Project Clambake

Congratulations on the victory.

The President, after losing control of Congress, is expected to continue with his illegal executive orders and regulations. The pattern of abuse is entrenched--despite controlling Congress, he issued secret, illegal orders and regulations. DNC Congressional control should not be expected to affect the President's unlawful, secretive habits.

Vigilence must continue. In the excitement of the victory, and prospect of investigations into patterns of abuse spanning years, consider the imminent illegal executive orders and regulations this White House and DoJ Staff counsel are crafting. They may have lost control of the Congress, but they have no plans to end their illegal abuse of power.

Share: Image

* * *

The Republicans have a nasty habit of saying one thing, but doing something else. Now that they’ll be the minority party starting in January, it would be appropriate to give them another opportunity to dig themselves further into a hole.

For the moment, fast forward to the Presidential election. Going into 2008, the Republicans will have one goal: To show that they are better suited to provide leadership. Turning the clock backward, they’ll most likely point to a series of events which – because of their recklessness 1994-2006 – they helped create.

There is a solution. The republicans know as of today, the day after the election in November 2006, that they will lose control of the Congress. What better time, while they’re still in power, than to give them one “last chance” to show their leadership.

Here’s the approach: Soon – as in within a matter of days – citizens across the United States should contact the Democratic leadership and Committee Chairman to set a deadline for the current RNC Chairmen to commit to a line of inquiry, including issuing letters, and other documents to the Executive branch outlining the Committee Concerns, questions, and lines of inquiry.

If the Republican Committee Chairmen refuse, and despite the ability to provide a good faith effort to provide leadership, sign letters, and do what they know is inevitable, this will be something that the Democratic leadership, and public can point to in 2008 to say< “Even when you knew you had the power, and opportunity to do something, and the Democrats came to you requesting a bipartisan approach to investigation, you still refused. Why should we believe you’re going to do anything after 2008?”

In short, it doesn’t matter what the Republicans do. Whether they approve, not approve, stonewall, or throw the issue back on the DNC, the public will get the opportunity to see how quickly the Republicans refuse to cooperate while they still have the power to influence policy, conduct investigations, and sign subpoenas.

* * *

The US Government Can Oversee The Execuctive and Pass New Policies

Some have suggested that the United States needs to focuse on new initiatives, and that we cannot afford the distraction of enforcing the law, or holding the President accoutnable. It's not either-or propostion. The Federal government can still operate, pass legislation while prosecutors are conducting investigations. It will be time to see whether the US govenment can function as designed -- to operate in peace and war; and check itself -- or whether it has to be changed.

Even if the Federal government refuses to act, there are still state level options available. Whether the US government does or does not act has no bearing on whether the state level attornys or interntaional war crimes prosecutors do or do not take action.

Ghere's no reason not to press the US government to explain why it cannot/will not do both -- have investigations; and also pass legislation. Why should Americans have confidenc ein a system that will not function, unless the States take action to do what the US government refuses: Enforce the law, protect the Constitution, and proseucte all people -- even a sitting presient; while the Legislature works on new laws, much less enforces the old ones.

* * *

Sample Names For Subpoenas

Perhaps Members of Congress in the Republican party have a hard time remembering which contracts they have appropriated funds for. Here's a refresher:

A. Ref Names which the war crimes prosecutors in Italy and Germany have; and

B. Ref Alleged coconspirators in war crimes.

One would think the RNC leadership would want to do the right thing, make the public believe they were serious about reclaiming the White House in 2008. To do that requires a demonstration of leadership while they are still in power.

___ Can the Republican leadership, in November 2006, not provide any reason why they would not be willing to support conducting immediate investigations; and pen their name to a list of witness who might be able to remind the RNC Chairmen of what the are supposed to be done?

___ What is the explanation for the RNC leadership, in November 2006, to refuse to cooperate with what they know will inevitably happen: Hearings?

___ Why isn't the RNC leadership in November 2006 willing to use their time as leaders of the committees to review specific information they still have the power to review?

___ Can any of the Republicans provide any reason why they have no interest in organizing any effort to simply ask the list of questions already provided to them?

