Memoranda Undermines Member of Congress Excuse For Malfeasance On Presidential Illegal Activity

The Department of Justice has internal memoranda wholly inconsistent with the public defenses this Congress has given to justify their inaction on the President's illegal warfare and other criminal conduct.

[Revised: Part II -- Questions Answered]

* * *

The credibility problem is when a grand jury in 2006 has evidence of wrongdoing, but refuses to formally present that information to Congress; and when the Department of Justice staff counsel refuse to properly report the evidence, as required, to the DOJ OPR.

Whether the information does or does not result in impeachment is irrelevant. The issue is why the DoJ Staff counsel, knowing of this evidence of illegal activity, refuses to comprehend the legal issues, and legal consequences.

Ref Draft Disbarment invesetigation.

Ref Draft Pelosi Indictment

* * *

Grand Jury Memoranda: February 12, 1974:

The fact that some evidence of criminal activity will probably become public in any event also means the public will eventually realize we had evidence we did not act upon. This would certainly raise serious questions about the performance of this office and the integrity of the criminal justice system.

In 2006, the questions have already been raised, and the responses have not been satisfactory.

* * *

Subverting the Constitution

The intent of the framers was to prevent the Constitution from being subverted. When debating the basis for impeachment, the Framers broadened the definition from Treason because non-treasonous acts, including maladministration and criminal activity, would subvert the Constitution.

[49 Duke L.J. 1] Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined

The goal of the Constitution isn't to create exceptions permitting its destruction; but to compel action to prevent it from being undermined. This Congress has put loyalty to the Party, and subordinated their oaths to political agendas. This is illegal and contrary to their oath, promising to remove discretion when they were required to act.

All excuses for inaction are frivolous. WE the People may lawfully remove from office Members of Congress who refuse to remove someone who, despite the lawful threat of that removal from office, has subverted the Constitution.

* * *

Disruption By Design

One phony GOP argument, which the DNC appears to have swallowed, is the "disruption" that the Presidential oversight and impeachment hearing would have. This disruption is by design. Consider the 1974 Grand Jury comments:

Watergate Grand Jury Memo: Finally, the Framers obviously contemplated some disruption in the Executive Branch as a necessary and bearable cost to providing the people -- through the impeachment mechanism -- with a remedy for gross misconduct.

* * *

Presidential Criminal Charges

There's nothing stopping the President from being indicated by a Grand Jury.

Since the Framers did not specifically provide for Presidential immunity from indictment, it could be concluded that they also contemplated that if a President engaged in serious criminal activity destroying public confidence in the Executive, the same cost should be borne in connection with institution of ordinary criminal charges.

* * *

Method To Impose Law On President

The President is not the same as the Executive Branch. The Congress, through impeachment, can impose its will on the President:

In the original score, if we follow the tempo markings and phrasing faithfully, it is the Congress, through impeachment, and not the courts, that imposes the law on the President’s person. [ 18 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 53 ]

Despite the threat of loss of appropriations, the President has not assented to the law, nor timely cooperated with inquiry.

___ How will the law be imposed on the sitting President; or the States act through a prosecution of a President?

* * *

Guarantee

Consider the basis for action in a different situation. If there was inaction, there were arguments to justify action and intrusion.

Representative Conyers cited the founders to support the argument that the Guarantee Clause justified federal intervention to prevent local corruption. [From: 61 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 779; n175. In re 133 Cong. Rec. H10656-01 (1987)

___ What happens when the Federal Government, by inaction, refuses to guarantee the Constitution?

___ What if both parties and all branches of Federal Government refuse to intervene, thereby permitting additional criminal conduct?

___ What is a credible check on executive power when the legislature gives excuses to avoid considering justice, must less imposing it?

___ What is the basis to argue that keeping a lawful option on the table -- impeachment -- is something other than justice?

___ Why is "vengeance" assumed merely because a lawful option to impose justice is not removed from the table?

___ If Members of Congress are not willing to assert justice, and lawfully remove a repeated war criminal from office, what is to prevent We the People from defining "justice" as the lawful removal from power of those Members of Congress?

* * *

Members of Congress

The Constitution delegates only to the House of Representatives, not the Speaker, the power to decide on issues of impeachment. By taking impeachment off the table, the Members of the House of Representatives have, arguably, been denied the right to discuss a matter.

When Members of Congress were denied the right to exercise their power, someone brought a lawsuit. [ "deprived of their exclusive right to . . ." 107 Harv. L. Rev. 2117 ]

___ What is the reason that the same "concerned" members of Congress are not bringing a lawsuit against the Speaker?

___ If the President, in waging war in Grenada without a declaration, "denied" the rights of the Members of Congress to assert Article 1 Section 8 powers, why is there not a similar concern at the Speaker for doing the same -- Denying members of Congress the right to exercise their powers?

___ The person who brought the lawsuit for the denial was Conyers. What's changed since the lawsuit over Grenada: Is it permissible for the leader of a Chamber, when they are the member of the same party, to deny a right of a Member of Congress to review something; but it is impermissible for an opposing party to do the same?

* * *

The Oath

The standard is absolute loyalty, not a double standard. If one were to assert their oath on the issue of Geneva, we should expect an explanation why a similar assertion is not made on the impeachment issues.

[ 16 Wall. 147 ]The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign.

Absolute loyalty is expected. The oath binds the Member of Congress, removing discretion.

__ What is the loyalty

___ Is there a reason that the loyalty appears to be something other than the express delegation of the power to the House?

___ How can invoking an option, contrary to the permanence of the Constitution, suggest something other than a qualified loyalty?

___ Is refusing to recognize the explicit delegation of power only to the House sufficient action to conclude their loyalty is no longer to the Constitution, but something else?

___ To what loyalty, other than the absolute loyalty the Constitution, do they have?

* * *

Even Handed

One President was challenged for doing something which was contrary to the Supreme Law; the Congressional leadership was given a pass.

One President was charged with a crime for committing one criminal offense; some propose, despite many illegal acts, that nothing should be done.

There is invoked the doctrine of "even handedness." But even handedness doesn't mean that the GOP excuses in 2006 are given deference; or that their demand for moderation be recognized, when that demand is linked with a requirement that we compromise on the law.

Even handedness means being evenhanded on whether the Constitution and its powers are uniformly asserted as a basis to evaluate Government. It is incorrect to argue that the standard of "even handedness" is something that is a compromise between the law and lawlessness.

The Watergate Grand Jury Memoranda, citations removed Thus, failure to deal evenhandedly with the President would be an affront to the very principle on which our system is built. And this failure would be all the more severe because of the nature of the crime in question, a conspiracy to obstruct justice, the purpose of which was to place certain individuals beyond the reach of the law. The result would probably be greater public disrespect for the integrity of the legal process than has already been created by public knowledge of attempts by the nation’s highest officials to put themselves beyond the law. *

Consider the asterix; the Watergate Grand Jury directly raised the issue this Congress refuses to confront with this President:

* Another possible consequence is an increased likelihood of wrong-doing by a future President who need not fear the strictures of the criminal law as a limitation on the exercise of his immense power.

