Reasons to Investigate a War Time President

Some suggest the President, because there is a war, cannot be subject to investigation. The thinking, simplistically, goes: The President cannot be distracted by something other than war.

* * *

Our Constitution provides for eternal and timeless coverage in peace and war. The President’s obligation to uphold the law, remain subject to the rule of law, remains whether we are at war or Peace.

Put aside the important issue of whether this is or is not a war; or whether the war has or has not been declared by Congress.

Powers are separated so that the President, Congress, and Judicial Branch share joint responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution at all times, not merely when it is convenient.

This President relies on the excuse of war and a pretext to avoid assenting to the law and oversight. If ever there was a time to investigate this President, it is now, during war, when he defies the law and the other branches of government. If the President will not submit to the law during war, there’s no reason to believe he’ll listen to the law during peace.

* * *

There are several reasons why it is appropriate to investigate a war time President. This list is not intended to be all exhaustive, rather to show that the reasons for oversight are credible and extensive; and the excuses to blindly defer to the President during wartime are frivolous.

[1] The Constitution does not prohibit the Congress from engaging in oversight.

[2] The President knew Congress might oversee and challenge him during war. If this was not a foreseeable possibility, the President and his Staff are hard pressed to explain why they used deception to secure Congressional assent to wage war. If wartime oversight is not possible, then the President should not have, as he has done, requested Congress cooperate with his appropriations. Continued Presidential cooperating with the Congress during wartime requires those interactions be subject to review, not silent assent.

[3] War and Domestic, civil operations are possible as parallel, ongoing, and contemporary activities. The Constitution does not require the President either follow the law, or wage war. The legal requirements on the President do not ebb and flow as the President chooses to define whether he is or is not making war.

[4] Congress, not the President, has the exclusive power to declare war, and start bills for appropriations. The President has no power to do what only Congress has the power to do. Where Congress has a power to fund military operations, attached with that power is the responsibility on individual members of Congress to ensure those appropriations are for lawful things; or if there are problems, that the President get the appropriate assistance and guidance on how the funds should be better spent. The President has no power to defy the Congress; he only has the power to comply. Attached with Presidential defiance of Congress is attached the eternal responsibility of the President to remain subject to the discipline of Congress. Congress may, if they choose, selectively choose to ignore the power of the Congress, prevent him from exercising his power, and selectively deny him the right to exercise judgment, leaving him only with discrete, finite, and ministerial duties with narrow latitude. However, should the President demonstrate his allegiance to the rule of law, and willingness to assent to the will of Congress, he may or may not be given discretion. It is up to Congress whether they choose to recognize his power, or openly defy him, and appropriately retrain his discretion.

[5] Illegal war cannot be a lawful smokescreen to oversight. It is circular to permit illegalities as the pretext to prevent accountability.

[6] Regardless whether the President does or does not cooperate with oversight, he has under his control a staff, agents, and executive officers. They do not have the power to put themselves above the law. Where they choose to defy the law, but the Executive refuses to enforce the law, the Constitution grants the power to the Congress to supplant its authority, and lawfully remove an officer which the Executive otherwise fails to adequately oversee. Even if the President threatens his staff with bodily harm, the President may not lawfully prevent his DoJ Staff counsel or other federal officials from cooperating, providing evidence, or responding to questions. ON matters which are publicly known, or there have been inadvertent disclosures, the President and DOJ Staff may not credibly claim privilege. The disclosure is something subject to Congressional rule. Any one who refuses to cooperate with the lawful inquiry of Congress may lawfully be jailed. This requirement occurs and exists during war time, especially when the President wages illegal war. It is the role of the Congress to adjudicate and remove from office those who defy the Supreme Law. Members of Congress who refuse to punish those the Executive illegally works with to engage in rebellion against the Constitution may similarly be tried for war crimes, especially when it is known they had the power to prevent the criminal activity, investigate, or gather facts. It makes no difference how long the illegal activity has lasted. The duty of the Member of Congress is freely taken upon the 5 USC 3331 oath of office, and does not ebb and flow as the nation enters or exits warfare.

[7] Congress has the power to review records, things, and other evidence. This power permits Members of Congress, investigators, contracted staff, and other Congressional agents to lawfully enter the battlefield, discuss issues with troops and commanders, and report to Congress whether the President is or is not effectively waging war. The President has no power to prevent Congress from excluding discovery, fact finding, or other things during war time. Congress only has the power of the purse when it is willing to gather facts, engage in oversight, and question whether the information they are receiving is or is not valid. Waging war does not mean that the President’s information is correct; warfare is known to reduce the reliability of information. Members of Congress have a higher duty to know the facts, and then make informed judgments: Should we continue to trust this man with power, or should we find someone else who puts the law before their personal ambition.

