justice is at the throats of the 535 Members of Congress. We the People without warning can let that sword fall, slicing the throats, and fatally wooding the Members of Congress under lawful prosecutions of war crimes.

Members of Congress may perhaps understand the power of We the People: The power to delegate life or death to Members of Congress based on what the Members of Congress choose. We have the power. We may lawfully impose lawful sanctions for war crimes on Members of Congress and adjudicate the death penalty. There is nothing Members of Congress can do to stop this, but one thing: Do first what may be done to them -- enforce the laws of war.

Congress must choose whether it wants to do its job; or have the implications of their choices applied to them. It is preferable if these issues were amicably resolved through the courts, legislation, and civil process. However, if Members of Congress pretend that nothing will happen, foreign fighters stand ready to wage war and impose reciprocal and retaliatory violations on Members of Congress, DOJ Staff counsel, and the White House Staff.

All Presidential orders to prevent enforcement of the Geneva Conventions are not lawful. Congress has no lawful authority to wage war to avoid enforcement of the laws of war. Congress may not lawfully raise an army to defend itself from enforcement of the laws of war.

All Congressional orders, directives, rules, agreements, or contracts to avoid enforcement of the laws of war have no force, cannot be enforced, and are null and void.

Congress has no power to defend itself against enforcement of Geneva. All resources used to avoid Geneva are evidence that Congress is choosing not to do what it shall: Assent to Our Agenda and Our Will: The Rule of law, Supreme Law, Constitution, and the Geneva Conventions.

The odds are not in the favor of Congress. They believe otherwise.

It could be fatal. IN the end, it will be fatal. We the People have not gone away, nor have their requirements on Members of Congress to prosecute this President, apply the lessons of Nuremburg, and demonstrate the United States is a civilized country that will enforce the laws of war.

Congress refuses. The laws of war may be applied to them, either at a war cries tribunal, or in open combat permitting like retaliation and reciprocal violations.

We the People may do this. The error is for Members of Congress and Staff counsel to not focus on this agenda: Our Constitution, but pretend they have something else to do. Bad decision. Reckless. Evidence of having not fully asserted one's oath. 5 USC 3331. War Crimes, Nuremburg.

Our agenda: The Constitution.

Surrender now. Enforce the law. You have no other option. It shall prevail, regardless your decision. In the end, you shall assent to the rule of law: The Constitution shall prevail over all things, in life, and in death.

Read more . . .

Member of Congress E-mails Prove Active Efforts to Block Enforcement of Geneva Conventions

War Crimes Evidence in the E-mails: US Govt E-mails Show Coordination Between Members of Congress, political parties, and state citizens to Thwart Enforcement of Geneva Conventions

Nuremberg reminds us that civilized nations shall impeach to enforce the laws of war.

The e-mails of the US Attorney firing is a subset of larger unconstitutional conduct. The speedy discovery and disclosure of US Attorney Firing e-mails show Members of Congress would be reckless in not providing the e-mails to war crimes prosecutors. Anything the President has done in re complying with the Congress in re US Attorney firing e-mails and discovery is what Members of Congress may be reasonably expected to do during this war crimes investigation.

There are other e-mails from the GOP and DNC showing they actively thwarted state level efforts to remind the Congress of their oath of office.

The e-mails show Members of Congress, their staffs, and political parties have actively coordinated to ensure the laws of war were not enforced. These are war crimes.

What You Can Do

There are two focal points for information. The ICC prosecutor has received over 100 letters related to American war crimes. If you have details related to these e-mails. You an forward them to the ICC or the German War Crimes prosecutor

Draft Indictments

Ref Member of Congress indictment in re e-mails and failure to enforce Geneva Conventions.

Ref Supreme Court indictment in re Geneva Conventions and failure to enforce laws of war.

Ref War crimes evidence: US Govenment, GOP, and DNC pressure to not enforce Geneva Conventions.

* * *

The State level proclamations calling for impeachment continue. Yet, they have, in part served an important function.

Members of Congress, staff counsel, and partisan loyalists have been implicated in illegal efforts thwart state level proclamations calling for impeachment to enforce the laws of war.