Inaction in 1973 was seen as an unacceptable green light for more abuse. Despite the 1970 action, this president abused power. This doesn't mean that impeachment is irrelevant but despite the known risk of impeachment, the President defied the law and the Grand Jury's well crafted warning. The President has defied his oath, the Supreme Law, and is not fit to be trusted: He ignores the threat of impeachment.

* * *

Member of Congress

The issue is not whether the President has or has not done something wrong. The question is whether the Senators, all 100 of them, contemplate the risks if they fail to remove someone from office who has no respect for the law.

Senators and Representatives are to conduct their debates on impeachment in public so that We the People may review their reasons, and, as needed, remove the Members of Congress who defy their oath, and fail to protect the Constitution.

* * *

Private Policy Making

It is the duty of the House of Representatives to openly discuss the issues, not hide the discussion so history cannot examine the reasons.

[Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 27 Hofstra L. Rev. 728] : Congress, as the people’s representative, is in a far better position to weigh these factors. It may decide, for example, to remove the President from office but to immunize him from prosecution. Whatever its decision, Congress will have acted openly and the people and history can judge the validity of its decision. We would be formulating public policy in private, and there is nothing in our mandate or backgrounds that gives us expertise or responsibility for such a policy-making role.

We the People can only credibly judge the validity of the decision "not to impeach" if that decision is on the record, not hidden. We the People may also make adverse inference, and lawfully remove from office those Members of Congress who, in defying their oath, refuse to do their jobs faithfully to hold the President to account.

Without publicly debating any evidence, it is premature for any individual officer or Representative to assert they can make a decision which only the House of Representatives as a body may make.

* * *

Admittance to the Attorney Bar

Consider the questions which a prospective attorney is asked,

[ 333 F. Supp. 902 ]"Can you conscientiously, and do you affirm that you are without mental reservation, loyal to and ready to support the Constitution of the United States?"

Someone who has "no mental reservation" would uniformly apply the same standard applied to one President, as they would to the Speaker; and when they had evidence of wrong doing, they would bring that evidence for the House to review.

___ How do we explain the apparent disconnect between one's attorney oath, and what one is doing?

Watergate memoranda In short, there is a good argument that in deciding whether the President can appropriately be indicted, it is not up to us to weigh the politics of the matter at all but to do our job and do it faithfully.

There is a difference between doing one's job, going through the motions, making excuses, and not doing it faithfully.

___ What is a particular member of Congress' view on what "faithfully" executing their oath of office?

___ Why have Members of Congress weighed the politics of the issue, when those sworn to gather evidence, have decided to do their jobs faithfully, regardless the consequences?

___ To what extent has the GOP inducted the DNC not to do what they should on the basis of illusory consequences; yet those consequences are more likely if they refuse to do what they should: Review evidence, bring charges, and lawfully remove someone from office who refuses to be swayed by that lawful threat of removal?

* * *

Attorney Members of Congress

There has been some discussion that the attorney members of Congress, despite their legal training, did not comprehend the legal issues. This is a circular argument.

Even if they were prohibited from discussing the legal issues with counsel, they still had the legal training, duty, and responsibility to review the legal issues.

It is one thing for a public official, who is not an attorney, to claim ignorance on the law; quite another for an attorney, supposedly an expert on the law, to not educate their peers on their legal duties and obligations.

[Citations in this section from -- 415 F. Supp. 705, Citations removed]

Someone raised questions about the legality of the activity. When that legal advice is unreasonable, and unreliable on simple issues, the leadership cannot, in good faith, accept the legal advice:

[ 415 F. Supp. 705] The Court does not interpret Wood to stand for the proposition that it is not good faith for an official to accept erroneous advice from his appointed counsel on a question of law of sufficient complexity to justify a resort to expert legal guidance, at least, when the advice which is forthcoming is not patently unreasonable under the circumstances of the case.

Any claim that the legal advice was reasonable is absurd. The outcome of that activity was death, abuse, mistreatment of prisoners; and violations of the Constitution. Gonzalez knew the FISA process, and despite knowing the requirements avoided Congress and the Courts.

- -

Gonzalez was in a position to advise the President, and this defense is not credible:

[ 415 F. Supp. 705] To hold otherwise, and predicate personal liability upon the defendants dependency upon expert legal counsel would seriously and substantially undermine the very purposes for which the doctrine of official immunity was developed.

The President also consulted to outside counsel; and it is established from Nixon that the US Attorney and White House counsel are not private counsel to the President, but are public employees with a duty to the public: Protect the Constitution, not devise creative means to subvert the Supreme Law.

- -

Indeed, the abysmal performance of the White House, DoJ, and Congressional Staff counsel makes it abundantly clear: American legal counsel is defective; unwilling to remove itself from illegal activity; and has assent to what is not acceptable: Subversion of the Constitution.

The problem is when the public officials are attorneys, but assent to illegal conduct, as this Congress has done, and is planning to do:

[ 415 F. Supp. 705] The principal effect of such a holding would be to make public officials -- who are often not themselves attorneys -- skeptical of apparently reasonable advice from qualified counsel, uncertain of their personal well-being in the exercise of their official discretion whenever the matter at hand was beyond their personal level of legal sophistication, and ultimately timid in their administration of the law, especially in the enforcement of the ill-defined outer limits of most public policies.

All citizens and public officials should be skeptical of US Attorneys. They have jointly failed to ensure their peers were providing credible legal memoranda.

Indeed, despite this failure, personnel in the DOJ Staff knew enough to go outside their offices, and consult with private counsel.

Despite 42 SUC 1983 protections, which should provide some coverage for reasonable activity, the US Congress refused to what was reasonable: Act, investigate, review, and hold the President to account.

- -

The record suggests, in light of the DOJ inaction, that the legal advice was not dependable, and that public officials and the citizenry at large should take a skeptical view of what the American legal community asserts is or is not legal.

The speculative effect of what may or may not happen to the legal community’s standing ore reputation is irrelevant: The problem has already happened, and is a historical matter of evidence. This language, when applied to any public official, would ask that we defer to dubious legal arguments for the sake of maintaining confidence in a system which cannot command confidence:

[ 415 F. Supp. 705] A restraining influence of this nature would prevent far more than unreasonable and bad faith conduct. It would significantly threaten the official’s ability to act reasonably upon the advice and information he receives from customary and dependable sources and would require him to devote an undue amount of time and study to legal questions, only marginally related to his official duties, thereby distracting him from the important affairs of government, and frustrating the fulfillment of public policy.

Because the American legal community cannot be trusted, WE the People must spend undue down reviewing the legal issues, distracting us from doing what the Constitution was designed to do -- ensure prudent governance, not reckless imprudence.

It is the failure of this Congress, in taking impeachment off the table, in avoiding the needed time and study of the President's legal issues, which means they are not looking at what's gone wrong. This is not a credible public policy making apparatus, but illegitimate -- devoid of reasonable connection to written law.

* * *

Federalist Papers View on the Oath

The intent of the framers was to bind the government officials so they jointly shared in the power and responsibility to enforce the laws, and protect the Constitution.

Federalist 27It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy, as to the enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government as far as its just and constitutional authority extends; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws.

The intent of the Framers was to compel the Members of Congress, through the oath, to enforce the laws; not use the "potential backlash for that enforcement" as an excuse not do enforce the law.