___ Can the Republican legal community provide any reason why they need to "review" anything, yet the information, personnel, questions, and line of inquiry is already laid out for them in these draft indictments?

___ What is the reason the Republicans claim that they "need time" to organize, when the organized plan to conduct this review in November 2006 has already been presented, and publcly available?

___ Despite losing the election, and knowing there will be a House Ethics review, what is in the Republican's mind to believe that they will be immune to investigations and further attention as the House Page Board received for their failure to act when they should have, violating 5 USC 3331?

They have no answers, because despite still holding the reigns of power, they are unwilling to accept that they have been lawfully targeted for a war crimes indictments; and could very well be prosecuted for failing to prevent war crimes. They still have the power to act, but refuse to assert their full moral, legal power to do what they should have always done. Their inaction is not impressive, merely additional evidence of their failure to do what they should have done.

They have individually brought discredit upon themselves, the United States, and their service to the US Constitution. It remains to be understood how many individual members of Congress -- because of their alleged reckless defiance of their 5 USC 3331 oath of office, and failure to prevent war crimes -- may be lawfully tried for war crimes, and subsequently executed for the same.

* * *

Consider

The Military Commissions Act provided immunity for inaction; the Democrats opposed it, and gained power. However, despite gaining power, the Democrats claim they refuse to enforce impeachment, or act to prosecute the President. Isn't that interesting: They have the power, but have "agreed" not to use it to hold the President accountable. Let's consider what might be happening, may have already been agreed:

___ Did the DNC agree with the RNC to "oppose" the Military Commissions Act, so that the DNC would get elected; in exchange, the DNC would agree to take no action against the President?

___ What did the DNC leadership really agree to when they voted "against" the Military Commissions Act?

___ Was there a hidden agreement, to avoid DNC accountability for their failure to enforce the Geneva Conventions, that the DNC would "oppose" the Military Commissions Act, while they secretly knew they would benefit from the immunity?

___ Did the DNC leadership count on the international war crimes prosecutors reviewing the evidence?

___ Is there something the DNC leadership is not telling us about whether the DNC leadership expects to benefit from this language in the Military Commissions’ Act: Illegally granting themselves immunity for inaction?

___ How many of the DNC voted "against" a bill they were secretly for, knowing full well the RNC would pass the Military Commissions Bill; and in exchange the DNC would agree not to enforce the law against the RNC or President?

___ Is the American Federal government in both parties reluctant to admit that the state attorney generals and legislators have lawful options to request Congress investigate; or lawfully prosecute a sitting President?

___ How long does the Congressional leadership in either party plan to stall before the States lawfully prosecute a sitting President?

___ Despite the legal option of the States to lawfully prosecute the President, and hold him accountable, why isn't the DNC in Congress willing to act to do what the States have the power to do: Hold a sitting President accountable with an indictment for war crimes?

* * *

One example of applying Project Clambake would be against the Department of Justice. Senator Feingold was essentially lied to by Attorney General Gonzalez. The Attorney General has failed to comply with this Title 28 notification requirement: To submit in writing to Congress his decision not to enforce the law on issues of the FISA-NSA warrants; failing to support DoJ OPR reviewing DoJ Staff misconduct; and the Geneva Conventions.

It should be a matter of policy of We the People and the DNC to throw the problem onto the Attorney General’s back: What is his plan; how does he plan to provide leadership and enforce the law on issues of war crimes, prisoner abuses, and war crimes prosecutions in Europe.

Whether the Democratic leadership does or does not impeach is a separate issue. The President as Executive has the power to prosecute people like the Attorney General who refuse to enforce the law. The States also have the power, because the Attorney General is a US Citizen and licensed through Texas to practice law, to enforce against him the statutes the Attorney General refuses to enforce.

During Operation Clambake it should be driven home to the Executive Branch that the house cleaning has yet to start, there will be no honeymoon, and the same pressure put on the legislative branch will be similarly applied to Department heads, agency personnel and staff counsel. If the DOJ Staff counsel and other alleged war criminals do not want to awaken to the mess they have created, there are several options: State level disbarment investigations; war crimes prosecutors; and civil litigation directed at them individually for their failure to protect the Constitution, failure to refuse to follow illegal orders, and their alleged complicity in implementing/not stopping unlawful warfare.

