FEMA's website contradicts Browns sworn testimony -- Perjury?

It's time to quick messing around with Brown.

FEMA's own website raises reasonable questions: Whether or not Brown has knowingly lied to Congress under oath.

* * *

Authorities

18 USC 1621: Materiality in re Perjury up to a jury [UNITED STATES v. GAUDIN ]

2 USC 192

CRS

* * *

Brown before Congress today was very adamant: Local officials were to blame.

Despite this stunning statement, we remain skeptical Brown's statement are supported by FEMA's existing policies or public law.

If Brown's version is correct, then the Federal government has no role in coordination; and that it is up to the local officials to "make it happen."

Curiously, the FEMA's website says the opposite: FEMA has the lead coordination role for Federal disaster response.

Lead coordination role means just that: Lead, not ask; Lead, not defer; Lead, not blame; Lead, not fine a scapegoat; Lead, not point fingers at those who are overwhelmed.

* * *

DHS also has an internal news file that keeps copies of the DHS-related information.

For purposes of investigating allegations of perjury against MICHAEL BROWN, it would be curious to compare:

What actually occurred; with

What DHS senior staffers were reading from published reports; with

Internal communication within DHS that either confirmed, contradicted, or moved with concert with these news reports;

What Brown testified to Congress; and

The degree of separation between what the law stipulates FEMA should be doing, and what DHS and Brown were actually doing; and then contrast with this what Brown testified to Congress on 27 Sept 2005.

* * *

Brown also has a known veracity and credibility problem. His public statements and documented resumee have not been fully supported by his actual work performance.

This veracity issue should be introduced as evidence that could be grounds to further impeach him before a court of law.

Brown also raised substantive issues of credibility and veracity when he claimed that the local officials were the ones who shouldered the burden. Again, we find this statement absurd.

* * *

Sure enough, if we look at the FEMA website it clearly says, contrary to what Brown wants us to believe, that the Federal government has a role:

Local and State governments share the responsibility for protecting their citizens from disasters, and for helping them to recover when a disaster strikes. In some cases, a disaster is beyond the capabilities of the State and local government to respond.

In 1988, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 5121-5206, was enacted to support State and local governments and their citizens when disasters overwhelm them.

Keep in mind, the problem with the evacuations Louisiana was the excessive flow of people and busses.

Local officials seeing the roads were clogged, made the decision to temporarily house personnel in the convention center.

This was done rather than keeping people on busses stuck in traffic.

The buses were waiting, and then the flood came.

It is irresponsible for a former FEMA employee to take the crisis as a license to blame those who had already requested assistance.

It is the mission of FEMA to assist locals when the disaster exceed their capabilities.

It is outrageous that FEMA personnel are using the overwhelming disaster as the "proof" that the locals failed.

It is the job of FEMA to step in and coordinate this effort when the natural disaster exceeds the local officials resources.

It remains to be understood how Brown's statements are consistent with the Stafford Act, which calls on the Federal Government to assist, not blame, when the local officials are overwhelmed.

We believe, if Brown's statements reflect actual FEMA planning and policy, that the investigation could possibly broaden to include inter alia:

A. Did FEMA's leadership actively assert policies that were contrary to public policy; and

A. Did FEMA's leadership make statements about the FEMA roles with reckless disregard to their statutory obligations under the Stafford Act; and

C. Did FEMA's leadership make statements that were consistent with actual policies, but these plans, policies and planning efforts were knowingly made in a manner that would fail to meet the requirements of the Stafford Act?

* * *

Brown's statements before Congress appear to paint a very different picture than what the record can support.

His statements also raise substantive questions as to whether his statements were contrary to the Stafford Act.

We believe it would be prudent to carefully review the information within FEMA/DHS control and compare to what extent, if any, Brown's statement before Congress were either false, knowingly false, or made with the intent to deceive the Congress of the United States.

We would hope the public take a step back, assert the rule of law, and request that the DOJ OPR assign a competent and non-partisan official to oversee what could be an investigation into allegations of perjury by former FEMA director Michael Brown.

Updates on allegations of Perjury against BROWN

Air America discussed allegations of perjury against Brown. [Hat Tip: MIssing Kitten]

Brown's statements not consistent with written documentation.

Discrepancies over what was declared a disaster area.

Brown Blames Blogger for state of affairs

CNN

See: "Former FEMA director Brown defames HorsesAss.org" posted, "09/28/2005, 12:56 AM"

Brown said the following about this blog: " it started with an organization called horsesass.org, that on some blog published a false, and, frankly, in my opinion, defamatory statement . . . " Transcript

Sworn testimony aslo under the perjury spotlight.

Lesson: If you tell the truth, the house of cards impolodes.