Targeting DoJ Staff Complicit In War Crimes Coverup

Ref Leahy is ready to go after DoJ.

What's needed is a single list of issues, documents, and others questions which Leahy has previously asked for: It will help We the People identify which specific DoJ Staff counsel should have been in a position to respond; or whether the Attorney General has not been complying on the specific Title 28 reporting requirements.

* * *

It's one thing for the DOJ Staff counsel to invoke secrecy clauses to help their President, quite another to refuse to respond to Members of Congress' request for written answers.

Congress can review classified information. When DoJ Staff, as they did before the FISA court, claim that they cannot comply with a request, they are sending the incorrect message: That (a) despite the Member of Congress having the legal ability to review the information; and (b) DoJ having the documents, nobody can review the documents.

* * *

It's disingenuous for the Department of Justice or the White House to suggest they'll "continue" doing something when they failed to cooperate.

I would encourage the public to put pressure on the DNC Committee Chairman to review the discovery already underway in civil litigation; and expand the inquiry to look at what legal reporting requirements the DoJ had to keep the Minority Leader (Pelosi) fully informed on the issues.

Either Pelosi was told something, and hasn't requested assistance from the US Attorney to follow-up on the response; or the DOJ Staff, despite having evidence and information which should have been provided to the minority leader, but was not.

* * *

DoJ's responses at the 6 Feb 2006 hearing need a follow-up. Senator Feingold and others were not satisfied with the Attorney General's responses. Gonzalez needs to explain his Title 28 reporting: Which information, related to illegal activity, did he not report as required; and what is time timeline for the DOJ OPR to review the evidence related to illegal NSA-FISA violations.

Whether the President has or has not agreed to cooperate is meaningless. The DOJ OPR informed the public that it was not allowed to do its job. Members of Congress need to find out, by name, which specific DoJ Staff counsel have thwarted to the President's illegal efforts to block information to the DOJ OPR; and discuss which information the DoJ Staff counsel have not provided as required.

* * *

Going forward, I would hope the blogosphere consider the mandate and calling: Members of Congress have been complicity with the illegal activity. The burden of proof rests on the Members of Congress:

___ Have they done their moral best to assert their oath

___ When blocked, or not given timely responses, have they forwarded that information to the US Attorney

___ Is information that Members of Congress feel is misleading, evasive, or not responsive to questions been documented in writing

___ How have the Member of Congress concerns been documented in the memoranda to the Agency Inspector General

___ What is the plan to impeach various Inspector Generals for not reviewing evidence of classified-illegal activity

___ To what extent is illegal activity being hidden behind unlawful classification shields, specifically prohibiting classification of illegal activity

___ What is the plan to impeach specific DoJ Staff counsel which this President has unreasonably relied upon to provide unlawful legal advice

___ What is the plan of the Congress and public to provide the findings related to specific DOJ Staff counsel to (a) the State Bars for investigation for debarment; and (b) to war crimes prosecutors for purposes of targeting the DOJ Staff counsel for debarment

___ To what extent are the Members of Congress, upon finding evidence that their peers were aware of illegal conduct but did not take action, providing this information to the House Ethics committee for review

___ Does the House Ethics Committee review the allegations of misconduct, malfeasance, and other efforts Members of Congress took to avoid doing what they should have done: Shut down illegal funding for war crimes; demanding information; documenting adverse information; coordinating with the US Attorney.

* * *

Members of Congress have, despite their oath, failed to credibly document their concerns in simple memoranda that makes it easy for We the People to comprehend what they did, whether they acted on the information, or whether they have or have not timely forwarded information to the US Attorney.

Please encourage your friends to closely monitor the Congressional oversight hearings into NSA, FISA violations, rendition, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other illegal conduct violating Geneva.

You will notice some question snot getting asked; our job will be to raise those questions. If there are no answers from Congress or the Administration, we'll have to make adverse inferences: They've jointly agreed not to review the issues.

Notice the lines of evidence they are not pursuing.

Notice situations where they are relying on the public for guidance on issues which only Members of Congress have been briefed in secret.

Encourage the Members of Congress to release as much information as possible, and redacting the information in a timely manner.

Require the President's agencies to timely provide redacted versions of the memoranda, and other data so that we may make an informed decision over whether they have or have not timely reviewed these issues

* * *

Specifics

1. Prisoner Abuse

Brad Berenson fatally admitted that the US had secretly worked with nations to interrogate people. The US had no public favorable view of these nations. It appears Berenson well knew about the relationship with Syria. Encourage the Members of Congress to follow-up with formerly assigned White House counsel to compel them to explain why they did not remove themselves form the illegal activity.