* * *

What You Can Do

___ Share with your friends, “Project Clambake.”

___ Let your elected officials at the state and federal levels know that you would like to see parallel state- and federal-level investigations start now.

___ Strongly encourage your friends and leadership at the state and federal levels to soon meet with the current Republican leadership, ask that they support what is inevitable: Open investigations into war crimes, illegal activity, and other unconstitutional conduct.

___ Work with your elected officials to finalize a list of questions, and investigation-targets the committees will subpoena.

___ Encourage the Committee Chairmen in the Republican party, before they lose power, to approve, sign, and adopt a formal investigation plan, witness list, and subpoenas related to the unfolding investigations.

___ Encourage the Republican leadership to provide an explanation why they are not willing to approve something they knew is inevitable.

___ Ask the Republican leadership why they are reluctant to sign subpoenas for Executive Branch personnel while they still have the power, ability, and duty to enforce policy, protect the Constitution, and ensure they fully meet their oath of office requirements, 5 USC 3331.

___ Ask the Republican Committee Chairmen what their plan is, in the final weeks of their leadership in the various committees, to do what they should have done since 1994.

___ Compel the Republican Committee Chairmen to outline the specific plans, actions, oversight, and other things that they want to see happen in the final weeks of their tenureship.

___ Ask the Republican leadership if they have a plan to explain in 2008, why – despite the power to do something in 2006 – they refused to sign subpoenas, issue questions, demand letter-responses, or do things that a leader should do.

___ Ask the Republican leadership to imagine that they are in 2008, looking back at November 2006: Will they have a good explanation why – despite knowing that they were still in charge, with the legal duty to protect the Constitution – why they refused to act.

___ Ask the Republican leadership to provide good case why – despite likely inaction on this subpoena list in November/December 2006, while they still have power – why they should be trusted in 2008 to have continued power.

___ Does the Republican leadership – looking back from 2008 -- have an explanation why, despite their power, ability to lead, and legal authority, they refused to take action, sign letters, issue guidelines, or otherwise do what they had the power to do in the final weeks of their leadership.

___ Does the Republican leadership – despite their likely inaction in November and December 2006 – have a credible case to be made that they can be trusted to work with Democrats: Even when given a list of names to issue letters, and do things that they know others will take credit: Why is the Republican leadership unwilling to act, not respond to reasonable requests, and otherwise set the agenda while they still have the chance.

* * *

Project Clambake can also be applied to the State and Non-Democratic personnel. Remind DoD personnel that under the 5100.77 Laws of War Program, they have a duty to report evidence of war crimes to their commanders. We’re hearing anecdotal evidence from Sy Hersch that American troops have committed war crimes in Iraq, but these have been hidden. Troops are reported to have placed weapons by Iraqi civilians to make their deaths look legitimate.

This time, when implementing Operation Clambake, go directly after the media, and Executive personnel:

___ Ask the Media and Executive Department Public Affairs office what their plan is to investigation, ask questions about, review, or respond to alleged failures to enforce the 5100.77 Laws of War Program.

___ Ask your friends, elected officials, and attorney general to review the Iran-Contra affair, and the problems Gates had. Ask them to support a public protest demanding the President withdraw his nomination. Details

* * *

Clambake can also be applied to the state-level legislators. Again, recall House Rule 603, permitting the State Legislators to issue proclamations calling for personnel to be impeached. Impeachment is a power of the legislator to remove from office personnel the Executive refuses to prosecute.