[8] The President may lawfully be prosecuted whether Congress does or does not investigate, oversee, or conduct investigations during war time. War criminals conduct crimes during war. To suggest Congress has not power to oversee the President would ask us to embrace absurdity: That there is a law prohibiting war crimes; but Congress is denied the power to investigate whether the war crimes have or have not been committed. Statutes are passed with the intent that the Congressional will be assented to, not ignored on the basis of illegal warfare. The only way that the President can be legally prosecuted, and lawfully executed fro war crimes is if, during combat, evidence is gathered related to his alleged misconduct. Either prosecutors can indict him; or the Congress can take action. If Americans refuse to compel the President to remain subject to the rule of law, then there are alternatives.

[9] The President may not reasonably wage war on the expectation that he will remain above the law, beyond Congressional oversight, or immune to Congressional questions. Congressional power – to declare war and appropriate funds – is not contingent upon blind acceptance, but on informed decisions. Congress may not appropriate funds for things it knows, or should know are illegal; nor may the President spend things for things that are illegal. When Members of Congress refuse to engage in oversight, but there are war crimes, there are many problems: The Members of Congress has shown contempt for their promise to the voters, incorrectly believing that evidence will not be provided to war crimes prosecutors; and Executive staff counsel incorrectly believe that illegal opinions will remain unchecked, despite an eternal ability of the citizenry to freely work with state bar disciplinary boards to engage in discovery, and lawfully work to disbar DoJ Staff counsel who refuse to enforce the law, or remove themselves from illegal war crimes.

[10] The President during war time is subject to the laws of war. Either Congress, combatants, or citizens may lawfully gather evidence and provide this information to The Hague. The President cannot lawfully threatened or intimidate anyone in the DOJ OPR or attorney general’s office to remain silent, block, or thwart lawful inquiry into violations of the laws of war, illegal conduct, or other unlawful conspiracies to undermine state and federal statutes. These are binding obligations on all during peace and war. Exceptions are not discretionary, nor can they be retroactively devised through legal memoranda; only the Congress has the lawful power to devise a legal structure that will create an exception; however, this exception cannot be retroactively created or devised to avoid accountability for crimes and abuse already committed. It is irrelevant whether the President and DOJ Staff do or do not comprehend the Constitution – it is their duty, solemn oath, and responsibility to remain informed of the law, as all citizens. The assumption of a republican is that an absolutely informed citizenry is not possible, and that legal experts have superior knowledge and information to well guide the leadership when making laws. This Congress and President may choose to belie that assumption, assenting to an inferior work product; but this does not remove their legal obligation. Whether the citizenry must remain more informed than the experts is an issue of oversight. We do not have a credible republic when the misinformed citizenry knows more of the laws of war than the so called legal experts who openly defy the Geneva obligations. Whether the DOJ Staff and President are complicity in simple war crimes, or insurrection against the Constitution remains a matter for the inquiry to decide, not one to blindly believe they are not engaging. Only inquiry during war will review whether the conduct should or should not be prevented; waiting until after the perma-war ends would ask that we never review what must be reviewed in the hopes that eternity might solve what prudence has failed. This is not acceptable.

[11] An investigation during wartime is appropriate, especially when we learn new things raising questions about the initial reasons for war, or what has or hasn’t happened. NO one is above the law, even during war time. The greater crime would be to suspect based on mounting evidence that the war was illegally waged, but doing nothing to remedy what went wrong, nor resolve and remedy what cannot be permitted to fail again. Leadership compels the exports to solve problems, not assent to absurd excuses what defies prudence, reason, and the law.

[12] When the President ignores the law, he cannot credibly claim that war is a distraction – no, it is a diversion from his Supreme oath to the Supreme Law. His distraction is frivolous, irrelevant, and without merit. The President may not point to his title or function as head of the armed services, or Commander in Chief during wartime, to ask we ignore his other peacetime duties and obligations. His job is to know the law, enforce the law, and comply with the law in peacetime and during war. He can only lead when he is lawfully leading. When he waivers, he must adjust; when he fails to adjust, he must be adjusted; when he refuses to respond, he shall be compelled to respond.

[13] The President freely took an oath to God to do what he refuses to do: Enforce the law, and protect the Constitution. Nobody forced him to promise to do what he refuses; nor has anyone obstructed him from doing what he will not do. He alone chooses to defy the law. It is the responsibility of the Congress to comprehend the nature of the diversion, and the means to remedy his diversion. Either the President shall comply with the law; or he shall be deemed to be unfit to self-regulate. Whether Congress chooses to remove him from office is irrelevant; the States and war crimes prosecutors have the power to lawfully prosecute him during war time. Congressional assent to lawlessness during wartime does not remedy nor immunize the President, but attaches liability and consequences tot the Members of Congress for their failure to honor their like oath to God. If they have a mental reservation, it is time for them to rethink their commitment to their oath; their actions and the resulting war crimes are at odds with the legal requirements. Members of Congress, complicity with war crimes, and who fail to prevent what they have the power to prevent, also may lawfully be executed. The law is clear; the oath is supreme; the rule of law is over all in peace and war. Congress has no choice but to investigate and enforce the law, especially when the President during war time refuses to ensure the laws of war are enforced. Failing to act will inspire foreign fighters to wage war against what they perceive is unchecked power and tyranny. It makes no difference what American believes this tyranny is called – democracy, a Republic, or partisanship – it is illegal, and insurgents are inspired by our Constitution to defy this President’s abuse of power on the battlefield.