There is an exchange: In exchange for an oath, the Representatives are given power; that power is conditioned on their assumption that they have been denied discretion :

[ 333 F. Supp. 902 ] Obviously, the Framers of the Constitution thought that the exaction of an affirmation of minimal loyalty to the Government was worth the price of whatever deprivation of individual freedom of conscience was involved

The oath is not a means for a citizen to capture a seat in the House, and enjoy monetary benefits. The oath is to bind action, and recognize that they have been deprived of discretion to ignore illegal conduct.

___ Without impeachment, how does the Congress propose to enforce the law against the President?

___ Is the Congress waiting for "something else" to appear to enforce the law?

___ What is the timeline the Congress wishes to use to decide when it enforce the law against the President?

___ Is the weather unfavorable, and this dissuades the Members of Congress from acting?

___ Despite the reservations of the Watergate Prosecution Team, which this President ignored, how does the Congress propose to convince We the People they are serious about their oath; or that it is interested in doing its job: Find facts, build a better system of governance, and propose they are more fit for governance?

* * *

Michigan Law Review

When evaluating what is or is not a reasonable expectation to place on attorneys from Michigan, consider the following remarks: [ Edwin C. Goddard Admission to the Bar Vol. XVI. February, 1919 No. 4]

Michigan Law Review

"An attorney at law standards in a most interesting and responsible relation to society, and has no apology for ignorance."

[p.224] "Lawyers above all others should never forget that the so called right in this country of every man, however humble his origin, to opportunity for self development and earning a livelihood is always strictly subordinate to the higher right of society to protect itself."

It is to be hoped that the day is near when it shall be fully recognized, not merely that the way to an adequate preparation for admission to the bar is long and difficult, but that the protection of the public requires that no one be permitted to practice till he has traveled that way and acquired that equipment. Not until then will our noble and highly necessary profession do its full duty by the people it serves."

The standards above were promulgated in 42 USC 1983: Standards for immunity so that attorneys from Michigan, when they are in positions of power, are free from concern that they might be sued. 42 USC 1983 provides an interesting problem for the Members of Congress: Despite their immunity, they were free to act, enforce the law, and take action.

____ What is the reason a Member of Congress, despite the power to draft memoranda for the DOJ IG and Department of Justice to investigate, is there no record that, once the illegal activity surfaced, there were timely efforts to compel answers on war crimes; or review the extent to which Members of Congress were made aware of the violations, as required under Title 28?

___ Where is the committee documentation, as required to be reported in the bi-annual reports to Congress, stating how the Committees had or had not enforced the law, engage din oversight, or otherwise compelled the Department of Justice to make a full accounting on war crimes, FISA violations, abuse, rendition, or other illegal activity?

Immunity: 42 USC 1983

The intent of the qualified immunity clause was to spare public officials the consequences of doing something. The objective of 42 USC 1983 was to protect Members of Congress from their liability for having acted.

However, the proposed route -- that of inaction, is not protected. Rather, it is the inaction that becomes the basis for suit. The oath is linked with action; and removes the discretion for inaction.

[ 415 F. Supp. 705] Public officials, whether governors, mayors, or police, legislators or judges, who fail to make decisions when they are needed or who do not act to implement decisions when they are made do not fully and faithfully perform the duties of their offices.

[415 F. Supp. 705 ]Implicit in the idea that officials have some immunity -- absolute or qualified -- for their acts, is a recognition that they may err. The concept of immunity assumes this and goes on to assume that it is better to risk some error and possible injury for such error than not to decide or act at all."

The error is multiple:

1. The incorrect assumption that the delegated power -- only to the House of Representatives as a body -- is something that the Speaker can decline. She has no power to do that; and the Constitution did not delegate to her the power to prevent the House from acting.

2. The incorrect assertion that a decision on impeachment -- the incorrect decision to do nothing -- is covered. The law says the opposite: Failing to do what one should is a subsequent crime.

3. When someone does not do something that they should, they are not fully doing their duties as faithfully as they had promised in their oath. This is a 5 USC 3331 liability.

4. One cannot use the potential threat of litigation -- linked with action -- as the excuse to defend inaction. The purpose of the 42 USC 1983 statute, as any attorney knows, or should know is to do the opposite: Create a barrier for having done something, not create an excuse to justify inaction.

The law is there to protect your actions as a Member of Congress when they are reasonable. It is not reasonable for a Member of Congress, when faced with high crimes, to assert that inaction is action; or that a refusal to debate an issue is a decision. It is reckless, unconstitutional, and wholly at odds with your ministerial duty and obligation to protect the Constitution.

* * *

First Act

The first act, in defiance of the oath, was when the President chose to ignore the Constitution; and Members of Congress did not timely reject the illegal activity. It makes no sense that they were or were not fooled by evidence.

Some Members of Congress did not vote for war. Others, claming power, would prefer, despite their vote to authorize force, that we forget that they voted for something that did not have sufficient oversight.

___ Why should we reward anyone for voting to authorize force, but that illegal use of force is not challenged?

___ Is there something that will guide the House leadership to focus on the problem -- the President -- and ignore the convenient distraction of the symptoms, the failed, illegal occupation in Iraq?

* * *

Consequences on Senators

Little has been offered to justify confidence that the Senate has awoken to their legal obligations; or that their failure to act has sunk into their feeble, lazy minds.

Senators have a duty to review misconduct in public. Whether the Senators believe that impeachment is or is not warranted is irrelevant; impeachment is up to the House of Representatives.

Those Senators who would prefer to avoid the difficult questions, have not contemplated the extent to which We the People may lawfully hold the Member of Congress to account for the inaction.

It remains to be understood whether the Members of Congress view themselves as being superior to We the People; or whether they show as much contempt for the possibility of loss of power as they show toward their duty to protect the document.

[ JOHN C. EASTMAN, 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 713, citations omitted] Other possibilities are more bold, certainly more controversial, but not altogether without precedent. Congress might strip the courts of jurisdiction over the subject matter of a holding that Congress believes to be erroneous, arguably clearing the way for new legislation that would go unchallenged. It might use the appropriation power to bar executive enforcement of the offending judicial decision. It might even use the same "sudden death" power I described above -- impeaching judges who persisted in the view, contrary to their oath of office, that the judicial branch was superior not only to the other branches but to the people themselves and their Constitution.

And the public trial in the Senate would afford a judge the same kind of bully pulpit to defend his action that the President had, with Senators fully aware that success in their next election might well turn on how well they make their case in the court of public opinion. Far from a constitutional crisis, this is precisely how a system of checks and balances is supposed to work, with the final decision on contested matters ultimately resting with the people themselves.

The accountability isn't simply whether they do or do not convict and remove the President; but whether they defend their choice to do nothing, or not remove someone. It is irrelevant the DNC does not hold 67 seats.

The issue is, if the GOP senators refuse to do what they should -- remove from office someone who has no interest in protecting the Constitution -- why those GOP Senators, in their failure to act to protect the Constitution, could not be removed by a fully informed public.

* * *

Partisanship

The role of Congress is to put the Constitution first. Where there is a doubt as to the Constitutional loyalty, some will consider the political implications. Politics are not relevant.