This is evidence of war crimes. The e-mails may be entered into any court for purposes of adjudicating war crimes against Members of Congress and State level officials. The absence of the e-mails, despite the known coordination to thwart Geneva enforcement, is admissible evidence of subsequent violations under the laws of war.

The evidence is locked. Any effort to destroy these e-mails is a subsequent offense under the laws of war. There is no statute of limitations. There is universal jurisdiction for the laws of war.

Members of Congress and staff counsel are reminded to heed all document retention requirements that might be applicable under any federal statute. These requirements are enforceable for purposes of this discovery into the war crimes evidence.

Any effort to hide these e-mails will do nothing to dissuade prosecutors from finding willing State and Federal officials who have openly discussed their concerns that Members of Congress and the US political parties have thwarted efforts to enforce the rule of law, Geneva Conventions, and have been complicit with war crimes.

* * *

Geneva through the Nuremberg precedents, specifically mentions impeachment as a measure of civilized society. Societies who take impeachment off the table, and refuse to enforce the laws of war, are not civilized. Civility is not a notion that one notices as a passing fad, but a requirement of government to enforce the law and manage affairs of state.

Evidence of Members of Congress blocking state level proclamations calling for impeachment is instructive. It tells us many things:

___ Despite public efforts to remind Members of Congress of their oath, the Members of Congress will not be reminded;

___ Despite efforts to rely on the law to remind Members of Congress of their legal obligations, Members of Congress took active steps to ignore the oath and block the State level proclamations.

* * *

Under the rules of evidence, when measuring whether Members of Congress were reckless, the issue is whether they knew the law, and ignored it. Fatally, by confirming in e-mails that they were against State level proclamations, the Members of Congress fatally communicated:

___ They were aware of the efforts;

___ They knew, or should have known, that the efforts were lawful;

___ That the state proclamation was related to an effort to remind Members of Congress of their oath;

___ Members of Congress took an oath of office, but took measures to actively ignore, thwart, and defy State efforts to remind the Members of Congress of their oath

___ That Members of Congress, knowing there were legal requirements for them to act and defend the Constitution, actively thwarted the proclamations because it would force them to confront something they had ignored and not done.

___ Members of Congress knew they had a duty under the Geneva Conventions, oath of office, and US Constitution to enforce the laws of war; but were recklessly ignoring that duty; but doing the opposite in actively opposing efforts to remind them of their legal obligations.

___ Members of Congress, staff counsel, and other civilians knew the legal issues they were openly ignoring and defying -- the enforcement of the Geneva Conventions;

___ Members of Congress had time to review the State level proclamations; rather than let the State citizens proceed with a reminder of Member of Congress obligations, Members of Congress actively thwarted efforts to enforce the laws of war;

___ Member of Congress knew they had a duty to enforce the laws of war but failed o their own to call for an investigation;

___ Member of Congress knew the State Proclamations calling for an investigation were linked with duties Members of Congress had to enforce the laws of war;

___ Members of Congress, despite this duty to enforce the laws of war, were reckless in not only ignoring their duty to act, but were reckless is taking affirmative steps, actions, and coordinating efforts to block others from discussing, communicating, or openly debating the requirements of Congress to enforce the laws of war.

___ Members of Congress knew they had a duty to enforce the laws of war; were reckless in ignoring their legal requirements. Their actions to openly thwart otehrs from discussing this issue is evidence of their recklessness in thwarting the Geneva Conventions or enforcing the laws of war against the President.

These are serious issues of war crimes attached to Members of Congress. It cannot be argued that Members of Congress did not know what was going on. They knew enough about the laws of war to thwart the state proclamations for impeachment; and the Members of Congress collective efforts to thwart these proclamations shows they were caluating, deliberative, and took action based on legal advice; or they were reckless is blocking something they did not understand.

- -

These are serious issues of war crimes. The law allows courts to adjudicate these matters. Under the laws of war, when the court system fails and does not enforce the laws of war, legal officers may be prosecuted. Nuremberg is precedent for adjudicating war crimes against Members of Congress, civilians, contractors, lawyers, and officers of the court.

The e-mails show there has been recklessness through all branches of government, and decisions by civilians, contractors, and government officials to ignore, not enforce, and violate the laws of war.

