Constant's pations

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

Friday, October 13, 2006

House Ethics Inquiry Allegedly Linked to White House

The President and Attorney General have been allegedly implicated in the broadening House Ethics Inquiry.

The systemic oversight problems related to the Ethics investigation are related to the wider patterns of abuse. The breakdown in oversight and investigation in Congress and the Department of Justice have contributed to ongoing war crimes, violations of Geneva, and other failures of the US government to fully comply with its international legal obligations.

These systemic breakdowns can be linked to the legal memoranda which Bybee, Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, and other DoJ Staff counsel have drafted and allegedly illegally implemented. These illegal memoranda have corruptly persuaded others to implement illegal policies which violate the laws of war.

To read what the information below means in plain English: visit here. [Archive of other ethics-related investigation issues.]

* * *

Constant Scoop! President Bush has sealed the records. Congress will need to subpoena these records from Bush-41 files. They are file [ FG042 ]

The proper scope of the investigation of the Pages relates to Title 2 Section 88 enforcement. Attorney General Gonzalez needs to explain to the House committee why Title 2 Section 88 was or was not enforced; or how he and the President jointly agreed to block the DOJ OPR from reviewing the alleged failure of the Attorney General to report in writing the AG and President decision not to enforce Title 2 Section 88.


1. The Attorney General failed to file the Title 28 exception to Members of Congress; to do so would document the known failure to enforce Title 2 Section 88.

2. The Attorney General and President are complicit in an alleged conspiracy to block DoJ OPR from reviewing alleged failure of DOJ Staff and FBI agents to investigate Title 2 Section 88 requirements.

3. DoJ Staff and FBI agents know there are wider implications to this failure. They have failed to remain silent, issuing false, inconsistent, and misleading information about (a) the evidence they obtained; 9b) the nature of the evidence; (c) what action they took; (d) what conclusions they reached; or (e) when the information was or was not provided to the Attorney General.

4. The President and Attorney General have allegedly illegally agreed to block the DoJ OPR from reviewing alleged violations of Title 2 Section 88; and failed to ensure that the Senate and House leadership were sanctioned for failing to ensure the Title 2 Section 88 oversight requirements were put into effect to properly safeguard, protect, and oversee the Congressional pages.

5. The Attorney General has allegedly violated the Title 28 Memoranda requirements; the document does not exist as it should be; and Members of Congress in the Senate and House leadership jointly know that the required Title 28 report (of a decision not to enforce Title 2 Section 88) was not properly documented as required. [Broader issues Ref ]

6. The Congressional legal staff in both houses of Congress is allegedly the subject of the widening investigation. Ref

Page Oversight: Responsibility of US Government

It's incorrect to narrowly define the Page Supervision in terms of what the House does or does not do.

The issues cross both chambers of the legislature, and are indirectly linked with staff communications Justice Roberts appears to have had in the 1980s related to Title 2 Section 88 oversight and enforcement.

The correct approach is to consider the Public Law in Title 2 Section 88 which outlines the joint oversight in both chambers.

Also, pages have been associated with the Supreme Court.

It is incorrect to suggest the pages have never been involved in criminal activity, or that their work was not unknown to the DC Metro Police.

There are Parent-Teacher associations related to the page school.

* * *


(1) Senate Implicated

Understandably, the issue with Foley involves the House. However, under Title 2 Section 88, the joint oversight and appointment of Page officers is a joint responsibility of the Speaker and Senate Pro Tem. Why is the review only looking at the House; is there a plan of the Senate to review the apparent breakdown of oversight which the Speaker Pro Tem should have known about?

Consider also the oversight of the guidance, directions, and other policies. These are things that the Speaker and Pro Temp jointly have a voice in: They are jointly responsible for overseeing the Page Staff. What was the review, if any, done on these procedures by the Speaker of the House and Senate leadership; what kinds of meetings did the Speaker, Senate Pro Tem, and page oversight staffs have of the policies, reviews, and other procedures?