Consider the language of the Watergate Grand Jury. The appropriate decision was to present the evidence, not decline to act on the basis of what political outcomes may or may not happen.

In short, we do not believe that mere transmission of our evidence to Congress is a satisfactory means of discharging our responsibilities or those of the Grand Jury. Nor do we believe that our decision about how to proceed in the matter of the President should be influenced by the likelihood that some "political" mechanism will determine his "fitness" for office or by any other abstract notion of how "justice" can be served other than by enforcement of the criminal law. We and the Grand Jury are the only ones who can make the decision that we, in large part, were established, and the Grand Jury is sworn, to make -- the decision whether the President has acted criminally. If we and the Grand Jury refuse to make that judgment, the consequences for the criminal justice system and for public confidence in the law will, in our view, be most unfortunate.

___ How do Members of Congress justify "inaction" as a basis for confidence?

___ Have the Members of Congress considered the consequences of refusing to hold the President to account?

___ What is to say in 2006 that the President's conduct, and the refusal to examine his misconduct, would increase public confidence in the American legal system?

___ The American legal system, as it relates to war crimes and illegal occupation, are meaningless. Is Congress saying that the only check on Presidential power is the lawful consequences combatants impose on US combat forces? If so, then the argument of why we fight, and what we are fighting for in Iraq isn't connected with what the law is or isn't; but the collective failure of Members of Congress to accept their complicity with what Americans have: Illegal warfare, war crimes, and a refusal of both parties in Congress to prevent unlawful Presidential conduct when they had the power to stop it.

The issue before us isn't what the President did or didn't do; but what consequence there will be on Members of Congress when they hold the President to account. Like Paddington who feared that adjusting the illegal procedures would amount to an admission that the original abuse was illegal, Congress is unwilling to hold the President to account: Members of Congress fear they could be indicted for war crimes -- Failing to prevent what they had the power to prevent: War crimes.

* * *

Blind Deference To Inaction

"Wait until . . ."-argument is an excuse. The process has long started. Congress has already had the chance to review evidence, and refused; and has publicly crafted resolutions, but refused to consider the issue.

Notice the shift. Rather than focus attention on the President, the question has turned into whether or not Congress has or has not "started" something. Congress, by choosing to do nothing, has started inaction. The new information is that both parties have jointly agreed to make excuses to pretend the issue is something other than the President: Iraq. Iraq is a symptom of the defiance in the oval office and Congress, not the problem.

___ What is the reason, given the loss of support for the President, why is no Member of Congress willing to charge the President with a crime?

___ What standard it the public using to justify inaction?

___ If Congress does not take action by a new date, when will the public begin to ask questions?

___ How many new standards will be given to move the deadline: "Wait until. . ."

The inaction has started. The requirement to act started the minute they took the oath. The issue is whether the Members of Congress comprehend that the process, whether they are going to cooperate or not, started the moment the Constitution was signed into law.

* * *

We the People

The problem is well understood. All three branches can, and have, assented to illegal conduct, and jointly agreed to do nothing. Consider:

[ JOHN C. EASTMAN; 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 713 ] But if Congress is not considering the constitutionality of laws it passes, and if the executive is not considering the constitutionality of the laws it enforces, and if the judiciary is, through its doctrines of deference and presumption, also not really considering constitutionality, just who is? The answer, disconcertingly, is all too often no one, and the elaborate system of checks and balances that is supposed to ensure that each branch of the government exercises only the powers delegated to it by the people gives way to what might arguably be deemed a conspiracy to permit systemic violations of the Constitution.

Either the US Government faces these issues under this Constitution; or we have to impose on them a new Constitution which removes their discretion to do what they otherwise promise to do; and timely imposes meaningful consequences on the government officials for having refused to do what should have been done: A lawful end to what was unconstitutional. Focusing on Iraq is a distraction. The problem is the US government, and starts with the arrogant defiance of the Constitution by the president; and the Speaker in their joint agreement to twist the Constitution into powers that were not delegated; and in the failure of the Members of Congress to rebuke the arrogance of leadership in both parties which assents to the illegal twisting of the founding document.

* * *

The US Government Subverts the Constitution

In exchange for us giving up discretion, rights, and the power to wage lawful war against abusive people, the Government agreed to provide a system that would prevent injustice and protection:

[ 333 F. Supp. 902 ] The Constitution of the United States with all the powers conferred by it on the General Government, and surrendered by the States, was the voluntary act of the people of the several States, deliberately done, for their own protection and safety against injustice from one another.

The American government, elected officials, and personnel who have taken an oath, to avoid rocking the boat have committed injustice against their fellow citizens, despite the agreement.

Once that power, after having been delegated, fails to provide that protection, we are no longer lawfully required to believe in the myth of protection. Where there is no protect, there is no legitimate basis to compel continued support for that failed system. Rather, We the People may lawfully create a new system which revokes powers, removes discretion, and imposes meaningful checks using modern systems of governance.

Until We the People choose to face the reality -- this system of checks and balances has failed, does not work, and has been subverted -- this Congress plans to do what the President has done: Twist the laws to assign itself powers which have not been delegated; and create more excuses to pretend that it need not act, when it has no discretion.

Another option is for the Grand Jury to provide the evidence to the State Attorney Generals and State Attorney Disciplinary Boards, and lawfully prosecute the Members of Congress, President, and Vice President, and US Government Staff counsel who have illegally subverted the Constitution, defied their oath, and told, not asked, We the People to put up with their arguably reckless excuses for inaction.

___ If you have an oath, why are you not asserting it?

___ If you take an oath an are an attorney, why are you not using your legal training to impose the law on your peers who have failed to comprehend the law, or not been given credible legal advise?

___ What is your timeline to suggest that "things will work out" when the new Congress idea of "working things out" is to remove options from the table?

* * *

Tables

Impeachment remain a Constitutional option. It cannot be taken off the table. What can be taken off, removed, and added is something else: The grounds for impeachment.

[Watergate Grand Jury, February 12, 1974 in 27 Hofstra L. Rev. 728] In the final analysis, if imposition of criminal charges indeed results in uncertainty and paralysis in the conduct of governmental affairs, the remedy is readily available in the hands of Congress -- that is, impeachment, if the President refuses to resign -- and the grounds for impeachment will then unquestionably be on the table. If the people then believe that such an impasse is intolerable, they will compel their representatives to act.

___ What happens if the Members of Congress use the definite impasse -- their inaction -- as an excuse to ignore the People?

___ What happens, despite We the People compelling the representatives to act, they refuse, and the impasse remains?

___ What happens when the impasse isn't simple one of one branch against another; or one party against another; but the impasse joint agreement by the Government to do nothing defying We the People?

* * *

We the People: Overseeing Congress

A victory over an opponent does not mean that the victory succeeds. We the People must ensure that the victory remains justice, and not an excuse to broaden the malfeasance between opposing political parties to broadening the injustice between the Government and We the People.

As Majority Leader Pelosi was privy to certain documents, information, and reports. We've learned there have been subsequent abuses One of the obligations of the Majority leader is to act on that information. One option is for the Member of Congress to document their concerns and inform the US Attorney. Either Pelosi as majority leader got the information and did not act; or she has been denied the information but has done nothing.