[14] When Presidents wage illegal war, or violate the law during wartime, it is the role of the Citizenry to evaluate whether the President will or will not be disciplined. This Congress refuses to meet its obligations. IT does not mater whether their excuse is personal religious obligations, or another oath to an illegal covenant. This Congress, as all Members of Congress, freely took an oath to enforce, protect, and defend the Constitution, even from domestic enemies in the White House. The job of Congress is to meet that oath, and demonstrate to the voters that they can be trusted to do their moral best to do what they can to protect this Constitution. This Congress has failed. But for a few isolated Members of Congress, the Members of Congress are allegedly complicit with war crimes. Voters must make a decision: Whether you will freely choose to protect the Constitution, and deny the President the power to violate the law; or whether you will be complicit with failing to do what you have the power to do: Lawfully oversee and refuse to cooperate with what is illegal. Voters must choose whether they want to find out, or pretend there is no problem. You will only remain free under this Constitution if you choose to vote for those who are committed to find out, not those who are committed to remain in an illegal alliance with this President who openly defies the Constitution, engages in insurrection, and is engaged with his DOJ Staff in an illegal rebellion against the rule of law.

[15] Self governance requires fact finding. It does not matter whether Congress, the President, a prosecutor, an attorney, or a war crimes prosecutor leads this investigation. If the American government refuses to conduct fact finding, then this government is no longer self-regulating. Either the citizenry must exercise oversight; or foreign fighters may lawfully enter American territory, and compel this Government – and the American citizenry – to assent to the rule of law. American must decide whether they are serious about self-governance; or whether you wish others, who may impose another system of laws, upon you. If you refuse to follow your laws, you can be reasonably expected to refuse to follow other laws. This system of laws permits judicial reviews; other system of laws may not be to your liking. If you like the idea of discretion and being able to exercise self-governance, then you must govern. If you choose to pretend that nothing can or should be done during wartime, then you are by default stating that you would prefer someone else keep you free, or impose another system of laws. Your job will be to explain why – despite your refusal to enforce or follow one set of laws – you can credibly be believed to follow another set of laws. Another system of laws may impose the burden on you, as opposed to requiring the government to prove you are in rebellion. It is a problem when a government – on accusation alone – asserts its citizenry is in the wrong; but despite evidence of war crimes, refuses to accept it is anything but right. Self governance requires us to find what is wrong and correct it, not permit the deficiency to go unexamined. War is not a distraction – it is, for this President, an all too convenient way of life, but his way of life is not above the law.

[16] Using the President’s definition of war – something that is permanent, and may last for generations – would be a permanent bar to oversight. This is not Constitutional. This President took an oath to enforce the law and Constitution; he did not promise to do anything else, nor did he promise to agree to do his job only in peacetime, when it was convenient, or when he thought it useful. It makes no difference that the Congress has refused to enforce the law, or sanction the President for his defiance of the law; or that the President has issued signing statements promising to not enforce the law. A decision by one government or party not to enforce the law is not precedent, nor sufficient legal foundation to require anyone to remain above the law. This president’s oath is to the Constitution, not to his signing statements. This President’s definition of warfare, however convoluted it might be, is not above scrutiny today or tomorrow. The complexity of warfare, or the duration of combat operations does not immunize the President from the legal obligation to annually submit to Congressional review of his budget; nor does it permit the President to stray down a wrong path without fear of Congressional remark. It makes no difference to what extent the Executive Branch staff may have deluded the Congressional staffers; nor does it matter how many contractors may have infected the budgeting process. The law and requirement is to assent to the rule of law; no contractor or civilian may credibly claim they didn’t know. Their job is to confine their conduct to what is lawful; and ensure the war is lawfully waged. This President, his contractors, and his staff counsel have defied the law, and argued the war is a permanent bar to accountability. That is not a defense, but evidence of complicity with war crimes.

[17] Those that refuse to oversee the President, collect evidence, or review his conduct during war time are not leaders, nor are they statesmen. They are apologists, enablers for what they know, or should know is not acceptable. Leaders solve problems. Those who make excuses are unfit to be called civilized; they are only free because of the sacrifice and dedication of those who assert the law, and inspire others to follow in the footsteps of the law.

[18] The President is not a God. He took an oath to God, not himself. The President is a person, required to follow the law. The President knew this before he chose to run for office. It is not news that the President would have to take an oath, or that he might be subject to review or criminal sanctions. Every document the President handles is recorded and logged using a numbering an filing system to ensure there is accountability for what the President does and decides. This system is a requirement because the President cannot be trusted on his own to do what should be done. These procedures and requirements are in the statutes as a reminder and a guide to assist him. When the President refuses to do what he has agreed to do, the issue for Congress is whether the President will voluntarily cooperate; or whether we must find someone else. We have yet to offer the President a chance to defend himself because we have not started an open inquiry into why the President refuses to do what he promised to God he would do.