(2) Supreme Court Clerks Involvement

Recall in the 1980s, justice Roberts was assigned to the White House. There was a scandal and resolution. What was Justice Roberts' recollection of the White House review in the 1980s; the DOJ Staff communications with the Supreme Court clerks; and why the Title 2 Section 88 House Leadership oversight was not removed from the oversight requirement?

Which legal experts within the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court were in a position to review Title 2 Section 88; and what information did they have related to the ongoing effectiveness of the 1970s legislation when the 1980s scandal surfaced; what steps were institutionalized to ensure the problems of the 1980s did not occur; and how was the legal community which touched the White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court involved with the follow-up visits, and other reviews of policies and guidance; how were these reviews, reports, and other ongoing status reviews reconciled; what recollection does the House-Senate legal community have of the Speaker and Senate Pro Tem reviewing these policies, making changes, or monitoring the program and effectiveness of the program which the pages were overseen per Title 2 Section 88?

What kinds of policies, reviews, documents, audits, and other written memoranda did both the Speaker and Senate Pro Tem have of the policies; and how did the Senate and House leadership jointly certify that the requirements under Title 2 Section 88 were being met?

If there was a policy, program, directive, or guidance standard which was not working, how did the Senate and House leadership -- working through the Senate Pro Tem and Speaker and staff -- ensure that Title 2 Section 88 was fully met as required under statute?

What was Chief Justice Roberts, as White House counsel in the h1980s, recollection of the assumed oversight which the House and Senate leadership would engage to modernize what failed under the 1970s regulations, and would have been included in the wake of the 1980s scandal?

* * *

Title 2 Section 88 Enforcement

Under Title 28 and Title 50, the Attorney General and President are required to report violations of statute, or decisions not to enforce statute. This is a written reporting requirement on the Attorney General and the President.

The Pages are governed under Title 2 Section 88.

Can the Speaker or Senate Pro Tem explain what reviews, if any, they have done of the Page Oversight Board meeting minutes; how they sampled to oversight program to ensure that policies, directives, and procedures related to the Page Supervision were or were not meeting the intent of Title 2 Section 88?

What information does the DOJ OPR have related to AG Gonzalez requirement under Title 28 to "not enforce" alleged violations of Title 2 Section 88?

Was the DOJ OPR denied the power, access, and other information to review the letters to Members of Congress related to Gonzalez (apparent) refusal to enforce Title 2 Section 88?

What was the needed review of Title 2 Section 88 that AG Gonzalez and others in the DoJ Staff would have known, or should have known, were or were not being effectively enforced?

Does the DoJ OPR have an explanation why the joint oversight requirements of the Senate and House, under the 1970s legislation, was or was no effectively jointly managed by the House and Senate Leadership?

Does the Attorney General have an explanation why Title 2 Section 88 was not enforced?

What review, if any, did the FBI make of the Title 2 Section 88-related guidance documents, which the Speaker and Senate Pro Tem should have jointly reviewed, and ensured that Title 2 Section 88 was being properly implemented?

Is there an explanation why the Members of Congress are narrowly defining this review to the House, when the proper review includes a look at the joint failed oversight between the House, Senate, White House staff, DoJ Staff, DoJ OPR?

There's only one person who has consistently failed to enforce the law: That is the President of the Untied States. What role did the President play in shutting down the DOJ OPR investigation into the Title 2 Section 88 reviews; and what investigation, if it had been complete, would the DoJ OPR have discovered had not been enforced; was the DoJ AG letter under Title 28 never sent; and did the President know that the DoJ AG letter under Title 28 would have been directed to his political allies in the House and Senate?

* * *

Tracking A Sample Bill Related To Pages

This information shows all the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial connections with the legislation and oversight related to Congressional pages.

The same entities which failed to enforce FISA, Geneva, and laws of war, also failed to ensure Title 2 Section 88 was adequately enforced, investigated, and prosecuted.

A. War Crimes Prosecution: Adverse Inferences are possible when known requirements fail to yield proper evidence during discovery

Ref Open issue: Civil litigation against members of Congress for failing to enforce laws, and exposing minors to inappropriate conduct.