___ What information was Pelosi told, as majority leader, related to the illegal activity of Rendition, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other FISA-NSA violations?

___ What information should Pelosi have been given that she was denied; but what is the reason for not acting against the agencies which failed to provide the information?

___ If Pelosi did get the information, what documents can she point to showing she timely reported the information to the US Attorney?

___ Which reporting requirements did Pelosi ignore?

___ Which reporting requirements to Pelosi as majority leader were ignored?

___ What information was Pelosi told, but did not act on, nor ask questions, nor forward to the US Attorney?

___ When was Pelosi aware that she was not told something that she should have

___ What information was Pelosi told that she should have been told, but was not

___ Is there a reason why, as Majority leader, Pelosi did not publicly comment on the information she knew she was not told about; yet she cannot explain why she did not privately report this information to the US Attorney?

* * *

Evidence of Obfuscation

Members of Congress has the legal power to inform the US Attorney when they have information indicating a witness has not fully responded to a question. After alleged misstatements at the 6 Feb 2006 hearing, Senator Feingold challenged Attorney General Gonzalez' statements, suggesting there had been perjury. One behavior Members of Congress can report to the US Attorney is a pattern of evasiveness by a witness before the Congressional committee.

___ Where is the documentation from Senator Feingold to the US Attorney, as permitted under statute, relaying his concerns about the apparent misstatements and illegal conduct before the Senate Judiciary Committee?

____ Once AG Gonzalez evaded questions on 06 Feb 2006, and Senator Feingold followed up on the evasiveness and alleged perjury, who documented the evasiveness and forward the information to the US Attorney for investigation by the Department of Justice?

___ What is the DOJ OPR status of the review related to what action did or did not occur after the US Attorneys were made aware of Gonzalez' alleged perjury, pattern of evasiveness, and other conduct before the Committee?

* * *

Congressional Committee Conduct

___ What evidence does the DOJ Staff counsel have, that it has refused to provide to the DOJ OPR, that should have been made available as required under their attorney standards of conduct?

___ Which evidence, when disclosed to the Committee, and reported in the semi-annual report to Congress, should have triggered this disclosure of evidence?

___ What it the explanation the Committee Staff, upon receiving this information, did not release the information or call for the US Attorneys to review?

___ Which evidence, once disclosed and reviewed by the DoJ OPR, would trigger a report by the Grand Jury?

___ Is the leadership willing to distinguish between "impeachment" and "grounds for impeachment"?

___ Is the leadership willing to recognize that impeachment is always an option; and that the question is whether the leadership will or will not review the evidence, the "grounds for impeachment"?

___ Which failures should have been reported by individual members of Congress, but were not? Ref

___ What is the explanation for there being no review of Executive Office Actions, as required under Title 28? Ref

___ What is the defense of the Parliamentarian, whose job is to appoint competent attorneys to the Congressional staff? Ref

___ Look at section (h) duties: What is the explanation for not removing Congressional Staff counsel who were not doing their job: Educating the members of Congress of their legal duties? Ref

___ What's the story on what's been provided to Congress since 1994: Every two years someone has been certifying something to the leadership on which laws have or have not been enforced. What is the Congressional staff explanation in 2006 for their failure to ensure the reports were accurate, correct, and fully reported the refusal to investigate, review, and enforce violations of the law? Ref

___ Despite the known problems and illegal activity in the Congress and Executive Branch, what is the GOP plan in November 2006 to correctly report the failed oversight, reckless disregard for the statutory reporting requirements, and other things which are wholly not reported -- as required -- on the status of the oversight, enforcement, and committee action? Ref

* * *

Part II: Discussion of Questions Above

Here are the questions with responses.

US Government Malfeasance

___ What happens when the Federal Government, by inaction, refuses to guarantee the Constitution?

Members of Congress who, by their actions, refuse to protect the Constitution have defied their oath. They are not fit for governance. They can be prosecuted for failing to protect the Constitution. If all branches of government fail, then We the People must be recognized as having the power and means to lawfully end what is contrary to the rule of law. The question is: What happens when, despite this malfeasance, the voters continue to support candidates which are destructive to the Constitution; or otherwise actively refuse to hold accountable Federal Government officials who are in rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution. A New Constitution should recognize the inherent right of We the People to lawfully replace that government, especially when it is destructive to the system of governance and the Constitution. All people have the protected right to work to lawfully replace that which is not longer responsive to the rule of law. It remains up to the government whether it illegal uses force to keep in place that which is in rebellion.

___ What if both parties and all branches of Federal Government refuse to intervene, thereby permitting additional criminal conduct?

The government is no longer legitimate and may lawfully be replaced with a system of governance that assert the rule of law.

___ The American legal system, as it relates to war crimes and illegal occupation, are meaningless. Is Congress saying that the only check on Presidential power is the lawful consequences combatants impose on US combat forces? If so, then the argument of why we fight, and what we are fighting for in Iraq isn't connected with what the law is or isn't; but the collective failure of Members of Congress to accept their complicity with what Americans have: Illegal warfare, war crimes, and a refusal of both parties in Congress to prevent unlawful Presidential conduct when they had the power to stop it.

Inaction is not an option when the system is not preserved. New leadership, outside the US government is needed. It is irrelevant that the alleged co-conspirators have conspired to not enforce or assert their oath. International bodies can lawfully intervene and prosecute those who have permitted the lawlessness to continue, even jailing Members of Congress for not doing what they had the power to do: Lawfully charge the President with a crime.

Committee Oversight

These are questions related to the credibility of the Congressional oversight system. The issue going forward will be:

- Is the Committee system able to reform within the existing Congressional system
- What method is implemented to ensure that the abuses, under the RNC between 1994-2006, are not repeated
- Which systematic problems, despite their contribution to the disaster [1994-2006] are not being effectively remedied, modernized, or resolved

___ Despite the known problems and illegal activity in the Congress and Executive Branch, what is the GOP plan in November 2006 to correctly report the failed oversight, reckless disregard for the statutory reporting requirements, and other things which are wholly not reported -- as required -- on the status of the oversight, enforcement, and committee action? Ref

The GOP and DNC have abdicated power. They know they have a joint problem with oversight, accountability, and getting things done. They have six weeks until the end of the current term. There is no excuse for them jointly agreeing to do nothing. They could sit down, jointly agree in November 2006 to issue subpoenas, start the investigation, and jointly show they are serious about bipartisanship. Rather, they choose to do nothing, and let questions, bills, and budgets pile up into the next Session. This is recklessness.

___ What's the story on what's been provided to Congress since 1994: Every two years someone has been certifying something to the leadership on which laws have or have not been enforced. What is the Congressional staff explanation in 2006 for their failure to ensure the reports were accurate, correct, and fully reported the refusal to investigate, review, and enforce violations of the law? Ref

Every two years the Members of Congress have jointly not correctly ensured that the committee reports on enforcement were accurate. There is no evidence the Minority or Ranking Members have separately issued a report; nor have they reported to the US Attorney’s office the failure of the Committees to correctly report the non-enforcement of statutes.

___ What is the explanation for there being no review of Executive Office Actions, as required under Title 28? Ref

Malfeasance by Members of Congress.