Nuremberg precedents establish that the possible consequence for war crimes,and the decision of government officials to not enforced the laws of war is the death penalty. There are not mitigating circumstances in the United States.

* * *

The e-mails between Members of Congress, their staff, and local citizens in the states show that there have been active efforts to block investigations, block discussion, and refuse to permit proclamations.

This is not whether the US government is all powerful; but whether it, despite the oath, responded to the rule of law and reminders of the oath.

Proclamations are a litmus test: Whether the Congress would agree, do nothing, or actively oppose.

Rather than let the Proclamations die a silent death, the DNC and GOP jointly worked to oppose a simple reminder: We the People would like for you to consider your oath and investigate the President.

The issue was not a call to remove the President; nor a demand that the Congress impeach. Only a simple request that the Congress consider investigating. Nothing more.

Not only did the Congress not, on its own, vote to impeach; it actively thwarted the message of this request. It did more than choose to do nothing about impeachment or Presidential war crimes, it actively chose to do nothing, and wasted an entire year promising, "When we get power . . ."

They have the power, and have broken their promise, defied their oath, and not held this President to account for war crimes.

* * *

All e-mails, as were the case of the US Attorney firings, can be examined. These are not privileged.

Members of Congress, the DNC and GOP actively communicated outside Congress to state level entities.

All things Members of Congress said about the President’s e-mail, or that of the DOJ Staff and White House counsel communications -- that they are not protected -- apply to all e-mails between the Congress and State level in re blocking impeachment.

* * *

On the Table

1. Partisan efforts to thwart reminders of the oath of office, and blocking state level proclamations calling for impeachment;

2. Partisan efforts to dissuade State level employees from fully asserting their oath, inducement to defy their oath of office

3. Implicit threats, retaliation, and other to-be-understood acts of intimidation against State level employees and citizens

4. Active efforts to deny the States their grantee to an enforcement mechanism;

5. Willful knowledge of Members of Congress of their oath of office to defend the Constitution; but their choice not to enforce the Geneva Conventions against the president; and block any and all efforts to force this President to assent to the rule of law.

* * *

State Prosecutors and Grand Juries are authorized and may legally subpoena all e-mails documents, and records between Members of Congress and their state constitutes.

Evidence related to the following:

A. Implicit retaliation if efforts were taken to remind Members of Congress of their legal requirements;

B. Overt acts of aggression, unlawful activity, abuse, and witness intimidation to dissuade witness from appearing;

C. Overt acts to thwart the public from putting the Constitution first, and attempting to enforce the 5 USC 3331 oath of office;

D. Indirect and overt acts to thwart US Attorney Generals from enforcing the 5 USC 3331 oaths of office requirements against Members of Congress;

E. Indirect and overt acts to threaten to withhold funding, or provide valuable consideration to legislatures who assented to illegal warfare, oath of office violations.

* * *

On The Table

The Grand Jury has been assigned the task of reviewing the following:

A. How much money did Members of Congress privately threaten to withhold from the States if Legislatures supported a proclamation calling for impeachment;

B. Which funding was threatened to be withheld if State officials attempted to enforce the law against Members of Congress;

C. What intimidation, threats, or other acts of violence were planned, sent through JTTF, and State level law enforcement, and directed at State officials if they dared to enforce the laws of war against Members of Congress and the President;

D. How did Members of Congress threaten, intimidate, and induce others to not fully assert their oath;

E. What valuable state benefits did Members of Congress threaten to shut off, deny, not provide, or withhold if the States attempted to enforce the laws of war against Members of Congress

F. Which prosecutors have illegally assented to unlawful conduct, and not fully enforced 5 USC 3331 on the promise of valuable appointments to the US Attorneys office;

G. Which legal community leaders and counsel have put their oath of office behind their loyalty to their political party

H. How have state level legislatures put their duty to defend the Constitution behind their partisan goals

I. What is getting in the way of the State Level officials from fully comprehending their obligation to enforce the oath of office, 5 USC 3331 and the US Constitution against the US Congress?

* * *

We the People have eternity to find the answers. These issues related to alleged war crimes. There is no statute of limitations.

