POTUS Impeachment: It's Illegal To Classify Illegal Things
The President of the United States has convinced Americans that illegal activity is justified because the activity is "classified."
This is incorrect. The public needs to be educated: Activities must be legal; and it is illegal to classify illegal conduct.
Keisler's complaint against the New Jersey officials is instructive. In his complaint, Keisler outlined the recurring (frivolous) arguments: That a specific activity is classified.
Keisler may not invoke "classification" as a pretext to hide illegal activity. Also, nobody should be persuaded by the Department of Justice to keep secret something that is illegal, or otherwise violates the law and Constitution.
The way forward is investigation and education. The public has been fed a myth. Whether someone is or is not a "state secret" has nothing to do with whether the activity is classified; but whether that activity is lawfully advancing a state interest. It is contrary to public policy to engage in illegal activity; or permit violations of the law. Moreover, it is not lawful to classify illegal activity.
Investigations hinge on cooperation. The scope of the illegal activity is large. The American public has been convinced to remain silent, not think about, and otherwise object to discussions about illegal activity.
The way forward is to outline where the evidence of illegal activity is located; and present for the public their likely (perhaps unknowing) involvement in supporting illegal activity.
Lincoln's activity during the civil war were not legal. It is irrelevant in 2006 what the President, DoJ Staff, and others working in the contracting community have said. It is meaningless to say that contracts are contingent upon keeping silent about illegal activity.
There are several lines of evidence: Payments, budgeting documents, meeting minutes, policy memos, training, conference, telephone logs, telephone rosters, security clearances, security audits, contract audits, technical interchange meeting minutes, and progress reports. For a demonstration of the available information, check the google "NARUS STA 6400" entry, and you'll see a familiar blog.
The point is that Keisler's memos to the states are evidence of what the US public has been given in classified briefings. The aim and focus on the briefings is not on whether the conduct is illegal; but a distraction with whether the activity is or is not classified.
It will be important to ask Members of Congress on the Intelligence Committee to comment on the New Jersey Memoranda. It is likely that the arguments are similar. You will want to get them to comment on the range of arguments Keisler has presented. At this juncture, Members of Congress are allegedly involved in illegal activity, and they do not get to claim that the briefings they were given (about what Judge Walker says is not a state-protected/executive privilege illegal activity).
Consider Keisler's memorandum to the states, arguably an illegal effort to thwart enforcement of the law. Focus on the themes in the memo. Take note of the presumption that the activity is appropriately classified. This is incorrect.
Rather, the correct approach is to start with the open evidence: That the President has admitted to illegally not obtaining warrants; and all subsequent actions are evidence of illegal activity. Moreover, given the action is illegal, it is a second and third violation to [a] classify that illegal conduct; and [b] threaten people with prosecution to remain silent about illegal activity. The latter is an actionable item under the American Bar Association Prosecution Ethics guidelines. It is not lawful to threaten prosecution to compel someone to do or not do something. Rather, the agreement to participate must be voluntary.
Once we move away from the phony classification, and focus squarely on the known illegal activity, it will be easy to see that the subsequent claims of classification have one objective: To hide illegal activity. It is a crime to hide illegal activity under the shroud of classification.
Also, note that once we move away from whether something is or is not classified appropriately (it is not), we need not consider the technical details of that illegal activity. Rather, we already openly know the conduct violates the law and Constitution; and the President and Gonzalez have substantially admitted the essential elements proving a violation of the law.
The next step is then to rely on this admitted illegal activity, strip away the phony classification defense, and encourage the public to think with an open mind: Given you may not be prosecuted for discussing illegal activity – and the activity has been illegally classified and hidden in violation of ORCON – what information may you have related to the range of illegal Presidential activity. It is not lawful for anyone to silence discussion of illegal things, especially under the threat of prosecution.
Again, a plain reading of the Keisler’s NJ memo, and a review of the analysis will show you how the President and DoJ staff have deceived the public. They’ve pretended that the illegal activity is appropriately classified (it is not); and then asserted that “classification” argument as a threat to keep people silent. Also, they are threatening people with loss of liberty and contracts if they discuss the illegal conduct.