[19] Family values means being accountable for ones actions. It is an insult to Christians to have their faith, hope, and aspirations manipulated by someone who is not serious about accountability to God; or someone whose word cannot be trusted. A man who is the head of his household will, like a man, take responsibility for what is wrong and he will fix it. This President belies that Christian tradition, and would ask us to treat him like a God, yet he refuses to act like a man accepting accountability. He freely chose to be accountable when he Promised to God he would be accountable. It is our job to understand why, despite his solemn promise to our God, why this man does not take seriously his promises to the Almighty. We value God because of the simplicity and clarity He provides; our job is not to permit a man to put himself above God, and create confusion and smokescreens. It is our job as Christians to clarify why this man chooses to defy his promise to God; and refuses to be accountable for what he has promised. Until he is accountable to us, it is meaningless whether he is or is not accountable to God. God may judge him by his works, but we can only judge him by the facts and evidence. Until the Almighty and this President interact in a personal, more meaningful way, it is our job to decide whether we trust this man’s promise to God; or whether we should put our trust in someone else.

[20] The President is in charge of our Executive Branch. He sets the example; we set the standards. When family members and troops set that there are no sanctions on the man who is in charge, it leaves a sour taste in their mouth about the UCMJ, the President, and the troops who follow his illegal orders. Wartime Presidents must be wartime leaders, not wartime dictators. A leader will inspire by example. This President refuses to set the example, but would have us believe he can enforce the law during war time. His example undermines confidence in his implicit assertion. Our job is to discover whether his example can be corrected, or whether someone else would set a better example. Our job is to find new people who will dare to hold the President to the standards eh should be held during wartime. Those who refuse to prevent the illegal war crimes can be subject to other sanctions which may include lawful execution. It wasn’t as though the possibility of lawful Article III was not known; it’s always been a known risk that war criminals could be executed. Despite this risk, this President appears to have defied his oath, engaged in war crimes, but expected never to be held to account. A man who, knowing his actions could be lawfully sanctioned with an Article III death penalty, is a curious creature. Clearly something failed in our attempts to find a leader. Before we permit him to be lawfully executed at the hands of a lawfully empanelled war crimes tribunal, it would behoove us to discover where our judgment was wrong so that we might not choose a similarly dastardly creature as a President. There must be a away to better screen potential candidates to discover whether – despite a known possibility they could be lawfully executed – they would continue to defy their oath, the law, and treaty obligations.

[21] This President has, despite the possibility of lawful execution, hidden much from Congress; and Congress has been of little help to discover what has failed. There is much we do not know. For Congress to adequately continue to make appropriations, we need to know the progress, errors, and the President’s plans and competency to lead. Until we determine what this President has or has not done, Members of Congress are equally complicit in failing to prevent war crimes and appropriations for things they should know are for illegal things. Congress cannot credibly claim to be a representative body when it defies its obligation to ensure our Republic is protected.

[22] The world is watching. Failure to act will send a clear signal to foreign fighters around the globe that the only method to check and abuse of power in America in on the battlefield. Despite superior weapons, this President is losing. It is our job to discover why, despite our expenditures and defense appropriations, this Executive as Commander in Chief has squandered what we have for what we hoped to avoid: Defeat. Until we understand what went wrong with this president, we can reasonably expect more defeats. This President may have failed, but until we resolve what we still do not fully understand, we share in the failures.

[23] It is in the interests of the President to have the facts disclosed. Let’s presume the President is innocent and there is no evidence of wrong doing. An innocent man, saddled with the by the doppelganger of oversight would hope to resolve the doubt, and remove the yoke, rider, and reins. Not this President. He asserts implicitly he is innocent, but refuses to demonstrate his willingness to have his innocence celebrated. If there is no problem to be found, surely the republicans would want the minority party to find no problem, and suffer an embarrassing defeat. It is in the interests of Republicans to find facts, demonstrate no problem, and impose a defeat on the Democrats. However, despite this possibility of gain through certain embarrassment of the minority party, this President refuses to take advantage of what he should normally seek to exploit: His innocence in the wake of unfair, partisan charges. Without the President’s cooperation, we can only make the adverse inference that he would rather hide what he knows is wrong; and cannot exploit what he knows is an disadvantage: Evidence of his failure to do what he should do, and lawfully prevent war crimes as he has the legal obligation. Other heads of state have been lawfully jailed, arrested, and executed for similar failures of leadership, and reckless disregard for prisoner rights. It would be fitting if this President started into the eyes of his lovely Laura while he gets the chance; if he waits longer, he may miss his chance should he lawfully executed by a war crimes tribunal.