What does or does not happen between now and 2008 is meaningless. Once a war crimes investigation starts, as this one has, there is no end-game.

The facts are what the facts are. Either the Members of Congress and GOP and DNC are going to cooperate with this inquiry; or they are going to face the potential consequences of a war crimes tribunal.

The issue is the President. They symptom is the Member of Congress refusal to assent to the rule of law.

They have an oath. They have a duty. Their obligation is to enforce the Constitution and Geneva Conventions.

The US Congress has been complicit with efforts to block many reminders of their obligations. This does not mean the Member of Congress obligations are gone, or cannot be enforced.

They are duties which attach with it an obligations under the Geneva Conventions: To enforce the laws of war against the President.

* * *

The error was for the Congress to show how quickly they cold get access to the DOJ Staff counsel memorandum to the White House counsel.

There should be no delay in Members of Congress providing the evidence of their illegal efforts to thwart state level citizens from enforcing the law against Members of Congress.

All e-mails related to the Members of Congress communications to thwart lawful efforts to enforce the laws of war against the President is evidence of war crimes.

All e-mails from Members of Congress coordinating efforts to stifle state level proclamations calling for impeachment are war crimes related evidence attached to violations of the oath of office.

The e-mails between Members of Congress and state level personnel to block proclamations calling for Congress to investigate is evidence Members of Congress knew the law; took active steps to thwart oversight; but did not take the same effort nor apply the same energy to enforce the laws of war.

The e-mails between Members of Congress and state level personnel to block proclamations calling for impeachment under House Rule 603 is evidence Members of Conges were reckless in performing their duties under 5 USC 3331; but taking overt efforts to block oversight, enforcement, and discussion as Members of Congress were required under the Nuremberg Precedents.

The e-mails between Members of Congress and state level officials to thwart citizens from discussing House Rule 603 is evidence of the illegal rebellion by Members of Congress to not enforce the Geneva Conventions; and permit the President to implement additional war crimes.

There is no excuse for Members of Congress to have done what they have done -- not asserted their oath, but taken overt acts to block efforts to raise this issue. This is not an issue of free speech or state's rights, but of international war crimes.

The failure of the Congress to respond to their oath is only one part of the larger puzzle. The evidence we have is the lack of a state proclamation. The e-mails show Members of Congress were complicit with efforts to avoid action; an they cannot claim they have something else to do. They have an oath. They chose to take time to block reviews, just as the President blocked DOJ OPR.

The President and Members of Congress have jointly agreed directly or indirectly to block efforts to enforce the laws of war.

Please forward any evidence you have of Member of Congers, DNC, or GOP efforts to block discussion of the State Proclamations for impeachment to the war crimes prosecutors. These are issues of international criminal law under the laws of war.

Any discussion, plan, or effort to thwart the enforcement of the laws of war; or efforts to intimidate, dissuade, or offer anyone something of value to not do what they should may be deemed a subsequent cause of action under the laws of war.

The error was for Members of Congress to remain complicit with war crimes and not end illegal warfare or investigate the President; the subsequent criminal act was to block efforts of citizens to remind Members of Congress their legal obligations under the laws of war. Congress, in fatally asserting it had the power to block the States, left admissible evidence that it as recklessly not enforcing the laws of war. Not all lawful options, as required under the oath of office, were fully asserted to enforce the Laws of war.

Members of Congress through their e-mails have been implicated in alleged war crimes for taking active efforts to not enforce the laws of war.

These are serious issues which war crimes prosecutors well understand.

Read more . . .

We the People Discuss A New Constitution

Congress appears to have awoken to something new. The question is whether Congress has awoken, or is merely stirring in a deep sleep.

* * *

Impeachment News: Conyers Changes His Position

Ref Conyers looking for a petition

Ref: Hawaii: Please ask your friends today -- Saturday, 7 April -- to forward this link to their friends; and send letters of support to the Hawaii legislature. E-mails attached.

Please discuss on the Conyers blog:

___ Why is Congressman Conyers asking for another petition? We've already done many with the Downing Street Memo; and he's even signed the report warranting impeachment. I'm getting the impression he's throwing up another requirement to avoid making a decision. To be fair, he's done alot; however, he doesn't need us to do anything he could go to the well of the House and do this.

