Draft House Leadership Performance Audit Report
This is a draft of the House Leadership Performance Audit report. The issues are familiar and the failures manifest themselves as war crimes, FISA-NSA violations, prisoner abuse, rendition, illegal domestic surveillance, Constitutional violations, and illegal conduct.
American governance has failed. The House leadership is in charge of a criminal enterprise. They should be prosecuted for their complicity with and failing to prevent war crimes. Until they are convicted and lawfully executed, they will return to continue with these illegal plans.
Constant Scoop! [ NewsTip: Page welfare was a subject of House discussion in 1960s, subject of a standing committee resolution. Original Tip: Has not been discussed publicly, nor reported in 2006. ]
The House leadership problem can be viewed in terms of a fascist agenda. The agenda took supremacy over all things. The defective Iraq planning in the Executive branch was mirrored by similarly defective oversight and non-auditing in the Legislative branch.
The laws and constraints were illegally explained away. The oath of office and Constitution were ignored. Legal requirements or standards were viewed as subordinate to the agenda, and useful only if they supported the agenda.
A system of risk mitigation, feedback, and oversight was viewed as unnecessary, and evidence of disloyalty to the inevitable agenda. Auditing, risk management, options, and other mitigations were not viewed as necessary, but disloyalty to the agenda. The agenda was asserted as inevitable; no time need be spent on what was not possible.
Because the fundamental management failings, all explanations are devoid of reasonable legal or factual foundation. There were legal options to review these issues in private. There were legal options, but they were not employed. Options were not viewed as needed, but secondary and a waste of time. Asserting the agenda, without regard to reality or results, was defined as sufficient to prevail over all obstacles. This is a delusional approach.
The House leadership could not credibly engage in oversight of issues it was largely ignoring in the other branches of government. The only way to commit to the agenda was to ignore information and reality. Negative information was accepted as disloyalty to the agenda, nor as feedback to adjust. Information was not viewed as useful unless it supported the agenda. Debates were not based on fact finding, but on assertion of the agenda, and the defenses attached to implementing that agenda.
The leadership was not managing or leading, but asserting an agenda. Decision making wasn’t in terms of leadership, but in asserting the agenda regardless reality or feedback. Follow-up, oversight, and problem resolution were considered low priorities, and distractions from the agenda.
There was insufficient House leadership openness to feedback, internal oversight, or offers to provide management assistance. Issues of leadership, accountability, and other management requirements were only asserted as a slogan to gather support for the agenda, not put into practice to ensure the legal obligations were met.
Training was a personal responsibility, and ignored. Performance was rewarded not on the basis of legal results, but in whether the agenda was or was not advanced.
Discipline was imposed only when there were deviations from the agenda; incompetence was not an issue, merely whether someone was or was not supportive of the agenda. Employee awards were not issued on basis of performance, but on loyalty to the agenda. House leadership defined their job in terms of asserting the agenda, not protecting the Constitution or performing their Constitutional mandates.
There was no effective plan in place, merely the assertion of an agenda without regard to facts, legality, resources, or options. Checklists were seen as unnecessary; the agenda would intuitively be understood. Those who did not understand the agenda were abused. Best practices were subordinated to the agenda. There was insufficient benchmarking when the agenda was asserted to be the example. Expertise, outside assistance was subordinated to the agenda.
Historical concerns raised in the similar situations were ignored. History was viewed in terms of supporting or not supporting the agenda, not as a basis to adjust or seek alternative solutions. History isn’t being used to adjust operations, but to justify commitment to failed agenda.
Finding: The leadership was not managing or leading, but asserting an agenda.
Leadership ___ Is there a date certain when the House leadership might appoint someone to consider the question: “Do we really know what we’re doing, have we an idea of the problems, or are we unclear who we need to ask for assistance?
¶ Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Because the House leadership is more loyal to their agenda than the Constitution, they are unable able to timely transition to an effective management approach.
Majority control ___ Does the House leadership have any explanation why, despite total control over the agenda within the House, it was unable to establish an agenda, establish rules, and develop oversight procedures to ensure that that House remained a functioning, responsive body to the Constitutional requirements?
¶ Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: Because the House controlled the resources to achieve what they viewed as an inevitable agenda, they saw no reason to ensure they were effectively managed.
Membership elections ___ What is the plan of the current House membership to find new leadership who is remotely interested in something besides whether their personal property is or is not located conveniently to a potential off ramp to a potential highway which may or may not run through “valuable” farmland?
¶ Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: The House leadership is not willing to timely transition to a new leadership model. Only outside change will return the American Congress to a Constitutional body. If the electoral system fails, the only other option to reassert the rule of law is through the second forum: The battlefield.
Rules: Leadership qualifications ___ What was the basis for the House membership to elect a specific candidate to be in the House leadership?
¶ Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: Their loyalty to the agenda, not the Constitution.
Rules: Leadership qualifications ___ Is there anything within the House rules which requires the House leadership to comprehend anything related to management, auditing, leadership, oversight, or reviews?
¶ Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: The House rules, as they are implemented, reward loyalty to the Party agenda, not the Rule of Law or Constitution. The precedents have been twisted to justify loyalty to non-legal options.
There is nothing in the House rules, as they are enforced, which would require the House leadership to do anything. There is no enforced mandate within the House rules which require the House leadership to focus on anything other than their agenda. The rules do not sufficiently impose any meaningful consequence on any member if they fail to put their oath of office before Party loyalty; rather, this choice is rewarded. There is no incentive to call for audits, oversight, or reviews.
All management decisions need not be consistent with the law, effectiveness, or stewardship; rather, they have been subordinated to the Party Agenda, not the Rule of Law. Other than battle, the only option to return the House to prudent management is through the ballot box and international war crimes prosecutions. There is no reason to have confidence the domestic system of jurisprudence will effectively investigate, much less prosecute unconstitutional conduct by Members of Conduct.
House Administration: Precedents
Finding: Historical concerns raised in the similar situations were ignored.
Prior Committee on Pages ___ 43 of 45: § 6.7 There was once a select committee to "investigate and report on the welfare and education of congressional pages." The House leadership is in a position to review whether this committee is or is not needed. Please discuss, as the House leadership learned of the Foley information, how this resolution was or was not considered. Is there a particular reason the House leadership has not reviewed this precedent, or is there something else getting in the way of reviewing this matter?
¶ Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: Precedents have been only followed when they are useful to supporting the agenda. All precedents which contradict the agenda are ignored; and new precedents have been established to subordinate the Constitution to the Republican Party agenda.
Finding: There were legal options, but they were not employed.
Committee: Operations ___ 28 of 45 There exists a SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONSSELECT COMMITTEE ON CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS. The committee, which had not been abandoned as of this precedent, includes the function, "Making a continuing study of the organization and operation of the Congress of the United States and recommending improvements". Please discuss where this Committee has been, what discussions the House leadership has had with the Committee, and the reasons the House leadership has apparently failed to comply with reasonable expectations that they engage in effective management of the House.
¶ Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference::
This Committee has been irrelevant. The House leadership failed to manage the House. They did not view their actions as unreasonable, but as wholly consistent with their Party Agenda, defining success not in terms of prudence, but loyalty and assertion.
House Leadership Priorities ___ 16 of 45 The House has a SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE BEAUTY SHOP. The failure to create a select committee related to violations of specific statutes is curious. Does the House leadership have a reason for not appointing another, similarly situated select committee, to investigate whether there should or should not be reforms in the House management, oversight, and leadership related to Geneva violations, or other inappropriate unconstitutional conduct?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership may or may not do anything. It depends how the conclusion of this investigation report are broadly or narrowly applied.
It is most likely the investigation will ignore the broader implications, and the DNC could be seen as being complicit with what is a Partisan Agenda of denial; and the broader failure to ensure the investigation lessons are broadly interpreted.
Although ideal, it is unlikely that this investigation will adequately couch the issues in terms of other symptoms: War crimes, FISA violations, and other illegal conduct.
Powers not timely exercised ___ Ref The House has the power to call investigations into any matter. Please discuss the reasons the House has not created special investigations to review general matters related to violations of the law. Was the House leadership under some sort of pressure not to investigate a matter?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: The House leadership has not viewed any information as a problem; rather, they view investigations as negativity. The House leadership has been under internal and external pressure to not do what they have the Constitutional obligation to do: Assert the rule of law, conduct fact finding, and protect the Constitution from domestic enemies.
Means, tools to investigate Government Corruption: Not used. ___ 8 of 10: § 14.10 Establishes the relationship between House Leadership responsibilities and Corrupt Government Practices. Within this precedent is the power of the House leadership to assign to select committees the power to investigate alleged violations of the law. Does the House leadership have an explanation why it has failed to review alleged violations of the law; failed to enforce Geneva; not ensure the FISA violations have been investigated; and outline the reasons that alleged war crimes have not been the subject of House Committee examination?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: The House leadership views their conduct as supporting an agenda; all legal constraints have been subordinated to the agenda. Whether someone is or is not legal is not factored into the House leadership decision making. Their only concern is whether they demonstrate that they are loyal to an agenda. The House leadership is willing to illegally support illegal appropriations to fund war crimes, and not prevent unlawful warfare, as they have the power to do through the power of the purse.
Speaker Power: Committee Referral – Not exercised. ___ Ref The speaker's duties are established in precedent. The speaker has the unfettered power to refer matters to Committees. Please discuss what plan, if any, the Speaker has in mind to refer to the Committee related to the effective House operations, and a plan to conduct an audit of the House leadership management.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:Depending on how widely the investigation results are applied, it is unlikely the House Speaker will independently do anything to audit the management. He appears to view the current situation as an isolated problem and fails to comprehend the incident is part of a wider pattern of alleged criminal misconduct.
The Speaker is only likely to go through eh motions of an audit if it perceived to be a short term cost to support the long-term Party Agenda. Given he’s failed to assert his oath, and not protect the Constitution, even if there were an audit, there is little prospect these audit conclusions will be sufficiently implemented to warrant confidence the RNC leadership has effectively managed the House, much less support the Constitution.
Speaker Power: Interpret rules -- Not exercised; adversely interpreted. ___ 25 of 37 The Speaker has the power to interpret rules. Please discuss the Speaker's methodology for determining that making inconsistent statements is an appropriate assertion of power. When did the Speaker interpret any rule to mean that the Speaker did not have to take action on a matter than may violate the law, laws of war, US Constitution, FISA statue, Geneva Conventions, or other prohibitions against illegal conduct; does the speaker not have a reason for referring this possible violation of the law to the appropriate committee; does the Speaker have no plan to refer to any committee alleged Presidential violations of the law; how many letters from the public are required to remind the Speaker that he should take action to refer a matter to the appropriate committee related to possible violations of the law; which day in October 2006 would the Speaker prefer that these citizen petitions arrive in his office?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The Speaker’s views on the other issues appear to be couched in terms of what is or is not loyal to the President and the RNC agenda. There has been inadequate consideration, as otherwise required, to the Rule of Law. The Speaker does not necessarily interpret any rules unless the process of interpretation may achieve a benefit or a defense. He is willing to assert any rule, regardless its distance from the House rules if he views it as supporting the agenda, not Constitutional governance or a Republic.