[24] Investigations are curious things: The can find many things, even things we did not know or suspect existed. The President, if he is innocent, cannot explain what he is afraid the minority party will find. This concern is not relevant. Investigations cannot be blocked by what we fear we might find; they can only be blocked or not performed by lazy leaders who recklessly promise to do something, but refuse to ensure the investigation is complete; or that the misconduct is corrected. Rather than investigate, this Congress promises nothing; yet the President is once again in deviation. The law is there as a guide for self-governance; in theory, the threat of prosecution should suffice; if needed, where the attorney and executive refuse to enforce the law, the Congress has the power of investigation and removal to do what the Executive refuses to do: Sanction someone for failing to comply with eh law. This Congress, despite this option, refuses to do what it should, and fails to demonstrate it is willing to put its oath before the law. The President is a troubled man because his pattern of criminal conduct is well known, the evidence is obvious to passive observers and his contempt for the rule of law is behind the insurgency he absurdly claims he hopes to contain. It is the buffoonery of this President which is behind the very thing he struggles and asks that we do nothing. Whatever the minority party might find should not be cause for alarm; rather, it is the failure to consider the possibility that something might be found. To date, this failed leadership is using a history of inaction as a pretext to continue to refuse to examine what should never have been permitted to start.

[25] Our Constitutional system of checks and balances is based on the idea that power is separated, and that competing factions will challenge the other body, power, or branch. In theory, the clash of factions will yield the truth. This Congress, despite its oath, does the opposite: It rolls over, silently agrees to do nothing about war crimes, and then bemoans the fact that it is Congress who is equally complicity with the absurdity. Our job as voters is to find new leaders in Congress who will do what they promise, not simply do what the President says. This President’s word is irrelevant to what the Constitution and laws say. He has regularly issued signing statements that undermine confidence he is serious about Article II, or his duty to enforce the law. When the President refuses to enforce the law, or prosecute criminals working for him, Congress has a backup option – the power to do what the President refuses to do: The power to remove that criminal from the political landscape. The voters challenge is what is to be done when the President ignores the law; and the Congress refuses to do what it promises. Fortunately, the voters have an option which is already in works, and does not require the voters’ agreement or cooperation. This President may lawfully be prosecuted by the States; and the States may lawfully prosecute Members of Congress and the DOJ Staff who fail to ensure the States enjoy their guaranteed right to a republican form of government. A republic requires an enforcement mechanism; where Congress and the President defy the law and the courts, the States cannot be convinced that their guarantee to an enforcement mechanism has been fulfilled. The power to challenge a President is not up to only Congress; rather, an elected official, upon seeing that someone else with a duty to protect the Constitution has failed, may lawfully open an investigation to have that other person lawfully investigated for purposes of disbarment, prosecution, and lawful punishment. Eventually, we will find someone who is willing to lawfully enforce the law during war time. If there is no one in American who will enforce the law, Americans can be well comforted knowing the battlefield losses will continue – the apparent preferred method this Congress prefers to see that the laws are enforced.

[26] Sovereignty is the power of a nation to mange its internal affairs. An investigation is the first step in discovering what is going on. If we fail to mange our affairs, and permits additional crimes and abuses on the battlefield, other nations may lawfully and collectively intervene and replace this government with one that will exercise sovereignty. Sovereignty isn’t something the United States can presume exists; or that because we have a military that we can prevent others from interfering with our internal affairs. International law, treaty obligations, and the Constitution are standards which other nations have a vested interest in preserving, and compelling the United States government to meet. Congress has the power to deny funds from a president who refuses to meet his international obligations. This Congress, despite the President’s defiance of his oath and treaty requirements, sees fit to appropriate funds for activities which belie sovereignty, undermine our system, and cast America’s system of governance in more than unfavorable light, but the basement of failed systems. Investigations are required of a war time President so that Americans, and this government can claim we have done all we can to exercise sovereignty.

[27] We are, or were, a nation ruled by law, not excuses and smokescreens. If we fail to assert the rule of law, and compel the President to comply with the law during wartime, we will have submitted to excuses, not the law. Legitimacy requires the law, not the changing words of a man, to be the standard we conduct ourselves. If we refuse to make the law our priority, this government and our Constitutional system are not longer legitimate. TO maintain the legitimacy of this Constitutional system, the voters and Congress must compel the President to assent to the law, not his word in a signing statement. It makes no difference what Bybee, Yoo, Keisler, Berenson, Addington, or Gonzalez may or may not have said about a signing statement; the law, not the word of a man, is at the heart of a legitimate government. Our task is to discover the means by which this government has refuses to hold itself to the law, and not enforced the law as they have the requirement. We can only understand what has failed, and why the law has been given a second seat to illegal covenants, if we dare to explore the inner workings of this President’s illegal rebellion against the law; and how the DOJ Staff and Members of Congress have been complicit in failing to do what they promised to do: Assert the rule of law. Anything else is a frivolous excuse, illegitimate, and contrary to a notion of good order and society.