___ Does Conyers really want a petition? If so, what's to say that he's not going to do change his requirements?

___ How many state level proclamations does he want?

___ If Conyers wants another petition, why is the DNC trying to block the state petitions?

* * *

Impression I'm getting is the DNC is making foolish arguments, and really has no reason not to act. Impeachment isn't a distraction, it's the agenda: The Constitution. Is this Congress going to protect it or not?

If the US government officials -- who have power now -- aren't willing to protect the Constitution now, then there's no reason to believe they'll do so as President. Stop talking about what you might be able to get or do in 2008, and start showing in 2007 what you are able to do:

____ Support state level impeachment proclamations;

____ Go to the well of the House and discuss this issue;

____ Encourage citizens to discuss the impeachment issues;

____ Invite citizens to call with their ideas on impeachment

* * *

If Congress isn't willing to discuss impeachment, then let's discuss their reasons for being fearful, or not wanting to impeach. Their arguments seem more like excuses.

"We won't do what we can now, but give us more power." No, if they can't show they're going to use power now, we have no reason to trust them with more power.

* * *

Impeachment is a civics lesson. It's not about government. Its whether We the People are going to notice what this government is not doing, and find new leaders. Ref

The reasons for not investigating, not to mention an impeachment, are invalid. Ref We're not asking that the President be removed -- only that the House remain open to the idea that it investigate the President. That's the first step. If there is no evidence, fine: Drop the investigation and do not have an impeachment.

But to argue on the basis of no evidence that there is "no evidence" warranting removal is circular.

The issue comes down to: Who do Americans want to be their leaders?

___ People who dare face reality and review things?

___ People who make excuses to do nothing?

___ People who outline plans to solve problems?

___ People who gather facts to evaluate what to do?

___ People who defend the Constitution against domestic enemies?

___ People who dare to force others to be accountable?

If Americans aren't willing to investigate and review what has happened, then Americans are saying that they don't want a government of, by, or for the people. But that's not true. Americans want a government that involves them.

The problem is this US Government -- both parties -- despite claims that it is working "for" the people, is doing the opposite: Making excuses to put their party's goals before the Constitution; and saying that the 2008 Presidential goals make impeachment a secondary issues. That is absurd thinking.

We the People have set the agenda: It's the Constitution. If the national leadership don't want to talk about impeachment, investigations, US government conduct, the President's failures, or what can be done, they're not leaders.

Time for We the People to take the debate out of DC, stop pretending that the DNC and GOP are on our side; and put the issue on the table: Is this US government going to stand with or against the Constitution and We the People?

* * *

The evidence before us is the US government, DNC, and GOP has collectively chosen to put the US Constitution behind their ambitions. They are, in effect, choosing to put their partisan goals before We the People and the Constitution. Fine. Let's accept that's where they're at.

Time for We the People -- outside Congress, and outside the State legislatures -- to decide what we're going to do.

Here are the options:

A. We can approve this New Constitution which has been drafted;

B. We can work to prosecute the Members of Congress who have defied their oath;

C. We can create a New Government outside this system which does something this US government refuses to accept: There can be an oversight system above the US government which compels the US government to assent to the Constitution.

* * *

Nuremburg taught us that civilized leaders and governments will keep impeachment on the table and use the power of impeachment to enforce the law.

The US Congress cannot say it is fully asserting its oath when it says there is "no time" to impeach. What they're saying is that they would rather put the rule of law behind their personal agenda of something else.

Refusing to discuss voting on an investigation -- putting aside the issue of impeachment -- is evidence Members of Congress are reckless in not asserting their oath. Leaders have a responsibly to put all things second to the Constitution. When there is a problem, that problem needs to be examined.

The US Congress cannot argue that its agenda -- whatever that means -- is first; or that the issues of investigation are second. Rather, when they take an oath to defend the Constitution, it means defending this Constitution based on facts, and a plan to find facts. Not an agreement to hide, avoid, or not examine facts. Any agreement to block investigations is illegal. Just as there was illegal pressure to pressure US Attorneys, so too has there been illegal pressure to block State Legislatures from doing what they should. To argue "there is no time" while spending time making that argument is absurd. We would not need to spend any time if the DNC and GOP refused to waste time, and agree to spend time on what they agreed: The Constitution. The decision to ignore, not review, or avoid facts means they're avoiding their oath and the Constitution.