Speaker Options: Power to withhold inquiry – Not exercised. ___ 30 of 37, § 3.35 The Speaker has the power to withhold Parliamentary inquiry until certain facts are determined. When there are violations of the law, usually a Committee is assigned to review the matter. Does the Speaker have an objection to having all committees review possible violations of Geneva Conventions for their failure to prevent violations of the laws of war, and for their continued appropriation for things that are not lawful, in violation of Article 1 Section 9?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The Speaker does not view facts as important. Facts, rules and procedures are ignored if that decision supports the agenda. There is little regard whether the outcome of that decision is or is not contrary to international or domestic law. The Speaker and his alleged co-conspirators illegally view any action, decision, or legislative bill – by assertion alone – is legal, despite it being unrelated to legal precedent or the Constitution.
The Speaker is not likely to object to any committee request to reviewing Geneva because he knows the request is not a genuine desire to engage in any review, but a sham to appease foreign prosecutors. The speaker has no concern whether appropriations are or are not violating Article 1 Section 9; he views the issue as irrele3vant in that no US Attorney or litigator, until Hamdan, has successfully challenged the President’s illegal war crimes, prisoner abuses, and FISA violations.
Speaker Power: Punish those who are not cooperative ___ 32 of 37: § 3.40 The Speaker has the power to issue contempt citations for anyone who does not cooperate with Congressional inquiry. There is nothing preventing the Speaker from calling for evidence related to allegations of violations of Geneva, US Statute, international criminal law, or any other matter which the House appropriates money. Does the House leadership have an explanation why this power of subpoena, and ability to work with the US attorney, was not used to lawfully inquire into alleged war crimes, FISA violations, and other unconstitutional conduct by members of the Executive branch, or allegations that Members of Congress were not enforcing the Geneva Conventions?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The speaker had no intention to conduct any inquiry. The issue of whether contempt citations could or could not be issued was viewed as irrelevant. At best, the Speaker viewed the citations as a distraction; at worst, we are prepared to issue them against members of the Minority Party who attempt to assert the Rule of Law.
The Speaker had no plan to conduct oversight because the asserted agenda was presumed to be required and inevitable. There is no plan to hold any member of The executive Branch accountable for violations of FISA or Geneva. The Speaker was instrumental in working with DoJ Staff counsel to insert language in the Military Commissions Bill to provide funds for his defense before a war crimes tribunal.
Speaker Power: No inquiry required ___ 33 of 37: § 3.41 The only thing the Speaker has to provide to the US Attorney is the name of the person who is in contempt. No other fact finding is required. Does the House leadership not have an explanation why it failed to hold hearings, call witnesses, review the alleged violations of the law, and simply transfer the names of the President, Vice President, and other alleged war criminals to the US Attorney for prosecution under the laws of war?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The speaker has no plans to engage in fact finding. The facts are subordinate to the party agenda. The Speaker views hearings, witnesses, and oversight as distractions from what is inevitable. The speaker has no intention of recommending anyone be prosecuted, unless they obstruct the agenda.
Speaker Options: House Precedents. Not referred. ___ Ref Ref House precedents are provided to the Speaker. Please discuss how the House leadership does or does not review these precedents. Specifically, is there a reason that the House leadership appears to have little coherent story on what did or didn't happen; and how this confusion would advance the Party's interests [See: "he protects the interests of his party and individual members thereof." Ref]
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: Precedents are viewed as convenient distractions. The Speaker has no coherent story because to reveal the truth would undermine public confidence in the party agenda.
His only option is to assert the lie. He will not cooperate with the fact finding. He will use his personality, position, and power to intimidate others to assent to his warped view of reality.
Speaker Options – Assistance on staffing ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why, despite the apparent problems with management and oversight of over 10,000 Congressional staff members, that the House leadership has not worked with the President to approve legislation that would provide management assistance, conduct internal audits, or do other reviews to assess what problems need attention, and that there remains a credible plan in place to manage the known issues.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The Speaker views this needed legislation as a distraction from what he incorrectly views as inevitable. He views audits as trifles which fail to understand the inevitable victory for the agenda.
Rules: Sanctions for Failing to Enforce ___ Ref The Rules Committee has the power to make rules. One desirable rule is to create a meaningful sanction for failing to enforce the rule of law, protect the Constitution, or failing to ensure that Geneva is enforced. Does the House leadership have a plan to ensure that the Rule of Law remains supreme, or are there -- as with the Foley case -- excuses not to put the Rule of Law supremely above all things?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The Speaker has not plan to ensure the Rule of law is supreme. Rather, the opposite: TO ensure the agenda remains supreme to all things, both man and the Constitution.
The way forward is to ensure that there are meaningful sanctions for failing to assert 5 USC 3331 ones oath of office. The FBI and DoJ Staff appear complicit with the inaction, and the US Attorney cannot explain why the House leadership has not been prosecuted for war crimes or failing to protect the US Constitution. The DoJ AG appears to have put pressure on US Attorneys not to prosecute 5 USC 3331 violations, or take action on alleged DOJ OPR findings that the Attorney General and other DoJ Staff have illegally undermined the Rule of Law.
Finding: Employee awards were not issued on basis of performance, but on loyalty to the agenda.
Employee awards ___ Ref 2 USC 803 Outlines the Congressional awards program. Please discuss the basis for providing awards. How is the House leadership in a position to provide awards when the House leadership is unclear what it is supposed to be doing? ¶
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The Congressional awards program is a sham. The criteria to provide incentive awards is not credibly linked with the Staff support of the Constitution, but their loyalty to the illegal agenda. There is no reasonable, lawful basis for the employee awards. The House leadership is not in a credible position to argue that the employee awards are linked with reasonable criteria linked with protecting the Constitution, or seeing that reasonable results are achieved. Rather, rewarded as assigned on the basis of supporting the agenda, regardless the disastrous results.
Performance awards ___ What is the basis for the annual performance awards provided to Congressional staffers? ¶
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: The annual performance award are not linked with meaningful, lawful criteria but sham reviews. The fundamental basis for the awards is whether the Congressional staffer can relinquish their mind, remain loyal to absurd agendas, and remain silent about peer misconduct and other evidence related to alleged war crimes.
Performance award ___ How does the House leadership justify the end of term performance bonuses to staff members who, apparently, were so “defective” in their judgment, that the House leadership consistently ignored them?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The justification award packages are pencil-whipped and the legal criteria whitewashed. The bonuses paid to staff members is illegally based on their support to an illegal agenda.
The House leadership justifies the award of bonuses to staff members who defy the Constitution on the basis of whether that staffers conduct does or does not fully support the party agenda, nor whether the Staff Member does or does not do a good job protecting the Constitution from the domestic enemies in the Republican Party.
Performance awards ___ Was there a reason the House leadership continued to have on staff personnel who were so untrustworthy that they would be ignored; yet at the same time we continue to have annual bonuses, salaries, and other valuable consideration provided to – what the House leadership would implicitly argue – were incompetent? ¶
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Staff are ignored when their presence does not upset the agenda, or they can be rewarded or bullied into silence through shame, shouting, false promises, or rewards. Whether staff were or were ignored is considered irrelevant to the Republicans. They view the bonuses as an entitlement; nobody wants to be in the position to deny others what they view as entitled. Bad news is best ignored and explained away as a minor problem. If needed, the law enforcement and capitol police will yell louder to get the staff and public to believe in the fiction that they are competent or have control of the situation. Construction workers mock them openly.
Employee Training ___ Ref The speaker has the power to hire attorneys to ensure the operations run smoothly. The Speaker appears to have a difficult time understanding what his job is. Please discuss the methods used to assist the Speaker in determining whether assigned counsel are or are not sufficiently meeting their objectives and standards. How are attorney violations of misconduct under this work plan reported to the State Disciplinary Board or the DC Attorney Disciplinary Board for possible disbarment?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The Speaker works on a default-approval mode: so long as the Legislative counsel support the agenda, they are rewarded. Staff that raise questions about the illegalities in the Military Commissions Bill, or possible Geneva violations by Members of Congress, are punished. The environment is abusive. Those who comprehend what is going on soon depart; those who are mindless or oblivious to the illegalities are either rolled over or rewarded with greater responsibility beyond their competence. They inspire discipline and compliance by posting faxes and copies of complaint letters: “Avoid this person”.
Finding: Legal requirements or standards were viewed as subordinate to the agenda, and useful only if they supported the agenda.
Constitutional Constraints ___ 21 of 44 identifies various factors management considers "beyond their control." Could the House leadership share with We the People whether it views, as it appears, the Constitution as something it could "not control," therefore it ignored it? If the House leadership would have us believe it was giving attention to the Constitution, how does the House leadership explain the disregard for FISA violations; Geneva violations; failures to report under Title 50/Title 28 violations of statute; Presidential signing statement which communicated express intent not to comply with the Will of We the People, as he is otherwise required to do?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Indeed, the Constitution is considered a stepping stone which can be replaced, removed, or ignored at will, but of no consequence to the Republican agenda. The Republicans do not view reporting illegal activity as a requirement, but as evidence of disloyalty. They do not comprehend the number of undercover DoJ informants within their ranks.
Finding: There was insufficient benchmarking when the agenda was asserted to be the example.
Travel to centers of excellence ___ Ref House rules permit expenditure of funds to visit locations where there may be expertise or samples of excellence in industry for the House leadership to review. What is the reason the Speaker did not use funds to review the best practices in industry; make personal visits to review the issues; and then ensure the House leadership put these best practices into effect in the operation of the House?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Best practices are already in the flawed agenda. The only reason to travel is to gather additional campaign contributions, or generate voter support. There is little interest in changing direction, or modifying actions as this change would – in their mind – be an admission the original agenda was wrong.
It remains to be seen whether new leaders do engage in site visits to learn, and incorporate these lessons into more effective House operations.
Finding: There were legal options to review these issues in private.
Executive Session: No merit to claim issues too sensitive not to review. ___ 1 of 14: § 15.1 Ref The Speaker has the power to receive evidence in Executive Session. With respect to the Foley issues, some have suggested that the matters were sensitive. Please discuss the reasons the House leadership when it was first aware of the issues that may have been possibly derogatory-defamatory, did not go into executive session. Is there a reason that the House leadership refuses, as the President does with FISA courts, to use confidentiality; or is this merely a retroactive excuse to justify inaction when the issue original arose ____ (pick your date when the issue first arose)___.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The excuse about being “concerned” that the issue was sensitive is retroactively devised, and not a real concern at the time. Notice the inconsistency:
It is reasonable to conclude that their claims of concern are disingenuous; and that the decision to not hold an executive session was because they chose not to pursue the matter. The fact that an executive session was possible is the only concern: That option was not used as a reasonable House Speaker should have done.
Speaker Power -- Executive Sessions ___ 31 of 37; § 3.38 The Speaker has the power to call executive sessions. Some matters relate to sensitive matters, but deserve fact finding before decisions. Does the House leadership have an explanation why this option was not used as established in precedent; or is there a reason that the Speaker chose to ignore the possible violations of the law?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The speaker viewed the matter, as all other feedback, as inconstant with his Party’s agenda. The concern wasn’t whether the issue would or would not surface; but whether the issue needed attention.
Further, the concern was that the benefits of inaction – continued campaign contributions – would suffer, and the party objectives would be compromised if the House leadership did what they should have done: Broadly change management approaches.
The House leadership problem was that they had committed to an illegal agenda. It is too late to expect them to change, or being to credibly enforce the laws that have otherwise not been enforced. The easier answer was to abuse the messenger, not adjust House leadership decisions.
House Administration: US Code
Finding: House leadership defined their job in terms of asserting the agenda, not protecting the Constitution or performing their Constitutional mandates.