B. Evidence: A statute may be introduced as evidence during war crimes litigation as a sample requirement which was known, but not enforced

Ref Statutes as evidence.

Ref Title 2 Section 88 [Generally]

C. Sample Bill Related To Pages

Note: The 2003 allegations would have occurred prior to these changes in re 2 USC 88.

D. Executive: No Evidence President Did Not Plan To Enforce Title 2 Section 88

Ref President issued a signing statement related to the Title 2 Section 88 updated, in the bill: 108-447.

E. Evidence: DoJ Bill Tracking System

Ref DoJ Senior management have responsibility to ensure that the laws are enforced; and that the IT systems in place fully achieve their missions. When the IT systems are not working, the legal requirements remain: Enforce the law.

Ref Please provide a copy of the certifications that none of the DoJ acquisitions efforts have been outsourced; and provide a copy of the certification related to inherent government functions. Has any of the inherently governmental functions handled by Information technology oversight, or tracking system used to monitor bills and statute enforcement been outsourced to contactors, retired DoJ personnel, or non government agents, or agents to remove the direct responsibility of DoJ personnel from fully enforcing the law; or seeing that the requirements under 2 USC 88 were or were not fully managed, enforced, and investigated?

Ref Please identify the Officer’s
Technical Representative assigned to oversee the DoJ acquisition program to modernize the bill-statue tracking-enforcement system. What method was used to periodically review their performance, and document whether their expertise was or was not sufficient to meet DoJ objectives in the IT effort to modernize the bill-statute tracking-enforcement system? Please include a biography of their background, basis for selection, and names of candidates who were considered, but not selected for this position.

Ref Please provide a copy of the reconciliation matrix used to demonstrate to DoJ acquisition personnel that bill tracking-enforcement requirements were understood; fully incorporated; and did or did not adequately get incorporated into the final IT product which DoJ staff or DoJ contractors use to ensure Federal Statute requirements in 2 USC 88 were fully enforced, investigated, and organized for prosecution and adjudication before any US district court. How was it demonstrated that FAR 11.002(b) requirements in the DoJ solicitation for this bill-statute tracking IT system were or were not effectively met prior to final award fee disbursement through the paying station to the contractor?

Ref Within DoJ there is a tracking and priority system for acquisition programs. It is not unusual to have an elevated priority. This is documented. Please discuss how the bill tracking-enforcement system, when it had known defects, was or was not placed on the priority system. Please provide a copy of the priority decisions DoJ made per CFR 2811.603.

Ref DoJ also coordinates with DoC during various prioritization efforts. Please provide a three samples of the DoC-DoJ coordination efforts as outlined in CFR 2811.603. Ensure the samples include names of DoC personnel so that the war crimes prosecute may identify the personnel outside DoJ who knew, or should have known, about the DoJ acquisition program; and that other personnel outside DoJ knew or should have known, there was a requirement and plan in place to adequately monitor, track, and ensure that the US statutes and international legal obligations were fully satisfied. Is there a reason the DoJ IG or DoC IG have not provided this information to the war crimes prosecutor?

Ref DoJ has a contracting system. Personnel assigned to DoJ contracting review various requirements, and ensure that the contract language satisfies the government’s requirements. When was it known to the contacting officer that specific statutes or legal requirements could or could not be tracked within this system?

Ref To implement the acquisition program to track and monitor statutory requirements, DoJ had to issue various paperwork. One document includes a list of all Government equipment furnished to the contractor to assist them in meeting the government needs. FAR 45.505 indicates how this equipment will be categorized. Please provide a copy of three (3) of the reports which outline which specific government equipment was issued to the contractor to support this statute tracking-enforcement tool. Is there a reason that the reports are not releasable to the public; or is there a concern that the deadline of 1 Mar of each year has been violated, but not subsequently disclosed to Congress?