___ Share with your friends House Rule 603, which permits the States to issue proclamations calling for the Congress to investigate and impeach the President. Ask your State and Federal leadership why they are reluctant to hold the President accountable. p Details ]

___ Share with your friends the links and copies of the proclamations sitting the state legislators, ready to challenge Congress to investigate and impeach the President. Ask your state and federal officials why they are reluctant to hold the President accountable. Ref

___ Share with your friends, state officials, and attorney General your thoughts on State level action to protect the Constitution. Ask them if they've heard about the case law and literature discussion how the States can lawfully prosecute a sitting President during war time. Ask them if they've had a chance to talk to Professor Turley (Georgetown University Law) about his ideas. [ How The State Attorney General Can Lawfully Prosecute A Sitting President During War Time]

Encourage your friends to contact your state officials and ask:

__ What is your state legislator’s response to the alleged war crimes committed by Attorney General Gonzalez and other DOJ Staff counsel: What is your state legislator’s plan to work with your state attorney disciplinary boards to investigate, bring charges against, and call for Congress to impeach the DOJ Staff counsel and other Executive Branch personnel who have been allegedly complicity for war crimes.

___ What is the state’s plan to work with The Hague, international war crimes prosecutors, and other personnel to provide evidence of war crimes, and see that the US Attorneys licensed to practice law in your state are appropriately investigated to explore to what extent they have failed to enforce the laws of war, Geneva Conventions; or otherwise ensure that the Conventions Against abuse were enforced.

___ Ask you state leadership to review with the Attorney General of your state a plan written by Jonathan Turley of Georgetown University to Prosecute a Sitting President. Ask you state officials to ask what is the plan of your state attorney General to prosecute this President for alleged war crimes.

___ Do your state officials not have an explanation, despite the lawful power to do what they can, for not taking action to find out about a lawful way to protect the Constitution

___ What is your state official’s plan to lawfully end all illegal support your state is providing to support an unlawful occupation in Iraq; how will state resources be removed from Presidential control; what is the plan of your state leadership to lawfully punish all contractors who provide illegal support to permit this president to continue with illegal abuse, unlawful occupation, and permit continued war crimes.

* * *

Project Clambake should be seen for what it is: A public remind to the RNC that they remain in charge, and while they have the power to do something, it is their responsibility to take action. Whether they do or do not respond is irrelevant. The voters in 2006 have been given a clear mandate: The Government will change, or we will lawfully change it with a New Constitution.

This government must, while it has the lawful power to do something, respond and provide leadership. It doesn’t matter that the Republicans have lost power; right now, they are still in charge and have the power.

Gonzalez needs to be reminded that he needs to provide leadership. It’s not a credible excuse for him to point to Congress whining that it’s Congress’ failure. Gonzalez has been given the chance to cooperate, and he has refused. Gonzalez needs to explain why he hasn’t complied with his Title 28 reporting requirements.

If the Republicans in 2006, while they still have power to do something, feel it’s too “inconvenient” to do something, then ask your friends: They had the chance to do something but were too inconvenienced; why should we believe the republicans will in 2008 be ready for power in the White House, in Congress, or anywhere?

There is only one answer: The Republicans, despite knowing the inevitable has arrived, and their power is about to be lawfully stripped from them, continue to refuse to cooperate with what they know is lawful.

It is not appropriate to wait until January to face the RNC stonewalling. Remind your friends – the victory is one to be used. Do not rest on your laurels. The RNC is moving to position themselves to exploit any weakness in the DNC.

Once Speaker Pelosi leaves the White House today, make it clear to all: The Honeymoon is over, and it’s time for the Republican Base to move against their republican leadership: Either provide the kind of leadership we might expect in 2008, or face additional losses for failing to act in the final weeks of 2006.

* * *

Summary

There’s no need to get starry eyed by a Presidential lunch. This President, despite violating the law, has refused to act. Having lunch with him does not change the fact that he and his alleged co-conspirators are in charge, know there is a change, and are not doing anything to quickly move to end what they know is illegal: Malfeasance, and 5 USC 3331 oath of office violations.

Government accountability can progress on a dual track. Whether Congress does or does not impeach the President is irrelevant. Citizens should compel the RNC leadership, while they are still in positions of power in 2006, to explain their reasons for not cooperating with the DNC leadership; and make a case why we should believe they’ll do something between now and 2008 to justify confidence they’re fit to take the White House.

Even if the Congress under this RNC control refuses to act, the public will see whether the Congress is or is not willing to do its lawful best to protect the Constitution, investigation, and assert its 5 USC 3331 oath of obligations.