Speaker, employee duties ___ Ref The rules of procedure for the hearings in the legal compliance office are promulgated in the Congressional record. The House leadership through the Committees, under Constitutional authority is responsible for issuing the Congressional record. These are the records of Congress. Please discuss why the House leadership appears to be unclear what their duties are; and what basis the hearing officers would or would not make findings of violation against the House leadership. Is there a guide or other list of case law which the House leadership knew about, or should have known about that indicated their fiduciary duties?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership views their duties as different than what the Constitution requires. They do not look to the Constitution for guidance, but their Party Agenda. Where the Party and law diverge, the agenda is asserted as the baseline; the law is presumed as a standard that can be explained away with enough shouting, convoluted explanations, and cover-ups. If needed, they will spread rumors about someone, inciting others to engage in retaliation against the messenger.
It is similar to how jails and prisoners are run, and how the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo jailers conduct their operations: Without regard to civility. They take joy in believing that they can abuse others who may be naïve enough to believe their non-sense claims of “democracy” and “freedom.” They view those who believe these words as easily manipulated sheep. In their view, anyone who is foolish to believe their non-sense deserves to be abused. No one should have sympathy when the Republican party suffers combat losses or are lawfully sentenced to death for engaging in war crimes. As long as they remain alive, they remain a threat to the Constitution. Until they are lawfully sentenced to death, they will return under another Administration to continue their illegal activity. They have no plan to end what they have started.
Finding: Best practices were subordinated to the agenda.
Best practices: Goals ___ GAO also includes on 15 of 44 general goals and questions to implement a program. Is it the House leadership position, absent any plan, that they have no specific goals to monitor whether their internal operations are or are not meeting their Constitutionally required objectives; which objectives were the House leadership measuring performance; how was feedback assessed; was feedback assessed; how were lower-priority goals weighted against higher priority goals?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Indeed, the House leadership has no credible plan in place to monitor their agenda, progress, or requirements to adjust. They view their agenda as inevitable and they do not view their individual actions as being relevant to whether the overall moment does or does not adjust. If remaining silent about abuses is viewed as supporting the agenda, that is their position, regardless the illegality of the malfeasance or underlying criminal conduct or war crimes.
The Constitutional requirements are meaningless to the Party. The Constitution is viewed as a means to assert power; whether the Constitution is lawful as a means to justify abuse, the Constitution is quoted; where the law is at odds with the objective, they wave the flag of, “It’s different.” They have a double standard on the law and prudence because they have not comprehended the continued combat losses of their peers Afghanistan and Iraq. The losses will continue. This Congressional leadership, as it has the power under Article 1 Section, has failed to ensure it reasonably raised an army or did so consistent with the Geneva Conventions. These are war crimes.
Best practices: Performance vs. Goals ___ 19 of 44 outlines a process to review long-term goals relative to annual goals. Could the House leadership explain the basis for their annual "public announcements" they were issuing as to what they were or were not doing; and how they were or were not defining success? In the vacuum of nebulous goals and success criteria, what was the House leadership using to evaluate success, monitor progress, or assign tasks to staff?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The public announcements are not linked with real audit results, but whether the words do or do not support the Party Agenda. The long-term goal has been established; whether there is or is not a setback or problem in the short term is looked at as a challenge and opportunity, not as a problem. All problems are viewed as surmountable, regardless whether the law is or is not followed. They will impose a loss on their own to demonstrate an illusory concern with the rule of law, but this is only for show to solicit additional support for their flawed objectives. They have difficulty enduring close scrutiny.
The only criteria the House leadership uses to evaluate success is not performance, but time: So long as time advances, they are making progress. It doesn’t matter whether the results are or are not prudent or lawful; merely asserting the agenda is progress.
Best practices: Decision making improvement in Congress ___ Pretend the above doesn't exist. GAO has issued specific guidance on how to improve Congressional decision making. How does Congress credibly argue it can oversee any agency when the House leadership cannot demonstrate it effectively implements any leadership oversight within the House; why should anyone have any confidence in the decision making within the House leadership, much less the decisions related to Combat operations, appropriations, or whether the President is or is not effectively complying with his Constitutional mandates?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The Congress does not oversee anything. Just as the House leadership does not effectively manage, so too does the Congressional leadership provide no useful information to anyone on how to conduct their affairs. We need only look to the example of Afghanistan or Iraq: The US offers nothing but bombs. The so-called enemy has greater domestic support because the local fighters realize the Taliban and Insurgents are more helpful: They focus on real solutions, not gimmicks.
The Congress cannot argue it can oversee any agency. There is no reason anyone would have confidence in the decision making of the House leadership to protect the Constitution, challenge illegal activity, or ensure the President does his job.
Best practices: Communication ___ On 9 of 44, the GAO guide goes into detailed horizontal-coordination questions between Congress and the Executive. What has been the House leadership plan to ensure that similar "communication goals" worked vertically between the House leadership and House staff?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
They make feigned overtures that they are interested in feedback. Those who are foolish to believe the written request for information are abused for having relied on the disingenuous request for inputs.
Horizontal communication is nodding ones head saying, “Yes, whatever you want Mr. President.” Vertical communication is silent assent to whatever will not rock the boat; or yelling and delusional statements and excuse to blame others for failed supervision.
Best practices: Mission Statement ___ One key starting point 11 of 44 is to define the mission. The House leadership has a clear goal, 5 USC 3331: Protect the Constitution. Please explain why the House leadership, despite the 5 USC 3331 oath, seem oblivious to a goal, and incapable of pointing to a specific oversight plan for the House: Was the Constitution unclear; did the House leadership not comprehend their 5 USC 3331 oath; or was there some other explanation for the apparent confusion over what the "big mission" was?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership mission is not to protect the Constitution or assert the oath, but to implement their agenda. The House leadership seems oblivious to a legal goal because they have no legal goals: Merely the assertion of an agenda regardless the law. The oath to the House leadership is merely a trivial act they engage to get access to power and a paycheck; they do not take their oath seriously and have no plans to be accountable for any wrong doing. They will wage more illegal war to avoid scrutiny of their war crimes.
Best practices: Non-Constitutional references ___ Let's put aside the issue of whether the House leadership did or did not understand their mission, the Constitution, or their 5 USC 3331 oath of office. GAO has a guide to, from scratch, develop a mission statement. If the Constitution wasn't being used as required under 5 USC 3331, can the Members of Congress point to a document they were using to identify their mission, formulate a plan, and conduct operations?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House Speaker and leadership do not view guides as necessary: They have only their agenda. All other information is a distraction.
Finding: Expertise, outside assistance was subordinated to the agenda.
Advice, assistance: Advertising ___ Ref The House rules permit committee and House leadership to spend funds for advertising. Is there a reason the House leadership did not spend funds to advertise requirements for management assistance?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership does not have a need to request assistance: All their answers are in their party agenda. They would not consider it as an option to ask for help – the plan has already been crafted. Their only job is to assert the agenda, not adjust.
Advise, assistance: Checklists ___ Ref Some committees have checklists. Please discuss why the House leadership is not using these checklists to ensure that the House leadership is effectively managing operations.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Checklists are distractions. The party agenda is the answer. Nothing else is needed. See how simple this is?
The House leadership is not using checklists because they do not comprehend that they may need a reminder how to do their job; or ensure that their day to day operations are sufficiently meeting their Constitutional obligations. Their idea of effective management is to assert the agenda, not manage or adjust.
Advice, assistance: Constitution ___ Ref In 2006, each member of Congress received a copy of the Constitution. Does the House leadership plan to explain why they did not develop a management plan to implement the requirements of the Constitution?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The do not view the Constitution has something which needs attention. They have loyalty to their agenda, not the rule of law. They have no plan to explain anything. They will blame the public as being negative for daring to raise trivial matters as the law, or reasonable requirements. The only thing that will stop them is if they are lawfully sentenced to death for war crimes.
Advice, assistance: GAO Reports, OPM ___ GAO audits the executive branch. How does the House leadership apply the GAO reports on OPM to the Legislative Branch and House operations?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
They have no plan to ever apply lessons learned from another entity to the Congress. They view the Legislature as an agency of the Executive Branch. All answers are in the agenda; all precedents and rules which do not support the agenda are ignored.
The House leadership approach is a violation of the Constitution and 5 USC 3331.
Advice, Assistance: GAO, CRS ___ What is the House leadership plan to use GAO or CRS resources to oversee House leadership operations; and provide information to House leadership on Legislative operations?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
As always, the House leadership has no plan to adjust or respond to ideas unless that input supports the pre-determined agenda. They are unresponsive to information that suggests their pre-determined, illegal objectives are in jeopardy.
Advice, Assistance: Best Practices ___ What is the House leadership plan to implement GAO best practices in the operation and management of the House?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
There is no plan to implement best practices unless it is already in their plan. They have no plan to adjust unless lawfully forced to through an Article III court. If they can avoid the court – using illegal means to hide evidence – they would prefer to stay out of court. They will wage illegal war and abuse others to dissuade witnesses from holding them accountable. They are war criminals and have no plans to end unless they are lawfully sentenced to death for war crimes.
Advice, Assistance: Methodology ___ If the House leadership in the Legislator has no plan to implement or tailor any best practices from the Executive Branch, what is the House leadership plan to develop a methodology to find, develop, and institutionalize legislative best practices? ¶ Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has no plan to develop any new methodology or adjust. There is no plan to get a plan. They are reckless despite mounting evidence that they have committed war crimes, and German prosecutors are closing in to prosecute them.
Advice, Assistance: Training ___ GAO has issued a report on best practices in training. For whatever reason, the House leadership has failed to ensure that best business practices have translated into effective House leadership. What is the House leadership plan to tailor lessons learned from training best practices to how the House leadership will oversee whether its staff is or is not effectively translating lessons learned into effective staff feedback to the House leadership?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
These are interesting ideas. The Current house leadership has no plan to adjust, or ensure that lessons are implemented. To change or respond to feedback would send the undesirable message that they had originally violated the law. They view commitment to an illegal plan as admirable because to withdraw now would be an admission that they are war criminals. They have no plans to withdraw until they are lawfully sentenced to death for war crimes.
Advice, Assistance; Compliance with Best Practices ___ GAO has issued a report on NAVY compliance/non-compliance with best practices. Is there a reason the House leadership has not similarly assented to a periodic review-comparison relative to reasonable benchmarks; and the agreement to have those findings published for review by We the People?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership will use reports to cut others down, but not apply the same principles to themselves. They view themselves as being above the law, accountability, and standards. Standards are for those who do not understand; the House leadership understand everything – they have their agenda which is all that is needed.
Advice, Assistance: Best Practices ___ In 1995, GAO issued a report on government operations. Last time we reviewed the Constitution, the Congress was part of "government." Does the House leadership have a reason in 2006 why the 1995 GAO report on government operations has not been sufficiently tailored and applied to the House leadership operations, oversight, and management of the House? Was 11 years insufficient time to review the report, much less consider how the lessons and GAO findings might be tailored to effectively lead the House; or was there some other plausible explanation for the apparent reckless disregard for the 1995 GAO report, and how it might be applied to effectively manage government operations in the House?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The House leadership has failed to impellent reasonable lessons learned. The House leadership has no reason why they have not embraced best practices. 11 years was sufficient time for them to refine their illegal agenda. There is no credible explanation for their disregard for the GAO reports, or failure to effectively mange the House in a lawful, Constitutional manner.
Advice, Assistance: Best practices ___ In 1997, two years later, GAO issued another guide related to reengineering assessments. Let's presume for the sake of argument that the House leadership failed to comprehend that the 1995 report may have been of some use. Does the House leadership have an explanation why the government wide 1997-era reengineering efforts did or did not take shape and influence the House leadership to consider, "Wow, maybe we could apply these lessons learned to the House"?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership is reckless. They fail to implement ideas to refine their operations or management skills. They have no reasonable explanation why they have failed to put into practice the standards that they abysmally enforce on other agencies.
