White House Complicity

The White House is complicit with the failed Republican response within the House.

It may be presumed that the Attorney General, President, and Congressional leadership are complicit with the FBI leaks, and that they have failed to investigate the disclosures. These are issues of criminal law, and have bearing on the parallel war crimes investigation into Geneva violations.

* * *

The FBI and House leadership have jointly made inconsistent statements about whether it did or did not appropriately act. There are clear signs that the White House and DoJ staff are in collusion.

(1) Inappropriate Public Comment

It is established policy within DoJ that personnel shall not comment on ongoing investigations. By commenting on the current investigation, the FBI has injected itself into the investigation as a witness and potential defendant in a war crimes investigation.

(2) Admissible Evidence, Fatal Admissions

Rather than remaining silent, the FBI agents have provide misleading information about what evidence they received. They have misled public officials as to whether information has or has not been provided. It is reasonable to make adverse inference: the FBI agents are making misleading statements for a fraudulent objective.

The FBI made fatal admissions. Once disclosed these are not protected. All post-decision communication related to this illegal activity is admissible. This is not an issue of FBI agent confidence or loss of confidence in the House or investigation system. The real concern is the White House loss of confidence that it can hide from the Grand Jury.

(3) Non Compliance with Procedures

FBI agents are signaling that they do not have confidence in the secrecy of the grand jury, nor that they will comply with regulations. Special Agents in Charge, US Attorneys, and all FBI agents undergo DOJ OPR oversight, annualized training, and regularly attended briefings, online training, and other DoJ sponsored education. Despite this assistance, the FBI agents have failed to comply with procedures. This is a major problem.

(4) Pattern of White House Interference

Recall the lesson of the DOJ OPR investigation. The President and Attorney General agreed to block a needed review of DOJ OPR. The same is the case here.

(5) Failure to Call for Investigation of FBI Public Comments

The only way that the FBI would publicly comment -- "engage in a leak" -- is if the White House and Attorney General agreed to violate the law, not enforce statute, and have otherwise informed Congressional leaders of their intent to violate Title 28 and Title 50.

As with the FISA-Geneva violations, the White House staff knows that required filings have not been made, and Congress has not reviewed the matters; and they plan to circumvent the court.

Conclusion

We need not wait another five years to find the result. The time is to vote Democrat, ensure there is competent leadership in the House to conduct an impeachment inquiry, and review the pattern of criminal activity 2001-2006.

The President of the United States knows, or should know, who has communicated with the Congressional leadership over these issues. The President is well aware of plans to suppress information to secure a desired election result.

The leadership problems which relate to the Geneva violations are well entrenched. The similar pattern of indifference is common with 9-11, FISA violations, and the prisoner abuses. The common element is the White House.

This disclosure is not only related to an FBI training or leadership problem. More broadly, it is an attempt by the White House to confuse the issue, and thwart an ongoing criminal investigation.

These are not political issues. These are matters of criminal law. The involved FBI agents and DoJ Staff are targets of this rapidly expanding criminal investigation. The evidence being collected will soon cross into patterns of conduct related to Geneva violations.