* * *

We the People must accept that the US government has chosen freely not to do its job. This is not a partisan decision or conclusions, but one of active criminal intent: To not fully assert their oath.

Whether the decision is linked with confusion, other goals, or excuses is meaningless. We can only look at the results: Whether the Members of Congress have or have not fully asserted their oath.

The evidence before us is clear: We've spent one year working through the states, and our efforts have been blocked.

Time for asking is over. Time for pleading is ended. Time for resolutions is passed. Time for Congress to account for what they are recklessly not doing.

Encourage your friends to Contact Members of Congress and remind the Congress of their oath; and outline your desire to see them vote to review the President. If they refuse or give you excuses, write down what they say, and share it on the internet.

They way forward is to the best of our ability give the US government a fair chance to do what it promised to do; and then use the information to prosecute the US Government.

* * *

Over the past year we have learned who is really for the Constitution; and who is for themselves. We've seen excuses to do nothing; and excuses to delay.

The Constitution and We the People haven't gone away. When has left is the leadership. They abandoned the Constitution. Yet, they would like for us to have hope and faith in something which they will not protect.

They point to ideas, but aren't willing to take the first step to defend that idea. That is not the problem of We the People -- it is not a problem for the Constitution. IT is a problem of credibility.

Leaders need to lead. They need to stop making excuses and stop creating more requirements.

Over the last year, We the People have done our job. We've marshaled our resources; have well discussed the issues at the State Legislatures. This US government has thwarted our efforts to protect the document.

We the People haven't gone away. All efforts to block state impeachment proclamations is evidence of this US Government's active effort to thwart the US Constitution, defy their oath, and continue their illegal rebellion.

It doesn't matter why they did it. It matters that We the People know, well before the 2008 election, who has really done their job; and who have chosen to defy their oath.

* * *

We have about 18 months until the 2008 election. The way forward is to remind the American leadership that they have defied their oath; and when given the chance to vote and investigate, did more than refuse -- they actively opposed and thwarted calls to consider the issue. This is not leadership, but rebellion against the Rule of Law. They would not act. They did not vote to review. Yet, they arrogantly asked us to believe that we should trust them with our vote. That defies logic.

Leaders are those who solve problems, not create barriers. Leaders will knock down walls, not create another mountain out of nothing.

Martin Luther King dared to speak about a vision he knew was possible. Sadly, America’s leaders have betrayed that vision. Where once there were some that were denied their rights, today all Americans have been denied their right to an accountable government.

Where once there were a large potion of our population not well served by society, today all of America is not well served by a government.

Ages ago on the battlefields of Sparta, warriors battled to advance their agenda. Today, the battles are different. They are of the mind. Yet, the conviction remains the same.

The error of the US Government is to lazily believe it could do nothing and win; while We the People chose to do little to test whether this Government could be nudged to do what was right.

* * *

Over the last year, this US government has refused to respond to hints of problems; nor heeded its oath of office. IT should not take this long, especially after the DNC has won the election, for We the People to remind this government what they need to do.

Our task has not changed: We the People, not the US Government or the States are the last defenders of this Constitution. We shall complete our work. The job has not started.

* * *

We the People and the constitution are aligned as one. The leadership must decide if they are with us; or against US.

The agenda is the Constitution. We the People are the last and only credible defenders of this document. Some in the US government are willing to assist if the weather is favorable. But its been the individual efforts of We the People, not the US government that has steadfastly endured the shifting political winds. IT was We the People who dared to force this US Government to show whether they were for or against the US Constitution.

This US government has failed. It let the document spiral into disrepair; and it has not responded to the Constitution. We the People have given this government fair notice, but the US Government does not respond.

* * *

On the Table

The US Constitution is on the table, with We the People, and the lawful option to prosecute the US Members of Congress. War crimes indictments, a New Constitution, and State level prosecutions are on the table.

Before us is the grand vision of the Constitution. The founder's legacy remains with We the People. The US government has chosen, for now, to remain in rebellion, not assert its oath, and defy the Supreme Law.