Advice, Assistance: Best Practices ___ GPRA of 1993 triggered various GAO guides. When did the House leadership plan to ensure that these types of "really neat ideas" might be applied to the House leadership and the management of the House?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has recklessly failed to apply the Government Corrupt Practices-standards to the legislative branch. They have used excuses not to ensure their conduct is admirable or lawful. They are despicable creatures.
The House leadership has no plan to ensure these lessons learned might be incorporated. To change course would be an undesirable confrontation with reality, the war crimes prosecute, and the war crimes executioner. Delusion is the preferred choice.
Advice, assistance: Consultants ___ Despite the access to legal counsel, auditing, and other fiduciaries [aka “Lobbyists”] does the House leadership have an explanation why they were reluctant, unwilling, or refused to hire outside consultants to ensure the House leadership remains competent and had the requisite staff in place to competently mange the Congressional staff?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Fiduciaries are not a source of valuable information, just money. There is no reasonable explanation why the legal, auditing, and management standards have not been applied. The House leadership only offers absurd excuses. Their ideas of management is to rubber stamp a paycheck and pay strippers big tips. “Where’s my golf bag?”
Advice, assistance: History ___ Is there an explanation why, despite the ability to access the Congressional Research Service, National Archives, Academia, or other historical documents, the House leadership was unwilling to develop a plan that would effectively manage the Congress during war time?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership is incompetent. Despite many historical guides and examples, they fail to learn the lessons of history. History, to them is irrelevant.
The House leadership has not interest in managing new problems. All problems which might appear is bad news that should not be given consideration.
They have engaged in malfeasance, recklessness, and have violated their oath of office.
Advice, assistance: Academia ___ What was the reason that the lessons of the Kennedy School of Government, and other Professional Executive Seminars, which Members of Congress and the House leadership attend, were not applied, implemented to ensure the Legislative operations remained effective?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has recklessly ignored reasonable inputs. Those institutions which remind the leadership of bad things have their funding cut. Courses are tailored to make the leadership happy, not provide them with useful information; even if the information is useful, the House leadership is not interested in applying the lessons. “Oh, that’s just academics.” If there’s a course and they cannot avoid taking it, they’ll ensure the “abuse” of education; but don’t expect them to implement what they learned – they could be punished.
There are insufficient consequences, except lawful execution after a war crimes tribunal, to act as a catalyst for the House leadership to do anything. They are hopeless.
Advice, assistance: Consultants___ House leaders regularly interact with private consultants during Congressional testimony. Was there something getting in the way of the House leadership asking for help?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership had the access, opportunity, and means to engage in serious discussion and planning to reform their operations. The House leadership has been reckless in their duties to the Constitution.
The House leadership, despite the resources, talent, time, and power, failed to marshal these resources to ensure that the Constitution was protected. They failed to translate lessons learned and wisdom from academia and private industry; rather than incorporate lessons learned, they viewed Congressional testimony as something that had to be endured, not necessarily considered, much less applied.
Academics that provided unfavorable information were not invited, and their grants jeopardized. They used untraceable methods. Non Official Cover status employees working for the CIA, if needed, could be dispatched to induce a peer on an academic board to reward or punish, depending on the political objectives. They look at Universities like a prison: Rumors are nice, but big rumors can change the subject, putting the garget on the defensive. Abraxas does a nice job placing CIA agents where you would least expect them; some of them are undercover DoJ informants.
Advice, assistance: Committee inputs ___ What was the basis to assert that a given witness before the House leadership was or was not an expert; yet there is no record that the House leadership relied on that experts witness to apply lessons to ensure the House leaders effectively managed its operations?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Expertise is defined in terms of academic credentials, their propensity to agree with an agenda, or their ability to avoid retaliation. This has a lot to do with keeping silent about reality, and not pointing fingers as those they suspect are undercover CIA agents within their ranks.
Testimony wasn’t given with the intent that it be implemented, only that the lobbyists get a chance to ensure some marginal abuse in exchange for the privilege of having kickbacks for bribes. If you aren’t willing to put them in prison, you might as well change their name plate from “criminal” to “Congressional Hearing Witness.” It’s a ruse to make Americans think their government is marginally better than the Taliban.
Advice, assistance: Committee reviews, failure ___ How do we explain the unlimited power of the House leadership to call any witness, gather evidence, and compel anyone to respond to any subpoena, but there is no record of the House leadership requesting specific assistance to resolve these oversight problems?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Kickbacks, lobbyist contributions, whitewashes, sham reviews, failed governance, and the illusion of American government.
The House leadership has been reckless. In failing to apply lessons learned, they have utterly failed. There were no constraints, yet they managed to still blunder. They are incompetent. They do not like that word: I – N – C – O – M – P – E – T – E – N – T. They will yell louder to induce you to “agree” that they are your friend. Remind them about the war crimes prosecutors, Germany, and no statute of limitations. The Taliban have them on the run. They’re morons.
Advice, assistance: Interference ___ What was getting in the way of the House leadership to request assistance, solicit input, or otherwise work with the Public to resolve these issues?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership is incompetent. They will not request assistance – to admit inadequacy, in their mind, is a demonstration they hope no one discovers: That they are inadequate. They live in denial.
The House leadership would rather assert an agenda, than adjust and do what is right. They are war criminals. They could be lawfully put to death if convicted of war crimes, as appears the case. They do not view themselves as being accountable to the law, similar to Enron.
The House leadership does not have a good reason for not doing what it should do: Assert the rule of law, honor their oath, and solve problems in a lawful manner. They would rather find a new enemy abroad, than face the reality of the enemy within their own Party: The House leadership is a threat to the American Constitution. They will only stop when compelled to under the threat of lawful execution by a war crimes tribunal. They do not plan to get caught; if they are, they will spew forth non-sense. Don’t be fooled. They are retarded monkeys.
Advice, assistance: Failure to exercise options ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why, despite its unfettered power and ability to access any person, record, and piece of paper, it refused to review these lessons learned, and did not put into effect the lessons of international controls, the auditing community, SAS 99, SAS 70, or other audit related procedures which witnesses and auditor-lobbyists should have been in a position to provide?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership is reckless. They have no credible reason why they have put their oath under their agenda; nor can they explain their defiance of the Constitution and rule of law. They are unwilling to apply lessons because they do not want to admit they have to change. They would rather stick with what is failing, than adjust and admit that they are wrong. Yes, they would rather die in combat, because to save themselves would mean that they made a bad choice. Yes, they are stupid.
The House leadership views audits, internal controls, and procedures as unnecessary. Their agenda is all that they care about, and all other rules and requirements are below them. They are not willing to solve problems, merely assert a failed agenda.
Advice, assistance: Audits ___ Is there something stopping the House leadership from consulting Members of Congress who are CPAs, experts in internal controls, or familiar with management to conduct an internal staff study, oversee a review, or otherwise ensure that the House leadership management plan is responsive to its Constitutional mandate?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership is unreliable and unworthy of public trust. The only thing preventing them from doing what is right is what is wrong in their heart: Their love of power, not the Constitution.
The House leadership is reckless. It fails to incorporate industry standards into its affairs. They defy their oath, and are not interested in putting the Constitution first, or holding others to account for illegal conduct – that is, unless those people are a threat to their agenda, then they will fabricate excuses, change rules, and invent trivial violations to justify the abuse. There are some bloggers in the DNC who do the same. Yes, they are retarded as well.
Advice, assistance: Plan ___ Does the House leadership, despite arguably infinite time, power and resources – not have an explanation why it has not reviewed this Congressional oversight plan?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership is incompetent and a threat to the US Constitution. The House leadership has defied its oath, and has no reasonable explanation why it has not organized the resources to defend the Constitution. They have done the opposite. The House leadership has no plan to review the merits of any alternative plan; rather, they will point to many excuses to justify inaction, rather than accept responsibility. They are criminals and should not be believed, no matter how much they beg for mercy. Show no sympathy at the war crimes tribunal. Stare at them. They are evil.
Advice, consult: GAO ___ Can Members of Congress point to the GAO documents they received, their notes, and the plan that they had – if any – to put into effect the needed reforms of the House management?
¶ Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They have a hard time finding documents that don’t exist.
Advice, consult: GAO application ___ What is the reason the House leadership has for failing to investigate, explore, or listen to CRS or GAO reports as they related to the Executive Branch – but tailor those audit reports to the House so that the House was modernized to ensure the GAO findings were effectively implemented?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership is reckless. It fails to do what it should do. They have no interest in applying lessons learned from other forums. They will simply assert power by threats, or impose abuse on the battlefield.. The Taliban and Iraqi insurgents have shown the House leadership is not all powerful.
The House leadership has no interest in tailoring any information or adjusting their plans. They would rather get more votes as they dive into the abyss – they cling to the hope that the world will end before they hit the bottom. Let them jump. They have no special insight into the future or destiny. They will sacrifice their own to assert power and make themselves look good. The Taliban know they look stupid.
Advice, Assistance: Consultants ___ Ref House rules permit the House leadership to hire consultants. Is there an explanation why the House leadership has not hired consultants who have expertise in management, oversight, and doing internal audits of the House leadership management plan?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership is incompetent. They refuse to solve problems lawfully. Their idea of a solution is whether the agenda is or is not asserted. There is no reasonable explanation why the House leadership has not hired consultants who will tell the House leadership what they really are: Moronic, incompetent criminals.
The House leadership has no interest in changing course, adjusting, or listening to any information which might hint they have a problem, a wrong, or may need to adjust. They will yell louder to assert their original flawed position, even if it means being repeatedly embarrassed before the Supreme Court. They plan to appoint more “conservative judges” who will legalize their agenda, and assent to more war crimes. Judge Roberts did so on the DC Court of Appeals. Did you know his wife is a colleague of the Abraxas General Counsel – they have worked for the same law firm.
Advice, Assistance: Detailed employees ___ Ref House rules permit personnel to be detailed from one agency to another. Does the House leadership have an explanation why, if there were known problems with staffing, internal audits, and other management issues, why experts in these areas were not detailed to the House leadership?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership is not willing to listen to other ideas unless those ideas are in support of the flawed agenda. The House leadership will deny there are problems because they have shut down communication, and crated a climate of abuse which does not tolerate honest-direct feedback. They merely want the staffers to say, “everything is fine,” even though they knew in their hearts that their world is collapsing.
The House leadership is not in a position to comprehend the problems; they have no insight into what might be solution, much less be open to the possibility of adjusting.
Finding: Checklists were seen as unnecessary; the agenda would intuitively be understood. Those who did not understand the agenda were abused.
Checklists ____ 25 of 44 lists sample check sheets, templates, and checklists. Does the House leadership have an explanation why they have not ensured similar checklists have not been fully implemented as the Congress otherwise requires of NAVAL aviators, MARINE CORPS aviators, or AIR FORCE aviators, or Combat crew commanders located under ground, on the sea, above the ground?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Checklists are only useful if they are part of someone else’s responsibility. Checklists are a nice thing if it means a shopping spree at the IT-store for more office supplies or computer gadgets; but they are bad if it means someone has to punish one of their loyal peons.
The House leadership is ineffective in oversight. It has failed to ensure that industry standards have been incorporated into business plans; and there are insufficient internal controls, oversight, and interest in ensuring that operations are on par with the GAO recommendations.