[28] Put aside the prospect that this President may or may not be investigated during wartime. Suppose those -- who say the President cannot be investigated during wartime – who have an other idea. Where is there solution; how do they propose to protect this Constitutional system. We are a nation under God; but we are not beholden to those who invoke the name of God to defy their promise to God: To enforce the law of man. There is nothing before us, other than an investigation that would address this problem. We make no claim we have a solution, nor a verdict; we only have questions, and a line of evidence which is, at best, conveniently construed in the favor of the Executive, by the Executive. However, a proper approach is to lay the evidence before the public so that We the People may examine what has happened; then decide what should be done. We are fit to vote; we are fit to judge the evidence at trial; we are surely fit to ask a question in an investigation. Or do the Christians among us believe that their vote for a man is a one-off event; that once the Christians decided in 2000, 2002, and 2004, that all other facts are premised consistent with the original decision. God doesn’t work that way; people change, times change; and most of all – the law remains. If you believe that God works through your vote, then trust your leaders to inspect what should be consistent with God’s word: The rule of law. When there is a law, and when warriors fight, they may choose to put one aside – but there is a choice. Our warriors’ standard of accountability is to the law, as all Christians should expect. We honor what we value; we honor the law by choice; and we honor our oath freely, because it is our calling. We do not have another loyalty but to the word of the law. Nobody has an alternative; rather, this nation’s officers have freely embraced the oath to God which puts the law and the Constitution above all men and women. Once you freely choose to be judged by that standard, you cannot claim that your loyalty is to something else; rather, your action or inaction can be the basis to prosecute you for violating your promise to God to protect this Constitution. While We the People run this Republic, We shall have the power to lawfully compel Members of Congress to investigate this President’s abuse of power during wartime; any other conclusion asks that We assent to something other than what each Member of Congress has promised to God. Until there is something superior to the rule of law, your current oath to God to protect, preserve, and defend the law is your supreme responsibility. Anything else asks us to embrace failure and incompetence as that which might approach our promise to God. We can and shall expect better and more. We must find out why we have something other than what is reasonable to expect.

[29] When people make a decision to join a cause, its reasonable they would review what they were joining. A leader might investigate a plan; a worker might inspect a company; a teacher might inspect a schoolhouse. Voters inspect those who propose to protect, enforce and make the law. The laws do not need to be always changed; sometimes the simple solution – but difficult challenge – is to enforce what exists. There is little use for Congress to craft new laws, but fail to enforce its will. A cursory glance at the law and this President’s open defiance of the law, suggests this President and others are in active rebellion and insurrection against the rule of law. How does the majority party propose to choose what to do; where to go; who to align themselves with; or what options to take – unless, they examine the facts. Your initial decision in 2000 for this man is not a default judgment that you remain aligned with what has failed; nor do you have the requirement to stay with what is not working. However, until you actively choose to align yourself with another nation – far away from here – you have, by default, chosen to align yourself with these laws, this Constitution, and this system of justice. The President’s rebellion offers you a dilemma: Through sheer laziness, you do not have to travel to another country; you apparently have the option to choose a new system of laws – that of lawlessness – simply by aligning yourselves with the man who openly defies our laws. Perhaps this is your choice, by default: To join his rebellion. However, if you choose to consider your choice, the only way you can make an informed decision – about whether you will or will not joint he President’s rebellion, move to another country where lawlessness reigns, or stay here to assert the rule of law – you can only make an informed judgment if you dare to choose whether you are for this system, or something else. You remain, and by default, we must conclude that you would prefer to align yourself with the Supreme Law of the Constitution, not this President’s rebellion. What does the Republican leadership propose to do – join him in his unlawful rebellion; if so, where does the Republican leadership plan to implement this President’s love of lawlessness – not here. An investigation is needed so We the People may make a choice: Do we wish to join the President’s illegal rebellion, commit illegal war crimes, and suffer possible death after an Article III war crimes tribunal; do we wish to move to another nation; do we want to have what is in our Constitution; or do we create a new system which will resolve these issues, put our oath to the law where it belongs – at the center of society. The choice is not one for you to choose as a discretion; in effect, you only have the lawful choice to follow this law, or some other law. So long as you chose to live in the United States, you have the responsibility to comply with this Constitution, or a new Constitution. Until the Republicans conduct an investigation, they are in no position to credibly lead, argue that their vision is superior, or that they know how they are progressing, or along which standard they are progressing. Their assertion of something is meaningless until we examine what standard they are using to make the claim. It is the responsibility of the voter and We the People to compel the leadership to explain, until they have an investigation, what basis they are using to define success, assert progress, or lay claim to any reward. They are not using the law as their standard or guide – we owe it to ourselves to explore what possible superior method they use, other than the law, to suggest they are doing well, and can be trusted. In turn, once we discover this new method, and it proves to be superior to the law, then we should see whether this new model is something which may work, and lawfully replace that which the fifty states enjoy. We will only know whether the proposed alternative is better if we examine the facts, and discuss what we find.