We the People are doomed to succeed because we dared to stand up, and defend this Constitution: Preserving it from the Congress and President who refuse to preserve it; ensuring it lasts; and protecting it from those who put it second to other things.

* * *

Also on the able are the less civil options. When we speak of the rule of law we like to think that there is good order, discipline, civility.

Yet, in the US Constitution are the treaty obligations. One of them is the Geneva Conventions. Preserving the Constitution means enforcing Geneva. Geneva is a very special power We the People created.

TO enforce the laws of war, We the People inserted a very special clause in the Geneva Conventions which, until now, was not important. Normally, Americans could be trusted to do the right thing. Normally, the US government was on the right side of history.

Times have changed. Geneva delegates to foreign powers the lawful authority to use deadly force in response to illegal acts of the US Government. This is the principle of reciprocity and retaliation.

We the People through the Constitution created the principle of reciprocity so that other nations would have an incentives to comply with the laws of war. Today, We the People are the beneficiaries of this principle: This US government has refused to investigate the President. War crimes continue. Foreign powers have been delegated through the Geneva Conventions the power to engage in like abuses against US government officials.

We the People intended for foreign powers to use deadly force to enforce Geneva; and ensure Our Will was protected. It is preferable for these issues to be resolved in court, yet this US government says that it shall not assent to any court, not reinvestigate this President. Rather than assent to the laws of war, or admit that retaliation is on the table, this US Government pretends that We the People can do nothing. They miscalculated.

Through the Geneva Conventions, We the People have delegated the power and authority to other nations to use deadly force to enforce the Geneva Conventions and check this government. Congress refused to voluntarily investigate. The issue is whether the Congress, in the wake of the expanded combat operations, will connect the dots.

Because this Congress chooses not to investigate this President, and will not keep impeachment on the table, Congress is the table:

___ Will Congress be transformed to something that it does not recognize

___ How will a New Constitution transform the nature of government

___ What will a modernized Congress look like to compel what it views as discretionary

___ How will deadly force be legalized to compel Members of Congress to assent to the rule of law, assert their oath, and do what they should to protect the Constitution

* * *

Congress and the President have jointly thwarted the Constitution. The Members of Congress remain in rebellion. They have jointly agreed to block the efforts of We the People to provide reminders.

It is meaningless that the Members of Congress have thwarted State Proclamations. This is evidence that they do the opposite of what is expected in their oath of office. This is evidence they have violated Nuremburg precedents and the laws of war.

These are issues of war crimes.

* * *

Back on the Table

IT doesn't matter if Congress agrees with or opposes We the People. They have no choice.

IT doesn’t' matter if Congress believes that impeachment or investigations are a waste of time. They are requirements of civilized nations.

It doesn’t matter if the Congress blocks efforts to remind them of their oath. They voluntarily took an oath but have defied it.

On the table remains We the People, the Constitution, and the Geneva conventions.

Remind your Member of Congress that they have a job to do; have an oath; the Constitution is clear; and the agenda is We the People and the Rule of law.

Also remind them of the Geneva Conventions we the People crafted to delegate to any power to enforce the laws of war through tribunals and deadly combat.

Members of Congress may not put their 2008 White House ambitions before We the People or the rule of law or the Constitution.

Rather, We the People through the Geneva Conventions may delegate to foreign fighters the authority to use deadly force against Members of Congress to enforce the Geneva Conventions. Peace and non-violence are preferred; but deadly force by foreign powers is authorized and permitted under the laws of war.

On the table is the question of whether this Congress would prefer to do its job freely; or whether it shall be required through the use of deadly force on the battlefield to assent to the Geneva Conventions and fully assert its oath.

Whether the Members of Congress choose to assert their oath voluntarily, or at the tip of a spear is irrelevant. The Rule of Law shall prevail. Deadly force is not something that is advocated, desired, or requested: It is on the able, permitted, and Members of Congress cannot stop this.

* * *

Over the last year Americans have seen their government make excuses to do nothing, yet they would have us believe that they are leaders. This is not leadership.

We've seen leaders talk about leadership, but avoid investigations. Rather than vote to assert their oath, they've voted with their feet to do nothing. That is not acceptable.