Members of Congress do not view themselves as worthy of needing a checklist. They complain, unless that checklist may mean their practice group might get on the MDL list for the award fee settlement. If there’s a checklist, you’ll be sure there’s a lawyer ready to sign it. Just don’t ask them to sign it with blood – they’re vampires and are running low on that life force. “Luke, I’m your vampire.”
Checklists ____ What is the House leadership plan to publicly share samples of the checklists 24-37 of 48 it uses to ensure the House is effectively managed; or copies of the completed checklists; or copies of the comment-resolution-review process; or samples of how identified issues are or are not effectively implemented?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership will illegally claim that all documents – which do not exist – are privileged. The House leadership has no documentation or check sheets to review; their idea of a check sheet is where they place the money for the stripper.
No checklist is too long to ignore, or shred. The House leadership has no effective managed its operations; nor does it have a credible method to show that its day to day operations are anything but folly. Enron is run better than the Congress, and look what their auditors did – shred the working papers in an industrial-sized shredder.
Checklists ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why these reconciliation sheets have been retroactively created?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Documents, working papers, and other notes form the House leadership have been retroactive created. The FBI has been given false, misleading information about what did or didn’t happen. The spoken-timelines do not match. Wait until you see their written stories. The infamy!
Checklists ___ Does the House leadership understand that creating these check sheets after the fact is admissible as evidence of having failed to do what one should have done in 2001, going forward?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership, despite the prospect of criminal indictments, believes that they will be pardoned and have no regard for the Rule of Law. The Taliban are taking notes and preparing more raids.
The House leadership has recklessly failed to do what it should have done; and they do not care that they have engaged in criminal activity. They will scream, “Privilege” even though the issues related to ongoing fraud, war crimes, and other matters which have been disclosed to third parties – and are not protected by privilege.
There are other, lawful ways to gather the information: Look for the gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting that would have occurred when the President and Attorney General should have notified Congress of illegal activity: War crimes, FISA violations, and deviations from Geneva and the laws of war. Where there are gaps in the lines of evidence, which is a subsequent basis to prosecute the DOJ Staff and White House.
Checklists ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why these audit check sheets were not publicly discussed, reviewed, and reconciled with actual House operations?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership does not discuss reality. They discuss agendas, not facts, and are not open to accountability.
The House leadership has been reckless in asserting its 5 USC 3331 oath of office, and has materially undermined reasonable public confidence in the Rule of Law. Fortunately, the House leadership is not immune to a war crimes prosecution; no presidential pardon will protect them. Yes, they should be encouraged to continue with their buffoonery – they help make the FBI look less like criminals, and more like cell mates.
House Administration: Sample Committee Oversight
Finding: History was viewed in terms of supporting or not supporting the agenda, not as a basis to adjust or seek alternative solutions.
House Operations: Baseline vs. Continued ___ Ref The Committee reviews a continuity of government plan. Please discuss which type of government the Committee hoped to implement; and how the proposed continuity plan would or would not be evaluated. In order to "continue" operations, one has to know which operations currently exist. Please discuss how the "continued" operations were or were not going to be tested in a simulated scenario.
Historical lessons ___ How are Congressional-oversight issues of LBJ in re Vietnam getting reviewed, if at all; how is the House leadership applying the lessons
Historical Lessons, Guides ___ How are the less of Vietnam and issues with Congressional oversight being addressed: Information accuracy, regional resolutions
Finding: Decision making wasn’t in terms of leadership, but in asserting the agenda regardless reality or feedback.
Finding: Issues of leadership, accountability, and other management requirements were only asserted as a slogan to gather support for the agenda, not put into practice to ensure the legal obligations were met.
Standards ___ Are we asserting our oath of office
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
No, and that is illegal.
Resources ___ Do we have the right people
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No, and that is a sign of training and supervisory incompetence.
Assumptions ___ How were the original assumptions used to formulate the original plans at odds with the events as they unfolded
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They’re being ignored.
Results ___ What assumptions are not playing out?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Most of them, but they refuse to adjust.
Results: Revising Assumptions ___ How were worst case risks considered as subsequent decisions eliminated expected options
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Ignored, explained away.
Results: Revisiting data ___ When the plans proved difficult to implement, how were evidence and facts reviewed to assess POTUS reports, competence and adequacy
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They continued despite unchallenged power to violate the law.
Results: Progress ___ How was it decided, concluded, or agreed that the President’s approach was/was not satisfactory; and how were House leaders complicit with Problems, failed oversight, and inaction despite the need to adjust.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Rubber stamp.
Results: Lessons learned ___ What lessons did the House leadership glean from their original reviews; how these lessons were applied/not applied
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Don’t get caught.
Results: Oversight ___ What reason does the House leadership have nor not following up on issues, not challenging the President; how does the House leadership approach to the President square with the oath of office and ethics requirements of Members of Congress: Their duty to the Constitution, 5 USC 3331.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No credible excuse.
Adjustments ___ Are we appropriately adjusting our oversight, interactions with the President
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No, Congress is illegally agreeing to support war crimes.
Adjustments ___ When did the House leadership suspect there was a problem; what was the House leadership’s reason for not reviewing details, adjusting funding
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: From the outset, but Cheney’s arrogance silent the wayward.
Responsiveness ___ If the House leadership is not willing to assent to the Constitution, its oath, or face the mounting evidence that the House leadership’s “raised army” in Iraq and Afghanistan is on the verge of defeat – please provide a discussion of what forum, besides the court and combat – the House leadership is willing to assent or permit these issues to be resolved?
¶ Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
War crimes prosecutors are the only catalyst to compel the House leadership to honor their 5 USC 3331 obligations. They are too deep into this mess to start pointing fingers. The pervasive pattern of abuse, if addressed, would implicate too many of their peers. They are not willing to provide a credible review of the entire House leadership. They have made deals not to dig into issues, as was done in other investigations.
Their goal is to maintain support for an agenda, not find facts or solve problems. They are the problem.
Reform, modernization ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why, despite the willingness of the President to spend funds to solve the post 9-11 problems, why there was not a balanced effort by the House leadership to ensure the Legislative branch had the requisite staff in place to oversee, audit, and effectively monitor this expanded Presidential power?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has failed. It has not effectively put into practice lessons learned, nor has it asserted its oath of office. It cannot be trusted.
The House leadership is reckless. It has no plan to do what it has long failed to do. Rather than look at the full spectrum of legal issues attached with this reckless conduct, the House leadership will yell at their colleagues and accuse them of being partisan. The only option that is going to credibly end the House leadership abuse of power is a war crimes prosecution with the lawful punishment of the death penalty.
Resolution ___ Is there a reason why Foley’s IM account has not been disbanded? ¶
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership is not interested in ending the abuse, only in ending the bad news. A reasonable Member of Congress would have made this information known to the FBI; then followed up with the Attorney General to ensure there was a team in place to ensure the potential for abuse was ended; then coordinated with the Florida Attorney General to ensure the former Member of Congress was timely prosecuted, and barred from accessing computers until he demonstrated he was rehabilitated. Nothing is stopping the Members of Congress from encouraging their constituents to write the Florida Attorney General to do the right thing.
Finding: Discipline was imposed only when there were deviations from the agenda; incompetence was not an issue, merely whether someone was or was not supportive of the agenda.
Malfeasance: Atty disbarment ___ Does the House leadership have a plan to work with the State Attorney Generals, DoJ OPR, or the American Bar Association to investigate the apparent wholesale disregard for the oath of office by the DOJ Staff counsel and Attorney General?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The effort is an independent effort supported by personnel in many nations. There is no official plan to do what should be done: Encourage the State officials to monitor the DOJ Staff counsel under the jurisdiction of respective state attorney disciplinary boards.
Malfeasance: Atty ___ How do we explain the DoJ Staff counsel visits to unofficial websites during duty hours, and their use of non-legal resources during business hours while the Attorney General otherwise stated there were insufficient staff resources to comply with the FISA requirement
¶ Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The DOJ Staff counsel are complicit with the FISA-NSA deceptions. Contrary to Attorney General Gonzalez lies to Congress, the DOJ Staff was not so busy that they could not complete the FISA requirement. Rather, the DOJ Staff knew, or should have known, that the illegally captured information was used to support war crimes.
Malfeasance -- DoJ Staff Manpower ___ Does the House leadership have a plan to (a) compare the Attorney General Comments on what was or was not required to meet the known FISA requirements; with (b) the stated DoJ Staff manpower; and (c) the actual DOJ Staff usage.
¶ Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
DoJ Staff counsel are not reliable. They have higher loyalty to the republican agenda than to the rule of law. The DOJ OPR notes should be reviewed.
Finding: Follow-up, oversight, and problem resolution were considered low priorities, and distractions from the agenda.
Evidence ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why, despite Foley’s computer being sized, the Congressman’s IM sign-in name is still being used? ¶
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has failed to compel the Director of the FBI and Attorney General to appear and explain why the FBI agents are not capable of quickly moving on a high profile investigation. Despite public denials by the FBI, the Attorney General has incredibly asserted he cannot comment. He belongs in jail.
Finding: The oath of office and Constitution were ignored.
Speaker Oath ___ Ref Ref A 5 USC 3331 criminal investigation determining whether the Speaker or other Members of Congress have or have not violated their oath of office. The Speaker is, by statute required to take the oath, and sign it. Legislative privilege does not apply to this document which "shall be admissible in evidence in any court of the United States." Please discuss whether a certified copy of the Speaker's oath has been provided to the FBI for purposes of a 5 USC 3331 indictment.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Oath, Obligation ___ Is the House leadership incapable of reading the Constitution to comprehend the legal responsibility they have?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Constitution: Oath of office ___ We’ve seen major violations of Geneva, FISA, laws of war, prisoner abuse standards, the Constitution. Does the House leadership, or its membership for that matter, have an explanation why these statutory requirements – 5 USC 3331 duties of Members of Congress to enforce – have not been adequately investigated?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The White House has shut down investigations, and obstructed justice.
Finding: Training was a personal responsibility, and ignored. Performance was rewarded not on the basis of legal results, but in whether the agenda was or was not advanced.
Training ___ The Federal Government spends a lot of money on training, conferences, and employee certification. Can the House leadership show that the personnel it has assigned, trained, and has under its control is satisfactorily meeting the requirements one might reasonably expect of a marginally functional House leadership office? ¶
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has not effectively ensured that personnel assigned are adequately trained, or that the have the skill set to effectively do their job. The House leadership does not conduct oversight; there is no requirement that any staff members have competence to do what is not done.
Generic Training ___ Ref The Parliamentarian is permitted to spend funds for necessary things to operate the office. One reasonable expenditure is employee training. Attached to this objective are employee training plans. Please discuss the funding used to provide training to the House leadership. Please discuss the computer scheduling system which ensures that the House leadership has or has not received the necessary training to adequately comply with their statutory requirements.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
There is inadequate training for House leadership. Their results demonstrate the failure of the training to effectively adjust their conduct.
The computer scheduling system, when it is working, is given little attention. The errors are not corrected unless it is related to a financial bonus. Backdating! The auditors are pleased with the fabricated lines of evidence. Next!