___ Which failures should have been reported by individual members of Congress, but were not? Ref

The defiance of the US Constitution. Remains to be understood what the US Attorneys have been told; how the US Attorneys have been blocked from prosecuting the joint malfeasance; or the reasons for not brining 5 USC 3331 actions against al 535 Members of Congress.

___ Look at section (h) duties: What is the explanation for not removing Congressional Staff counsel who were not doing their job: Educating the members of Congress of their legal duties? Ref

It appears the Congressional staff counsel know quite a bit. It remains to be understood what they know, and whether they were retained because to fire them might invite more legal oversight.

___ What is the defense of the Parliamentarian, whose job is to appoint competent attorneys to the Congressional staff? Ref

The Parliamentarian does not appear to have a credible explanation why allegedly incompetent, reckless Congressional staff were not removed; or why, despite the Members of Congress ignoring them, there is inadequate documentation on the Congressional Staff counsel to correctly assert their oaths of office.

The Parliamentarian, despite the legal authority to oversee Congressional Staff legal counsel, needs to have an independent method to interject oversight. One approach would to have more frequent no-notice visits by the DC Bar and State Attorney Disciplinary Board to do public audits and peer reviews of the assigned Congressional Staff Counsel.

___ What is your timeline to suggest that "things will work out" when the new Congress idea of "working things out" is to remove options from the table?

There is not timeline, and this failure is other evidence of malfeasance. The current criteria to justify inaction will likely be adjusted to retroactively support whatever non-sense the Congress decides, and not hold the Congressional leadership to firm timelines. Milestones were supposedly good enough for Iraq; Congress can’t explain why it doesn’t have a similar public milestones.

____ What is the reason a Member of Congress, despite the power to draft memoranda for the DOJ IG and Department of Justice to investigate, is there no record that, once the illegal activity surfaced, there were timely efforts to compel answers on war crimes; or review the extent to which Members of Congress were made aware of the violations, as required under Title 28?

They are giving excuses. They do not appear to have used their power when they were in the Minority Position. There is no credible showing, despite their minority status, that they exhausted all options; nor did they credibly publicly document the range of actions or memoranda. It is illegal to classify conduct related to illegal activity.

___ Where is the committee documentation, as required to be reported in the bi-annual reports to Congress, stating how the Committees had or had not enforced the law, engage din oversight, or otherwise compelled the Department of Justice to make a full accounting on war crimes, FISA violations, abuse, rendition, or other illegal activity?

The lack of evidence and memoranda is admissible, especially when there should be documentation.

Consequences for Members of Congress

___ Why should we reward anyone for voting to authorize force, but that illegal use of force is not challenged?

This is an inconsistency of the Congressional leadership. Despite many questions not answered, they jointly agreed to rubber stamp an authorization for force. Yet, when the evidence of a “non imminent threat” was revealed, they still refused to withhold appropriations; nor document to the US Attorney and Inspector Generals their concerns, or requests for legal assistance from war crimes prosecutors. This suggests that the Congressional Staff counsel were defective.

___ If Members of Congress are not willing to assert justice, and lawfully remove a repeated war criminal from office, what is to prevent We the People from defining "justice" as the lawful removal from power of those Members of Congress?

We the People may make adverse inferences and lawfully remove from office those who have refused to assert their oath, or engaged in 5 USC 3331 violations. This action can be brought at the state level through either Attorney General prosecutions; or State level disbarment actions directed at Members of Congress, Congressional Staff Counsel, DoJ-DoD-CIA-NSA Staff Counsel, or the White House counsel.

___ If the President, in waging war in Grenada without a declaration, "denied" the rights of the Members of Congress to assert Article 1 Section 8 powers, why is there not a similar concern at the Speaker for doing the same -- Denying members of Congress the right to exercise their powers?

___ The person who brought the lawsuit for the denial was Conyers. What's changed since the lawsuit over Grenada: Is it permissible for the leader of a Chamber, when they are the member of the same party, to deny a right of a Member of Congress to review something; but it is impermissible for an opposing party to do the same?

He’s using a double standard on whether he’s serous about asserting his rights as a Member of Congress. He’s being partisan, and arguably not serious about protecting the Constitution. He’s giving it lip service, and this arguably is evidence to show he knows butter; but is doing something else. The contrast is important to demonstrate mens rea and contrast it with what he chose to do; vs. what he might have done if he was serious. “What I would have done if I was serious about asserting the rule of law.”

___ Is the weather unfavorable, and this dissuades the Members of Congress from acting?

Indeed, the unfavorable weather has been rather inconvenient for Members of Congress. The wind, cold weather, and the high seas have distracted them from their oaths and the US Constitution. Despite the favorable weather they’ve pointed to the unfavorable weather, and their need to recover, as the excuse for inaction. It’s a leadership problem in the US government, not isolated to any party or branch of government.

___ How do Members of Congress justify "inaction" as a basis for confidence?

They are being absurd and are not fit for leadership.

___ Have the Members of Congress considered the consequences of refusing to hold the President to account?

No, they’ve only swallowed the GOP non-sense to justify inaction; not considered the opposite: That they could be prosecuted for malfeasance and 5 USC 3331 violations.

___ What is to say in 2006 that the President's conduct, and the refusal to examine his misconduct, would increase public confidence in the American legal system?

As the Watergate Grand Jury stated in 1974, inaction in the face of evidence would undermine American confidence in the American legal system.

Credibility of Member of Congress Legal Concerns

___ What is the reason that the same "concerned" members of Congress are not bringing a lawsuit against the Speaker?

They are not serious about the Constitution, only in making excuses to challenge their political opponents. This does not inspire confidence in their call for “bipartisanship.” They’re actually calling for the public to ignore their inconsistency, hypocrisy, and alleged malfeasance.

Oaths

___ Despite the reservations of the Watergate Prosecution Team, which this President ignored, how does the Congress propose to convince We the People they are serious about their oath; or that it is interested in doing its job: Find facts, build a better system of governance, and propose they are more fit for governance?

Congress cannot credibly convince We the People they are serious about doing their job when they fail to hold their peers accountable; and are not challenging the Constitutional violations of the Congressional leadership. There is selective focus; to justify the original selective focus, they’ll have to take more things off the table. The Congress has started down the slippery slope to GOP inaction.

__ What is the loyalty

Loyalty is doing all one can to protect the Constitution. It puts all things, even party loyalty and friendship and secrecy below the responsibility to protect the document, even from Members of Congress who refuse to put the Constitution first. You are either with the Constitution, or you are with the US Government’s illegal rebellion and insurrection. Choose.

___ Is there a reason that the loyalty appears to be something other than the express delegation of the power to the House?

The Congress used the “woe is us, the GOP is wrong”-argument to get votes, but are not serious about doing what they say.

___ How can invoking an option, contrary to the permanence of the Constitution, suggest something other than a qualified loyalty?

Indeed, here there is qualified loyalty, there are 5 USC 3331 violations. The US attorney needs to hear from you. If they refuse to act, then they are complicit with attacks on the Constitution, and can be disbarred by the State Disciplinary Board. Let your friends know who is or isn’t protecting the Constitution. This is a widespread problem within the US legal community, and relates to the same problems in the securities industry: Fiduciaries are putting their personal financial interests before their loyalty to governance, and the US Constitution.