[30] One of the obligations of Congress is to appropriate money. If this President is not going to spend money on lawful things, we need to find out where the money is going; there is no need to give him money for illegal things. We could use the money for other things. An investigation will help us decide the best way to use limited, finite financial resources. Perhaps the money could be better spent in other ways. We will only know, or have an idea of our options, if we dare to examine what this President is or is not doing; then consider the alternatives.

[31] There is no statute of limitations. We need to gather the evidence during wartime before it is destroyed, lost, or memories fade. We don’t need to wait; waiting is irresponsible. After waiting, then the excuse will be, “We forgot.” How convenient memory is, despite evidence of war crimes and Geneva violations.

[32] Civil society is based on rules, procedures, and order. Battlefield commanders are required to follow rules and regulations. Their commander must be held to the same minimal standard of discipline and stewardship. We will only know whether the President is or is not meeting the minimal performance requirements if we dare to investigate him as we would any member of the military he recklessly commands.

[33] We took an oath to engage in oversight, investigate, and protect the Constitution. It is our duty.

[34] The clash of factions during an investigation is by design. The same standard is applied before Article III judicial courts. The President, if he is innocent will have nothing to worry about.

[35] The time to have considered the consequences of increased oversight and investigations should have been considered before the President started his rebellion against the rule of law. One goal of an investigation is to find a credible deterrent so this abuse, and open defiance of the rule of law, does not occur again.

[36] Investigations are more convenient, but not the exclusive means to end this President’s illegal rebellion. If the President interferes with lawful oversight, the Congress may lawfully work with the States to raise an army, subdue the President, and lawfully wage war against him and his fellow insurgents who defy the Constitution with their rebellion.

[37] Those on the DOJ Staff who continue to illegally thwart oversight may lawfully be disbarred.

[38] The President’s allies are shrinking. Any executive officer, agent, or employee who continues to wage illegal war, rebellion is subject to punishment. The punishment is based on evidence, facts, and argument; not denial, inaction, and excuses.

[39] The facts will surface. If the President chooses to defy the law and will not cooperate with the investigation and fact finding, he remains out numbered. Foreign fighters may lawfully conduct a humanitarian intervention, and lawfully seize the President, and render him to The Hague for a war crimes tribunal.

[40] Congress has the power to pass legislation, and work with the state legislator to assert the rule of law and protect the Constitution from this President. Congress, after gathering facts, can make new rules: Deny funds to protect the President, leaving him to fend for himself; deny the President rights; craft legislation that will define the President to be an unlawful combatant, subject to the adjudication of an Article III court; subject the President to intrusion, delay, and other lawful interference until he freely cooperates. The possibilities are endless. Ultimately, the President will be forced to assent to the rule of law, not his arbitrary rule of signing statements and illegal rebellion. We may lawfully gather facts, and make adverse conclusions if he does not cooperate with what he freely agreed to cooperate: The rule of law.

[41] The States and American citizens may lawfully work with anyone to lawfully protect the Constitution and create a new one, per Federalist 78; we may lawfully strip this President of power; and compel him to sign a New Constitution as was done with King John in 1215. Before we do that, we would like to offer the President the opportunity to provide his timely inputs. If we hear nothing, we will assume he will cooperate; if he refuses, he may be subject to a lawful Article III war crimes tribunal, which may or may not adjudicate him to have engaged in illegal warfare, war crimes, or other activity lawfully punishable by the death penalty.

[42] Free citizens may not be lawfully compelled to grove at the feet of tyrants, or those who abuse their power. We can compel a tyrant to grovel before the law before he is lawfully executed after a lawful Article III conviction for war crimes.

[43] The President is outnumbered. The President’s abuses, violations of the law, and war crimes inspire the insurgency. The insurgency is spreading. American combat forces are stretched. American forces are losing. The insurgency will not stop until this President has been defeated. This President has chosen to remove himself from judicial review; and has refused to cooperate with the Geneva Conventions or the law. His error is not our error; his plight is not our plight; Our law is his law.

[44] We the People are not obligated to permit his abuse. We have the power to compel him to stop, through either artful persuasion, the law, or the lawful use of force. The law is over him; he is under the law. We the People may choose how to expand this ongoing war crimes investigation. It is irrelevant whether he cooperates. The Article III court is permitted to make adverse inferences, and may lawfully order his execution; whether he agrees or disagrees is irrelevant.

[45] If We the People through the lawful process do not conduct an investigation, Other nations may lawfully continue. We are not required to enable him; nor assent to conduct which will link our inaction and defiance of our oath with his defiance of the law.

[46] For eternity, all people will observe where we failed and triumphed. Let his be a moment of inspiration not scorn; where right and justice prevailed.