Standards of Conduct Training ___ Ref The Standards of Conduct training program includes advisories on how to implement various programs. Please discuss the advice the Committee has provided to the Speaker on various oversight issues. Is there a reason the House leadership appears to be in the dark on so many legal issues related to FISA, Geneva, NSA surveillance, the Constitution, and the laws of war?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The training programs is worthless, as measured by the public results. The advice provided has been marginal, only couched in pretty colors, and little attention is given to reality. The House leadership claims to be in the dark on issues related to the Constitution, war crimes, Geneva conventions, prisoner abuse; however, evidence from GCHQ suggests they well know the data gleaned from the NARUS STA was used to illegally transfer and abuse prisoners. The House leadership is not making a convincing case that they are out of the loop: The noose it tightening.
Finding: There was no effective plan in place, merely the assertion of an agenda without regard to facts, legality, resources, or options.
Plan ___ Does the House leadership plan to make this approach public so that We the People might inspect this plan, and provide informed commentary?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership does not plan to cooperate with their demise. They plan to invoke privilege on documents that have been otherwise disclosed to third parties. The Congressional staffers know that their options are limited.
Even if the Public were to review the plan, the only reasonable commentary would be: “I can’t believe they’ve stayed in power this long. What’s stopping the Taliban from taking over the world?”
Plan ___ Does the House leadership have any reasonable explanation why -- despite their track record of inaction, failed reviews, and inadequate internal audits – they cannot point to any plan to publicize the House leadership management plan for public comment?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership is not interested in effective government. They are interested in effectively implementing an agenda, regardless results.
There is no reasonable explanation from the House leadership why they have no credible effort in place to ensure lessons learned are applied. Their only plan to publicize anything is also in the spin dryer.
Plan ___ Does the House leadership plan exist; or is the House leadership going to hide the plan from public review using creative twists of the law?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has not been able to demonstrate they have a plan, and have not provided copies of the plan. The House leadership cannot hide what does not exist. Rather than admit they have no plan, they will invoke privilege to create a smokescreen. You may presume that the document does not exist.
Plan ___ How many requests for the House leadership plan has been hidden behind “legislative privilege,” yet the plan is known not to exist?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership will claim privilege on documents that do not exist.
Plan ___ If there was a plan that plan – because it is allegedly related to malfeasance with respect to alleged war crimes, and failures by members of Congress to prevent Geneva violations – is admissible. It is no longer protected by privilege. Can the House leadership explain why it is not cooperating with the German war crimes prosecutors to determine what plan, if any, existed in Congress to ensure the illegal kidnapping-rendition program was or was not investigated, as required under the Geneva Conventions?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has failed to prevent war crimes. It has no plans to cooperate. They have no reasonable defense, but will assert their innocence. They, like Ken Lay, are in denial and may not be with us much longer. The war crimes prosecutor is seeking the death penalty.
Plan: Historical inputs ___ How was the House leadership’s management plan refined by the lessons of 9-11, FISA, and other problems with Executive Oversight?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has failed to incorporate lessons learned from illegal activity. Rather than increase oversight, the House leadership has illegally approved funding for things which were in violation of Article 1 Section 9.
The House leadership has failed to withdraw form the illegal conspiracy, and has not effectively worked with the War crimes prosecutor to resolve these issues civilly. The House leadership would prefer to point to their “stellar achievements” in Iraq and Afghanistan, where their plans have been thwarted and undermined. Rather than adjust or shut off funding for a reckless-illegal war, they continue rubber stamping the illegal appropriations like the German Reichstag.
Plan: Lessons learned ___ Did the House leadership plan include a reconciliation page that effectively showed how the lessons learned from Iraq, FISA-NSA violations, and Geneva violations were or were not effectively integrated into the House oversight plan?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has no effective problem-resolution process. Reconciliation pages are those who convince pages to remain silent. Rather than resolve issues, the check sheets have been retroactively adjusted. You will find that the ink on the check sheets matches ink-batches manufactured well after the date on the document.
Plan: Historical inputs __ What reason does the House leadership have for not reviewing, independently outside the 9-11 Commission, the impact the post 9-11 world would have on the House leadership government operations?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership used 9-11 as an excuse to do nothing. There was an inadequate House leader response to 9-11, no effort to assert the rule of law, nor a credible plan in place by the House leadership to appropriately increase audit scope of the President’s illegal activity. Rather than prevent illegal activity, the Congress has crafted language that will pay for their defense before The Hague: They have illegally rewarded themselves for their initial failure to prevent the illegal activity.
Plan: Statutory obligations ___ Was there any plan to consider how the House operations were or were not adequately meeting its Constitutional obligations?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has defied its 5 USC 3331 obligation in failing to ensure day to day activities fully protect the Constitution. This is an indictable offense.
Plan ___ Was there ever a plan in anyone’s’ mind within the House leadership to resolve these issues?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership approaches to all illegal, unconstitutional activity was to assert the issue was legal, rather than investigate. The House leadership itself is a cover-up racket: Look at Geneva, FISA, and the prisoner abuses.
Plan ___ If the House leadership was “concerned” with the issues, why is there no adequate management control system in place to detect, much less address these issues when they are small?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership is reckless, failed to show by its actions it has done what it should do. The management systems in place have been ignored. The initial problems have mushroomed into war crimes. They’re not about to start holding people accountable, unless they face the real threat of an Article III war crimes indictment with threat of death as a penalty.
Plan ___ What is the House leadership plan to address this problem?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has engaged in reckless malfeasance. The House leadership has no plan to correct any problem, nor self-adjust to ensure the Constitution is protected. The House leadership remains a threat to the American Constitution.
Plan ___ Does the House leadership plan to openly discuss the failed House management system; and what reforms are needed; and the required staff and oversight to implement the needed plan?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership has not plan to openly discuss reality. Their idea of a discussion is blind obedience to what does not work. No reforms or adjustments are contemplated, as required; the House leadership approach has been to blame those who have no power. The only way to implement a new plan is to have new leadership. Until then, American civilians are at greater risk of being attacked – foreign fighters believe nothing else is going to end the American government’s war crimes. The US did the same when it firebombed Tokyo and Dresden. Foreign fighters are prepared to give their lives to inflict the same war crimes on American civilians.
Plan: Historical inputs ___ How have the White House leadership problems with the 9-11, Iraq, Geneva, FISA, NSA, and DOJ OPR oversight playing out with the House leadership oversight of these issues in Iraq, illegal warrantless surveillance, and prisoner abuses?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The House leadership illegally enables war crimes. These are subsequent war crimes under the laws of war, and the House leadership could be executed if convicted of failing to prevent war crimes.
Finding: Auditing, risk management, options, and other mitigations were not viewed as necessary, but disloyalty to the agenda. The agenda was asserted as inevitable; no time need be spent on what was not possible.
Finding: The defective Iraq planning in the Executive branch was mirrored by similarly defective oversight and non-auditing in the Legislative branch.
Finding: Negative information was accepted as disloyalty to the agenda, nor as feedback to adjust.
Finding: A system of risk mitigation, feedback, and oversight was viewed as unnecessary, and evidence of disloyalty to the inevitable agenda.
Delegation power, and subsequent audits ___ Ref The speaker has the power to delegate responsibilities. The Speaker appears unclear what duties he does or does not have. Please discuss the methods the staff uses to implement this statutory requirement. Are there periodic reports and audits performed by House legislative counsel, or are these audits performed by outside consultants?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The House leadership is not effectively in oversight, delegation, or follow-up. There is no rigorous plan in place to ensure that criminal activity within the Executive branch is effectively investigated. There is no institutionalized method within Congress to investigate Executive Branch war crimes committed by the DOJ Staff, White House Staff, or Joint Staff.
Legislative compliance, audit reviews ___ Ref Legislative compliance reviews whether Members of Congress are or are not adequately complying with legislator requirements. Please discuss the role the Legislative compliance plays in reviewing the House leadership. Can the office explain why there are problems with the House leadership ensuring that operations are effectively implemented?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They are worthless. The Legislative counsel should be reviewed by the State Attorney Generals and State Attorney Disciplinary Board for possible prosecution and disbarment.
Audit ___ Does the House leadership plan to appoint anyone to conduct this review who is not associated with the Congressional staff and is part of an independent audit team?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The House leadership plans to appoint someone who will support the agenda, not find facts, and narrowly look at the issues. They may not have an eye to the larger patterns of abuses.
Audit support ___ What is the plan of the House leadership to ensure this audit of the House leadership operations is fully supported?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Thre is no plan, and the only support is for the original, flawed agenda.
Audit: Constitutional obligations ___ Where is the audit report and House leadership plan to fully comply with its Constitutional obligations?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The House leadership has no plan to comply with the Constitution.
Audit: Review ___ When was this audit report reviewed?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The audit report was not written.
Audit: Other views ___ How were opposing views to the audit results reconciled?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Yelling.
Audit: Public access ___ Was there a plan by the House leadership to ever release the results of this audit report and provide this information to the public so that We the People might have insight into whether the House leadership was or was not doing its job?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They will claim privilege and suppress the reality, as has been done with the GTMO prisoners: There’s no evidence to justify their detention.
Audit plan ___ Please outline the current auditing plan that the House leadership uses to identify management issues, develop a corrective action plan, and monitor the effectiveness of these plans in achieving these results
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They have no plan.
Evaluating Progress ___ Put aside the above. 23 of 44 outlines procedures to evaluate progress. Does the House leadership, now that it has no option, plan to implement this adjustment-evaluation plan; or is there another excuse we have to not comply with 5 USC 3331, the oath of office?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Progress is whether or not time is passing. The agenda, when it is asserted, is progress. Facts, reality, and feedback are irrelevant.
Recommendations: Follow-up ___ 154 of 174: Once House leadership receives the GAO report, what does GAO do to ensure the results are implemented?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The GAO report is given a quick review. If the agency is cooperating with the agenda, then they are given nice letters. If the agency is attempting to assert the rule of law like DOJ OPR, the House leadership will smear them.
Risk assessments ___ Are house leaders private reservations at odds with (a) private communications with the President; and (b) public comments to voters and media.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Yes, and those differences are explained away by blaming someone else.
Risk assessments ___ What pressure is the House leadership under from VP Cheney to remain silent about concern
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: VP Cheney likes to swear for a reason: He has no moral authority. If he were a farm animal, he would be a donkey at the donkey show.
Risk mitigation __ Does the House leadership have an explanation why it takes so much time to respond to simple questions about what should have been long implemented, had the House leadership effectively managed its operations from the outside?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The House leadership explanations are excuses. They delay because they cannot quickly face reality. They call this leadership. It is really called malfeasance.
Mitigation ___ Has the House leadership ensured that Foley has been denied access to all computers?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No, they are failing to resolve the issue.
Mitigation ___ Has the House leadership worked with the FBI to ensure that all possible computers Foley may be using have been denied access to his account?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Yes, the House leadership has fully cooperated with the FBI whitewash, and has done nothing about the FBI lies to the media. The FBI engaged in reckless violation of procedure, and failed to correctly report the state of the evidence it received. The FBI has been targeted for prosecution for obstructing justice and not doing what it should have done. The plan to blame the witnesses and promote the morons in the FBI to greater positions of authority. They’re called “SACKS” for a reason, Alberto.
Thresholds ___ What magic condition, result, or outcome was the House leadership waiting for to trigger a correction, result, or an adjustment?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Whether they jump into the Abyss, or hope for world domination, there will be a war crimes prosecution.
Thresholds ___ How bad will the situation deteriorate before House leadership withdraws support of the President
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: War crimes execution may be required to wake up some of them. Even Taliban and Iraqi insurgent carnages aren’t waking up Congress.
Finding: Options were not viewed as needed, but secondary and a waste of time.