State level proclamations calling for Gonzalez and others to be investigated are appropriate. If your state officials, despite having the lawful power to act, refuse to assert their power to force the Congress in 2006 to act, then your state officials between now and 2008 have that much of a bigger credibility problem.

Your state leadership needs to hear form you. Your Attorney Generals need to know that you are interested in using state resources to lawfully prosecute the President. If your State leaders have questions about the State-level efforts to prosecute a President, they can contact Jonathan Turley at Georgetown University, who wrote about this in 2000.

Whether the US leadership between November 2006 and January 2007 does or does not take reasonable efforts to work with the existing RNC leadership will be an issue for the 2008 voters to consider.

The DNC leadership should not be lulled into believing for a moment the President is serious about working with Congress. If he was, he would work with the leadership in the RNC Congress in Nov-Dec 2006 to shape the investigations; they have refused. This is continued arrogance despite losing.

Your job should be to accelerate the timeline, prepare for 2008, and lay the groundwork now in November 2006: Despite the RNC having the ability to do the right thing, they refused – There’s no reason to give them another chance in 2008.

Force the RNC Chairmen to approve the subpoena lists in November 2006 and start the inevitable hearings. They know what’s coming. If they refuse, remind them every chance you get between now and 2008 that they still refused to do their job despite being in charge, and knowing what was inevitable. Arguably, that is arrogant rebellion and insurrection against the US Constitution and no credible basis for anyone to have confidence in their claims otherwise; or that they might be fit to enjoy any continued power after 2008.

Do not take the bait on the RNC pleasantries. They are two-faced, and will say one thing to your back, but do things to put the DNC in a bad position. Throw it back on them. Assert the power that you have: A mandate, and the option to go to the RNC leadership at all levels of government to force them to commit to change while they still have an option.

Remind the RNC leadership that before arriving to take control, the RNC will have to explain why they are not leaders while they still have the obligation to provide leadership. There is no reason to be nice to them. Accelerate the timelines. Show the world, despite the RNC losing power, they refuse to act responsibly. They have run out of excuses.

The war crimes trials have already started. The prosecutors are knocking. The public can reasonably make adverse judgments with or without the RNC coordination or assistance.

The Executive Branch personnel have the obligation to provide leadership. Whether the DNC does or does not Control Congress does not make any difference whether Gonzalez and other Cabinet officers have the ongoing responsibility to enforce and follow the law. It’s time to drop the paperwork on him, compel him and others to provide their plans, and make adverse judgments if they refuse to timely cooperate in November 2006.

The ultimate aim of Operation Clambake should be the simple message: The American leadership's excuses have run their course. They’re still in charge in 2006, and whether they want to or not, what they do or refuse to do in November 2006 will be lawfully used against them in the 2008 election and during a war crimes trial.

Whether Congress does or does not cooperate is meaningless. Presidential oversight is a legal requirement. State level officials in only one of the fifty states is all that is needed. There are already three proclamations sitting in California, Illinois, and Vermont waiting for a debate. If the State citizens see that the States and Federal Government refutes to protect the Constitution – regardless the party – the citizens can fully start in November 2006 finding new candidates to defeat the existing and newly elected leadership to do what they refuse to do: Assert the rule of law, protect the Constitution, and do their moral best to assert their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

This leadership has no legal basis to compel anyone to argue that there is a honeymoon. This President has engaged in war crimes; any luncheon result he has with incumbent Speaker Pelosi is interesting, but has no bearing on whether the State Attorney Generals and Legislators will or will not move on a parallel track to assert State power; and lawfully target Executive Branch personnel for alleged war crimes, and other violations of State privacy laws. If your elected leadership in either party refuses to take your seriously, find new leaders.

Meanwhile, foreign fighters continue to lawfully move and work with war crimes prosecutors to gather evidence, and lawfully bring charges against US personnel, contactors, and agents who have violated the laws of war; and otherwise refused to take action to prevent illegal activity. Any evidence foreign fighters have related to war crimes – whether it is from a prisoner’s cell, or on the battlefield – can be used by state officials to lawfully disbar, prosecute state and federal officials for failing to prevent war crimes.

Best wishes. Yes, there was no honeymoon. Congratulations on your victory. Use it.