We the People and the Constitution are aligned; we remain the agenda; and the US government has a choice: Whether it will enforce the Rule of Law and vote to investigate the President; whether it will do nothing; whether it will assent to its oath; or whether it must be compelled through the us of lawful combat to assent to the Geneva Conventions.

What Congress chooses to do or not do is irrelevant. We the People and the Constitution shall endure and outlast this Congress. The US government will not be the same when this conflict is over. The question is whether the US government will transform to something that solves problems; or must be lawfully destroyed through open combat to be something that is responsive to We the People and meets the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King.

All of society's children deserve a responsive government. It is guaranteed. The issue is whether We the People and the Constitution are respected as we deserve; or whether We the People must compel the US government to respect what we deserve: The US Constitution.

The US government is not an eternal creature. The Constitution is above the US government. The US Government is transitory. We the People are the source of all power. The Constitution can be transformed into something that solves these problems, and addresses the problems.

The way forward is to examine what has gone wrong, and develop solutions that will prevent this form happening again. Leadership will vote to investigate. They will dare to examine what is wrong to create what is right. Anything else tells We the People they remain committed to do what is wrong. That is not permissible.

The options for Congress are to examine facts, continue with what is not working, block efforts to reform, pretend that their oath does not exist, or be forced to assent to the rule of law through deadly force and open combat.

We the People and the Constitution have delegated to foreign powers the authority, power, and right for them to wage lawful warfare, destroy this Congress, and bring to justice the Members of Congress and President for war crimes. Civilized nations will freely choose to impeach. This is the lesson of Nuremburg.

Nuremburg remind us that when the rule of law breaks down, the law of civilized nations is not gone, merely taking a second seat to the laws of war.

* * *

We the People and the Constitution prefer peace, order, and stability. We prefer civilized society. Yet, there are times when a government strays from civility and it must be reminded of its obligations. This government has been well reminded, going so far as to openly thwart the efforts of We the People to remind them of their oath.

The US Government has been given a fair chance to resolve these issues, investigate, and rise to the occasion. It is time for We the People to accept that the US government is unresponsive to the law, We the People, their oath, and sadly to the US Constitution.

The few remaining options are prosecutions, grand juries, and war crimes tribunals. The issue this Congress must decide: Are they willing to pretend that they can defy We the People despite our delegation of deadly force to foreign powers.

This Congress has blocked our lawful efforts to remind them of what they must do: investigate. The issue going forward is whether this Congress will awaken to prosecutions and legal action to compel them to act to protect the Constitution; or whether they require the lawful acts of foreign powers to compel them to assent to the rule of law.

On the table are state level prosecutions of Members of Congress; grand jury investigations; state disbarment of Members of Congress who are attorneys; war crimes tribunals, and a New Constitution. If Congress, as they have shown of late, chooses to pretend it is above the law, there is one final answer: You shall be lawfully destroyed through open combat until you assent to the rule of law; and you end your illegal rebellion against justice, the Rule of Law, Our Will and We the People.

This Congress has no hope of pretending it is immune. The question is whether Congress will survive as an institution; whether it will transform freely to something that is responsive; or whether foreign fighters are given broader power to lawfully destroy the District of Columbia.

Congress shall respond to We the People: The Constitution is Our Agenda.

Geneva remains on the able. The US Constitution is there as well. Along with We the People. And a New Constitution.

Congress must decide whether it wants to refuse to investigate and be forced to change through law and prosecutions; or whether its arrogance will fuel the rage behind foreign fighters’ intent on destroying the Congress through deadly force.

Those options remain on the table. The error is for the DNC to believe that it can block state level impeachments. No, this is evidence of war crimes and the refusal to enforce Geneva. We the People delegate through Geneva to foreign powers the authority to enforce the rule of law against Congress.

Congerss cannot avoid the inevitable: The Constitution, Our Agenda. Congress shall suffer painful lessons if it defies Our Will.

Awaken from your deep sleep. The Constitution is calling. The distant rumbling is the sound of foreign combat forces preparing to lay waste to the District of Columbia and show the world what must be done, and remains on the table, to bring civility to the barbarians on the Potomac.

Read more . . .