It doesn’t matter whether there are or are not laws against the underlying disloyalties; the law is clear: there is no higher loyalty than the Constitution. Rather than enforce the law, the legal community is making excuses. We’ve seen the natural consequence: Foreign fighters are emboldened to resolve disputes the lazy Members of Congress and Staff counsel refuse to confront: War crimes and their joint agreement not to prevent illegal appropriations. The natural consequences of the reckless US government approach to the law has been the requirement for foreign war crimes prosecutors to do what Members of Congress, Staff counsel, and the US Attorneys refused: Enforce the aw.

___ Is refusing to recognize the explicit delegation of power only to the House sufficient action to conclude their loyalty is no longer to the Constitution, but something else?

Yes.

___ To what loyalty, other than the absolute loyalty the Constitution, do they have?

Power, themselves, access to power, and the access to decision makers. If a Member of Congress puts their oath first, they can be denied power, and access to peers.

___ How do we explain the apparent disconnect between one's attorney oath, and what one is doing?

They have been rewarded with power for failing to do what they should; and have not been lawfully punished for doing what they shouldn’t: Putting the US Constitution second. They have no choice, but they chose incorrectly.

___ What is a particular member of Congress' view on what "faithfully" executing their oath of office?

Going through the motions, making excuses to do otherwise, and claiming something else. They defy their oath and could be prosecuted for war crimes and 5 USC 3331 violations.

___ What is the reason, given the loss of support for the President, why is no Member of Congress willing to charge the President with a crime?

They are complicit with war crimes. If they do not act, they incorrectly believe nobody will notice their illegal conduct; nor review the evidence that should be there if they were serious about documenting their concerns. The lack of evidence, where there should be evidence, is admissible for purposes of war crimes prosecutions, disbarment, malfeasance, and 5 USC 3331 violations.

___ What standard is the public using to justify inaction?

The public has been inducted to accept this as the “best we can get.” Incorrect. We can expect the minimum standard of the law to have been met. Either they do their job fully, or they don’t. There’s not much debate before a war crimes prosecutor: You either took action, or you didn’t.

___ If Congress does not take action by a new date, when will the public begin to ask questions?

The questions have started; and the non-sense answers have not ended. It makes no sense to wait for a new deadline. They’ll just create more excuses to miss that deadline.

___ How many new standards will be given to move the deadline: "Wait until. . ."

If given the chance, infinite.

___ If you have an oath, why are you not asserting it?

They have more interest in power and getting along than in protecting the Constitution.

___ If you take an oath an are an attorney, why are you not using your legal training to impose the law on your peers who have failed to comprehend the law, or not been given credible legal advise?

They are rewarded for getting along, not holding their peers to account. They have high debates and don’t want to rock the boat while they repay their loans.

Congressional Leadership – Executive Agency Communications
The issue is whether the agencies did not fully inform all Congressional leaders; or whether the minority leadership did not or refused to document their concerns and report them to the appropriate authorities.

___ What happens if the Members of Congress use the definite impasse -- their inaction -- as an excuse to ignore the People?

We the People may lawfully remove them from office, prosecute them, and present them to the war crimes prosecutes.

___ What happens, despite We the People compelling the representatives to act, they refuse, and the impasse remains?

The US government, by default, will be illegitimate, and may be lawfully replaced with a new system of governance with a New Constitution. Congress has no input to a complete overhaul of the system. This isn’t an Amendment. It’s a restart, done outside Article V.

___ What happens when the impasse isn't simple one of one branch against another; or one party against another; but the impasse joint agreement by the Government to do nothing defying We the People?

The US Government is no longer legitimate. Either they accept the New Constitution, or they suffer more defeats overseas at the hands of foreign fighters who remind them they are incompetent, incapable of planning.

___ What information was Pelosi told, as majority leader, related to the illegal activity of Rendition, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other FISA-NSA violations?

If the agencies met their statutory obligation, she’s fully informed. If she knows nothing, then the US Attorneys have to explain when Pelosi notified them of issues she should have been briefed on but was not. Pelosi has a legal problem.

___ What information should Pelosi have been given that she was denied; but what is the reason for not acting against the agencies which failed to provide the information?

Pelosi’s legal problem is that she’s known about the issues, as reported in the media, but cannot point to memoranda where she informed the US Attorney or IGs to take action.

___ If Pelosi did get the information, what documents can she point to showing she timely reported the information to the US Attorney?

She has Staff Counsel who can be subpoenaed by a Grand Jury. On matters related to post-decisions, and responsibilities of the US government, attorney-client privilege does not apply, especially on matters related to issues which have been publicly disclosed: Evidence of wrong doing, but no action.

___ Which reporting requirements did Pelosi ignore?

It appears Pelosi did not comply with the requirement to protect the Constitution, assert the oath, or report the evidence of misleading Congressional testimony to the US Attorney. The lack of documentation is admissible.

___ Which reporting requirements to Pelosi as majority leader were ignored?

Title 28 and Title 50 are Executive Branch reporting requirements on planned violations of the law. Either Pelosi got these notifications, and did nothing; or, despite her awareness of the illegal activity and no notifications, she didn’t report these non-reports as a violation. Pelosi is stuck in a legal trap.

___ What information was Pelosi told, but did not act on, nor ask questions, nor forward to the US Attorney?

It appears she knew, or should have known, about the FISA-NSA violations, and alleged war crimes. She voted for war. It appears her reasons for not acting is that she views her vote as something which would implicate her; and she cannot explain why, despite her concern, she did not document her support for shutting off funds.

___ When was Pelosi aware that she was not told something that she should have

Once the media reported the information, Pelosi was in a position as Majority leader to document her concerns.

___ What information was Pelosi told that she should have been told, but was not

This remains to be understood. Either Pelosi knew and didn’t act; or she wasn’t told, but failed to report the violations of Title 28.

___ Is there a reason why, as Majority leader, Pelosi did not publicly comment on the information she knew she was not told about; yet she cannot explain why she did not privately report this information to the US Attorney?

She voted for the use of force, and feels compelled to stick with an illegal war, rather than admit that she was wrong. This may be her undoing before the war crimes prosecutor.

___ Where is the documentation from Senator Feingold to the US Attorney, as permitted under statute, relaying his concerns about the apparent misstatements and illegal conduct before the Senate Judiciary Committee?

This appears to be a problem. He also does not appear to have a strong defense showing that he’s done all he could. Listening session are one thing; documentation and evidence is another.

____ Once AG Gonzalez evaded questions on 06 Feb 2006, and Senator Feingold followed up on the evasiveness and alleged perjury, who documented the evasiveness and forward the information to the US Attorney for investigation by the Department of Justice?

Once Gonzalez was misleading, both parties and all Members of Congress had a duty to act. None of them can show the evidence of their report; nor point to an effort to have Gonzalez disbarred.

Executive Branch Accountability

___ How will the law be imposed on the sitting President; or the States act through a prosecution of a President?

The States may prosecute a sitting President.

___ What is a credible check on executive power when the legislature gives excuses to avoid considering justice, must less imposing it?

A New Constitution,, war crimes, state disbarment, and 5 USC 3331 violations.