Options ___ What proposal has the House leadership privately discussed, but did not openly discuss [ Draft, funds transfers, the recklessness of invading Iran despite the problems of Iraq and Afghanistan]
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: A draft is possible, and an invasion of Iran. There are insufficient US forces to meet the state objectives. US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq will come under greater attack, and the Iranians are fully prepared to use Cuba and Venezuela as launching points for strikes into the American Heartland. They would prefer to do what VP Cheney proposed in the 1970s: Develop commercial power.
Options, risk analysis ___ What tradeoffs are not being acknowledged
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The House leadership is not willing to acknowledge that the economic cycle is on a downtrend, and that the unemployment rates are likely to rise.
Options: Legislative bills ___ The Constitution provides for the Legislature to assert its power through Legislative Acts. What was preventing the House leadership from working with the Senate to enact legislation that would ensure these oversight issues were resolved?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The House leadership is not credibly asserting their oath of office. They defy the Constitution. They are a rubber stamping institution.
Options: Adjustment ___ How are the House leaders’ inaction and commitment to a failed, flawed Management system in Congress similar to the same failed “stick to what is failing”-approach used in the Executive branch in re FISA, NSA, Katrina, DoD operations, prisoner abuses, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: It’s the same. They stick with what is failing because when they’re failing, they have a chance to improve. It’s actually someone else’s money and children and they don’t care.
Options: Adjustment ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation for not adjusting?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: None, they’re Republicans.
Options ___ If the results of the US government are at odds with what is possible, what is the House leadership plan to work with others who might offer other solutions? ¶
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Blame them. Like many DNC bloggers, Republicans are not happy when others show a moderate amount of intelligence. They prefer sheep who blindly believe without taking them seriously.
Adjustment: Information, feedback ___ What excuses does the House leadership have for not addressing the early signs of problem?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: None, they’re Republicans.
Finding: The leadership could not credibly engage in oversight of issues it was largely ignoring in the other branches of government.
Oversight ___ What review has the House leadership made of the briefing to POTUS to assess systemic problems with the Executive Branch
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: POTUS and DOJ Staff created the briefing. The House leadership was not given the chance to oppose the inevitable.
Oversight: Adjustments ___ Is there a plan to adjust how the House leadership interacts with the White House
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Yes, they will buy bigger knee pads.
Oversight – Responsiveness ___ There’s been discussion that the House leadership has been unresponsive to Senior Congressional staffers. What steps has the Committee taken to ensure they are adequately reviewing the inputs from the other staffs of the ranking membership?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: This is a ruse. The Congress is a poodle of the tyrant in the oval office.
Oversight – Deliberations ___ How does the House leadership reconcile the difference between (a) advertised claims that they are engaged in discussions; but (b) the overt efforts to block minority members from deliberating on issues. What will be done to ensure the debate is full, not one sided, and that legislation is based on reasonable discourse, not forced assent to illegal policies?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Blame the public for pointing out the problem.
Oversight: Personnel ___ What method will the House leadership use to ensure the Executive Branch personnel are adequately supervised?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Not engage in supervision.
Oversight ___ What was the House leadership plan to ensure the President sufficiently complied with the law, statutes, procures, and requirements of We the People – as asserted through Legislative Bills?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Change the law to legalize illegal activity.
Oversight interference ___ Was there something within the House leadership, Congress, or some other branch of government that was getting in the way of the House leadership doing what it should – enforce the law, and manage government operations?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The Agenda, it illegally trumps the Constitution and oath of office.
Oversight ___ The President and others in the Executive branch have a job. Their job is to put into effect the laws. Please discuss the House leadership plan to ensure the Executive Branch plans are effective, credible, and that the results as reported are incorporated into the House leadership hiring, oversight, reporting, training, and performance reviews of the Congressional staff.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: There is no plan to ensure anything, but implementation of the flawed plan.
Oversight: Audits ___ Does the House leadership have a plan to conduct an internal audit of its operations, identify problems, and develop a strategy to timely reconcile this problem?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No, they should have one, though.
Oversight: Audits ___ Does the current House membership plan to discuss any plan to audit the House, conduct a review, and explore what the issues are, much less consider a solution?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No, but that would be nice. They may make it sound like it is, but it will do the opposite: The plan will only be implemented . . . never.
Oversight ___ How have the House leaders discussed doing what they should have done?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Cried to their lawyers.
Oversight ___ What questions has the House leadership not addressed; what other issues have the house leaders not approached that they should have otherwise reviewed?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Most of them.
Oversight: Completeness ___ When starting the management process in 1994, what was the House leadership afraid of starting or reviewing; was there a reason the House leadership feared they might find something else during their reviews
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Facing reality.
Oversight: Denial ___ What issues did the House leadership hope to avoid, not confront, or explain away?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Anything that rhymes with R – E – A – L – I – T – Y.
Oversight: Dissuaded ___ To what extent did the House leadership interactions with VP Cheney and David Addington have any bearing on what the House leadership did or did not review?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Cheney and Addington are the ones to grovel under.
Oversight: Excuses to difficult issue ___ Was the House leadership concerned that, by reviewing certain issues without the House, that it would be forced to confront the “difficult” issue of the Constitution and abuse of power by the President?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: This was an excuse, and the reason they ignored the courts: What they were doing was illegal.
Oversight: Excuse of Constitutional issue ___ If the Constitution was “difficult” to face, what was the reason the House leadership’s oath of office can be believed as something they were willing to put into effect, as otherwise required 5 USC 3331?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: They’re ignoring the law and their oath.
Oversight: Excuses, distractions ___ What side issues or distractions are being used to shift attention from core leadership issues?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: Anything. The focus groups are working. New slogans are ready. Doom!
Oversight: Excuses ___ What are the excuses this House leadership is providing to not confront issues or shift attention to irrelevant issues outside the House leadership control?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They’re threatening people with reality: “We’re reckless, so vote us back in, you would rather stick with a known reckless crowd than take your chances for improvement.”
Oversight: Malfeasance ___ Does the House leadership have incredible reasons for inaction
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Yes.
Oversight: Constitutional requirements ___ How does (a) the legal requirements in the Constitution square with (b) what the Members of Congress in the House leadership should have done with oversight, action, questions, reviews, and leadership plans
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: There is no comparison.
Oversight: Excuses ___ When the House leadership uses the excuse of “we had other issues,” what discussion, if any, did the House leadership have on the need for increased staff, or new competencies in other areas?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They spend more money on ads, and hope for the best.
Oversight: Adjustments ___ Can the House leadership provide before the election any credible reason or explanation why -- as evidence of war crimes and illegal activity occurred in Iraq, NSA, and Prison camps – there were no discussions or changes within the House oversight plans?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: : They could, but they won’t unless they’re prosecuted.
Oversight: Excuses ___ Does the House leadership have a credible explanation why the excuses for inaction are or are not squaring with the original failures to adjust or resolve the oversight problem of the House leadership?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No, just more legal non-sense.
Oversight: Excuses ___ What Pressure has the Vice President put on Hastert to not leave?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Cheney is doing what he did with Rummy, “If you leave, they’ll come after me. “ Too late, the war crimes prosecute has Cheney’s European bank account numbers.
Oversight ___ What plan does the House leadership have to challenge the legality of signing-statements?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: None.
Oversight ___ The House leadership knows the Presidents oath of office is to the Constitution. Does the House leadership have a plan to ensure that the laws are enforced; or is there another excuse the House leadership has to avoid doing what it has the Constitutional requirement to d?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No.
Oversight ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why it fails to ensure the existing rules are enforced?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Not a good one.
Oversight ___ How is the House leadership defining “accountability”?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: ABC: Anything but consequences.
Oversight ___ When does the House leadership plan to apply the standards of “accountability” and “legal obligations” to the House leadership, it otherwise promulgated in Congressional proclamations, as they apply to other nations?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Yes, they will have anything but consequences.
Oversight ___ How does the House leadership explain the momentum of inaction we’ve seen since 2001: No timely review of these issues?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: : Success.
Oversight ___ How can the House leadership say that there will be sufficient time to “purge” the leadership; you’ve had since 1994 to get this right and this is the disaster We the People get.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: If we fail to cooperate with their criminal activity, they’re threatening to jump into the abyss. You know what that means don’t you. Don’t stand in their way.
Finding: The only way to commit to the agenda was to ignore information and reality.
Finding: Debates were not based on fact finding, but on assertion of the agenda, and the defenses attached to implementing that agenda.
Finding: Information was not viewed as useful unless it supported the agenda.
Debate Credibility ___ Why should we believe the opposition to the President was bonafide [The RNC rebellion against the President over the Military Commissions Bill was illusory; the Congress unlawfully assented to illegally violations of Geneva in the revised bill]
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: : It was staged.
Media Embargo ___ 3 of 3: § 10.1 Privilege is not absolute. In some cases issues related to the open media are denied privilege. Please discuss how open information, released to ABC can credibly be related to privilege.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: : It’s an excuse.
Information ___ Do our people have the information needed to credibly do their jobs
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They have information, but don’t use it.
Information ___ It’s been known that information has been withheld, and the problem have been known. What action is the House aware that other Presidential-sourced information has been withheld from House leadership [Title 28, Title 50]
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Yes, the House leadership knows these statutes have been violated and not enforced. They’ve known for a long time.
Information: Transmittal ___ Does the President work with the House to ensure the information flow to the House leadership improves
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: More threats of doom.
Information: Options ___ What steps has the House leadership taken to get information independently, use other method to evaluate the situation [In Iraq, over FISA, with Geneva violations]
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Blame the media.
Information: Alternatives ___ Based on POTUS contradictions, what is the House leadership plan to get reliable information
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Blame the media.
Information: Oversight ___ Once information is obtained from the Executive Branch, does the House leadership understand how that information is reviewed, questioned, assessed; and how problems with the Executive Branch plans are appropriately challenged and reviewed?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They don’t want to know.
Information: Decisions ___ What is the House leadership plan to ensure the President and Execute branch are making competent decisions based on reality?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Ignoring reality.
Information: Non-available for legislative history ___ When the President and Executive Branch have not been responsive to reasonable requests for information, what has been the reason House leaders have approved legislation?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The agenda.
Information: Bills approved despite unreliable ___ The Constitution permits the House leadership to withhold assent to legislation for any reason. What is the reason the House leadership approved legislation on matters the Executive has been known to lie, mislead, and provide fraudulent information to Congress?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They defy their oath.
Information: bills Approved ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why it continued to approve appropriations for Departments where the Executive Branch was not cooperating?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: The agenda.
Information: Bills Approved – War Crimes ___ Does the House leadership understand that approving a budget despite evidence of war crimes makes the House leadership complicit with war crimes?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: : Slowly, and its hurting them. Have no compassion.
Information reporting: Statutory obligations ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why, as required under Title 50 and Title 20, despite the failure of the President and Attorney General to explain deviations from statutes, the House leadership did not withhold funding or demand an explanation in writing why the Title 50 and Title 28 reporting requirements were satisfied?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: They have loyalty to their agenda, not the Rule of Law.
Information reporting: Blocking reviews ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why, despite its inaction on Title 28 and Title 50, there was no concern raised that the US Attorney, FBI, or DOJ OPR was not reviewing the problems of DoJ Staff counsel reporting; AG compliance; or POTUS processing?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: The President obstructed justice.
Information: Options ___ How will the House leadership develop new methods to get information
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: Blame the media.
Information: Alternatives ___ How does the House leadership read between the lines on NIE, and Intelligence analysis sent through the White House; as opposed to information the House leadership gets directly from the lowest level analysts in the Executive Branch
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: They focus only on the agenda, and words that sound nice.