Ref DoJ also has a warranty and quality assurance program. Please identify the warranties related to this DoJ bill-statute tracking and enforcement program. In your response, identify the DoJ personnel above the contracting level responsible for the warranty related to this tracking system. Is there a reason that the warranty problems have or have not been timely resolved, documented, and reported to Congress; or is there another explanation why the system apparently is incapable of ensuring DoJ Staff have the tools to adequately track and enforce clearly promulgated national and international statures and legal obligations? Please discuss the exception and override systems available; and the documentation gaps related to why specific decision not to comply with legal requirements have not been documented, and reported to Congress in writing, as required under Title 28.

Ref DoJ has an acquisition system to acquire information technology needed to track bills, and ensure the DOJ personnel have information needed to properly enforce the law. Why wasn't this system used to ensure 2 USC 88-related information was documented, investigated, and brought to the Attorney General's attention; or does this system have problems like the Trilogy process within DoJ [information Technology Modernization Program]; and how does SAIC play into this IT development-maintenance effort?

F. DoJ Responsibilities: Well understood, promulgated, documented

Ref OLC: Enactment within DoJ.

Ref OLP: Coordination

Ref Title 2 Enforcement is, or should be, the subject of DoJ Criminal Division enforcement.

G. Executive Branch Involvement With Page Treasury Account: Financial flows reviewed, tracked, and monitored; DoJ and DHS knew or should have known legal oversight responsibilities

Ref Contractor, Government Whistleblower protections compromised, ineffectual, not implemented.

Ref The Executive Branch has responsibility to ensure that funds for federal activities and entities are fully consistent with federal law. In the Treasury, there is an account for the page Residence revolving fund. Treasury operations are overseen by the Secretary of the Treasury, and ultimately the President. There have been allegations that there have been problems with violations of the law in how the pages have been managed. When did the Attorney General, Secretary of the Treasury and President -- through DoJ, Treasury, or White House counsel -- become aware of the legal issues related to potential violations of the law; and how were these violations factored into how the Treasury would or would not review the funds into the entity that allegedly was associated with illegal activity? Does the Staff counsel in the White House, Treasury, or DoJ not have an explanation why legal counsel were or were not detailed to oversee this federal program; or is there another reason the President and Executive officers took a hands off approach on Treasury funding issues?

H. Legal Expertise: Legislative Counsel in House, Senate allegedly reckless

Ref Congressional Lawyers have a problem: Ref Duty to ensure others have access to most modern version.

Ref The Speaker appoints attorneys to the Office of Law Revision Counsel. Once Title 2 Section 88 was updated, someone should have reviewed the original statute, done some sort of audit, and said, "You know, we need to make an update because the current statute isn't adequate." Where are the working papers of the Law Revision Counsel that shows who reviewed Title 2 Section 88; and what information they had to decide whether or not to recommend changes to Title 2 Section 88?

Ref These are the legislative counsel who were involved with the 2005 markup; what is the reason that the Congressional leadership in both houses appear oblivious to the Title 2 Section n88 requirements; were the counsel in both houses defective; or were they incapable of documenting the Title requirements?

Ref Senate Legislative Counsel was involved with the 2005 bill, and revisions to Title 2 Section 88. What's the explanation from counsel for the reasons that the requirements under Title 2 Section 88 -- that there be oversight of the pages -- were not effectively implemented; where are these counsel assigned; and which State Disciplinary board has been brought into the nexus to determine which DC/State Bar Counsel have or have not adequately performed their duties?

I. Congressional leadership allegedly failed to remove personnel who allegedly were not, or could not have been, fully implementing legal requirements

Ref Speaker and Senate Pro Tem have power to remove Law Revision Counsel. Why wasn't this removal power exercised; or was the Congressional leadership reckless in overseeing whether counsel were or were not adequately doing their job; or was the Congressional leadership satisfied with their apparent obliviousness to the requirements of Title 2 Section 88?

Ref Senate Legislative Counsel appointed by Pro Temp on basis of qualification. Was the Pro Tem defective in oversight; or were the Senate Legislative counsel, despite the requirement to ensure that the laws were adequately briefed to Senate leadership, defective in their duties?

