Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

DoJ AG Faces Possible Indictment For Perjury

Attorney General Gonzalez has apparently made false statements to the Senate Judiciary committee.

We judge Gonzalez will likely be disbarred.

Action Alert: What you can do.

TX State Bar; Guidance: Filing information on dibarment.

[ For your convenience, there is an NSA Hearing Archive; Click here to read other content in the NSA Hearing Archive.]

At a time when the Attorney General knew and was well involved in the President's unlawful domestic spying program, the Attorney General allegedly made misleading statements to the Senate. The Senators relied on these statements. RefRef

Also, in 2003, the White House and DoJ jointly crafted language. Ref Ref

Further, in 2002 the White House assented to the FISA court requirements, describing them as appropriate. Subsequent unlawful NSA spying and White House failure to work with the FISA court are problematic.

The above three conditions tell us several things:

Not only were the procedures assented to, but they were known. This establishes the knowledge requirement. Given their ability to consult with legal counsel, it remains to be understood why they have apparently engaged in an unlawful course of conduct.

The unlawful activity was well documented in 2003, but the Attorney General referred to them in 2005 as hypothetical

Attorney General Gonzalez was in a position to know the facts.

It remains to be understood how the White House plans to approach the NSA hearings. It is clear the White House and DoJ are willing to lie on to the Senate.

* * *

State investigations are rather routine and simple. Ref

The Attorney General's conduct appears to be a felony. This conduct would warrant a state bar review. The conduct substantially undermines public confidence in the legal profession.

Given the admissible evidence, we judge the likelihood of disbarment to be 85%.


Why did AG Gonzalez apparently lie -- what he said, didn't match what was going on; while DoD contends spying on Americans was permissiable?

Why is DoD asserting a position that the White House legal counsel took great pains to justify devoid of legal foundation?

There's a broader issue. The domestic spying program isn't just NSA. Rather, there are people assigned to physically move throughout the US, are federal employees, abut are engaging in domestic spying on pretext.

The issue is also legal handwaving. If the President had inherent authority -- ha! -- there's no rason to spend any time arguing it, or having DoD assert/publish memoranda saying "No problemm. Issue appears that the DoD guidance is not lawful; and a reasonable DoD employee would know -- or should know -- this conduct was contrary to the Posse Comitatus Act.

Here is the legal calculs. Either

A. DoD pesonnel ignored their training and engaged in unlawfuly spying against Americans; or

B. DoD personnel followed unlawful orders; or

C. the commanders provided this guidance as a ruse to get around the Posse Comitatus Act.

This fits into the Operation Falcon program. Click

Other interesting informatoin

Compare to the Goerring indictment: Relevant Factors [Contribution, proximity, reliance, knowledge, expertise]