Stop reading if you have not had the chance to discuss these issues with an attorney. You are not being advised to engage in any illegal conduct, nor do anything that would violate your existing agreements. You will have to discuss with counsel whether there is or is not probable cause to conclude that the information you may be given violates ORCON, and has not been lawfully classified; and that it has actually been illegally classified in order to hide illegal activity.
Keep in mind: If you do any of the following, you could one day be subpoenaed before a Grand Jury. You will have to ensure that you are following the law; and understand that you are not being specifically requested to do anything.
Defeating government corruption is difficult, especially when the government is complicity in the illegal activity. But there is a solution. What’s needed is an effort by some brave Americans to voluntarily engage with the government, get hired to perform illegal work, and then publicly report the illegal activity to the media and members of Congress. What will be needed is a careful reporting, documentation, and monitoring system of the government personnel you engage in. Look at the Klein NSA Affirmative as an example of what will be good for the Grand Jury to review:
You will need to work closely with private counsel before you do this. You are fully within your rights to document illegal activity, gather evidence of civil rights claims, and otherwise assert your 42 USC 1983 claim. It is a separate matter whether you are threatened with prosecution, retaliated against, or otherwise told that you have violated the law by discussing (illegally) classified information.
It is not legal for you to be prosecuted for reporting illegal activity. Again, the problem will be that if you are not trained, you could be detected; and at the same time interfere with bonafide ongoing investigations. At worst, the people you believe are violating the law could be DoJ undercover personnel attempting to penetrate the contracting system in the same manner. You run the risk of getting caught in a sting operation, so you’re going to have to decide whether you have enough legal support to carefully proceed. You’re going to have to make the decision. Keep in mind, this will continue until it is stopped.
Again, this is not a solicitation for you to do anything. Rather, this merely outlines what the country is facing and what may be needed to lawfully force the government to account for what is happening: Widespread failure to enforce the law; and a refusal by many to ensure illegal activity is investigated and prosecuted.
At this juncture, it is clear that the FBI, DoD, DoJ and Members of Congress are complicit in the cover-up and reckless disregard for the rule of law. Your job will essentially make the way for a 42 USC 1983 claim. This is the statute you should discuss with your attorney. It is the means by which any private citizen can bring suit in court. This will publicly communicate that you have information. Keep in mind, the government – as it has done with NJ and the other states – will attempt to deny you the ability to bring suit, saying that the information is privileged, a state secret, or something related to executive privilege.
Once you work with your attorney, you will essentially be on your own, acting as a domestic “attorney general” gathering information. You will then have to decide how far you want to go. Your task will be very dangerous, and you may be threatened with loss of liberty for your work.
At no time will you be in any position to claim you are or are not an agent of the government. Rather, you may or may not be treated humanely if you are caught. Indeed, you could expect to be detained, captured, interrogated, and otherwise abused if it is determined that this is what you are doing. You’re going to have to decide how much you want to endure; and then at what point you realize: You are being abused in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Those you interact with will be trained in two major areas: Destroying people’s self-confidence; and inducing you to trust them. They are prosecutors, interrogators, and people trained in psychological warfare. They are not your friends. They are reckless. They have one objective: To avoid accountability for their involvement in illegal activity. They have already demonstrated that they may kill prisoners. They could do the same to you. Remember one thing: They are Americans and arrogant. The world also knows what they are capable of doing. You are not alone. Then again, in the worst situation, nobody will be able to help you.
Good luck.
It appears as though the inducements to participate is contingent upon (arguably illegal) payment streams, as did IBM assist the Nazis during WWII. Contracts are not lawful nor are they binding when they serve an illegal purpose. Gonzalez in speaking with the Congress over war crimes liability knows that the evidence is against him, and these contract vehicles cannot be protected by privilege. Rather, the agreements are evidence of an illegal conspiracy to not stop war crimes against American civilians. Article 3 prohibits injustices upon civilians, which the pattern of abuse and illegal surveillance is.
What You Can Do
posted by Constant @ 8:45 AM
<< Home