J. House Leadership Knowledge of Statutes: Hastert Allegedly Reckless in, inter alia (a) failing to act; (b) not enforcing clearly promulgated statute and legal requirements; (c) not timely acting to ensure oversight and investigation conducted as required; and (d) failing to remove personnel who were not meeting legal requirements.

Ref Office of Compliance: Section (h) Duties clearly states that this office shall engage in education to ensure all Members of Congress are familiar with the statutes; Section (i) Congressional oversight clearly states both the Senate and House Committees have joint oversight of this body. Where were they in ensuring that Title 2 Section 88 was enforced; or were the Members of Congress reckless in not complying with the clearly promulgated statutes they knew, or should have known, existed in Title 2 Section 88?

Ref House voted in July 2004. House leadership knew or should have known of the existence of and changes to Title 2 Section 88. Hastert's name is not on either Yea-Nay-Non voting. Where was Hastert? Hastert was there on July 16 for another Bill; he's been speaker since 1999.

Ref Hastert is Speaker, but has not been voting on many measures related to House Operations and Affairs. Does the Speaker have a reason why he is not voting on "Congressional Affairs"?

Ref Does Speaker Hastert have a reason for not responding to questions about his voting record?

K. Basis for Performance Awards: Alleged malfeasance, 5 USC 3331 oath inconsistent with funds awarded to Congressional staff; allegations of fraud related to performance reporting and documentation on federally funded programs and performance awards

Ref Personnel assigned to Congress were involved in various award programs. However, it appears as though there are problems with demonstrating that the various Congressional staffers were or were not doing their job. Where's the comptroller’s audit reported related to financial matters associated with Title 2 Section 88 enforcement; was the audit not done; or is there another reason why there is no documentation as to how this Statute and associated funding was or was not adequately audited before 2004?

L. Congressional Leadership Responsibility to Oversee of Page Board: Alleged recklessness in failing to adequately ensure policies, guidelines, and procedures – which they had the responsibility to promulgate and implement

Ref Page Board authorization to pass regulation.

Ref Multiple approvals required for Page Board.

Ref This is a joint Senate-House oversight problem of the Page Board.

Ref Regulation of the page board with policies and procedures -- a well known requirement since the 1970s, after the 1964-era abuses were addressed [See John McCormak 1965 letter in re PL 91-510 Oct 26 1970; original hearings were held November 1963.]

M. Senate and Supreme Court Complicity: This is not an issue of criminal law isolated to just the House, but includes the other chamber and other branches of government

Ref The school is not just for pages assigned to the House pages, but also to the Senate and Supreme Court. Notice the review is only focusing on the House, but not looking at the legal counsel in either the Senate or the Supreme Court.

Ref House and Senate leadership role in Page oversight, monitoring of guidance, policy, and directives. Once guidance is written, to oversee that statute implementation, one would have to review checklists, procedures, and have meeting minutes.

N. DoJ Investigations in re Federal Statutes

Ref Investigations: Generally.

Ref Speaker and Pro Temp Have duty to ensure that the Page Board is adequately functioning; and DoJ AG and DOJ OPR have duty to ensure that the legal requirements, when not met, are adequately investigated.

Ref US Attorney and DoJ AG role. What is the reason the US Attorney General and US Attorney were not interested in ensuring that they were fully involved with the issues as they unfolded? Why are FBI agents issuing inconsistent, misleading information about what did or didn't happen?

DoJ Civil Division: They had a duty to ensure the laws were understood, followed, and enforced. What's their explanation for not ensuring the statute was complied, or that apparent violations of policies/guidance were not resolved?

O. DoJ AG Role, Memoranda: Inadequate Documentation related to decision to not fully enforce statutes; failure to document decision to remove DoJ from oversight, enforcement responsibility

Ref Attorney General maintains a legal duty to oversee enforcement of statute until relieved. Where is the Attorney General's memo saying that he understood he did not have a role in these requirements?