___ Where's a copy of the memoranda Berenson reviewed?

___ Why was Berenson unwilling to discuss a matter which other personnel were?

___ Why was Berenson unwilling to mention Syria by name?

___ What information was Berenson relying on that would permit him to keep illegal activity classified, despite ORCON executive orders which prohibit classification of illegal activity?

2. Gonzalez on FISA-NSA, 6 Feb 2006

Once Feingold was aware that Gonzalez had made misleading statements, what was the US Attorney's response to this memoranda; and how did the President block DOJ OPR from reviewing Gonzalez misleading statements on 6 Feb 2006.

___ Where is the memo from Senator Feingold to the US Attorney's office related to his concerns about Gonzalez' wavering comments and alleged perjury before the Senate Judiciary Committee 6 Feb 2006?

___ What was the US Attorneys response to this letter?

___ Which US Attorney was involved with the review of this letter?

___ Which FBI Special Agents in Charge (SAC, "Sacks") were involved in the subsequent review, assignment, and plan to follow-up on these concerns?

___ Does the Asst. FBI Director not have an explanation why the FBI, after getting this information related to alleged public corruption, did nothing?

___ Does the Asst FBI director have an explanation why agents under his command, who were not knowledgeable of evidence, case management, and effective officer management, were promoted despite their known deficiencies in these core management areas?

3. DoJ Staff Counsel: Family lobbyists

Within DoJ Staff there are various staff counsel who have familiarly members who are lobbyists. How have these lobbying efforts been factored into the veracity of DoJ Staff statements to the Congress.

___ Which DoJ Staff counsel have family members who lobby on behalf of foreign nations?

___ What is the proximity of these nations to countries Sibel Edmonds has publicly reported were allegedly linked with drugs trade?

___ Can the DOJ Staff explain, despite their legal expertise, why they were not fully complying with their attorney reporting requirements to DOJ OPR?

4. DoJ Staff Conduct

Gonzalez before the Judiciary said DoJ Staff didn’t have the time to comply with the FISA requirements, that they were understaffed. However, a review of the DOJ Staff counsel time logs suggests that the staff was working on non official business when the Attorney General said they were otherwise too busy to comply with FISA.

___ How has DOJ managed the "non official use of government equipment" problem?

___ What is the Asst FBI directors plan to ensure personnel under his command who are having problems with training, evidence, case work are not inappropriately promoted to positions of increased responsibility within the FBI?

___ Does the Attorney General have an explanation why, despite the Clear FISA requirements, DoJ Staff counsel were not working on official business; and does the Attorney General wish to elaborate why he’s left the incorrect, misleading impression about whether there were or were not enough DoJ Staff counsel to comply with the law, given their non-assignment to non official business?

5. DoJ Contracting

Contacting efforts to support DoJ Staff work products. There are many contractual efforts Members of Congress can review to identify which contactors were involved with the data archiving.

Review the contracting issues here.

6. DoJ OPR

The President and attorney General have been reported to block the DOJ OPR from doing their business.

___ Where’s the memoranda from DoJ Staff counsel to DoJ OPR related to their concerns of their peer misconduct?

___ How can the DOJ Staff counsel justify confidence that they have put their attorney standards of conduct on par with their oath of office?

___ Where are the Title 28 and Title 50 exceptions reports required in writing to Congress discussing planned violations of the law?

___ Does the Attorney General not have an explanation why the DoJ has not provided this memoranda as required by statute?

___ When were these planned violations briefed to Members of Congress?

___ What evidence does DOJ have that specific Members of Congress were briefed on the planned illegal activity?

___ Once the known illegal activity was planned and briefed, how were the US Attorney and DOJ OPR managed?

___ Was there an effort to block them from reviewing the illegal activity?

___ Was there a plan to keep DOJ OPR and the US Attorneys out?

___ Did the US Attorneys and DoJ OPR not report in writing to members of Congress they were unable to do what they should have done: Review the information related to the illegal activity?

7. Verizon-NSA

Verizon has public information linking their internal e-mails to other entities liked with NARUS, Telestrategies, Terremark, and others allegedly complicit with illegal abuse.

___ What is the plan of DOJ to fully disclose the information related to the illegal support of war crimes?

___ How was NSA given access to the Verizon facility so that NSA could provide evidence used to target American citizens for illegal kidnapping, rendition and abuse overseas?

___ How many settlements has DOJ crafted and settled with American citizens to keep them quite about the use of illegally captured information to prompt illegal targeting of American citizens for abuse?

___ How was the illegally obtained information used to engage in DHS warrantless surveillance and interrogations?

8. Other information

If you are interested in reviewing other issues related to Congressional oversight, there is a detailed discussion here of the information DoJ has likely reviewed; and the duties of members of Congress to review this information. Included are a list of questions for your consideration.

There's also an archive of Public Oversight of Congress here.