[47] When we know the truth, we will know what must lawfully be done according to law: How to improve, where to adjust, and what should be accepted. We cannot be compelled to accept that which claims to be above scrutiny. A standard of tyrants to which we defeated after 1776.

[48] National policy is a function of best reasoning, achieved if we dare to examine the truth. We do not ask for perfect policy; but the best policy is impossible when the truth is manufactured and facts devised.

[49] If we refuse to have faith in examining the truth, we should anyone, most of all students, have faith in our leadership or our institutions; why should Americans dedicate their lives to what we are not dedicated: The rule of law.

[50] How does anyone propose to inspire anyone unless we, by example, inspire ourselves to do what we should, not merely avoid what is inconvenient.

[51] If we do not put into effect the object of our oath, there is no credible reason for not reviewing the results, or reconsidering the power and privileges this President enjoys. He cannot credibly ask others to sacrifice their love of principles, rights, and responsibilities -- those he selectively specifies and enjoys, lacking balanced responsibility for failing to achieve.

[52] How does this man propose to mobilize a nation, dedicate their lives, and forgo alternatives? The choice must be superior otherwise others are superior.

[53] Superiority only achieved through force, not example or inspiration, will not last. It may momentarily prevail, but the abused will devise another means to inspire a superior system, excluding those who prefer lawlessness. Exclusion through jail, or lawful imposition of death at the hands of an Article III tribunal. If this President says some are not subject to the law or judicial review, he cannot expect foreign fighters to meet his request that he be lawfully tried before being executed for war crimes. It is in the interests of all civilians that we assert the rule of law for all; otherwise we cannot expect the rule of law to be asserted for us.

[54] If we propose that we might be a friend to others, let us be a friend, not an insecure bully who is on the defensive without the skill to be a friend, only the temperament to be a reckless criminal.

[55] If he will not honor his promises or our rights, what is the reason he wages war? We must explore why he wages war to protect his right to defy the document he promised to honor.

[56] What is the reason he wages war: If the means used to wage war includes a requirement we assent to illegal abuse, he’s not waging war to protect our system, but his tyranny.

[57] It is our job to find out why, and to what end and benefit he hopes to argue in war for values he does not respect. How can he suggest he values things he defies – the rule of law – he does not share our values and we need not share our power?

[58] If we will not explain why he abuses power, we do not have to explain why we revoke his power with a New Constitution.

[59] When he refuses to cooperate with accountability, we will not cooperate with his abuse.

[60] His power only exists if we recognize it. We may impose other duties that befit a common clear, one who must constantly be reminded of his obligations. If he cannot realize his oath, we have no reason to believe he cherishes a special promise.

[61] If he refuses to treat us with respect, we need not come to his aid should the world choose to treat him like a dog. His tight leash is the law; perhaps an article III court may twist that leash into a noose, and lawfully tie him to a fast moving train.

[62] If he refuses to cooperate, we may lawfully make adverse inferences and continue to lawfully remind him he is a mortal, within finite power, and he may be lawfully executed by a lawful tribunal for war crimes. This will not end.

[63] He has no choice.

[64] We will prevail over illegality and tyrants.

[65] He is losing support.

[66] His rank and file is demoralized and discredited.

[67] The DOJ Staff, if lawfully convicted by a war crimes tribunal, may be lawfully executed for refusing to remove themselves from war crimes planning and policymaking.

[68] He remains outnumbered.

[69] He has no power to compel us to assent to what is illegal; we may lawfully choose to enforce a new Supreme law, per Federalist 78.

[70] He is wrong.

[71] We need not listen to his excuses.

[72] Those on the Article III courts and US attorneys office who refuse to protect the Constitution may also lawfully be disbarred, deprived of their livelihood, and lawfully executed if they are lawfully convicted of failing to prevent war crimes.

[73] We need not speculate, we must know.

[74] Why not – we can. We have the power to do so. There is no law that says we cannot investigate.

[75] We have the power to lawfully execute his co-conspirators should an Article III court concur with an appropriate war crimes verdict and sentence.

[76] The alternative to investigation – recklessness, what this man expects – was never acceptable. It is our job to decide why it was accepted when it should have never have occurred, much less been contemplated or planned with any seriousness.

[77] Perhaps with fact finding we might conclude the President has been trusted too much and there might be a better system of checks and balances, division of power, or a 2nd or 3rd Executive, more responsive to Our Will. We will not be prepared to discuss a solution until understand this man’s problem, and what failed in the system which supposedly would insulate us from tyrants. Until we examine him, it remains our problem. It can be solved with him, or without him. He prefers to remain the problem, and refuses to cooperate. We need not consider his excuses – they are frivolous. We need facts, and time to formulate a lawful system which will prevent this from happening again.

[78] The Constitution is from We the People. He has no power to ignore it or us. The delegation of power is not permanent, but discretionary which we may revoke.

[79] To proclaim a system worthy of export or emulation, the system must work, not fail.

[80] If we fail, the oppressed people coming to our shores won’t be here to enjoy liberty, but to assert it.