Information: Options ___ Does the House leadership have a plan develop, use, rely on independent assessments of the situation out the White House and Executive Branch?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: There is no plan, but the agenda.
Information: Alternatives ___ What thought has the House leadership given to developing its own intelligence gathering apparatus outside the IG system, and moving beyond the current “take what we get”-approach to the White House-screened information?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: Thinking is not part of the agenda.
Information: Alterative sources ___ What is the progress of this alternative information sourcing
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
The media continues to accept that it is being blamed. The media refuses to go on the offensive to organize the public to protect the Constitution. The House leadership has made people incorrectly believe that to be credible they have to be balanced; ii fact, to be credibly all they have to do is lawfully destroy the Republican Party using facts.
Information: Options – using them ___ What will be done to ensure this alternative system is used when evaluating Executive Branch plans, or making adjustments to budgets during the Conference Committees
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: Vote out the Republicans. We can change again in two years. Staying with what is failing is stupid. Why reward them?
Information: Awareness ___ Was the House leadership merely unaware that it was in the middle of a problem?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: They are the problem.
Information: Wider pattern ___ How are the patterns of “information acceptance-inaction” similar to that of the Executive Branch in re Iraq?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: : Same agenda, same criminals.
Information: response ___ What red flags in 2001 were not examined by the House leadership as they related to 9-11?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: All of them.
Finding: Because the fundamental management failings, all explanations are devoid of reasonable legal or factual foundation.
Excuses ___ Does the House leadership plan to use their problems – related to their inaction – as an excuse to continue doing nothing?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Yes.
Excuses ___ Why should anyone take seriously leaders who are using problems – which they failed to manage – as an excuse for inaction; then using the abysmal results as an excuse to stick with what isn’t working?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No one should take Republicans seriously – they are deluded.
Excuses ___ Please provide an explanation why the House leadership is not using, as the President does, its incompetence in dealing with simple issues as an excuse to ignore bigger problems?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: : There is no credible explanation or defense – they’re Republicans.
Excuses ___ Why is the House leadership more adept at creating excuses than in implementing solutions?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: : All of them.
Finding: History isn’t being used to adjust operations, but to justify commitment to failed agenda.
Leadership loyalty ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why it put party loyalty above the Constitution, thereby defying the House ethics rules?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No legal explanation. They are war criminals and defy their oath.
History ___ What was the reluctance of this House leadership to apply the lessons of Vietnam, and show the world that the current House leadership could more effectively govern that another party that may or may not have effectively managed government operations during Vietnam?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:: The Republicans are delusional and believe that bad things from history cannot happen to them. Nuremberg is bad.
Agenda ___ What RNC domestic-economic agenda are at risk if the truth of the situation with the requirements in Iraq were known
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No good ideas are at risk, just the bad ones that are related to criminal activity.
Agenda ___ To what extent is the risk of “loss of control” driving inaction, which is feeding the Executive branch’s irrelevant fear of “loss of control”
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Absurdity is driving action. This is what fascism is all about.
Agenda ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why it continued with the moment of solutions which were failures, without regard to whether the solutions were or were not achieving results?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Republicans are delusional.
Agenda ___ How has the Vietnam-like “agenda” argument – that of LBJ – been used to justify inaction?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Same playbook.
Agenda ___ To what extent has the fear of “not being able to implement an agenda” masked the fundamental issue of whether (a) that agenda is or is not credible; or (b) the House leadership is or is not competent to oversee that agenda.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They’re stuck to their agenda, not whether the means are lawful or feasible.
Agenda ___ Has the House leadership chosen to commit to a flawed President, without regard to whether the approaches are making progress or lawful?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Yes, they are joined as one. The Abyss is nearby.
Finding: The laws and constraints were illegally explained away.
Members of Congress: Arrest for Felony ___ 2 of 3 § 3. in re 18 USC § 1001— Members of Congress are not immune to arrest for felonies. Please discuss House leadership position on what claim of immunity they plan to invoke to avoid arrest for failing to prevent Geneva Convention violations.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference:
Any excuse will be used. They didn’t work at Nuremburg.
Evidence: Congressional Journal. ___ Ref There has been some discussion about which evidence is or is not admissible. The Precedents clearly state the Journal is evidence. Please discuss the Speaker's plan, if any, to object to the Journal being admitted into evidence. Is there a reason the House leadership did not take action to ensure there were sufficient guidelines in place to fully comply with this Constitutional obligations?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Failing to prevent war rimes, as documented in the Congressional Journal, is admissible.
War crimes defense ___ What was the House leadership’s knowledge of the discussions to include in the Military Commissions Bill language that would provide for DoJ Staff defense should members of Congress be prosecuted for war crimes at an International Tribunal?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They know.
Geneva obligations ___ Once the House leadership approved the authorization to use military force, what was the plan to ensure that the combat operations and domestic contracting efforts were consistent with public statute, Geneva, and the Constitution?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: None, we’ve had no hearings. Congress is complicit with war crimes.
Geneva, evidence ___ Does the House leadership understand, that in failing to enforce Geneva, it no longer can credibly assert privilege on matters related to alleged failures of Members of Congress to enforce Geneva; and that all post-2001 decisions related to the Geneva violations are related to an alleged fraudulent course of conduct, are not protected, and related to post-decision communications which cannot be shielded by any legislative immunity?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They are worried.
Geneva: History ___ How were the lessons of Nuremburg factored/not factored into the House leadership thinking on issues of denial, or illegal statutes?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Too late.
Geneva: Accountability ___ If the President of the United States is permitted to pardon anyone for this reckless disregard for Geneva, what is to prevent them from returning and inflicting additional abuses?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: President has no power to pardon anyone who has been lawfully executed.
Geneva ___ Please provide a credible defense why the House leadership – if they are lawfully prosecuted and convicted of war crimes – should not lawfully, forever removed from the political stage through the lawful imposition of the death penalty?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: There is no reason.
Double standard on Constitutional Rights, Protections ___ Ref The Constitution recognizes the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Congress has not enforced this requirement in re NSA-FISA violations. Please discuss why the House leadership is asserting this right in re documents, but fails to ensure that this right is not protected for the rest of the American public. Is there a reason that the House leadership has two standards on whether the US Constitution is or is not enforced; what is the basis for the House leadership to invoke a right which it has broadly not enforced or protected for all citizens?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They are loyal to their agenda, not the Rule of law.
Finding: Asserting the agenda, without regard to reality or results, was defined as sufficient to prevail over all obstacles. This is a delusional approach.
Individual Integrity ___ 1 of 14: § 57.1 We the People, regardless limitations on Members of Congress, may call the Speaker what he is: Dishonest. § 63.—Falsehood, has made intentional misrepresentations that he knew, or should know are not consistent with what has happened. 4 of 4: § 64. Indeed, it appears the Speaker lacks the intelligence to effectively manage the House, ask for assistance, or do what he should do.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Correct. He is a buffoon.
Credibility ___ If House leadership is not able to oversee its own affairs in the House, why should we have confidence that it is effectively overseeing the GAO feedback?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No reason.
Credibility ___ GAO interviewed Congressional Staff in 1997 on the effectiveness of the statute See 4 of 44. How does the House leadership explain the credibility of the inputs -- as to what does or does not work -- but the House leadership in its own chamber seems oblivious to these procedures, standards, or goals?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Using non-sense.
Credibility ___ One of the assumptions of a Republic was that We the People would be too busy with our day to day jobs. In theory the elected officials would have the time to dedicate their times to legislation and governance. What is to be said of a Republic where We the People have to dedicate our lives to Government Oversight because the elected officials cannot be trusted to do what the Founders said they would do – govern?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Failure of governance.
Credibility ___ What is the reason the US proposes to “export the blessings of liberty” yet the American people are not being offered the chance to “enjoy” those blessings under the leadership of this House leadership?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Agenda.
>
Credibility ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why there was so much interest to “bring democracy to the Iraqis” but there was not a parallel interest to ensure the same (failed) oversight was not reformed and modernized in the Untied States House of Representatives?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: War economy, agenda, fascism.
Credibility ___ When Members of Congress conduct interviews or work cases -- for various service academy appointments, issue flags for retirements, or provide community awards to American youth – does the House leadership understand that their failed leadership is at odds with the standards they expect American youth to aspire?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Slowly, too late.
Credibility ___ If there is no mechanism to effectively ensure that the House leadership problem is or is not resolved after a Member of Congress has left, why should anyone believe that the Congress is effective in conducting oversight of Presidential expenditures, or conducting inquiry into whether the funds appropriated are or are not for illegal things?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No reason.
Credibility ___ Why should anyone around the globe, after seeing this disastrous House leadership, believe that democracy works?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No reason.
Credibility ___ Does the House leadership have an explanation for foreign fighters, insurgents, and other alleged “enemies of Democracy” have an expiation why the House leadership cannot reconcile (a) the law, and Constitution; with (b) their action; or (c) the results of failed oversight: Reckless disregard for the rule of law, abysmal results, and excuses.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No.
Credibility ___ Why should the people of Afghanistan have “confidence” in democracy when the House leadership fails to put into effect –within the narrow confines of the Halls of the Chamber – the basic principles of accountability, responsiveness?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No reason, and the Taliban are preferred over the Americans and NATO.
Credibility ___ Can the House leadership comprehend why a nation of Afghanistan – that has failed to see a credibly system of governance in place – would look to the House leadership and say, “We would prefer the disaster of the Taliban to these fools who are in the House leadership.”
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: Slowly.
Credibility ___ How is the House leadership of “accountability” squaring with the results insurgents are seeing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, or elsewhere?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: ABC: Anything But Consequences.
Credibility ___ If you don’t have enough time to handle a “trivial” matter, why should we believe you have the “interest” to handling something more complicated like: War crimes, Geneva, FISA, the Constitution?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No reason.
Credibility ___ Why should anyone believe that these failings are isolated to what the House leadership defines them to be, and not more broadly applied across the entire spectrum of legal issues: War crimes, FISA violations, prisoner abuse, illegal war.
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No reason.
Credibility ___ Why should we give you any more time to make more messes with other things?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No reason
Credibility ___ Why should we believe that the House leadership, left to hide in the dark, will adjust its conduct; would it not be more credibly to have open investigations of the House leadership, and openly discuss the required management plans in place to address this issue?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No reason
Credibility ___ We’ve already seen thousands of deaths in Katrina, Iraq, and 9-11. What catalyst, besides additional deaths, is required to awaken this House leadership to the requirement to change?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: War crimes indictments, and lawful execution of Members of Congress and being convicted for failing to prevent war crimes.
Credibility ___ What is the reason the House leadership believes that it can argue, “Because we’re ignoring simple problems” they are capable of handling bigger problems?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: They’re delusional.
Credibility ___ Why should we believe that the House leadership, that has allegedly been complicity in failing to prevent war crimes, should be permitted to remain on the political stage?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: No reason
Credibility ___ Even if the House leadership were to avoid these issues, the US Attorney and DoJ Staff are not resolving these issues. When a nation no longer effectively enforces the law it is a broken state. Could the House leadership provide a credible explanation why they believe that the current House leadership is in a position to provide any reasonable confidence that the US has, at its helm, anyone who is interested in asserting the rule of law?
Audit Conclusion/Adverse Inference: The House leadership has no credible reason why they should be believed. They have well demonstrated they are unfit to govern. The next step is to prosecute them for failing to prevent war crimes when they had the power and resources to otherwise enforce Geneva.
posted by Constant @ 6:24 PM
<< Home