___ What is the basis to argue that keeping a lawful option on the table -- impeachment -- is something other than justice?

It is not a credible assertion of power, nor a defendable position.

___ Why is "vengeance" assumed merely because a lawful option to impose justice is not removed from the table?

It is a GOP smokescreen to avoid war crimes prosecutions, and keep their man in a position to grant pardons for war criminals. War crimes prosecutors are not bound to the US President’s decision on pardons.

___ Without impeachment, how does the Congress propose to enforce the law against the President?

Without impeachment, there is no credible Congressional plan.

___ Is the Congress waiting for "something else" to appear to enforce the law?

Congress is not acting because it is complicit with the illegal activity.

___ What is the timeline the Congress wishes to use to decide when it enforce the law against the President?

There is no plan.

___ Why have Members of Congress weighed the politics of the issue, when those sworn to gather evidence, have decided to do their jobs faithfully, regardless the consequences?

They have a self-interest to avoid questions which might implicate them, point to things they did not review, or show they have not doing what they should have done: Document problems, report to the US Attorney, and compel the IGs to review the matters.

They cannot point to a public report that indicates they opposed the Chairman reports to the House leadership on whether the committee was or was not enforcing the law; nor why, despite their “concerns” with the rule of law, they cannot point to a minority report providing their view on which enforcement actions the Committees had not done.

___ To what extent has the GOP inducted the DNC not to do what they should on the basis of illusory consequences; yet those consequences are more likely if they refuse to do what they should: Review evidence, bring charges, and lawfully remove someone from office who refuses to be swayed by that lawful threat of removal?

The GOP has lulled the DNC to celebrate inaction on the basis of speculative gains. This is not a credible legal position.

___ Is there something that will guide the House leadership to focus on the problem -- the President -- and ignore the convenient distraction of the symptoms, the failed, illegal occupation in Iraq?

Yes, We the People should remind the Congressional leadership of the Watergate Grand Jury; and work with the US Attorneys to prosecute the Members of Congress for malfeasance, war crimes, and 5 USC 3331 violations; and find new leaders who are serious about putting their oath before all things, even the chance of a Chairmanship.

Presidential Oversight

___ Is the leadership willing to recognize that impeachment is always an option; and that the question is whether the leadership will or will not review the evidence, the "grounds for impeachment"?

No, they are playing a game of “keep this issue off the radar” to force the GOP to do something. However that argument doesn’t stand up: Despite a known legal requirement, the DNC leadership is not forcing the GOP leadership to act in November 2006 to sign subpoenas, and start in December what will stack up in January and Feb 207.

___ Is the leadership willing to distinguish between "impeachment" and "grounds for impeachment"?

They’re mixing the two by design. We the People can lawfully work with the State Attorney Generals to disbar, prosecute, and remove from office Members of Congress, legal counsel, and Executive Branch staff counsel who have defied their oath, violated the law, and not protected the Constitution.

Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility

___ What will be done to effectively oversee the DoJ Staff counsel, especially when they refuse to cooperate with investigations; and White House staff and the President interfere with DoJ OPR investigations?

We the People will have to keep the Pressure on the US Attorneys, Members of Congress, and State Disciplinary Boards to remove from the ranks of the attorney staff counsel who have refused to do their job.

___ What is the DOJ OPR status of the review related to what action did or did not occur after the US Attorneys were made aware of Gonzalez' alleged perjury, pattern of evasiveness, and other conduct before the Committee?

They have much evidence, but the review has been shut down. The issues mentioned are relevant for the war crimes prosecutor, and State Attorney Generals on issues of disbarment.

___ What evidence does the DOJ Staff counsel have, that it has refused to provide to the DOJ OPR, that should have been made available as required under their attorney standards of conduct?

They DOJ Staff counsel is complicit with the illegal activity. They have memoranda, notes, and other evidence. They positions at the computers can be back traced through open source information linking their updates to web pages to individual topics. The DOJ Staff counsel does not realize the extent to which the public evidence can be introduced to show that the matter is no longer protected by privilege.

___ Which evidence, when disclosed to the Committee, and reported in the semi-annual report to Congress, should have triggered this disclosure of evidence?

The events between 1994 and 2006.

___ What it the explanation the Committee Staff, upon receiving this information, did not release the information or call for the US Attorneys to review?

They are more interested in paying mortgages than protecting the US Constitution. They are war criminals and complicit with illegal activity.

___ Which evidence, once disclosed and reviewed by the DoJ OPR, would trigger a report by the Grand Jury?

See the Watergate Grand Jury report. The same issues apply, but the evidence is much larger in size, scale, and not isolated to the Executive Branch, but touches the Members of Congress, Congressional Staff, and the Staff counsel in the CIA, NSA, DoJ, and DoD.

* * *

Part III Judgments

Based on the questions above, we make the following adverse inferences:

1. The Watergate Grand Jury memoranda is a useful guide to the list of public concerns this Congress is ignoring. The Department of Justice has significant information warranting the President's removal from office; and other evidence related to Member of Congress being told of information that they have not appropriately documented.

2. Members of Congress in both parties are in receipt of information that they knew, or should have known, they had a legal obligation to document, report to the US Attorney, but they have not.

3. The Congressional leadership and the President have jointly, illegally agreed to do nothing about illegal activity in exchange for joint political objectives.

4. The US Government has illegally agreed to subordinate the US Constitution to joint political objectives, and have refused to faithfully assert their oath of office as required under Title 5 USC 3331.

5. Members of Congress in both parties are reluctant to start impeachment because they were in receipt of information that they knew, or should have known, should have been timely acted on; or when they realized that they did not receive the information they were lawfully required to receive they did not timely act to document the evidence, nor did they timely follow up with the US Attorney to start an investigation.

6. Members of Congress have jointly agreed to do nothing because any action could expose all of them to credible charges of war crimes for having not reported information to the US Attorney related to illegal activity; and their continued appropriations for things that they knew were illegal, but they did not timely prevent.

7. Claims of legislative immunity are not applicable in matters related to war crimes and illegal subversion of the US Constitution, or conduct which shows they have jointly agreed not to faithfully preserve the US Constitution.

8. The common objective of the US leadership in both parties and both branches it to suppress the war crimes liability that attaches to both branches of government and both parties for their alleged refusal to agree to timely investigate; and their refusal to timely document for the US Attorney information that they knew, or should have known, they were not given related to illegal activity under Title 28 and Title 50.

9. Senators and Representatives in both parties stand the risk of being unseated in 2008 for their decision (a) not to impeach; and (2) not to remove the President and Vice President from office.

10. Members of Congress have been incorrectly induced to believe that justice is the same as vengeance.

11. There are many questions and lines of evidence that they are not pursuing. Members of Congress require public oversight to guide them to the uncomfortable issues which justice demands.

12. Members of Congress have a credibility problem when they accuse the President of wrong doing, misconduct, or unconstitutional conduct, but they refuse to see the same patterns of abuse within their own party and branch of government.

13. The motivation to say that impeachment is "off the table" is for political advantage, and remove the issue of "impeachment" from the political debate. However, We the People do not have this constraint, and may impose any standard on Members of Congress to decide whether they can be trusted to assert their oath; or should remain in office after the next election.